At what point do we say that life begins?Is aborting a foetus, which can't feel nor think, and isn't conscious of its own existence the same as the killing of a person? Since there are restrictions on the time period of abortions(which I did mention in a previous post), it allows a termination to take place some time before a foetus can develop such characteristics. Unless you're saying that human life is independent of thought and feeling, which i don't think is much of a life at all.
yeah, i think it's cruel. it's taking someone's life, i don't care if you guys say it's technically not living yet. to me, it is, and that's just cruel to take someone's life.
So do you eat meat? Life is taken through that process. A lot of life. I'm sure a calf is a somebody to its mother. If not, do you eat fruit? Do you eat vegetables? Because as harsh as it sounds, an undeveloped foetus is as cognitive as a vegetable. But wait...perhaps in several centuries vegetables can develop cognitive thought. Some plants already use complex mechanisms for rapid movement involving action potentials, such as the venus fly trap. Who's to say that down the evolutionary path they might be able to think? The potato you eat may have produced progeny who in future generations may walk and talk like us. To my understanding Catholicism disagrees upon contraception, but do you also say that using contraception is denying a possible life? It's taking someone's life right? Before it has a chance to form a zygote? Spermatozoa only have the lifespan of several days within the male body. After that it gets broken down and absorbed back into the male. Would you also argue that was the taking of a possible life? Are billions of males unknowingly killing "potential" lives by not using it in time? To say that children have rights and shouldn't be killed is what I think nobody would disagree to, but I don't agree that foetuses are children at that stage. Yes, they may be potential children, but if that was the case you could say that "abortions" of a sort are being made by males in every town and city world wide. The demand for abortions will always be there. What happens when something gets banned? A blackmarket appears. Banning drugs has not stopped drugs being sold at all. By outlawing abortions, there will no doubt be an underground blackmarket, where such conditions for the health and safety of women could be extremely risky compared to a clinic. Women have control of their bodies. It is them who have to carry the child during pregnancy, and endure the pain of child birth. It's the mother's responsibility, nobody else does it. So its her sole right to decide if she wants to go through nine months of pregnancy. To say that abortions shouldn't happen, or banning abortions would go against a woman's right to choose. It would be like not allowing women to vote for a president, or prime minister. By banning abortion we would be regressing back into times passed.
I read this on a forum and I think that this quote should be read by any pro-life (no abortions) person before they post again here. It might be much to read but it's quite interesting and it sure gave me something to think about: Science Trumps Emotion In Debate Over Human Life
Suffer the consequences of your own decisions. You have that fun, be aware of what you're doing. There's no way out of it except murdering something that hasn't seen the light of day. That's all I believe. Abortion is wrong, and people must know the consequences of their own actions...though those consequences may be life changing in a good/bad way.
Please feel free to actually read some of the messages posted in a thread before you post. Like the one right above you.
i haven't thought of it that way, that got me thinking, thanks. anyways, i don't think it's fair to compare human and animal life. animals are different from us. we as humans need food to live, it's a need, it's all about survival, it's not like we all kill for game. some people need to kill animals to live. as for the vegetables, they "may" walk in the future but as of now, they can't. you can't assume it will or will not happen. for contraception, it's not like a life is already on it's way, it's prevention, nothing is there.
Human life or animal life? Both have the common word. Life. And what separates us from animals? The main thing is our brain, which lets us do a lot more things. By killing animals, we're taking away life. If we just killed what we needed to survive, that's fine. But obviously man overhunts and overfarms. The japanese are hunting and killing whales, all for "research". Are you saying that's a dire need? Whales are believed to be one of the most intelligent animals on earth, but man hasnt let that stopped them. Yes, all people need to eat meat, or their unique vitamin, cobalamin. Last year, scientists have finally managed to artifically synthesize it. So technically, there isn't a "need" to do it. As for walking vegetables, that was an extreme, but if you compare contraception and abortion, my point was, it was exactly the same thing. The only difference is stopping the process a step ahead. And yes, both sex cells of males and females are living. When they form a zygote, a rapid change happens to form a single life. Let's say you're baking a cake. Is there a difference in not adding flour, or removing the cake while it is cooking in the oven? The end process is the same, a ruined cake. And if you read the article presented by Virre, an estimated 50-80% of fertilized eggs do not make it to the first trimester. So an abortion of sorts takes place in nature, to stop the genetically damaged eggs from forming. According to the article, natural abortions are common place, even more so than birth.
I did. Doesn't mean I can't reword things ;/ You know people would rather read something short and simple to the point then something long and factual...and write it, for that matter. EDIT: Oh and yeah. If it's a real problem restating things, then I guess I should just say "Yeah I agree with all of this." instead of putting my point of view into it. Just because I restate a message doesn't mean I haven't read all the posts.
the intangibles makes us different from animals, reason, logic, inquiry, morals, etc. it depends on what they are "researching" about. if it's for something useful for progress with for our life or health, i would think it's ok. stop a process ahead of time makes all the difference. if a life isn't there yet, it's not a problem. i know not all fertillized eggs don't make it but like you said it's natural. i'm not saying that's wrong, i'm saying an abortion by choice is.
I can understand you think that an undeveloped foetus is considered a life. But if we say that a human life is at stake, I think the woman's rights is more important. An abortion is a decision given to us, and we can't demand that the right should be taken away. If I choose to give you a piece of my liver, and nobody else is a viable match, this is an easy choice for me to make, especially since livers regenerate. But if I choose not to do it, there isn't any way you can make me give you that piece. The same principle goes with that of abortion. The fact that a "life" is at stake, does not mean that somebody can take away your rights in the liberal society we live in. While it may not be the most moral option, it also depends on the situation. Even if you are strongly against abortion, you don't know the situation of someone who is getting an abortion. It is not always the woman's fault. Unfortunately rape happens, and if pregnancy is an unwanted outcome, it is the personal choice of the woman to get an abortion, and the option should always be there. Should she withdraw from school or from her livelihood and bear something unwanted for nine months? Why should she be punished? We can't say to these girls, who have already been traumatised emotionally and physically, to go on and have the baby. If she wanted to let the foetus develop and have a baby, I can understand that. But it is also her choice to not have it. If they ban abortions, what will happen to a girl in this situation? What if she wanted to get rid of it no matter what? The demand for abortions would still exist. Unwanted pregnancies would still exist. And where would these pregnant people turn to? I have mentioned before: The Blackmarket. I would say women in general are safer in the hands of professional doctors, than in the hands of people who are out to make money. I can understand why you think that abortions are equal to murder, but surely you can see why there is a need for it?
There's no such thing as a short and good debate. Either it's short, or it's good. I prefer long messages over short since you get to develop your theory more in detail, instead of just saying "I think this." I'm still going to give you a tl;dr though: About a third of all conceptions lead that has a chance of developing. Supposed that there was a pill that made every fetus develop, but without repairing the genetic defects. Would you then argue that it would be morally obliged to take this pill, even though you might have up to 50-50 chance of getting a very deformed baby? If you didn't take the pill, you would make an active decision to give the fetus a high risk of not develop. This flood of babies would also lead to the humans being even more overpopulated, think of it for a second; 2/3 increase in births every year. And this would grow exponentially and fast.
yeah, i can see why there is a need for it now. you actually kind of changed my mind about it with your views. i thank you for not getting mad when i told you my views, most of the debates i've been in get really heated with everyone hating each other for their views. =/ unwanted pregnancies could also lead to child being mistreated, i guess it's better to sometimes just stop it ahead of time. once again, thank you for giving me another perspective.
I think if a woman becomes pregnant because she never uses protection and has sex alot then she should keep the baby because she had the choice to use protection. If the woman was really young and it was one of the first times she didnt use protection then i think she should be able to have an abortion but then she could just have the baby and give it to someone who could look after it better.
No. How is it cruel if the baby doesn't know it's happening. I think it should be a right... to kill your baby. If it isn't born it really isn't alive...
What if the male was using a condom that broke? Why is protection better than abortions, it's still about preventing a life from being born. Doesn't the argument, taken really far, mean that everyone should shag around as much as possible in order to not waste their sperms or eggs? If she is going to have the child (as mentioned in the second part of your message), it means that she might not be able to work or go to school for some of the time when she is pregnant. How does this benefit her?
Virre, that's a very good point but I think it's less technical. Maybe it's like a commitment (if you knowingly did it) that would effect someone else for the worse.
Please read some of the posts instead of just jumping in with your thoughts without any luggage. Read what ther people has said, prove them wrong, don't just post "I think this and this", but confront others arguments. Otherwise you're not debating, you're just listing. And this is a debate forum and thread, not a list thread.