| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jayjay54
Germany2296 Posts
it's pretty damn hard to draw a line here, but better safe then sorry. in my personal opinion every abortion after the first trimester should be banned. three month is plenty of time to decide whether to have a baby. and I'm 100% pro abortion. there should be an option after conception. but not calling the decision and waiting is definitely not the way to go. | ||
|
Moochlol
United States456 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:18 Brotkrumen wrote: Hey, please see: The position that anything that can live has a right to live gets you in all kinds of trouble and cannot be fit into a consistent ethical framework. Right now, sperm and eggs would have a right to live. A few years down the road, every cell in your body will have a right to live, as stem cell research has progressed to a point where any cell is potentially a new life. Just because I believe someone, or ANYTHING has the right to life, or has potential to interact with this world in a beautiful way (This includes animals) , does not directly mean I think all life should live, as is the nature of this world things die and not everything gets a fair chance, which is the case with natural selection. However when it comes to humans this natural law is being smeared out with the arrival society and western medicine. I feel overpopulation and this intrinsic right are separate things, and should be considered as such. Overpopulation is a result of out current environment and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. This all comes down to if my mother said I was going to abort you, would you have wanted to live, I would have said yes. I would have wanted to right to make that choice. I would not want some shit wad telling me hey you don't have the right to even get a fucking chance to make that choice because your just some shitty sludge in a bio womb that doesn't constitute life. Also I am not educated enough in the area of sperm and egg cells to comment on such topics, and whether or not these are potential life. Shit for all I know. Sperm A could be of genetic code, A B A D D, is he a unique set of genetics or is he repeated millions of times. I find it hard to believe each sperm and egg are unique (if so please enlighten me). And even if they are they are nothing until combined so this area is very gray for me. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On November 05 2011 00:34 KwarK wrote: Do you not see the contradiction in saying if the following conditions are all met then it BOLDTEXT will be a life. The argument of the pro-choicers is that it is a potential life, not a life. You have accepted their premise, that conditions need to be met before it becomes a life by saying "if left to mature" and somehow glossed over that and then followed it with the definite "will". It seems that you can't decide if it will definitely happen or conditionally happen. The argument from potential is really nonsense to me. One can look at every unborn fetus and claim, "one of these could have later cured cancer," and then in the very same breath also propose, "yes, and one of these could have also become a serial killer." There needs to be a more solid ground than that. | ||
|
Moochlol
United States456 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:37 koreasilver wrote: The argument from potential is really nonsense to me. One can look at every unborn fetus and claim, "one of these could have later cured cancer," and then in the very same breath also propose, "yes, and one of these could have also become a serial killer." There needs to be a more solid ground than that. Correct, I don't think this area is so cut and dry as, its a 2 week old fetus, its not life because it doesn't have a name and doesn't have X Y or B attributes for us to consider it life. Therefore it is 100% morally correct to destroy this being. That's a fucking easy way out of a very difficult subject, EACH mother needs to weigh ALL the options before choosing to kill the baby. Let's set up a scenario, 17 year old Sally gets knocked up @ a party by Johnny be cool, Sup son! And instead of having the baby and putting it up for adoption, she chooses abortion because she doesn't want to look fat, or let anyone know shes pregnant, her parents agree and let her go through with the abortion. Now in my awesome opinion this is MORAL TRASH, how is that ever a fucking reason to kill a life. Now I can see if the girl was gonna die and shit, then go ahead, abort. But to just say, how old is it?? 19 weeks???? Oh fucking EZ PZ kill that lil som bitch he ain't life herp a fucking derp............Makes me sick son... | ||
|
RoyGBiv_13
United States1275 Posts
| ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:36 Jayjay54 wrote: in my personal opinion every abortion after the first trimester should be banned. three month is plenty of time to decide whether to have a baby. The prenatal tests for downs syndrome and cerebral anencephaly (the fetus' head does not close) are most accurate in the weeks after the 18th. If abortions after the 3rd month are banned completely, you will have babies dying a cruel death after 4 years of agony and unhappiness. Limiting abortion after a certain grace period is fine, banning it forces people to care for a child they don't want to have. On November 05 2011 01:30 Thorakh wrote: That argument just doesn't work. I believe abortion is only justified in case of: 1) rape 2) high risk of the mother dying 3) baby will not fit in any way, shape or form in the mother's life Just 'not wanting' it isn't a valid argument, you should've thought of that before you had sex. Your statement implies that we should always accept any consequence of an action we take. If you drive your car without the intention of getting into an accident and you get into an accident, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to drive that car. If you have sex without the intention of getting pregnant and you get pregnant, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to have sex. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:37 Moochlol wrote: Just because I believe someone, or ANYTHING has the right to life, or has potential to interact with this world in a beautiful way (This includes animals) , does not directly mean I think all life should live, as is the nature of this world things die and not everything gets a fair chance, which is the case with natural selection. However when it comes to humans this natural law is being smeared out with the arrival society and western medicine. I feel overpopulation and this intrinsic right are separate things, and should be considered as such. Overpopulation is a result of out current environment and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. This all comes down to if my mother said I was going to abort you, would you have wanted to live, I would have said yes. I would have wanted to right to make that choice. I would not want some shit wad telling me hey you don't have the right to even get a fucking chance to make that choice because your just some shitty sludge in a bio womb that doesn't constitute life. Also I am not educated enough in the area of sperm and egg cells to comment on such topics, and whether or not these are potential life. Shit for all I know. Sperm A could be of genetic code, A B A D D, is he a unique set of genetics or is he repeated millions of times. I find it hard to believe each sperm and egg are unique (if so please enlighten me). And even if they are they are nothing until combined so this area is very gray for me. And at what age should we ask people if they want to be alive? What age does someone actually have the competency to make that decision? How would it be ethical to kill someone if at that point they decided they didn't want to live? Who would we get to carry out these murders? If people have the right to life, do they have the right to death as well? What about life as the result of a crime--Does a women raped have the right to terminate a pregnancy that was forced on her through violence? If potential for continued life exists but isn't allowed, is it then considered always a crime? (To use an abstract, someone who needs an organ transplant.) I understand you're passionate about this, but consider that pain in the here and now is a lot more real than the loss of something that never happened. If the values of the person are to bring a child into the world once it is conceived, they should be more than welcome to do that--and like wise the legal validity of that option should always be allowed to those who feel they are not responsible, capable, or wanting of that pregnancy. It's a far stretch to not think that this decision would be a heavy one to consider for any person. | ||
KwarK
United States43434 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:09 Moochlol wrote: Edit, Oh and to directly respond to KWARK, if conditions are met LIFE WILL HAPPEN or the baby is born, or whatever the fuck u want call it. I really don't understand that dig you took at me, If a fetus is left to mature, IE doing all the proper things to make this happen, the fetus will be born as is the case in the majority of women who take care of themselves during gestation. Even if say by chance the doctor whilst pulling the baby from the womb slips on some body fluid and flings the baby across the room breaking its neck, well......At least the little fucker had a fucking chance..... And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen. | ||
|
Fireflies
United Kingdom211 Posts
On November 05 2011 01:54 Moochlol wrote: Correct, I don't think this area is so cut and dry as, its a 2 week old fetus, its not life because it doesn't have a name and doesn't have X Y or B attributes for us to consider it life. Therefore it is 100% morally correct to destroy this being. That's a fucking easy way out of a very difficult subject, EACH mother needs to weigh ALL the options before choosing to kill the baby. Let's set up a scenario, 17 year old Sally gets knocked up @ a party by Johnny be cool, Sup son! And instead of having the baby and putting it up for adoption, she chooses abortion because she doesn't want to look fat, or let anyone know shes pregnant, her parents agree and let her go through with the abortion. Now in my awesome and educated opinion this is MORAL TRASH, how is that ever a fucking reason to kill a life. Now i can see if the bitch was gonna die and shit, then go ahead abort, but to just say, how old is it?? 19 weeks???? Oh fucking EZ PZ kill that lil som bitch he ain't life herp a derp............Makes me sick son... Obviously not allowing people to have control over what happens to their own bodies is a morally pristine position to take. Honestly, how many women do you think decide to have abortions for the hell of it? | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:12 KwarK wrote: And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen. I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again. However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you? | ||
|
missefficiency
Germany105 Posts
The fetus' heart is beating since week 6. From a medical point of view, abortion after this event is destroying a human life. Personally, I think that a woman has the right to decide wether she wants to keep a child or to abort it, but it should happen at a reasonable time. 20 weeks is in no way acceptable and, to be honest, it simply doesn't make any sense to me to "reduce" it to that limit when you could go further and thus make a more reasonable decision. Does anyone know until which week it was legal before the new bill? | ||
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
Your statement implies that we should always accept any consequence of an action we take. If you drive your car without the intention of getting into an accident and you get into an accident, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to drive that car. If you have sex without the intention of getting pregnant and you get pregnant, are you responsible for it? After all, you could have chosen not to have sex. are u trolling now? i mean, if there were a device or medicine that i would take that would prevent 98-99% of all car accidents, i am sure that it would be government mandate that every single person take it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43434 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:16 -_- wrote: I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again. However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you? When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment. | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
/end arguement | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:16 -_- wrote: I hate jumping into these arguments, because people can get angry when they have to answer the same questions again. However, I'm interested, so I'll take the risk: Can you define human life? When does potential life become actual for you? Usually a human life, as opposed to any other life, is defined by self-awareness and not being too hairy. If we take only these attributes, babies do not become human between half a year and 1 year after birth. That is a little late though and we do want to err on the side of caution, so we arbitrarily set the number to 3 month for a healthy fetus and 6 month for a severely damaged one. On November 05 2011 02:17 missefficiency wrote: 20 weeks is half the pregnancy. The fetus is moving and drinking amniotic fluid; if you feel like it, you can even have its organs checked for development disorders. The fetus' heart is beating since week 6. From a medical point of view, abortion after this event is destroying a human life. Personally, I think that a woman has the right to decide wether she wants to keep a child or to abort it, but it should happen at a reasonable time. 20 weeks is in no way acceptable and, to be honest, it simply doesn't make any sense to me to "reduce" it to that limit when you could go further and thus make a more reasonable decision. Does anyone know until which week it was legal before the new bill? The ban is for all abortions. If the doctors discover in week 21 that your baby is severely disabled and will be in pain for all his life or that you will die during the birth, you are out of luck. Usually there is a difference until what point you can abort because you just dont want a baby and because of medical reasons. | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
But have you guys actually seen a 12 week old fetus in real life or even a 8 weeks old? I did while studying anatomi at the university where they had this exhibition, and it's actually scary how they look exactly like a little human being. Kinda made me think twice... Also people keep bringing up that it's the woman choice what she wants to do with her body - that is true, but the choice she is making is for have someone else to remove the fetus for her. The actual choice of what she herself is doing with her body is when she decided to have sex with someone. Not to mention the fact that the man of course has no saying in this whatsoever which I think is shitty but of course there seems to be no other way. That being said, I am a huge believer in only having kids when you are ready to give them your utmost. For their sake of the kid's future, your own future and the future of everyone else.... | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:26 amazingxkcd wrote: All life starts at conception /end arguement Stop posting please. | ||
|
Moochlol
United States456 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:12 KwarK wrote: And if a beautiful girl goes out on a date with me and has a bit too much wine then I might be able to get her back to mine and hit that bareback and get her pregnant. If the conditions are met life will happen. That doesn't mean that her failure to put out is murdering a potential person. Saying that it is a human life because it will become a human life if the following conditions are met is no different to saying it is a potential life. Potential life has no value, every time you jack off millions of potential lives never happen. This is a very gray area, and one that should be discussed extensively. Like I have said in one of my previous post's I am uneducated in the area of sperm and egg. I do not know if each sperm is unique or if they are replicated. For @ the moment I am to lazy to look it up, however I will. But I will give my two cents real quick, @ the moment I do not consider sperm to be potential life, as I do not have the ability to birth a child from my ass. A zygote which is an egg and a sperm DOES have the potential for life however. Again this topic is a morally gray area for me and I must do more research to find a moral compass on the subject, but for now, I do not consider sperm potential life. Guess I gotta figure this out for myself. I can say thank you for inadvertently showing me I need to read some science on this topic. I am going to work now, ill be back later to to pwn you with my amazing atheistic scientific morality! =p Edit; you saying potential life has no value is morally black, how would any of us even be alive if potential life has no value. Consider the world to be a womb and protozoa to be the zygote, if the world didn't give us the chance to show her our potential (All life) then no life would have ever existed, if you find life to be disgusting then that's on you. I on the other hand respect the rarity of life and would prefer it over rocks and the void. The preceding opinion coming from a standpoint of evolution, which I consider to be true. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote: A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old. I think you mean months. Anyway, I don't want to get into the whole abortion argument, I'm personally pro-choice, but I find that there's really no objective measure of what is and what isn't baby killing. A blastocyst isn't a human being. Maybe an 8-month fetus is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that abortion is wrong, and it's also perfectly reasonable to think that it's not. Unwanted children brought up by incompetent and unfit parents is not a preferable option to terminating the development of a as-of-yet-non-sentient fetus, in my opinion. I think this law is unnecessary, and is used as a wedge tactic to introduce more draconian restrictions. Very few abortions are carried out that late in the pregnancy, and it's usually done for good reason, such as health complications, or serious birth defects. No one has "conveniency abortions" that late. I don't see who this law is protecting, except for social conservatives who turn it into a binary, black and white choice of "delivery or murder". | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
sOs vs Scarlett
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
