Abortion

First of all, i have never once claimed my arguments of being absolute, that is something coming from your mouth only. Second, my premise is a scientifically founded fact that an embryo/fetus is inherently different from that of an already born human being, so scientifically, comparing the two as equally the same is wrong. The reason arguing against your position is relatively easy, is because your premise is an assertion of an embryo/fetus being the same as already born human being. If you disagree or deny my premise, it means you deny a scientifically founded fact, which anybody is free to do, but then there is no point in debating if the other parties mind is not living in the real world.

If all you do is hide behind "your stance" where you give different meanings to well established scientific facts, then you are right, there will be no root or point as to where we can agree and build up our arguments and the conversation ends.



Most of what you said before based on the assertion that an embryo/fetus is as equal as living human being. So i don't understand why you keep telling me why it is a bad idea to argue about a premise that is based on an assertion.



I understand the logic behind your arguments, but what i am saying is that they are in fact illogical and irrational and i have, to the best of my ability, tried to show case that. There were questions you left unanswered and points you left unaddressed.

I am for abortion , I mean why would we choose for someone's choices?
i dont understand in the US that people get infront of abortion clinics
and protest and bitch at women who go there .. I'd kill those fucking
pathetic souls.Im glad it is not like that in Canada.

1. Edgy.
2. Gonna play devil's advocate and say, they're fighting for the sake of the being in the picture who get's no say.


Also anyone seen the news recently. Planned Parenthood got caught selling organs of aborted fetuses, often doing abortions in a specific way to keep specific organs intact. Whether the patients knew about this practice isn't clear, but more than likely not.

I agree. And also, it's not good to have foetuses used as products, they should remain under the handling of better people. Keep your country safe and secure.

Because giving birth to a baby is not an simple or easy process. It takes really long time, it interference with the woman's life to the extent that she has to take leave from work and from almost everything else, it is painful (not just the giving birth part), it is emotional & probably many other things as well that i can't think of right now. It isn't just you popping a baby out at a hospital and you are on your own way.



Forcing women to give birth to a child against their will is wrong.



If there are couples who can't have children of their own, who are just waiting to have one, why would anybody end up in a shitty government system?

I mean it seems your last sentence isn't even about abortion, more like about somebody giving their child away?

I am for the availability of safe, affordable abortions and the 25 week cut off should never include when there are risks to the mother. Next, this is a religious issue, not a scientific one, a fetus isn't a viable individual, shouldn't have rights beyond the wishes of the mother. Lastly, women shouldn't be put in jail for having a miscarriage. These laws were enacted to start down a road leading to fetus rights, and it is wrong.

Next, most of these prolife people aren't prolife, they are probirth, after it is a life, they stop caring. They do not support socialized programs to aid the mother or child. And they are also against most things that prevent the need for abortions, such as education, free condoms, and free birth control. They think you should only have sex to have children and you shouldn't tell their kids that there is any other option.

Here is the core issue wrapped up in a tidy bow. There is no "right" option when it comes to abortion. Either the woman carries it to term and the fetus lives or you kill the fetus to prevent the woman from suffering. Regardless of which side of the line you fall on, somebody is forced to give up something.

It really comes down to which you value more the life of the fetus or the woman's suffering.

It is actually complete opposite (or should be). Personal religious believes should have nothing to do with abortion in terms of what does the law say. It should be based entirely on science.



There is a right option, and that is to listen to what the woman wants to do and to support that decision. We live in a society where we have already established rights for women (or at least here where i live we have, i don't know if you live in Saudi-Arabia or in Chile) under the law of the government. Those rights include the right to either terminate the pregnancy or to carry on and give birth.

Forcing a woman to give birth to a child against their will for what ever reason is the wrong option. Giving women the right to choose for themselves is the right option.

In societies where women don't have the legal right to terminate the pregnancy for what ever reason are in my view holding back women's rights. They are not giving women the right to their own bodies, they are forcing women into life changing circumstances and are holding back the progression of the society as a whole. And most of the time all of this is done in the name of religion, in the name of faith, meaning in the name of "i don't have any evidence but i believe it anyway".

You speak of established rights and ignore the rights of the other human involved. The other cornerstone of the abortion debate is when/where do our rights kick in. So far, only the conservatives have offered a concrete point and that's when conception happens. The liberals in this country run the gambit from, brain activity (6 weeks), heartbeat (aprox. 10 weeks), organ precursors/Quickening (8 weeks), all the way to the point of the fetus/baby is not protected until it's delivered via c-section or through the birth canal. This scattered stance weakens their argument.

I'm curious as to how you feel on not charging a person that murders a pregnant woman with double homicide instead of the standard homicide. If this fetus doesn't count as a person, doesn't this seem inconsistent with your views? What about the woman wanting to carry the fetus to term and their partner (male or female) doesn't want a child and forces a miscarriage? Is this murder or battery?

For the record; I'm an Atheist and don't give a shit either way on abortion. I'm simply stoking debate here.

I agree wholeheartedly. but i mostly think that the religious views that go against abortion make no sense, i'm not saying that the religion as a whole makes no sense i'm just saying that their perspective on the subject simply doesn't resonate with me. Personally i think that even if you make the argument that the fetus is in fact a living organism (one that has less function than a potato) it still doesn't have a brain or even organs and is relying solely on the mother to develop them, meaning that it cant make decisions and even if it could it wouldn't be able to process them in order to make an argument or to say 'plz don't kill me'. in my opinion it is entirely up to the mother to choose weather to have the abortion or not and i think that religious groups are invading the woman's privacy and right of freedom by trying to make them think otherwise.

Who is the other human involved may i ask?

Assuming you mean the fetus/embryo, do you think that a 5 gram collection of cells, an embryo, is equal to an already born human being?



Many countries have established that some where between 20th to 28th week is the last legal opportunity to get an abortion. After around 25th week the fetuses chance of survival without the help of the mother start to increase tremendously on weekly if not daily basis. Also doing an abortion after the 25th week becomes more and more dangerous to the mother on weekly if not daily basis.

I accept the 20-28th week being the limit, and on those reasons. A more accurate date could be fined tuned by science one day, and i would respect that.



After the limit on abortion is passed (if it is near the 25th week), it should be a double homicide and before that a standard homicide. Why? Because as explained earlier, after around the 25th week, the fetuses chances of surviving outside the mothers womb increase tremendously and could therefore be a living human being on its own and the rights we apply to baby could be applied to it too.



How does the partner force a miscarriage exactly? Like i said earlier, it should be illegal for other people to force a woman to have a child against their will. It should also be illegal for other people to force a woman not to have a child against their will.

In this system if a man doesn't want to have a child, but the woman does, the man should have the legal right to not be that childs father legally and be removed from paying child support and all the other requirements a father has.

From the opposing standpoint, once a fertilized egg attaches to the uterus it's human. Albeit an early stage of human but, given enough time it will develop. As conservatives here would say; it has the potential for life.



So a pregnancy must make it past the 2/3rds (average 38 weeks) mark before you accept the fetus as a human being? Seems arbitrary since development isn't a mechanical process. Pretty much everything involving pregnancy involves a window of some variety.




How does the partner force a miscarriage exactly? Like i said earlier, it should be illegal for other people to force a woman to have a child against their will. It should also be illegal for other people to force a woman not to have a child against their will.[/quote]

Certain over the counter medicines (NSAID's: non steroidal anti inflammatory agents) have been linked to an increased chance of miscarriage. These include Diclofenac, Naproxen (Aleve), Celecoxib (Celebrex), Ibuprofen (Advil). Even simple violence like blows to the abdomen are ways for cause a miscarriage. Another albeit less scientific approach is a spike in Vitamin C intake each hour as well as ingesting blue and black Cohosh can lead to miscarriages but, I am unable to confirm these last two.




We certainly agree here. Unfortunately, in my country you can be on the hook for child supports without being the biological father. Yes, women's rights in my country have gone so far into the bleachers that any male that takes a "fatherly" role in the child's life can potentially be on the hook for child support. There have been a few cases where male babysitters were sued for child support because they "took a fatherly role" in the child's life.

This is the problem, how could anyone agree on same terms when empathies are mixed. I think in regards to narrow mindedness of thinking about life itself, the focuses in this thread, people are not in a position where they'll understand life choices-abortion. You can read most of the posts and all of them are repressed by the fact of humanity and ethics, trying to be fair and square and in other ways conflicted by the possible situations people stress under.

Personally, I would allow abortion and I stress that I do got a clue on why. Because some people, are desperate. It's drama, red and blue, doesn't matter how good or how bad the side you pick. People will move on, there are less things you need to think about and more greater good to do.

So in other words you would say that a 5 gram collection of cells, void of all vital organs, is equal to a adult human for example. Too bad this is scientifically wrong. It is a scientific fact that an embryo is just inherently different from an already born human being and considering them both to be equal is just illogical.



A single sperm cell has the potential for life, should masturbation be illegal since it wastes potential human beings?



Roughly yes, a line has to be drawn some where, but drawing that line at first week or once a fertilized egg attaches to the uterus is too early. I have given you my reasons for that line to be around 2/3rds, they may be arbitrary for you, but not to me.



Any physical harm done to the woman or forcefully giving her drugs or without her consent should be illegal and punishable. If any of those caused her to miscarriage in the first 20-25 weeks, no i wouldn't consider it a murder, but after that yes i would.



That is pretty fucked up.

In a way, all of this illustrates at perfection that having an unwanted/undesired child by at least one of the "parents" if not both, is nothing else than a life-long burden. Burden as well for adults, for society, even for the very undesired children to be true, for everybody in the end.


In nature, it happens that females abandon their pups when they aren't directly killing them. Same on males side as scientists witness a lot of pups massacres each time a male is willing to do it -- it might be on a genetics basis, it happens also when the involved male is the biological father, etc.

I'm not saying that killing human being would be "right" or "good" or what. Just think about it : let's imagine a fire in a hospital and firemen within action to rescue the human being jammed in -- should the firemen save firstly the Petri dishes containing dozens of embryos, or the "fewer" patients stuck in their beds ? In facts, laws give priority to the patients over the embryos. Nothing more, nothing less.



As for women undergoing abortion, it is never meaningless, be it on a personnal and/or family level, medical scale, social implications... Aborting or birthing, a choice that no male can imagine in a woman stead. Maybe one day, if science and medical means improve enough to allow men to bear an embryo and deliver/birth it with their very body. Sci-fi ? Hm, I would not say that since extra-uterin pregnancies are still investigated on animals -- both for prevention as also to research ways for men to sometime have children on their own.

It is actually complete opposite (or should be). Personal religious believes should have nothing to do with abortion in terms of what does the law say. It should be based entirely on science


Um that is what I said Coconutt. You responding to me like that makes is sound like I was saying it should have a say somehow. The issue is with the religious people thinking it needs to change, science says it doesn't, and therefore doesn't have an issue with the freedom of Abortion. If the fetus isn't viable, it isn't a child. Religion have the issues, Science doesn't.

Not if it's not fertilizing an egg.

That's a stupid mindset you have there.

Would you (by any "stupid mindset" ?) think or imply that an egg equals/is a person ?



Religions tend to say that masturbation is spoiling sperm (a potential for future life), and also other problems related to having sex without birthing offspring in mind ; so you normally can't do masturbation and cum/jerk sperm out off making babies only.


One (should) conduct a reasoning/analysis/reflexion to its ultimate very end by exhausting all the implications, possibilities, etc ; so the accuracy increases in any "argument" or "conclusion".