ABORTION - Right or Wrong - Page 12

Wrong.

Don't reply with a horrid scenario depicting a poor underaged woman raped by five guys and will be the next octo mom unless the pure innocent loving doctor gently tickles her stomach making the babies I mean tissues float away to neverland.

There's always an option, and 96+% use abortion as a form of birth control. Look it up.

Do I sound vicious?

It is used as a contraceptive about 96% of the time. Sure, I don't think many women go around unprotected claiming "oh who cares I'll just a abort". I mean I'm sure there is, but many people "screw up" and decide that they dont want to deal with the situation.

Thank God!!

I am REALLY GLAD that you and Byz have come to rescue this thread from bizareness. Swear to God, robotbear, I was going to send you a PM BEGGING you to post in this thread.

Hope, I am scratching my head a little and trying to figure you out. Before I delve too deeply into responding to you, I want to ask you something, and I mean this with all due respect. IS English your native language? I ask because you have a very peculiar way of phrasing things that is causing some confision when you post.

One comment I will add now is that it is an old saying, usually from the Christian right that "These kids use abortion as birth control, damnit!" but it is inaccurate. As robotbear pointed out, birth control is used to PREVENT pregnancy not to abort it after conception. While slogans like that may sound catchy and fit rather nicely on bumper stickers, abortion CAN NEVER be birth cotrol because it is not preventing a woman from getting preganant.

Your refutation is merely one of semantics ChiroVette. I know that you know what Hope is saying is that there are people out there who will have unprotected sex willingly, with the attitude that they can just abort any pregnancy they wish. Now while this 96% thing is completely out of proportion, there are still people with the mindset Hope illustrated. Although it is technically incorrect usage of the word, these people indeed see abortion as a means of 'contraception'.

Tbh, I don't see why it's relevant at all there are people like that, as it should have no consequence on whether or not abortion is legal, but I just thought I'd point that out.

EDIT: lol, ninja'd

That's a necessary distortion of semantics though. Without it the pro life agenda crumbles to a stance that isn't absolute at all. That'd be far too reasonable, that's not cool, right? There are people that have stated in this very thread that they are pro life but they also respect that there are certain circumstances where abortion is acceptable and even that it should be the choice of the parents/mother. I'd argue that they are pro choice personally. Regardless how they classify themselves they recognize that things cannot be and are not so simplistic.

Point I'm trying to make is pro life isn't on the opposite spectrum to pro choice, it's no complete polar argument. I honestly think that a good majority of people let that slip their mind, as if one dictates this and the other dictates that. When infact dictates this and the other advocates freedom of choice for the individual. Pro life is an absolutist stance that cannot abide rational or reasonable situation dependant compromise.

Without that absolutist simplification of classifying murder to the ending of a potential fertilized life pro life simply crumbles into, at least edges of, the middle ground. The middle and reasonable pro choice(freedom to choose), not pro abortion.


So yeah, that propagandist semantical distortion of all those words and slogans is a deep necessity to the pro life agenda. Without such distortions there really isn't much in the great abortion debate. God forbid things get more complex than absolutes and aggravating placards outside an abortionists clinic.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

quote Archimonde_STG

No, Science has NO PROBLEMS whatsoever!

Not saying anything or not having an opinion on the matter does not tranlstate to "no problems". Not having a comment or law does not default to a "no problem" statehood. And it certainly doesn't translate to "right thing to do". If science is not concerned with morality, then we cannot make a claim as science would argue its the "right thing to do", becuase that is a moral statement.


And "no problem" implies that which science doesn't attempt to answer. You think because science does raise objections, its therefore the "right thing to do", morally acceptable, and that is completely and totally bogus.

If science doesn't attempt to answer moral questions or take moral positions, then it might appear as though such silence means its "OK" but that is non-sense. Silence doesn't make a statement here, and it certainly doesn't mean that science takes a position as to what is the "right thing to do".

quote Archimonde_STG

Science has a problem with an Ion moving at above light speed, science has a problem with a mammoth successfully reproducing with a goldfish and it sure has a problem with the sky raining fire.

Your confusing objective observations with moral stance. Trying to intertwine "problem" into facts and moral stances, and I am not buying it. Ions, mammoths and gold fish are not moral problems, such observations have nothing to do with the "right thing to do" as you previously claimed.

quote Archimonde_STG

I'll break up my whole argument for you here:

1. Science gives us plain raw facts.
2. We make up Morality.
3. Murder is deemed immoral because it is an unnecessary act of violence and kills the identity of another human being, someone who has many dreams and emotions.
3a. Note that even that is something we gave value to. It isn't something predetermined.
4. A fetus does not have an identity. It does not have a personality. It doesn't (until a point) have a nervous system.
4a. It could be in a more harsh tone called a clump of cells. Yes a human reproduces a human but in doesn't happen overnight. It is a gradual process. A clump of cells with a unique DNA, that's all. Nothing else.

Opinions, not facts.

Fact: You can identify that unborn through DNA. Thus it has an identity, because you can identify it. Out of the 5 billion plus humans that have walked the earth, it can be identified uniquely. Just becuase the identification isn't as you think it should be or as you have narrowly defined it, doesn't mean its not unique, or doesn't have an identity. Its just an identity you are willing to ignore because it doesn't fit your criteria.

Fact. Every mother who has had multiple children will tell you, that the unborn has a personality, and that every pregnancy and child carried to term was different. I have never met a single woman that would claim she gestated clumps of cells that had no identity or personality.

Fact: You are a clump of cells and are no more alive then a cell. At least if you wanted to actually read up on biology and how they don't include things like consciousness and self awareness to determine if a chunk of matter are alive or not. And the fact is that yes, humans do reproduce humans and its not a gradual process(accept that 24hours of fertilization). That is why I posted 12 wiki pages that all attest to the same thing, that the human beings reproduce human beings, and no-where has any concept of "gradual" process to becoming a human being (human organism) is absent from all those pages and non-wiki sources that I posted. There is no alternative classifications for a living "clump of cells" that are a product of human sexual reproduction, other then "human being". There is no "pre-stages" to being a human being. A zygote is an organism, and if its parents are humans, then its also a human being. The differentation between human being, a human and human organism doesn't exist in biololgy...only in the pro-choice position.

quote Archimonde_STG

4b. While a cell is an organism and a fetus is a more developed organism it doesn't mean it is a human being. A human fetus is human but it isn't a human being yet. A fetus is just as alive as another cell. However is killing a cell (which we all do a thousand times a day) immoral?

Well, not all cells are organisms, not sure if you meant "zygote cell" or not. But strictly speaking, what you said is inaccurate without some qualifier on it. According to biologists, the human zygote and human embryo are human beings. They are human organisms, and human organisms are human beings. To re-define this is a social definition and meaningless as far as I am concerned, as socially re-defining humans to exclude what are biologically human beings has been rejected on the grounds of human rights and equality.

quote Archimonde_STG

4c. Derived from point 2 and 3 it isn't immoral to kill an ant, lamb or grass. So not all killings are morally bad, in fact very few types of killing is immoral. A fetus falls in this same category of not being immoral to kill.

And this is why I claimed declarations are used, and not reasoning. You have declared the unborn as not human beings, thus its not wrong. This isn't a valid argument, its just a claimed statement of truth, that is bent on re-defining humanity, and its a process that has been rejected by human rights and equality. It also denies the biological classification of the unborn. You have to deny science to reach your conclusion...you might as well be a 7 day creationist denying science.

quote Archimonde_STG

5. A newborn baby (In situations which me and others have many times pointed out) is either a threat to somebody's success and survival or (in the case of rape or deformation) is simply a great injustice to the child.

Rape is an injustice to the child? If that is what you stated, how is that? What action did the rapist take against the child? This makes no sense what-so-ever. I have no idea how you can even attempt to make that conclusion.

quote Archimonde_STG

6. You are in position to force a bad life on someone. Haven't you seen people in poor families and countries say "I wish I wasn't born." ?

"force a bad life"????? So then on that reasoning executing the starving people in Africa is according to you the "right thing to do"....and yet that reasoning fails....so I am going to then state the obvious fact that your reasoning fails here, when we are talking about abortion.

quote Archimonde_STG

6a. You could say that I'm in no position either to take away life from someone. I am in no position to do this either, but a fetus isn't "someone". Refer back to point 3 and 4.

Declaration, not reasoning. IS making a declaration really a valid means to take away what is biologically a human being?

quote Archimonde_STG

6b. Again as Ecto said which also makes perfect sense, many of these unwanted children will grow up into criminals. And you are in no position to actually be in the chain of causes to have killed another human being. Whether you are the final cause in that you're the criminal performing the murder or the person who brought this person to this world, you're in this chain of causes and are one of the causes. That person's blood will be on your hands.

Sorry, but this is pro-choice reasoning at its best? Where if I have a child, and they make choices on their own to blow up a building or kill another human being then I am at fault? Given the potential of any child to grow up and kill another human being, then nobody should have children since the blood will be on the parents hands.

quote

I can not win every argument, let us Agree to Disagree.

On things like: The child isn't a person...sure. Such a social and subjective definition, I cannot really "win" either, and we can agree to disagree.

But when you make claims about science, and about what is alive and what is not, and what is and is not a human being? No. I will never "agree to disagree" about what science teaches, or about the nature of humanity or cells, or embryos. You made a number of claims that do not align with the scientific classification of species or organisms, and I will continue to speak out against those errors. Further when you have to claim that unwanted children will turn into criminals, and that such crime is on the parents hands because of what the child did, or you attempt to make justice out to be where a rapist has acted against what hasn't even been in existence...I will not agree to disagree there, at least not initially. I suppose if its bent on some subjective concept, I might be willing to settle but not without probing first.

***************************

quote robotbear

Where is this 96% statistic coming from? Also, abortion is not a contraceptive. A contraceptive is something that prevents fertilization, an abortion comes after fertilization has occurred.

Technically speaking, a "contraceptive" is something that prevents fertilization, but many people will claim that if you are on "the pill" that you are also taking a contraceptive without ever bothering to aks what pill, and how it works. The fact is that some "pills" prevent implanation, not fertilization. Edit: APA here defines contraception as a means to prevent pregnancy, not fertilization.


Hope is right. 95-96% of abortion is used as a means to prevent the birth of the child, in a means that is exactly how contraception and birth control is used before conception or implanation. IE...the child is unwanted. Abortion is overwhelmingly a method to prevent having a child, in the same manner that pills, condoms or other forms are used or in some cases not used.


Accord to GuttMacher Institute, 54% of women who have abortions used contraception in the month they became pregnant, while 46" did not use contraception. But that doesn't change the fact that 95-96% of abortions occur because the child is ultimately unwanted. The number of abortions performed because of rape, or deformities or to save the mother's life or from harm is less then 5%...and this stat is accurate across most western societies.



**************

quote xxskelterxx

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission.

How does that reasoning work....does a black man have a right to be in America? Does a black man have a right to life? What is the core reasoning to life, and black men an women having rights to life and liberty?

I would say that a fetus does have a right to be in the womb of its mother because that is perfectly natural, biological and normal. Just as black men and women are biologically "normal", and human beings, and they have rights, I cannot fathom how a human being doing what its supposed to be doing can be denied human rights.

If we can just pick and choose which humans have which rights because of their biological situation, circumstances or being, well, now we have a means to enslave, to kill, and to differentiate between humans. But that kind of logic has been rejected over and over again.

quote xxskelterxx

If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

Conjoined twins prove you wrong, as neither has the right to "kill" the other or as you put it "remove permission".