My take on "when does life begin"

[The Kaiser]

people like you need to stfu ..unless you're faced with the choice you have no right to make a judgement on something you have no clue about. The state has zero say in what people do with their bodies it's moralizing ****s such as yourself that feel they have a right to impose their morality on other people ...until you are in that position, unless YOU have to make that choice and have to live with the consequences of your choice you have no idea how difficult it is ..in the meantime shut the **** up

Oh please. I'm attempting to protect a life from being extinguished just because another person doesn't want them. Don't give me this crap that I should sit down and shut up when someone's being killed. Would you do that if someone's about to get gunned down, because "you're" not in the killer's situation, who hates the person he's about to kill for getting him fired from his job?

No, you wouldn't, and neither would I. Don't tell me to stay quiet. I have just as much right to speak my mind, and to try to protect the lives of the unborn.

Also, try to carry yourself with a little more dignity on online debates. "stfu" and cursing every other sentence really isn't that "mature" in forms of debate.

 

[CptStern]

Oh please. I'm attempting to protect a life from being extinguished just because another person doesn't want them. Don't give me this crap that I should sit down and shut up when someone's being killed. Would you do that if someone's about to get gunned down, because "you're" not in the killer's situation, who hates the person he's about to kill for getting him fired from his job?

No, you wouldn't, and neither would I. Don't tell me to stay quiet. I have just as much right to speak my mind, and to try to protect the lives of the unborn.

Also, try to carry yourself with a little more dignity on online debates. "stfu" and cursing every other sentence really isn't that "mature" in forms of debate.

yes because you took the time to think this through right numbnuts? what would you do if you knew your child would have next to no chance of survival the second it was born? what if you knew that prolonging it's life in the womb would just make it's life even more unbearable? would you see the pregnancy to full term and then let it die? or do the humane thing and end it's suffering before it becomes unbearable? quick now give me your answer, each passing minute is another growth spurt, another week closer to when abortion isnt feasible ..qucik now you'll have to decide if putting your wife's life at risk is worth the surgery to close the hole in the babies heart that may or may not suceed

 

[The Kaiser]

yes because you took the time to think this through right numbnuts?

Great tactic there, flaming another debater, eh? Come on, have at least some dignity.

what would you do if you knew your child would have next to no chance of survival the second it was born? what if you knew that prolonging it's life in the womb would just make it's life even more unbearable? would you see the pregnancy to full term and then let it die? or do the humane thing and end it's suffering before it becomes unbearable?

We never brought up this discussion however, so there is a difference. Forced into this situation, yes, I would have the abortion because it would be the more humane thing to do. But you have to understand, this is a much different situation than the one we have been discussing, which few people if any have brought up yet. How about instead of pulling new things out of nowhere to try to act like I don't know what I'm talking about, we argue with what we were arguing about, eh?

 

[CptStern]

Great tactic there, flaming another debater, eh? Come on, have at least some dignity.

when you do the same and let women retain their dignity by allowing them to choose what's best for them then I will adjust my demeanor

We never brought up this discussion however, so there is a difference. Forced into this situation, yes, I would have the abortion because it would be the more humane thing to do. But you have to understand, this is a much different situation than the one we have been discussing, which few people if any have brought up yet. How about instead of pulling new things out of nowhere to try to act like I don't know what I'm talking about, we argue with what we were arguing about, eh?

who cares? the circumstances matters little because in the eyes of the law all women must have a choice ... abortion must be readily available or in cases such as that the women will be forced to carry the baby to full term.

You are not a moral authority you have no say in what other people can or should do with their lives, your opinions are meaningless

 

[anime_fan]

Cpt Stern could be a wee bit nicer to the members here :-\

 

[CptStern]

you shut up too

 

[anime_fan]

why are you so agrevated?

anyway,yes Women should have the choice to do an abortion..but I think younger girls should be better educated,and be more responsble so There is no need for an abortion in the first place imho.


by more responsble I mean use a condom or take the pill.of course guys have be more responseble as well.

 

[Asknoone]

Cpt Stern could be a wee bit nicer to the members here :-\

Haha, hey Lemon.

 

[The Kaiser]

when you do the same and let women retain their dignity by allowing them to choose what's best for them then I will adjust my demeanor

And what about women who also view abortion as wrong? Are they demeaning themselves when they say it should be illegal? What about women like my mother, or most of my female congregation? The opposition for abortion doesn't just come from men, it's also from women. Trying to say therefore I'm "demeaning" them and such is therefore not very sensical, since I'm not saying anything negative about them, but the only thing I'm saying as that the unborn child has a right to life too. There's nothing wrong with that.

And again, this is a debate. If you can't hold yourself to a position to not insult or flame the other person, then you shouldn't be here.

who cares?

Obviously the debaters care, because pulling stuff that hasn't been argued yet and acting like I never thought of it is just plane foolish, not to mention underhanded. You're in a debate, act like it.

the circumstances matters little because in the eyes of the law all women must have a choice ... abortion must be readily available or in cases such as that the women will be forced to carry the baby to full term.

The laws have changed before. Before 1973, it was illegal. And who knows if in a few years with how the Supreme Court currently is it won't change again to favor the rights of the unborn?

You are not a moral authority. You have no say in what other people can or should do with their lives, your opinions are meaningless

You're right, that's the Supreme Court's job isn't it? But guess what pal, I'm allowed to say what I feel, it's called freedom of speech. Deal with it.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Cpt Stern could be a wee bit nicer to the members here :-\

How are we lemontuna.

 

[anime_fan]

Haha, hey Lemon.

oh noes




/hides

 

[Llama]

Oh please. I'm attempting to protect a life from being extinguished just because another person doesn't want them. Don't give me this crap that I should sit down and shut up when someone's being killed. Would you do that if someone's about to get gunned down, because "you're" not in the killer's situation, who hates the person he's about to kill for getting him fired from his job?

No, you wouldn't, and neither would I. Don't tell me to stay quiet. I have just as much right to speak my mind, and to try to protect the lives of the unborn.

Also, try to carry yourself with a little more dignity on online debates. "stfu" and cursing every other sentence really isn't that "mature" in forms of debate.

Its a shame that since an unborn child is (at the usual time of abortion) not a conscious human, that entire argument = nothing. -10 Points.
What about the hundreds of thousands of Bacteria you kill every day? They have around the same level of sentience, are you defending them to?

 

[Asknoone]

oh noes

/hides

Sadly, you can't hide from the ban button Lemonking.

 

[Llama]

pwnt
Moving on!

 

[The Kaiser]

Its a shame that since an unborn child is (at the usual time of abortion) not a conscious human, that entire argument = nothing. -10 Points.

But it will become "conscious" if left alone, and is growing. Again, the stage of life should not be a reason to discriminate against a person.

What about the hundreds of thousands of Bacteria you kill every day? They have around the same level of sentience, are you defending them to?

You can't be serious. If you are... fine then, no. Simply put because A)In the Bible The Lord said humanity was allowed to kill animals for food and to sustain themselves, and B)Bacteria is a harmful entity in you that is not human, will never become a human, no matter how long it may be there. Therefore, it is not on the same scale as an unborn child.

 

[CptStern]

And what about women who also view abortion as wrong? Are they demeaning themselves when they say it should be illegal? What about women like my mother, or most of my female congregation?

oh and it finally comes out ...your congregation ..in other words you object on religious grounds ...in any event those women's POV carries no weight whatsoever .>i couldnt care less that they're women they still have ZERO say in what other people can or cant do with their bodies

The opposition for abortion doesn't just come from men, it's also from women. Trying to say therefore I'm "demeaning" them and such is therefore not very sensical, since I'm not saying anything negative about them, but the only thing I'm saying as that the unborn child has a right to life too. There's nothing wrong with that.

you are no more qualified to determine when life begins than I am ..you have no right in making a judgement that should only be reserved for the parents because your congregation doesnt have to live with the consequences, your congregation doesnt have to deal with the guilt or the feeling of loss ..your congregations POV is meaningless because their only reasoning is morality whereas the parents have a far far more personal reasoning at stake ..but you and your narrow minded congregation cant see beyond that ..it is you and people like you who are the selfish ones

And again, this is a debate. If you can't hold yourself to a position to not insult or flame the other person, then you shouldn't be here.

you have a lot of nerve mr-I-just-joined-hl2.et

Obviously the debaters care, because pulling stuff that hasn't been argued yet and acting like I never thought of it is just plane foolish, not to mention underhanded. You're in a debate, act like it.

again who the **** cares? I couldnt are less that there's moralizing outraged morons screaming bloody murder about what other people do with their lives ..it's is the parents reponsibility alone, not yours, not mine, not your congregations

The laws have changed before. Before 1973, it was illegal. And who knows if in a few years with how the Supreme Court currently is it won't change again to favor the rights of the unborn?

and? segregation was once legal so was slavery, it doesnt make a lick of difference because legislating something does not all of the sudden make it right

You're right, that's the Supreme Court's job isn't it? But guess what pal, I'm allowed to say what I feel, it's called freedom of speech. Deal with it.

well then using the same reasoning it's my right to tell you to stfu

 

[Llama]

But it will become "conscious" if left alone, and is growing. Again, the stage of life should not be a reason to discriminate against a person.

So? If it isnt aware of itself why does it need to be kept alive? Something with no emotions or thoughts probably wont give a shit whether or not it lives.

You can't be serious. If you are... fine then, no. Simply put because A)In the Bible The Lord said humanity was allowed to kill animals for food and to sustain themselves, and B)Bacteria is a harmful entity in you that is not human, will never become a human, no matter how long it may be there. Therefore, it is not on the same scale as an unborn child.

...oooo, I see, lets use the Bible! After all, a book written almost two thousand years ago by people with no scientific merit must be useful in a debate like this! :dozey:
Besdies, you missed the point. It is on the same scale, because neither have any real sentience. Whether or not it could develop is irrelevant. It 'could' develop to be someone without an ability to use any of their limbs, move, speak or even think properly - A fate wrose than not existing at all. If something isnt alive, and you destroy it, it doesnt make any difference BECAUSE IT ISNT AWARE THAT IT 'COULD' DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING SENTIENT

 

[kirovman]

Simply put because A)In the Bible The Lord said humanity was allowed to kill animals for food and to sustain themselves

Are you Nat Turner?

 

[The Kaiser]

oh and it finally comes out ...your congregation ..in other words you object on religious grounds ...in any event those women's POV carries no weight whatsoever .>i couldnt care less that they're women they still have ZERO say in what other people can or cant do with their bodies

It's not just my congregation man. There are lots of other women who I know who are against it. And you avoided my point. You said I was "demeaning" women, and yet there are women who according to you are "demeaning" themselves.

Seriously, I see life beginning at conception, and I don't need religion to see that. So simply put, you have no real reason to just slap "religious" on my forehead and dismiss me.

you are no more qualified to determine when life begins than I am ..you have no right in making a judgement that should only be reserved for the parents because your congregation doesnt have to live with the consequences, your congregation doesnt have to deal with the guilt or the feeling of loss ..your congregations POV is meaningless because their only reasoning is morality whereas the parents have a far far more personal reasoning at stake ..but you and your narrow minded congregation cant see beyond that ..it is you and people like you who are the selfish ones

Narrow-minded? Hah, go ahead and keep throwing insults around. I think the majority of people can really shee who's being narrow-minded here. I at least can accept why people would have reasons why they'd want to abort. I don't immediately dismiss their reasonings, or their thoughts. However, as I view life to start at conception, I still would object to their decisions.

Seriously, your insults are weaker than kool-aid at this point. I'm not fazed by them, and all they do is make you look foolish.

you have a lot of nerve mr-I-just-joined-hl2.et

Even more surprising is I "just" joined, and yet speak with better grammar, present my arguements non-maliciously, and simply put, am willing to respect other's opinions in a debate, unlike yourself. Huh.

again who the **** cares? I couldnt are less that there's moralizing outraged morons screaming bloody murder about what other people do with their lives ..it's is the parents reponsibility alone, not yours, not mine, not your congregations

Screaming bloody murder? I'm here debating formally on the internets.

And you're right, it is the parent's responsibility. Maybe they should be, you know, responsible for what they've done (If they both willingly had sex) and take the consequences. Abortion's basically a get-out-of-jail free card whenever you make a mistake (If you willingly have sex), and that isn't right.

Also, again;

Seriously, your insults are weaker than kool-aid at this point. I'm not fazed by them, and all they do is make you look foolish.

and? segregation was once legal so was slavery, it doesnt make a lick of difference because legislating something does not all of the sudden make it right

So then we agree, abortion is not made "Right" just because it was legalized in 1973, which before then it was an illegal act. Danke schon.

well then using the same reasoning it's my right to tell you to stfu

But in a debate, you're also supposed to have respect for each other, and debate correctly. Screaming l33t sp34k and cursing really only makes you look immature, and doesn't go over well in being taken serious.

 

[Llama]

How strange you completly ignore my points to try and fight with a senior member...are you going to attempt to answer them?

 

[The Kaiser]

How strange you completly ignore my points to try and fight with a senior member...are you going to attempt to answer them?

I tried to edit my responses in, and the site kicked me out as I pressed the edit button, causing me to lose the responses. You have to give me more than five minutes, you know.

EDIT:

So? If it isnt aware of itself why does it need to be kept alive? Something with no emotions or thoughts probably wont give a shit whether or not it lives.

Because it will become something that can feel, that can have emotions. It can become that, unlike bacteria, and should be given that chance, just like all of us here were.

...oooo, I see, lets use the Bible! After all, a book written almost two thousand years ago by people with no scientific merit must be useful in a debate like this!

Actually, I also gave you another, non-Biblical reason. I'll quote it by itself so you don't miss it this time.

B)Bacteria is a harmful entity in you that is not human, will never become a human, no matter how long it may be there. Therefore, it is not on the same scale as an unborn child.

Besdies, you missed the point. It is on the same scale, because neither have any real sentience. Whether or not it could develop is irrelevant. It 'could' develop to be someone without an ability to use any of their limbs, move, speak or even think properly - A fate wrose than not existing at all. If something isnt alive, and you destroy it, it doesnt make any difference BECAUSE IT ISNT AWARE THAT IT 'COULD' DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING SENTIENT

I have a friend in school who when developing in the womb had the doctor tell her mother that she would be born with a clubbed foot, and should be aborted. However, the mother did not listen, and instead kept the baby. She was born perfectly alright, and has gone on to become a 4.0 student, and the single best percussionist in the school band, doing things like Class AA at concerts (Exceedingly hard, trust me). However, if the mother had just listened to the doctor and gone "Well, it's not aware that it's able to develop into something, so let's kill it", I would have never met her, and been able to be friends with her. Discrimination based simply on state of mind again is something that is not right. The thing is it CAN become something sentinent, and should be left unmolested, and given the right of life that all of us were given by our mothers. We should have the same decency our mothers had for us.

Also, I have to be going somewhere now gentlemen and ladies, and therefore for a few hours won't be able to keep this debate up. I'll be back hopefully however, so any responses you give I'll be glad to answer... provided they're proper and not filled with hate and bile directed towards people simply for having a difference in opinion.

 

[Llama]

fair 'nuff

 

[CptStern]

It's not just my congregation man. There are lots of other women who I know who are against it. And you avoided my point. You said I was "demeaning" women, and yet there are women who according to you are "demeaning" themselves.

you are demeaning women by saying they're not capable of making a choice that involves their own bodies ..yes you are demeaning women and so is everyone who thinks the way you do

Seriously, I see life beginning at conception, and I don't need religion to see that. So simply put, you have no real reason to just slap "religious" on my forehead and dismiss me.

well to be honest I dismissed you before you mentioned religion :E

Narrow-minded? Hah, go ahead and keep throwing insults around. I think the majority of people can really shee who's being narrow-minded here.

yes, agree, and it isnt me

I at least can accept why people would have reasons why they'd want to abort. I don't immediately dismiss their reasonings, or their thoughts. However, as I view life to start at conception, I still would object to their decisions.

your opinion is meaningless you cant provide proof that supports your belief

Seriously, your insults are weaker than kool-aid at this point. I'm not fazed by them, and all they do is make you look foolish.

oh I can be quite scathing but that isnt my point or my desire ..I'm feuled by the desire to erase all idiotic notions of people who think it's their right to interfere with people's lives

Even more surprising is I "just" joined, and yet speak with better grammar, present my arguements non-maliciously, and simply put, am willing to respect other's opinions in a debate, unlike yourself. Huh.

sure Nat ..makes me wonder why you joined in the first place ..perhaps to push an agenda? no that couldnt be it

Screaming bloody murder? I'm here debating formally on the internets.

sure you are ..without providing a shred of evidence to back up your anitquated notions of what is right and what is wrong ..real effective debating there sparky

And you're right, it is the parent's responsibility. Maybe they should be, you know, responsible for what they've done (If they both willingly had sex) and take the consequences. Abortion's basically a get-out-of-jail free card whenever you make a mistake (If you willingly have sex), and that isn't right.

yes because they should have had the foreknowledge that a genetic defect will lead to the death of their child. Yup they should have thought of that in advance ...shut up

So then we agree, abortion is not made "Right" just because it was legalized in 1973, which before then it was an illegal act. Danke schon.

yes because the US is the only country that matters

But in a debate, you're also supposed to have respect for each other, and debate correctly. Screaming l33t sp34k and cursing really only makes you look immature, and doesn't go over well in being taken serious.

I really dont care ..when it comes to this issue I will do whatever is in my power to beat people like you into the ground ..because it is people like you who would make a decision that affects my life yet take no responsibility in dealing with the aftermath ..people who push their agenda regardless of how it negatively affects people's lives deserve no respect

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"First off however, unlike brain-dead people, unborn children have not "yet" grown a developing mind. In time if left undisturbed, the unborn child will have a developed mind."

Actually, it's plenty fair. Without a conscious mind, your rights are strongly diminished. We don't let toddlers with partially-developed minds drive cars because they may grow up to be adults one day, after all.

Even if you compare a fi-tri fetus to a man merely in a coma, an adult in a coma has had tens of thousands of dollars and tons of resources invested into him. He was alive, and people want him back alive because he was a citizen. There is no such investment in a fetus.

Since a fetus was never conscious in the first place, the Maybe Zombie is more accurate, however harsh it may seem. The fetus starts off braindead and then has a 75% chance of coming to life.

In a perfect world, we would let all the dead come to life without problems. However, in reality world, those zombies create an immediate conflict with those who have already been alive for decades.
The decision here is to prevent an additional 1% or so of the Maybe Zombies from coming to life, in exchange for not enslaving almost every woman on the planet.

Also, if the fetus were left "undisturbed" it would certainly miscarry. It requires constant influence from the mother, up until the final months.
For the first trimester, it is a part of the mother's body and not an individual. Individuality comes from consciousness.

"Secondly, no one declares a pandemic because that's just a process of the body, there's nothing that can be done against a miscarriage. Abortion however, is a targeted, man-made instrument to purposely kill the child."

They're not children, remember; there's no mind.
Also, it does not kill because the target was never alive.
We do agree though: abortion is just a synthesized version of a natural process.

Considering that "natural" is an abstract and therefore functionally meaningless word, what we are left with is that abortion is identical to miscarriage (which is just a process of a body and therefore not controversial) except for the point that it is intentional.

In that case, abortion is WAY better than miscarriage.
-It happens around 90% less frequently.
-It is conducted in a safe, clinical environment.
-It is fully the will of the woman (unlike miscarriages, which are often un-noticed or undesired).
-It only "prevents the life" that is not wanted.

So it looks like people are against the wrong target here.
Miscarriage is at least ten times worse!
It might be a "natural process" but obviously it is "killing" millions of "children", to use your terminology.
On the scale of importance, a cure for miscarriage is far more desirable.
Yet, comparatively, no-one cares about miscarriage.
So there's clearly a disconnect here.
The "lives" only matter when they are being "killed" by science. When nature does it though, no one gives a crap about the "children" as they get tossed out by the bushel.

And that's about enough with the quotation marks.

Comparatively (generously portraying the fetuses as adults), let's say you've got a small town of four thousand people. In a year, this town had forty justifiable homicides (police needed violence to shut down a sex-slavery operation).
That same year, one-thousand innocent people in the town are devoured by wolves.

Clearly natural doesn't mean better.

"However, there is always one right everyone should be entitled. The right to Life. No one here can say just because a child has less rights than an adult, that the adult has more of a right to life than the child (And more often in history, often precedence has been given to women and children to live over men, from escape boats to other things), and the same goes for unborn children. They might not have many rights, but they have just as much a right to life as any other member of society."

Well no, actually. Not everyone is entitled to the right of life. Police will shoot someone who is commiting a crime if the person poses a risk or cannot be stopped any other way. It's a judgement call.
Also, criminals can get the death penalty if they are percieved as too much of a risk or if their crimes are especially heinous. Again, this is a judgement call that weighs the costs and benefits.

A man in a lifeboat will sacrifice himself in order to save a child, but it is not considered proper for the opposite to occur. This is largely due to the fact that the child does not a have a fully developped mind, and therefore is not considered capable of making such a complex cost/benefit analysis. However, it is mostly because it is a societal concensus that pain should be minimized where possible, and that it is more desirable to harm yourself than to harm another person, if those are the only two options.

But, just to repeat, we aren't talking about unborn children. We are talking about first-trimester pregnancies and they aren't children.

Unlike children, babies, or even second/third-trimester fetuses, the first-tri fetus has no conscious mind at all.
So, this makes them uniquely different from all other stages of development, rendering them closest to the brain-dead. They are not like "every other member of society", unless you're being cynical.

So your lifeboat has only room for four people. You have five people though, and one is braindead.
It's a judgement call but, realistically, whoever saves the braindead guy at the cost of a live person is a real ass.

"How about developing child? It's a lot more accurate, and verdmannt well less offensive."

It isn't a developing child, because it isn't a child until a conscious mind exists. People just throw the "child" part of the phrase in there to make it sound like we're killing toddlers or something, just like I used "Maybe Zombie" to emphasize how silly that is.

The correct terminology is "First-Trimester Fetus" or, earlier, "Embryo".

"[A woman has resources invested into her life] because she got the chance to become developed and be born[.] Isn't it a bit funny that all those who chant for the right to have an abortion are completely and utterly safe from abortion themselves?"

Almost as funny as how the vast majority of people against abortion are men - who are infinitely unlikely to have an abortion.
Or how you support miscarriage, despite never having been miscarried.

As with the "child" "children" "killing" terminology incorrectly used, you are erroneously aging the fetuses in order to give them the attributes of conscious people.
An adult is not a fetus, obviously, so clouding the issue doesn't help anyone.


And what happens when that unborn child has the father wanting it to be allowed to live, and the mother against it? They're both the parents, with support. What happens then?

The mother has the say because it's her vagina. Two adults can discuss the matter, but final say is hers.

"What about women who are against abortion? Are they "forcing slavery/rape" on themselves?"

Yes, actually.
I said right there in my post that anyone/everyone who is anti-abortion is pro-staterape by default.
I don't mean to polarize things, but those really are the only two options.

"their opinion is it is a life, and that is something that would be a law to protect certain citizens of the U.S."

First off, fetuses are not citizens.
Second, women who are anti-abortion, as with the men, are of generally the same opinion you are, which is that a vaguely defined force (be it "god" or 'nature" or whatever) overrules what we actually do know for certain, which is that a fetus isn't a child and that having outside forces controlling your body isn't a good thing.

Some women are willing to give up their body to god or they may be be afraid of technology, or whatev.
That's cool. No-one is forcing them to abort.
However, they do not speak for all, or even the majority of, women.

They may have an opinion, but when that opinion is highly personal to the point of being religious, it can't be implemented as a secular law. You need more than a gut intuition to justify national policy.

"This isn't a man v. women issue here."

Well it is if you look at the subtext, but that is true.
What it is, fundamentally, is a freedom versus theocracy issue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You cannot remove human liberties without a valid reason because, when you do, you end up with a theocracy: someone else's faith controlling your life.

Now, reason tells us the fetuses aren't children and are not as valuable.
Reason also tells us that we can't let the government enslave women (which reason tells us is the result of anti-abortion legislation).

Now you may believe that's wrong, but there is not much reason behind that. Saying that "well they will grow up one day" doesn't help because that's the problem in the first place.

Until science can somehow settle this debate permanently, legalized abortion is the least harmful policy.

"And it's clear to me that simply put all citizens have the right to life, just as much as any other person in the world. Stage of life makes no difference, as we were all a "zombie" at one point."

Agreed, all citizens have a right to life.
Problem: fetuses aren't citizens and are definitely not the same as any other person in the world.
Plus stage of life makes a huge difference.


Now I think it's pretty darn clear that the issue isn't about the fetuses. No-one really cares about them too much, unless they're inside friends or family.

The issue is about how much influence religion has over secular matters, because legalized abortion says, officially: "no one knows if a soul exists, or what 'natural' means or, if this week's interpretation of the bible is correct. Science, however, logically contradicts them so we're going with science."

Same reason why so many people are up in arms over stem cells. The cells are being used to find medicines! Damn you science!
But if science wasn't using them, they would be in a dumpster.

Folks would rather have millions of "children" "die" needlessly than have one go to save a human life.

 

[The Kaiser]

you are demeaning women by saying they're not capable of making a choice that involves their own bodies ..yes you are demeaning women and so is everyone who thinks the way you do

It doesn't just involve their own bodsy however, it also involve another person's body. I am trying to defend that other person's right to live.

yes, agree, and it isnt me

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Many people here won't necessarily agree with my opinion, but I'm sure most people here can look, see one person consistently insulting the other person, and the other simply arguing his points. Guess who's the one doing all the insulting?

your opinion is meaningless you cant provide proof that supports your belief

And where's your proof that it isn't a life? Just because it doesn't have a "functioning mind"? Well then, I guess all brain-dead people are little more than objects, rather than still people.

oh I can be quite scathing but that isnt my point or my desire ..I'm feuled by the desire to erase all idiotic notions of people who think it's their right to interfere with people's lives

Even when it's to protect other people's lives who otherwise will be taken. Right.

sure Nat ..makes me wonder why you joined in the first place ..perhaps to push an agenda? no that couldnt be it

If you'd notice, all my first thirty or so posts here were for Half Life 2, and a bit on DoD. I don't join here just to debate, I actually love the game, and this is just something else I can do when talk of the game slows down. You'd do well to stop trying to make insinuations on my character, all it does is make you look idiotic.

sure you are ..without providing a shred of evidence to back up your anitquated notions of what is right and what is wrong ..real effective debating there sparky

And you have? Your notion to "let people do what they want" is problematic when it tramples over the rights of others. I try to defend those rights, and you screech like I've killed someone.

yes because they should have had the foreknowledge that a genetic defect will lead to the death of their child. Yup they should have thought of that in advance ...shut up

Oh please, NOT EVERY ABORTION IS DONE BECAUSE THERE'S A GENETIC DEFECT. Your one-trick-pony's died, so how about you actually argue on what we've been talking about, instead of pulling your strawman every time, how about it? Or is that too hard?

yes because the US is the only country that matters .

\

Clearly you missed my point, as you continue to do.

I really dont care ..when it comes to this issue I will do whatever is in my power to beat people like you into the ground ..because it is people like you who would make a decision that affects my life yet take no responsibility in dealing with the aftermath ..people who push their agenda regardless of how it negatively affects people's lives deserve no respect

You're right, I really don't think I can respect you for letting millions of unborn children be slaughtered all in the name of "it's someone's choice!" It was someone's choice to have sex (If they were both willing). There are consequences that come with that choice. You make your bed, you sleep in it.

And truthfully, your agenda would do a lot better if you could use proper grammar and such.

EDIT:I'll be attempting to get around to your repsonse {b]Mechagodzillaz[/b (Hope I got that right, apologies if not so) later, thanks for you patience.

 

[CptStern]

It doesn't just involve their own bodsy however, it also involve another person's body. I am trying to defend that other person's right to live.

regardless of the quality of life right? where will you be when that person needs 24 hour medical care for the rest of their lives? will you help the parents cope? of course not, you and those like you dont give a shit what appens after they're born just so long as they're born right?

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Many people here won't necessarily agree with my opinion, but I'm sure most people here can look, see one person consistently insulting the other person, and the other simply arguing his points. Guess who's the one doing all the insulting?

and? at least I dont disguise my insults with thinly veiled religious morality. In any event most people know me/know of me ..my history speaks for itself ...you on the other hand ....

And where's your proof that it isn't a life? Just because it doesn't have a "functioning mind"? Well then, I guess all brain-dead people are little more than objects, rather than still people.

nice try sparky but the burden of proof is yours not mine ..I didnt say "I believe life starts .." ..you did

Even when it's to protect other people's lives who otherwise will be taken. Right.

yes I'm sure you just jump at the chance to help a parent after their child is born with cerebal palsy, or some other debilitating disease/disorder ..I'm sure you'll be there for years to come, helping changing bed pans, cleaning up after them, giving them support, helping them through the agony that is every single waking day of their lives ..right? you're going to do that? please spare me your sanctimonious bullshit that you only have the baby's welfare in mind

If you'd notice, all my first thirty or so posts here were for Half Life 2, and a bit on DoD. I don't join here just to debate, I actually love the game, and this is just something else I can do when talk of the game slows down. You'd do well to stop trying to make insinuations on my character, all it does is make you look idiotic.

to whom? you? I really couldnt care less either way

And you have? Your notion to "let people do what they want" is problematic when it tramples over the rights of others. I try to defend those rights, and you screech like I've killed someone.

yes I have, had you been paying attention I gave you the only evidence that matters

Oh please, NOT EVERY ABORTION IS DONE BECAUSE THERE'S A GENETIC DEFECT. Your one-trick-pony's died, so how about you actually argue on what we've been talking about, instead of pulling your strawman every time, how about it? Or is that too hard?

it doesnt ****ing matter get that through your thick head ..there is no "abortions for some and no abortion for others" law ..it's either or

Clearly you missed my point, as you continue to do.

you mean you specifically brought up US law because you actually were talking about the issue globally?

You're right, I really don't think I can respect you for letting millions of unborn children be slaughtered all in the name of "it's someone's choice!" It was someone's choice to have sex (If they were both willing). There are consequences that come with that choice. You make your bed, you sleep in it.

and again a parent willingly makes the choice to have a baby that wont survive to ful term right? if it were up to idiots such as you they'd all be stillborn ..I'd love to see what you'd do when faced with that choice. "well god tells me it's wrong, so my child's well being is meaningless because god said it was evil"

And truthfully, your agenda would do a lot better if you could use proper grammar and such.

ah it's the old "I cant effectively argue against you so I'll point out your faulty grammar" trick

 

[The Kaiser]

regardless of the quality of life right? where will you be when that person needs 24 hour medical care for the rest of their lives? will you help the parents cope? of course not, you and those like you dont give a shit what appens after they're born just so long as they're born right?

I donate through my church, which helps poorhouses and such, not to mention food kitchens, and currently am trying to get a volunteer job at my city at the local home for boys there, which the city really isn't making it that easy to do. I'm also attempting to get bus routes to a man's home for the homeless, and trying to get my parents to let me take it and be able to do such during the weekends, when I don't have school.

and? at least I dont disguise my insults with thinly veiled religious morality. In any event most people know me/know of me ..my history speaks for itself ...you on the other hand ....

You're right, I'm a new person on these forums. But truthfully I don't care. I don't hid my stuff behind "religious morality", because I put it out front. Unfortunately, you just string your stuff along with insults every chance you get, because it's obvious that's all you can do.

nice try sparky but the burden of proof is yours not mine ..I didnt say "I believe life starts .." ..you did.

But you keep arguing against my thoughts, meaning you disagree with my notion of life starting at the beginnig of conception. Therefore, since you disagree with my thought on when it begins, you have insinuated that it does not begin at that point. Prove it doesn't.

yes I'm sure you just jump at the chance to help a parent after their child is born with cerebal palsy, or some other debilitating disease/disorder ..I'm sure you'll be there for years to come, helping changing bed pans, cleaning up after them, giving them support, helping them through the agony that is every single waking day of their lives ..right? you're going to do that? please spare me your sanctimonious bullshit that you only have the baby's welfare in mind

Again;

I donate through my church, which helps poorhouses and such, not to mention food kitchens, and currently am trying to get a volunteer job at my city at the local home for boys there, which the city really isn't making it that easy to do. I'm also attempting to get bus routes to a man's home for the homeless, and trying to get my parents to let me take it and be able to do such during the weekends, when I don't have school.

to whom? you? I really couldnt care less either way

Well, at least that shows what kind of character in debates you have.

yes I have, had you been paying attention I gave you the only evidence that matters.

Right...

it doesnt ****ing matter get that through your thick head ..there is no "abortions for some and no abortion for others" law ..it's either or

You completely missed my point, didn't you? You keep pulling up "genetic defect HURR" every time I bring up people being irresponsible, as if every time someone being irresponsible procreates, their child is going to be brain-dead. The only person with a thick head around here is yourself.

you mean you specifically brought up US law because you actually were talking about the issue globally?

Because guess what pertains to us most importantly. U.S. law. Weren't you the one who tried to use the example of "Segregation and slavery" in one of your arguements? Truthfully, unless we're going on about America and South Africa, that means we're going on about America.

and again a parent willingly makes the choice to have a baby that wont survive to ful term right? if it were up to idiots such as you they'd all be stillborn ..I'd love to see what you'd do when faced with that choice. "well god tells me it's wrong, so my child's well being is meaningless because god said it was evil"

Oh my God, you really don't ***ing read what I said, do you? Did you miss the part where I said that in that case the moral thing would be to abort those children. Do you have any reading skills AT ALL?

ah it's the old "I cant effectively argue against you so I'll point out your faulty grammar" trick

Oh, it's no trick, your grammar and reading skills just aren't very good. It's a fact, as seeing as how I argued points from before which you didn't debate, and then you bring up the issue again which I already told you my answer with.

 

[theotherguy]

Nobody is arguing the fact that fetus/zygotes are living.

Yes a fetus is living but it is not a person. Again I reiterate, killing a person is murder, killing something living is simply killing.

let's take a look at what we're talking about here, a zygote

and let's compare it to a single celled organism, the paramecium

and let's throw in one of those unfertilized eggs for the record
http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/images/ParasiteImages/A-F/Ascariasis/Ascaris_eggA.JPG

they're not much different are they?

If you left a zygote unnoticed in a petri dish, it would NOT become a human. Neither would a paramecium.

Only with the consenting will of the mother can a zygote become human, and so the mother has the right to take that will away through abortion.

 

[kirovman]

Oh but surely abortion should be allowed in an anarchistic utopia?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Trick question!

Anarchistic Utopia is an oxymoron.

 

[DreadLord]

*Snip*

This post alone, should turn all pro-life people pro-choice.

 

[Terminator]

OMFG i'm not going to read all the posts but i'll say a couple of things.

Life is life down to a cellular level, below this the processes do not fit the criteria of life, people often forget that a human is a mass organism made of millions of "lives" so to speak.

As a baby develops it is simply becoming a more developed organism.

Life does not "start" anywhere, it is a dynamic continous process.

The problem arises when people have to put things into set law, everyone has different ideas as to what is correct, independant of facts, it's one of the typical internet discussions which are usally 10page+ baggers.

It's like trying to make it so "red is everyones favorite colour"

 

[Thunderclap]

I say we should illegalize abortion unless it's rape or the mother's life is endangered. If you don't want the child, simply give them to the state and they'll train them into fascist supersoldiers. No girls though. If popular culture has taught us anything, female supersoldiers inevitably rebel when that time of month comes around, if you catch my drift.

 

[The Kaiser]

First of all, thank you for waiting for my response, and for your much kinder tone and formality, I appreciate it greatly.

Actually, it's plenty fair. Without a conscious mind, your rights are strongly diminished. We don't let toddlers with partially-developed minds drive cars because they may grow up to be adults one day, after all.

In that example however, toddlers cannot even reach a stairing wheel or gas pedal. It's not so much a case of if they should be given the right or not, so much if they can do it at any rate. However, it does not take much skill or consciousness to live. I do that simply by existing, as does an unborn child. Therefore, since that right does not require much other than simply existing, it is something they should be allowed to have.

Even if you compare a fi-tri fetus to a man merely in a coma, an adult in a coma has had tens of thousands of dollars and tons of resources invested into him. He was alive, and people want him back alive because he was a citizen. There is no such investment in a fetus.

And if the man is predicted to never come out of a coma? What happens then? Is he still entitled to the right to continue to live, in hope that he will, or should he be killed off, since he will not possibly recover?

At any rate, I suppose I will agree with the point however.

Since a fetus was never conscious in the first place, the Maybe Zombie is more accurate, however harsh it may seem. The fetus starts off braindead and then has a 75% chance of coming to life.

However, isn't a zombie someone who did have a conscious, before becoming a zombie? Zombies cannot regain conscious, according to what kind you go by, but a fetus is able to do such.

In a perfect world, we would let all the dead come to life without problems. However, in reality world, those zombies create an immediate conflict with those who have already been alive for decades.
The decision here is to prevent an additional 1% or so of the Maybe Zombies from coming to life, in exchange for not enslaving almost every woman on the planet.

Actually, I do believe abortions have cost something around 1/4 or so of the current generation (In U.S.), not 1% percent of such. I'm not exactly sure however, my sources are a bit old, and not that findable anymore, so you'll have to take it with a grain of salt.

Also, if the fetus were left "undisturbed" it would certainly miscarry. It requires constant influence from the mother, up until the final months.

Well, by "undisturbed" I mean not tampered with, like killing or destroying it. Not not taking care of it.

For the first trimester, it is a part of the mother's body and not an individual. Individuality comes from consciousness.

But is a baby truly conscious until birth? It has a functioning brain and beginnings of nerves yes, but by conscious, what exactly is the definition here? The ability to feel pain? The ability to think? Because truthfully, I'd be surprised if an unborn child could really think, at any rate.

They're not children, remember; there's no mind.
Also, it does not kill because the target was never alive.
We do agree though: abortion is just a synthesized version of a natural process.

Considering that "natural" is an abstract and therefore functionally meaningless word, what we are left with is that abortion is identical to miscarriage (which is just a process of a body and therefore not controversial) except for the point that it is intentional.

In that case, abortion is WAY better than miscarriage.
-It happens around 90% less frequently.
-It is conducted in a safe, clinical environment.
-It is fully the will of the woman (unlike miscarriages, which are often un-noticed or undesired).
-It only "prevents the life" that is not wanted.

May I have the sources on the rate of abortion rates and such?

And as for "safe, clinical enviroment", what exactly are the dangers of a miscarriage. The unborn child is washed out through the body, and subsequently dies, but what risk does it bring to the mother in that manner?

So it looks like people are against the wrong target here.
Miscarriage is at least ten times worse!
It might be a "natural process" but obviously it is "killing" millions of "children", to use your terminology.
On the scale of importance, a cure for miscarriage is far more desirable.
Yet, comparatively, no-one cares about miscarriage.
So there's clearly a disconnect here.
The "lives" only matter when they are being "killed" by science. When nature does it though, no one gives a crap about the "children" as they get tossed out by the bushel.

Well, truthfully, I'm quite sure to most it is much easier to stop abortion than it is to search for a stop to miscarriages, what with a lot of scientific research in saving lives going to things such as the various cancer strains and whatnot.

However, you do bring up a good point on miscarriages. It would make an interesting thought on how to stop them, but truthfully, the scientific community doesn't seem interested in stopping them either. Or at least, I've never seen a report on the community in thoughts of doing such.

Comparatively (generously portraying the fetuses as adults), let's say you've got a small town of four thousand people. In a year, this town had forty justifiable homicides (police needed violence to shut down a sex-slavery operation).
That same year, one-thousand innocent people in the town are devoured by wolves.

Clearly natural doesn't mean better.

No, but there are certainly ways to prevent things such as wolf attacks and such. Guns, explosives, axes. However, currently there is no way to stop miscarriages, just abortions. However again I agree that some research ought to be put into such a field, it would certainly be a good thing, perhaps.

Well no, actually. Not everyone is entitled to the right of life. Police will shoot someone who is commiting a crime if the person poses a risk or cannot be stopped any other way. It's a judgement call.
Also, criminals can get the death penalty if they are percieved as too much of a risk or if their crimes are especially heinous. Again, this is a judgement call that weighs the costs and benefits.

But that is because those perpetrators have commited a crime or worse. What has the unborn child done, exactly? What crimes has it committed?

A man in a lifeboat will sacrifice himself in order to save a child, but it is not considered proper for the opposite to occur. This is largely due to the fact that the child does not a have a fully developped mind, and therefore is not considered capable of making such a complex cost/benefit analysis. However, it is mostly because it is a societal concensus that pain should be minimized where possible, and that it is more desirable to harm yourself than to harm another person, if those are the only two options.

But, just to repeat, we aren't talking about unborn children. We are talking about first-trimester pregnancies and they aren't children.

Unlike children, babies, or even second/third-trimester fetuses, the first-tri fetus has no conscious mind at all.
So, this makes them uniquely different from all other stages of development, rendering them closest to the brain-dead. They are not like "every other member of society", unless you're being cynical.

This is one of the disagreements we'll have to have. In my opinion they (first stage fetus to use your terms) are, operating mind or not, due to the fact that they have started to grow, and only do not have a mind simply because their body has not had the chance to develop one yet.

So your lifeboat has only room for four people. You have five people though, and one is braindead.
It's a judgement call but, realistically, whoever saves the braindead guy at the cost of a live person is a real ass.

It isn't a developing child, because it isn't a child until a conscious mind exists. People just throw the "child" part of the phrase in there to make it sound like we're killing toddlers or something, just like I used "Maybe Zombie" to emphasize how silly that is.

The correct terminology is "First-Trimester Fetus" or, earlier, "Embryo".

Almost as funny as how the vast majority of people against abortion are men - who are infinitely unlikely to have an abortion.
Or how you support miscarriage, despite never having been miscarried.

Actually I believe one of latest CNN polls about last year had women in favor/against as 60/40, or close to that. That's about a third of women against the act of abortion. Men were a good bit closer.

And I never said I supported miscarriage, only that it's a natural function that we don't have control over. You can't just stop a miscarriage.

As with the "child" "children" "killing" terminology incorrectly used, you are erroneously aging the fetuses in order to give them the attributes of conscious people.
An adult is not a fetus, obviously, so clouding the issue doesn't help anyone.

In my mind, and in the minds of many other people, they are an unborn child. We don't do this to spite people or "cloud" the issue; just because that is how we see it. In our opinions usually, calling them things like "parasite" or "zygote" is the exact opposite, an attempt seen by Pro-Life people to belittle the unborn child, and make it less than human so it does not seem as bad as in our opinions it really isn't.

The mother has the say because it's her vagina. Two adults can discuss the matter, but final say is hers.

Yes, actually.
I said right there in my post that anyone/everyone who is anti-abortion is pro-staterape by default.
I don't mean to polarize things, but those really are the only two options.

Even if they champion anti-abortion legislature that only bans abortion for no real reason, and allow excuses for rape, incest, or maternal health? This isn't a "For all or for none" issue; other countries such as Poland or Spain actually have it so that there are some exceptions.

First off, fetuses are not citizens.
Second, women who are anti-abortion, as with the men, are of generally the same opinion you are, which is that a vaguely defined force (be it "god" or 'nature" or whatever) overrules what we actually do know for certain, which is that a fetus isn't a child and that having outside forces controlling your body isn't a good thing.

Some women are willing to give up their body to god or they may be be afraid of technology, or whatever.
That's cool. No-one is forcing them to abort.
However, they do not speak for all, or even the majority of, women.

I'd have to agree with this statement then, I suppose.

They may have an opinion, but when that opinion is highly personal to the point of being religious, it can't be implemented as a secular law. You need more than a gut intuition to justify national policy.

Well it is if you look at the subtext, but that is true.
What it is, fundamentally, is a freedom versus theocracy issue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You cannot remove human liberties without a valid reason because, when you do, you end up with a theocracy: someone else's faith controlling your life.

Now, reason tells us the fetuses aren't children and are not as valuable.
Reason also tells us that we can't let the government enslave women (which reason tells us is the result of anti-abortion legislation).

A ban on abortion will not "enslave woman". If anything, considering that men are still draftable (Also known as the govt. confiscating their body to put them into a warzone) it'd make things a bit more equal in a certain way of looking at things. Women would still be able to vote, still be able to hold jobs, still be able to have all the liberties that a man has. The only thing it would stop is the killing of an unborn child.

Now you may believe that's wrong, but there is not much reason behind that. Saying that "well they will grow up one day" doesn't help because that's the problem in the first place.

Until science can somehow settle this debate permanently, legalized abortion is the least harmful policy.

Truthfully, they are already growing, not "may grow up". If something is already growing into a human, I am of the opinion it should be allowed to do so, unless of course it has a disease that would otherwise cause it's quality of life to basically be ruined or useless.

And truthfully, I am still of the opinion the least harmful policy would be one of say Spain's, that makes exceptions to those who "need" the abortion, or were forced to have the child. If the child is perfectly alright, and you both choose to have sex, you have to deal with the consequences. Right now, I am of the opinion that legalized abortion allows irresponsible citizens a "get-out-of-jail" free card of sorts, and that is wrong.

Agreed, all citizens have a right to life.
Problem: fetuses aren't citizens and are definitely not the same as any other person in the world.
Plus stage of life makes a huge difference.

Now I think it's pretty darn clear that the issue isn't about the fetuses. No-one really cares about them too much, unless they're inside friends or family.

Truthfully, other than politicians, I do believe most of the protestors (Both male and female) and several of the Church organizations and whatnot do care about the fetuses, otherwise they wouldn't complain. What do they have to gain other than knowing in their opinion they are saving lives?

The issue is about how much influence religion has over secular matters, because legalized abortion says, officially: "no one knows if a soul exists, or what 'natural' means or, if this week's interpretation of the bible is correct. Science, however, logically contradicts them so we're going with science."

Well, the Catholic Church actually has had this stance for a good few hundred years, after they had to debate on how Mary was free of sin and whatnot with birth, so it's not for them their "weekly" interpretation, it's a stance they have had for a quite a while.

However, science has really not offered much to say if there isn't a soul or whatnot, all they have given is when an unborn child develops this and that. To me, that's not very convincing that's when something "becomes" a life.

Same reason why so many people are up in arms over stem cells. The cells are being used to find medicines! Damn you science!
But if science wasn't using them, they would be in a dumpster.

Why can't the stem cells from umbilical cords be used? Last time I checked, those were thrown into dumpsters, unlesss of course the father wanted to eat them. Those things I believe are quite full of stem cells, yet unused, whereas aborted fetuses are.

Folks would rather have millions of "children" "die" needlessly than have one go to save a human life.

 

[The Kaiser]

Sorry about the double post, my last one was a bit too long to keep going.

I'd just like to say this in conclusion however. I am still against abortion in any form unless the child will die immediately after. I still feel it is a life, burgdeoning and growing, and should be given that right. I will say this however. As of legislating it, I a less sure of my stance. Truthfully, I feel it would lead to a very large hive of problems, and until society can become better and less corrupt, perhaps now legislating would not be a good idea, at any rate. I will stand against abortion, and for people who ask me my opinion I will be truthful, and tell them that I do not like the act at any point in a pregnancy. However, I will not "push my agenda" or try to get it into law.

Again, many thanks for allowing our debate to be a good one, I feel quite honored.

 

[Teta_Bonita]

Wow, five pages of debating wether or not a fetus is a person, when it doesn't even matter.

Think about this: If I take a match and burn down a house that is under construction, should I be prosecuted for arson? After all, the house wasn't even built yet! It wasn't really a house, it was an unfinished house. There's nothing wrong with burning down an unfinished house!

Catch my drift? It makes no difference if an unborn fetus is considered a person, a zombie, or a jelly donut- the point is that it will be a person if it's allowed to be born. Preventing a life from starting is no better than ending one, in my humble opinion.

 

[Yuri]

Haha, hey Lemon.

Oh man, didn't catch that. And to think-- I was nice to it.

Think about this: If I take a match and burn down a house that is under construction, should I be prosecuted for arson? After all, the house wasn't even built yet! It wasn't really a house, it was an unfinished house. There's nothing wrong with burning down an unfinished house!

Yeah, that analogy really doesn't work...

So I guess sperms and eggs are like nails and wood? Its obviously okay to waste sperms and eggs, but is it legal to burn nails and wood? Well, I suppose it is, if they are yours.

But what if the unfinished house is yours? Is it illegal to burn then? Is it illegal to burn down your finished house, for that matter? Well, insurance reasons make it illegal, but if you're not committing fraud, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

Yeah. Analogy really stinks because of that whole "ownership" thing in there. Putting aside the whole "taking an analogy too seriously" comment you are sure to defend with, what about the ownership thing? (A dependant zygote?!) You own the house, so you can do with it what you want. (Abortion?!) You can even hire somebody else to burn it. (A doctor?!) But if somebody else burns it down without you wanting to, that's illegal! (Forced Abortion?!)
Oooooh, my analogy also sucks, even more than your's, perhaps. Oh well!

(Don't take that seriously at all. Just.. your analogy doesn't work very well )

I'd just like to say this in conclusion however. I am still against abortion in any form unless the child will die immediately after.

So I take it your are against abortion even if the mother's life is in jeopardy?

You can be against it if you want. Just don't force it on those who are not against their right to choose.

 

[gick]

You can be against it if you want. Just don't force it on those who are not against their right to choose.

That there is the only point that anybody should be considering. Its simple - if you disagree with abortion, then dont get one. Just don't dictate to others what their morals should be.

 

[15357]

Abortions seems to have 2 different sided morals.

1. Its bad because it kills life.

2. Its good because its choice.

I agree with abortion, but really, morals are what the majority of people say thats good.

 

[PvtRyan]

Ì find it kind of weird that people who oppose the removal of a lump of cells usually do eat far more intelligent and sentient creatures for dinner every day.

As for when it becomes actually a human being, you can't really pinpoint it. I do think abortion should only be allowed in early pregnancy.