What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Give it 9 months and there is all the proof you need, give it another 9-12 months and they can tell you themselves.

Just to be clear, I support birth control and whatever else needed to avoid these pregnancies in the first place. If you don't want a child then I believe there are more than enough options.

it is entirely possible, that since religion seems to follow man around no matter where he goes, that on mars.....

No, that does not prove that the organism 9 months earlier was a person at that point in time.

That's like saying, "the proof that a stack of paper and a pen is a book can be seen by looking at a completed book". It's a false equivalency.

Most people get fed up with reason pretty quickly, so they'll always find a way to be conveniently irrational.

What it proves is the dreadful power of obstruction. Put enough barriers for the woman to prevent or halt the pregnancy in its first stages and, before she knows it, the unwanted child will be a fait accompli.

The book, on the other hand, is made through the writer's work, rather than obstruction.

No it is not, that stack of paper and pen need to be acted upon continuously to make a book which is an inanimate object whereas life is life until it is extinguished by natural or unnatural means. You're not more of a person because you're larger than somebody, extinguishing a human life that is created that would grow up unless acted upon is murder in my opinion.

Again, it's not a human (or any other kind of) life. Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Babble on...

A clump of cells is not viable outside of the womb; it needs to be connected to the mother via the placenta, and the mother's body works on the clump of cells continuously over 9 months to turn it into a baby. It's not just a matter of being larger, it's a matter of being an individual self-sustaining sentient organism--in regards to mother and fetus, only one of those is an individual self-sustaining sentient organism and the other only has the genetic potential to be such but won't achieve individuality and sentience without the mother's body feeding it the right nutrients for 9 months.

Anti-abortionists are irrational and cannot accept scientific facts, and rather argue from an emotional and not logical stance. People who deny science and reality are annoyingly and sometimes dangerously ignorant.

Sperm and egg cells are definitely living beings, so fetuses are life at any stage of their development. Human sperm and egg cells and fetuses are also ... human---what other species could they be?

So even a millisecond-old zygote is human life. This is a fact. What ethical implications you ascribe to it is a wholly different matter. After all, we don't usually consider killing a sperm or egg cell murder, and they're also human life. Then again, this might be used by someone to criminalize male masturbation

Interestingly, if I remember correctly, it's the female orgasm, which doesn't kill any innocent cell capable of becoming part of a new, independent human being, which historically got condemned the most as sinful, by far. Also, the theology that condemnation was based on was developed exclusively by men, and mostly by men committed to forgoing sex

I'm very much in favor of abortion. There are enough screaming brats running around who turn into self-centered, self-entitled adult, as as it is. We don't more of them! Abortion should be highly encouraged, in my opinion!

it would be far better if birth control techniques were improved.

I would call you an extremist, a borderline eugenicist in terms of the logic you use in justifying these killings which is one where you have to justify your own existence to be worthy of your own humanity. Survival of the fittest, there are many people on this planet that cannot be described self-sustaining or even sentient but that does not justify execution.

It comes down to how you define human life and when it begins, there isn't one scientific indisputable answer to when life truly begins except conception altho I'll settle for fertilization and honestly even an incremental approach where at least the most brutal and barbaric of these practices are put to an end. I'll accept your position as the logical extension of how you define human life, the extreme abortion position is the only one that makes sense with abortion on demand. Obviously I disagree, I think most people do, but acknowledging the immorality and brutality of abortion while supporting it's continuance or even facilitation for "pragmatic" reasons I cannot respect. I think a lot of comes from not wanting to be bullied by the progressive establishment orthodoxy more times than people are willing to admit but we all have different life experiences tho. I did not grow up in the bible belt, I grew up in a godless shell of a rustbelt inner city which was not a place that put a lot of value on human life even their own. My life has shaped my views.

There's a crucial difference between killing and letting die. We proudly let lots of people die every day, with a perfectly clear conscience. We even feel good about it and it's unquestionably within our fundamental rights.

You don't want to be bullied for your beliefs, but you do want to tell other people (women) what to do with their bodies and take their right to reproductive health care away because you can't understand basic concepts of medical science. That's almost painfully ironic. And sad. And irrational.

I don't really care what you believe about abortion, you have the right to believe whatever you like--just stay out of my and every other woman's uterus who wants to receive reproductive health services, because what choices we make about our own bodies based on medical science are none of your business. You get to choose what you do with your body, you don't get to choose for other people what they do with their own. That's how human rights work.

I think it is an accident of history that "pro choice" is the side the feminists are on, and "pro life" is what the wingers believe. It doesn't bother me that those are the positions. I don't care about this.

That's not true, you do not get to control your own body for the first 18 years of your life, that is delegated to your parents who have custodial rights and the power to make decisions on your own behalf be they permanent or not. Some people take this view to the extreme and even say that children are property, not a surprising view considering the dehumanization of children and perverting of the concept of choice. There are many choices, being pro-abortion is only one choice and the only "right" these extremists care about. Reminds me of slavery doesn't it? The thing is, at least in this country, you are not allowed to treat your children as property and to abuse them because we have laws that protect children in this country. I don't see this violating anybody's rights, I see it as protecting human rights. The most fundamental right is the right to life, "muh body, muh rights" is not a legitimate argument to me since it ceases being just your body, I don't think it should be a right to be able to drink and do drugs while pregnant and we have laws put in place to deal with this but it does not cause massive social disorder or questions about forcing morality so why is that?

You say things and don't back them up, I don't 'understand' basic medical science but what aren't I understanding? Don't just repeat buzzwords. Likewise I don't really care about what you believe about abortion, I don't see it as a women's rights issue but a human rights one. I believe there is enough birth control, contraceptives, and common knowledge about sex in our culture where unwanted pregnancies should not happen if active measures are taken against and as said the most sure way is not to have sex at all. Abortion as birth control is not a right, it is murder and that blood while always be on your hands. Everyone was a baby at one point, I think it should be easy to empathize not wanting to get murdered with some hook and your brains sucked with a vacuum.