-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Abortion
- Thread starter Janenmori
- Start date
- Status
Really, that's just punishing the woman with a child (the man is unfortunately free to fuck off at any time). There's a massive virgin/whore dichotomy present in some abortion ethics; 'if you got raped you don't deserve to be punished with a child, but if you opened your legs willingly like the harlot you are you should take what's coming to you'.
I don't know. Any child of mine would right now be far better off erased before it becomes conscious than have to put up with me as a mother. And I'm certainly not going through a pregnancy for a child I don't want to keep. I'd wreck myself and the foetus; I don't think I'd spend a day of it sober.
Stop putting up strawmen. Where in my argument did I say that "the man was free to fuck off at any time"? All I say is that no matter what you do, sex may lead to babies, similar to how eating too much food may lead to being fat.
(and if you argue that in "reality" the man is free to fuck off at any time, then I'll argue that in "reality" the majority of abortions are done by mothers who can support the child but simply do not want to).
If you're going to be a shitty mother to any prospective children, maybe not have intercourse, or maybe carry the baby to term, and put it on someone's doorstep?
I'd think human decency, not even a desire to keep the child, would keep you sober during the pregnancy.
Your position seems less ethical and more an attempt to evade personal responsibility by any means necessary.
(and if you argue that in "reality" the man is free to fuck off at any time, then I'll argue that in "reality" the majority of abortions are done by mothers who can support the child but simply do not want to).
If you're going to be a shitty mother to any prospective children, maybe not have intercourse, or maybe carry the baby to term, and put it on someone's doorstep?
I'd think human decency, not even a desire to keep the child, would keep you sober during the pregnancy.
Your position seems less ethical and more an attempt to evade personal responsibility by any means necessary.
Does anybody have thoughts on the Palin article I posted, where she says that she is thankful for having the choice available to her? (the same choice she doesn't want other women to have). I thought her real perspective on things was really interesting but it kind of got lost in this thread.
Ok, you just said that a fetus is a developing human child. Then you immediately go on to say that a fetus is a human child. Can you please get some consistency here? You can't be "partly human". A fetus either is a child or it isn't. "Developing" is irrelevant. Should we ban throwing metal away because it could develop into a gun that will kill someone?
Has there ever been anything to prove that a fetus is a human? Something without a heartbeat or nervous system with no other complete internal organs doesn't sound human to me. You're the one making the claim here (that a fetus is a human child), so the burden of proof is on you.
Having human DNA and developing into humans does not make you a human. Your claim does not imply your conclusion. Chimpanzees have almost exactly the same DNA as humans, and they are far more capable of human tasks than a potential-birthee is. Should we give them the same rights as humans?
Actually, both science and the human language are laughing at you right now (along with everyone else on this forum every time you post).
Science has shown that fetuses dont even have heartbeats for about 10 weeks, the nervous system isnt even beginning to function for months. How is that human? What something *can be* is not what it *is*.
I have also shown that the English definition of the word doesn't involve it being a human at all. The Oxford English Dictionary lists fetus as "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception." Where does that say anything about being alive?
Yes, and we should punish everybody for every dangerous thing they do. People who are speeding and crash their car shouldnt get emergency treatment- after all, what were they thinking in the first place speeding like that?
If you argued that then you would be completely wrong. I already posted statistics that show a majority of abortions to be by women under 25 years old making less than $30,000 a year. You know the type, lazy poor sluts who open their legs to forget the pain of being poor instead of picking themselves up by their bootstraps and making something of themselves!
Wait, what? You are seriously advocating that she have the baby and leave it somewhere else? How is THAT giving the potential-birthee a right to a fair life? It's like you care so much about the potential-birthee's life.......until it is actually alive. Then its just another person to exploit!
And abstinence-only education doesn't work, but thats a whole other can of worms for religious fanatics who want to control other peoples lives. "Just don't have sex!" would be cool if sex wasnt at the forefront of society and birth control/condoms werent advertised to be foolproof.
As she clearly said already, she has latent mental health issues. She doesn't believe that she is ready to have a child. If an accident were to occur, it would be punishing her. Not everybody is willing or ready to have children, it is a huge change in anybody's life. Peoples actions arent black and white like you make them out to be. "Just dont have sex!" and "just be a good mom!" arent always at the forefront of peoples minds, and they certainly arent feasible 100% of the time. A fetus doesn't just affect the mother physically.
You're right, she is just a lazy slut who can't keep her legs closed. She deserves everything thats coming to her. How dare she.
Ok, you just said that a fetus is a developing human child. Then you immediately go on to say that a fetus is a human child. Can you please get some consistency here? You can't be "partly human". A fetus either is a child or it isn't. "Developing" is irrelevant. Should we ban throwing metal away because it could develop into a gun that will kill someone?
Has there ever been anything to prove that a fetus is a human? Something without a heartbeat or nervous system with no other complete internal organs doesn't sound human to me. You're the one making the claim here (that a fetus is a human child), so the burden of proof is on you.
Having human DNA and developing into humans does not make you a human. Your claim does not imply your conclusion. Chimpanzees have almost exactly the same DNA as humans, and they are far more capable of human tasks than a potential-birthee is. Should we give them the same rights as humans?
Actually, both science and the human language are laughing at you right now (along with everyone else on this forum every time you post).
Science has shown that fetuses dont even have heartbeats for about 10 weeks, the nervous system isnt even beginning to function for months. How is that human? What something *can be* is not what it *is*.
I have also shown that the English definition of the word doesn't involve it being a human at all. The Oxford English Dictionary lists fetus as "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception." Where does that say anything about being alive?
Yes, and we should punish everybody for every dangerous thing they do. People who are speeding and crash their car shouldnt get emergency treatment- after all, what were they thinking in the first place speeding like that?
If you argued that then you would be completely wrong. I already posted statistics that show a majority of abortions to be by women under 25 years old making less than $30,000 a year. You know the type, lazy poor sluts who open their legs to forget the pain of being poor instead of picking themselves up by their bootstraps and making something of themselves!
Wait, what? You are seriously advocating that she have the baby and leave it somewhere else? How is THAT giving the potential-birthee a right to a fair life? It's like you care so much about the potential-birthee's life.......until it is actually alive. Then its just another person to exploit!
And abstinence-only education doesn't work, but thats a whole other can of worms for religious fanatics who want to control other peoples lives. "Just don't have sex!" would be cool if sex wasnt at the forefront of society and birth control/condoms werent advertised to be foolproof.
As she clearly said already, she has latent mental health issues. She doesn't believe that she is ready to have a child. If an accident were to occur, it would be punishing her. Not everybody is willing or ready to have children, it is a huge change in anybody's life. Peoples actions arent black and white like you make them out to be. "Just dont have sex!" and "just be a good mom!" arent always at the forefront of peoples minds, and they certainly arent feasible 100% of the time. A fetus doesn't just affect the mother physically.
You're right, she is just a lazy slut who can't keep her legs closed. She deserves everything thats coming to her. How dare she.
Well a fetus is alive AND is human through genetic makeup and physical features as well as developmentally. It just relies on the mother for support to develop, but so does every mammal that I know of. How can you argue that simply because it relies on the mother to live, it is not fully human? That is like saying because someone needs an oxygen tank at all times, but is still alive, is not human.
I didn't say that at all. I said that you are sticking a "human" label on something that doesnt have a heartbeat, nervous system, or developed internal organs. The fact that a fetus is also a parasite by definition doesnt even come into play until late in the pregnancy, but thanks for bringing that up too.
A fetus is not alive. It doesn't have a heartbeat until a few months. It is entirely dependent on the mother, so it can not maintain homeostasis. These are basic 6th grade biological characteristics of life that a fetus does not pass. I love how people with conservative views are trying to get science on their side, but when it comes to climate change, stem cell research, teaching creationism, etc, science is worthless.
By science's definition, a fetus is human. It has human DNA and follows the same pattern of development as a human. You seem to be skewing the view of what a human is based on physical features. It takes time to develop those features, so how can you expect to call something unhuman just because you take away its chance to develop? The fact remains that if given a certain amount of time, the fetus would develop these traits, which are human traits.
I love how people with liberal views are so hypocritical by defending a mother's right to kill an unborn child but not the rights of the unborn child itself simply because it is killed before it even has the chance to develop.
Abortion may not be physically impacting to the mother, but it can have devastating psychological damage. A woman is very hormonal while pregnant, so the choice may not be fully rational. Not until after the abortion is over with does a mother realize the impact of what she has done, and it can be very traumatizing. I read a case where a teenage mother was given the option to abort, and took it, but about thirty years later, it caused her massive psychological trauma and she ended up suffereing from major depressive disorder.
wow false analogy much?
Giving emergency treatment to someone doesn't kill a third party. The question is whether abortion does.
...which does not automatically equate to an inability to support the child. Difficulty does not equal impossibility. Yes, we want to avoid hardship for people but that still doesn't answer the fundamental question
Right, I cite the option that takes the least amount of effort (which seems to be what akuchi is seeking) and then you hold it up as an example of how mothers should deal with their children.
My point was that Life > Death. Dump baby that's alive on doorstep > dump embryo that's dead in toilet/dump fetus that's dead in dumpster/etc. If you don't agree, that's fine, but maybe the child should make the choice whether he/she prefers death over life.
I'm sorry if people are not smart enough to consider the consequences of sex? It's one thing to protect yourself from the hardship caused by your own bad decisions (which, considering the state of our economy, isn't such a hot idea), it's another thing to do so using what *may* be a living human as a sacrifice.
I'm sorry that akuchi isn't smart enough to take her latent mental health issues into consideration before having intercourse? I mean, she knows she has mental health issues; she knows she can't handle motherhood; she knows sex may lead to babies; why not refrain from sex?
My problem is not so much of "responsibility"; people have the natural right to evade responsibility. My problem is whether or not abortion initiates force in order to accomplish this. The initiation of force is always, in all cases, wrong. Regardless of the "utilitarian or public or social" goods that may be derived from said force (never mind that goods acquired by force have a tendency to not work out in the way that the aggressor intended but whatever).
Well, certainly she's trying very hard to morally justify the potential initiation of force to solve her own problems! (but then, she also believes in the initiation of force to deal with poverty...and she calls herself an anarchist...tsk)
In short, the only question is whether abortion initiates force against another person (fetus/embryo is a person) or not (fetus/embryo is not a person). All other considerations are ethically irrelevant.
Non-alive things don't grow. A fetus grows. Therefore, a fetus cannot be non-alive.
Hmm, let's see the definition of life and compare that to a fetus
Biological definition of life said:
Check.
Check.
check
check
Check
Check
Check
What do you know - the human being prior to birth meets all of those criteria!
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/tdc02.sci.life.colt.alive/
Actually, science's definition of "alive" requires that something can maintain homeostasis. Since a fetus both lacks the organs to maintain its own homeostasis (good luck controlling blood pH with 1/4 of a kidney!) and it also is entirely dependent on the mother for *everything*, it is quite obvious that it's not alive.
Where are you guys getting your scientific definitions from?
I fixed this for you by adding the proper terminology.
Also, something that isn't alive can't be killed....so nice try here but you're still wrong. Come back and find me when they discover a fetus that can maintain homeostasis, then we'll talk.
Your reasoning for not allowing abortion is because people shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place. My reasoning for not giving first aid to a speeding driver is because he shouldnt have been speeding in the first place. Both are dangerous activities, with known consequences, and you are advocating punishing people by forcing them to live with the weight of their impetuous decision for the rest of their lives.
It's not about effort. It's about her entire fucking life. The effort that a woman under 25 making less than $30,000 a year has to make to raise a child takes away from the time she could be spending going to college to get a decent job, or actually working at the decent job so she can have money to support the child. Forcing a poor woman to have a kid does not fix the problem, it just makes it worse.
Which is why it's better to end the pregnancy before it becomes a child. If something has never experienced life, then I see no problem with "killing" it. A fetus is a worthless clump of cells without its mother, I see no reason why the mother should not have full control of her own body at all times.
Sometimes people don't have other options. If she isn't mentally prepared to have a child, forcing her to have the child is not going to help her.
Right. We have a scientific argument (fetus != person) vs a religious argument (fetus is a person because god said they have souls)
Alive things maintain its own homeostasis. A fetus has no internal organs, so it can't do that.
Also, most people stop growing and developing after the age of 20. Does that make people who have stopped growing non-alive?
Is malaria alive? Is malaria a parasite? Does malaria kill millions of people because it is alive? I'll let you figure that one out.
A fetus 6 months and older can be sustained outside the womb. Are you saying that because it is delivered prematurely and relies on machines to stay alive that it is not alive? To remain living even with assistance usually means you have to be alive in the first place.
Malaria is a virus. Viruses are not alive. It is getting pretty clear that you don't understand the science that you are attempting to use to justify your position, so let me direct you somewhere for a start:http://www.essortment.com/all/characteristics_rbrc.htm
Living things all share (at least) 6 features, they have cells, their cells are organized, they use energy, they maintain homeostasis, they grow and evolve, and they reproduce. Some other definitions include being able to get rid of waste, but that is really irrelevant in this case. A fetus does not have developed means of reproduction, and it can not maintain homeostasis on its own. Therefore, it is not alive. Is it really that hard to understand?
And yes, a fetus can live outside of the womb, but it has to be sustained artificially. Any exposure to an environment where other people arent actively trying to continue its development immediately kills it (although i hesitate to use that word since its just stopping the development, not actually removing life)
Leaving aside the fact that there are non-religious reasons to attribute humanity to fetuses - they are already biologically unique and distinct from the parents, therefore they can be considered to be persons. Of course, it depends on your definition of person.
Why not read the accepted biological definition of life? I do not think the fetus must constantly maintain all 7 criteria to be alive.
Ok, lets ask google what the biological definition of life is:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_biological_definition_of_life
And yes, anything must maintain all 6 characteristics to be considered alive. That includes a fetus.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_biological_definition_of_life
A fetus isn't self-sustaining. It is not alive by any biological definition. Remember we are talking about actual definitions here, not what someone's opinion of a definition is.
And yes, anything must maintain all 6 characteristics to be considered alive. That includes a fetus.
Wrong. Malaria is a protozoa. Those are alive. Apparently parasites can be alive.
Malaria triggers virus responses in humans, and there is a vaccine for it. Most definitions treat malaria as a virus, but you are technically right that malaria isn't a virus. However, that question is completely irrelevant because a fetus still can't maintain homeostasis.
AR - I misunderstood the use of the contraceptive patch, it was explained to me poorly and whilst I should have tried to clarify it further I did not have the time to do so. I took the morning-after pill when it became evident to me my contraception would not be working properly however I took it 48 hours after the event and therefore it may not have worked. Or would you rather I just didn't fuck at all until I am ready for a child?
Also - anarcho-feminism :3 and I don't agree with you that life > death. at all.
I can see why you think like you do, and I respect that, but I disagree with you on the fundamental points.
Also - anarcho-feminism :3 and I don't agree with you that life > death. at all.
I can see why you think like you do, and I respect that, but I disagree with you on the fundamental points.
Can you please stop posting this ridiculous stuff without thinking first?
Yes, since a fetus can not maintain homeostasis it is not alive. Therefore, yes, it is ok to remove the fetus regardless of DNA. Having DNA does not make you alive. Viruses have DNA and RNA, but they are not alive by any biological definition.
Abraham Lincoln is not alive. He WAS a human, now he is the decomposed remains of a human (presumably). What something *can be* or *was* is not what something *is*
That definition isn't largely supported by the scientific community (and there really is no official definition). Regardless, when characteristics for determining life are discussed, scientists are referring to an organism on the whole. If an organism is capable of function in that matter at a later point, they are considered living. For example, one of the key tenants that something is living is the ability to reproduce. Some woman are incapable of reproduction, yet they are not characterized as non-living. If the organism itself is capable of those properties, then the creature is typically defined as living.
More importantly though; the fetus does perform all living functions on a cellular level. If the functions are being performed on a cellular level, the creature is alive. So your argument of "well x is dead" nullifying my argument of organisms satisfying on the whole doesn't fit since at the cellular level the functions are not occurring either.
A fetus is a life, scientifically, I don't even think that's debated.
Technically, in order for something to be a parasite, as you call a fetus, it has to be alive in the first place in order to absorb nutrients from the host, does it not? You are correct that having DNA does not make you alive, but it does make you human. An Ebola virus has Ebola DNA and RNA therefore it is Ebola, not a dandelion. A fetus has human DNA with 46 chromosomes like every other human. Simply because it is not alive by your definition does not make it not human.
This is more of a grammar issue than a biology issue. Just as Abraham Lincoln WAS alive, a fetus WILL BE alive, as you say it is not, given the chance. Just because it is not yet, does not mean it will not be, especially when you take away the chance it has at life.
Uh.. no. Please, start making some fucking sense, that was the worst argument against abortion I've ever heard and quite frankly makes me glad to abort so I don't have to bring another unwanted child into this realm of rather unbelievable stupidity.
My argument is no more ridiculous than the notion that a fetus is not alive because it has to acquire sustunance from a source other than itself and does not return anything to the provider of said sustunance.
My argument was hyperbole to show the stupidity of the notion that a fetus is not alive.
People who lose the ability to reproduce still have the required organs to do so. They developed with means of reproducing, if something happens later then it isnt really relevant. Fetuses don't perform all living functions, since living is usually one of those functions. So is homeostasis.
Obviously it is debated, and I have had multiple biology teachers iterate the same definition. It's also the first Google result...so that leads me to believe its a lot more accepted than youre making it out to be.
People still havent explained how a clump of cells that is incapable of maintaining homeostasis is "alive"
Are you serious? I'm seconding akuchi here. I didn't use to want to encourage abortion....
Your argument was completely absurd. As if I have to explain this, you are comparing a dead former human to a fetus, saying that they are both human even though neither of them are alive, as if having human DNA means that you are alive. Do you see where your "argument" fails or do you need me to be even more clear? It's getting quite frustrating to put forth a valid argument and just have you respond with "nuh uh" and nothing to back you up.
It actually just showed your own ignorance of the topic at hand. It is not stupid, and if you are going to resort to ad hominem attacks then I would make sure that you get your facts straight first
The clump of cells multiplies into more cells by its own processes. The mother simply provides a stable environment and nutrients in order for the cell division and development to occur. The mother is not making the cells multiply.
It is not ad hominem as the insult is directed at your argument, not at you. "Ad hominem" means "to the person" not "to the argument". And the fact is that a fetus is alive because its cells divide with the mother supporting the division via nutrients and stability. The mother is not causing the cells to divide. The cells are dividing by themselves.
I am not saying that human DNA makes you alive. I am saying that it makes you human. Humans have the right to life, and therefore abortion denies the human right to life. I am saying fetuses are alive because the division of their cells is self-motivated. Therefore a fetus is alive and it can be denied the human right to life through abortion.
The mother is maintaining pH levels, water levels, blood flow, oxygen flow, in addition to providing shelter, her immune system, food and the first cell to multiply (all of which a fetus can not do). Without a host, a fetus is literally incapable of developing.
You quoted me then you blatantly ignored the most important part of the quote: "incapable of maintaining homeostasis". A fetus can not do that, so even though it resembles life, it is not actually life. You are STILL confusing what something *can be* with what it *is*
- Status