Bitcoin Forum

Okay, this is a very sensitive topic.

I've made my stance on abortion not by seeing on the options but from instinct and my inner beliefs.

I'm someone who you would call as pro-life. But I don't support that there should be shootings in abortion clinics. I don't support a complete ban on abortions either.

Lemme explain my stance : I've been against abortion even before I knew there was a debate and terms like pro-choice/pro-life existed.

Why am I pro-life?
I believe that abortion is the killing of a potential human being. No matter how you define it, it's a living being which is killed and it is pure and hasn't committed any, any crime.

Now, when do I support abortion?
1) Rape cases. 2) Cases where the mother's life is in danger. 3) Cases where the parents "literally" can't afford to have the baby. (although I believe adoption is a very good option).

Lemme explain point 3.
In this point am talking about really really really poor couples who did a one night stand and can never really afford a baby. Althought I believe, adoption is a good choice.

When do I believe abortion should happen in of the above cases?
Within first four weeks. The exception is mother's life in danger.

Within first four weeks, given a "reasonable" reason, one can abort by saying "it's just a fetus".

Sure.

Where do I disagree with pro-choice people?

"My body, my choice, I can abort my baby for any reason or no reason at all, as long as it is in my womb, even at 8 months"

I disagree with this ideology as much as I disagree with the ideology of pure murder, rape and genocide.

Girl, maybe it's your body. But, after a few weeks that fetus also acquires a moral right.
One can't simply say, a 8.5 months old fetus is just a mere clump of cells, it is as much human as a 9 month old born baby.

Also, really, you can abort your 8 months old baby in womb for whatever reason you want? Who are you? Queen?

Now, I know, these cases are rare. Where they abort a 8 month old fetus for mere reason.
But again, this is not a debate of what happens. This is a debate between ideologies. If you believe "a girl has the right to abort a baby for whatever reason they like as long as it's in womb" then I disagree with you completely. Because that won't make it pro-choice, rather pro-abortion!

And my position isn't from religion but from my own conscience. :)

Comment what's your opinion :)

Killing a person is murder. A fetus or unborn is a person, or prove that it is not... don't just adjudicate that it is not.

If a pregnancy isn't wanted, don't have sex. Are you 100% sure your protection will work? If it doesn't, don't become a murderer.

The best bet is to get married before sex, and act like you are going to raise a family, even if your protection works.

The aborted, murdered kid might have been you.

8)

I see abortion as a sin but when people don't want kids they leave them it to orphans so their life will be not good and some countries orphanages don't have enough food as well so why struggle through their whole life so it is better to abort if they decide about not want to have a kid now.

I think this is the problem these days. Sex is not a scared activity of two different genders that is done after marriage. Most of the time, it is an entertainment, an activity done to spend time and money. And if someone got pregnant, it is an "ACCIDENT" for them, get an abortion, is the escape route, that is the worst. I hate abortion and those people that are so thirsty to sex that can't even take the consequences after that.

If the baby could survive outside of the womb, there is no legitimate reason to need an abortion.

No, you cannot do whatever you want with your body. This is no different than laws against a person using their fist (part of your body to punch someone in the face, except the consequences of an abortion are much worse to the victim.

If the fetus can survive outside of the womb, the baby can be delivered early and taken care of.

If there is a reason why you don’t want to have a baby, and you end up pregnant, you need to make a decision quickly. There is no reason to delay getting an abortion until the baby is born as some on the left want to be legal and common.

Couldn't agree more! Specially on the part that if through fetus is viable, there's no reason to abort it. Pro-choicers would consider even a viable fetus as a parasite and will support abortion on it which I consider murder :)

I completely agree that abortion is a murder. He or she is an innocent child, that did nothing bad in his life. I don’t know how can the woman say it’s their body and they can do everything what they want. From the day you understand that you are pregnant it’s not only your body. The child don’t have to suffer just because you don’t know how to protect yourself during sex.

I believe the abortion may happen only for 3 reasons:
1) the child has a serious anomaly, incompatible with life.
2) the woman was raped
3) it can cause the death of a mother

The other reasons are not accepted!

The governor of Virginia was talking on radio several months ago about allowing abortion up until immediately prior to birth, and if the baby survived and was born alive, the baby would be killed.

I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly think that is okay. I also imagine this would be unconstitutional under the due process clause in favor of the baby.

I think in most cases, you should not get an abortion if you are pregnant, but I think it is a very fair compromise to limit abortion to until the baby is viable in its own. I am interested to hear an argument that would oppose this viewpoint.

The problem is both the people and government. But here is what we can do about government.

Monty Python - Constitutional Peasants Scene
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/t2c-X8HiBng/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLAO8nyzziZTbmGspVxZq8CckVxidA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng)

8)

Yeah we can't allow people to say everything is their own choice to make. Otherwise, people would've behaved veryvery ruthlessly and the world may not be able to.contain us all. Same way people can't say it's their body and so they can decide to take it out anytime. Consider this, why do we say it's illegal to sell any of your body parts or organs other thanfor a donation?

^^^ If the to-be-aborted baby made a choice, what would it be? Wouldn't it be life? I mean, look at how fast the kid grows in the first 9 months of life, in Mommy's tummy.

8)

Yes I agree with you with only one reason why stand for abortion?
this is when the mother life is in danger.
but for me still not the reason to abort baby.you made it so you should accept the consequence you made.

I know that the mother who's life is in danger is not her fault to make some decission like for abortion but you make think it twice first.
have faith in God.and believe that God can save you and the baby even you are in danger.
In my belief what ever acceptable reason you made for abortion in God is not.abortion should not exist.
For the mother who carry her child with your blood can you allow your baby to die.if its yes? What kind of a mother of you.

In this case if the mother choose is to abort well you can not be!
 by the law of people and by the law of God abortion is murderer.

I agree with all those you listed tho number 2 with become even more problematic with the "believe wamen" culture we have now. Now there's more incentive for the woman to claim rape upon breakup with her boyfriend. Not only did she think she "got even" but she'll also get a legal abortion - likely paid for by the taxpayer as well.

And just in case you think claiming rape in an unmarried relationship is ridiculous, there is such a thing as "marital rape".


In short, get off the c**k carousel, right?  ;D

I remember seeing a vid saying 1 out of 5 men who took paternity tests found out they are not the father.

I'm Very Very Disagree About Abortion, Cause Human Have Right For Life... If You Allow Abortion, You Will Breaking The Human Right

You've hit the bull's eye hands down!

BUT "If a pregnancy isn't wanted, don't have sex." Ugh, seriously? I pity your hands, it will have a lot of work to do.  ;D

I strongly support this three cases.

Now, I would just like to add up a comment. I am a man of science, hence I do not hold any moral derived from a religious stand; this is important since, even though, a fetus could be considered a living entity becasue is made out of living cells, is not an organism from start and cannot be considered a living being. It has not conscience yet neither. So, where to draw the line when it comes a "due date" to be able to preform or not the abortion? Well, debate is strong in the scientific community about this one; in my humble opinion, I believe that line should be set at the moment the fetus starts feeling pain, for which the following has to be considered:

• The basic anatomical organization of the human nervous system is established by 6 weeks .[1]
• The earliest neurons in the cortical brain (the part responsible for thinking, memory, and other higher functions) are established starting at 6 weeks .[2]
• Nerve synapses for spinal reflex are in place by 10 weeks .[3]
• Sensory receptors for pain (nociception) develop first around the mouth at 7 weeks , and are present throughout the skin and mucosal surfaces by 20 weeks .[4]
• Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus (which functions in pain perception in fetuses as well as in adults[5]) are relatively complete by 20 weeks .[6]

[1] Carlson BM, Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York; 1996; Nikolopoulou E et al., Neural tube closure: cellular, molecular and biomechanical mechanisms, Development 144, 552, 2017.
[2] Bystron I et al., The first neurons of the human cerebral cortex, Nature Neuroscience 9, 880, 2006.
[3] Okado N et al., Synaptogenesis in the cervical cord of the human embryo: Sequence of synapse formation in a spinal reflex pathway, J. Comparative Neurol. 184, 491, 1979; Okado N, Onset of synapse formation in the human spinal cord, J. Comparative Neurol. 201, 211, 1981.
[4] Brusseau R, Developmental Perspectives: Is the Fetus Conscious?, International Anesthesiology Clinics 46, 11, 2008; Lowery CL et al., Neurodevelopmental Changes of Fetal Pain, Seminars in Perinatology 31, 275, 2007.
[5] Chien JH et al., Human Thalamic Somatosensory Nucleus (Ventral Caudal, Vc) as a Locus for Stimulation by INPUTS from Tactile, Noxious and Thermal Sensors on an Active Prosthesis. Sensors (Basel). 17, 2017
[6] Van de Velde M and De Buck F, Fetal and Maternal Analgesia/Anesthesia for Fetal Procedures, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 31, 201, 2012; Van Scheltema PNA et al., Fetal Pain, Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review 19, 311, 2008.

*facepalm*
You can't be serious...

Yup, denying future life basically. I see a lot of arguments for, "it's my body and I'll do what I want" but at the end of the day multiple lives could be at stake..

Do you think she should have unlimited time to make this decision, even after birth? Or would you agree, this decision should be made prior to when the baby can[url] survive outside the womb?  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151042.msg51359419#msg51359419)

yep.


But I would balance that out by saying that a hell of alot of people agree that it's acceptable. The practicalities are difficult; it wouldn't be right to invade women's privacy by telling her to prove she's not pregnant so that she can be monitored for in utero infanticide attempts. So like it or not, abortion always has been and always will take place.

if, for instance, a mother aborted a child conceived as the result of a sexual assault, I'd be more understanding. It would still be regrettable to me, but at least she had a really tough decision, unlike these woman who have abortions for career or relationship reasons.



not necessarily.

As a man, I have no stance on abortion.  No one should even be discussing what other people can do with their own bodies.  That means no man's stance on abortion is relevant.  Should be end of discussion.  

As a man, what is your stance on a women using her feet to kick a dog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fIjYnPazc)? Is this also none of your business?

I truly love you. I do. I do. But you just gotta go.


Disgusting: Late-term abortionist offers patients cuddle time with their dead babies before trashing them (https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-19-abortionist-offers-patients-cuddle-time-with-dead-babies.html)




8)

Sounds a lot like trauma based mind control / cement of blood rituals.

The only thing I approve about abortion is that if the mother's life is at stake while in pregnancy, the pro-abortion gives some valid
points about they're cause but how can we condemned a life and robbed it of it's future just because they find it inconvenient but at
the same time we are robbing the future of all the women who became pregnant because of rape. I know my views are contradicting
with each other I guess I will forever be in dilemma in this type of topic.

It is a difficult question to answer because you have to consider the rights of both life forms.

You have to ask yourself when a fetus becomes a person.

I am pro-choice however I do think that after the CNS forms, usually after the first trimester, abortions might be problematic from the ethical standpoint.  Still, I think the right of women to self-determination with regards to their medical procedures should prevail.

IMHO, women should have the right and ability to abort their pregnancies within the first 12-16 weeks of their pregnancy, no matter what!!!

That should not be an issue to anyone with half a brain.  

Just because a human embryo can become a human being it does not mean it is one.  A pregnant woman is.

I think we should be concerned with cause and not consequence.
Every abortion is a tragedy, for both the unborn child and the mother, her family and beyond.
Instead of difficult discussions, we should address the issue of how to help young mothers in concrete way, emotionally, financially, in order to help them to solve their difficult situation.
Let's not forget that there are many parents who cannot have children and have been waiting for years to adopt child.
On the other hand, young mothers are left without any support and they decide to have an abortion.
Can't we help both?

I always liked to debate that argument. Is destroying sperm also killing a potential human being? Is not having sex denying a potential human being the ability to come into this world? Some people think that a child is there when it starts hearing and seeing, some believe that it's when it has a heart, some believe that when a zygote is formed it's already a new human.

I agree with OP that we should not abort and learn to take responsibility for our actions, but we also shouldn't go into extremes. If the pregnancy is from a rape or the child will be born disabled we should be able to choose. The health of the mother and her mental well being should always come first in these cases.

"You have to ask yourself when a fetus becomes a person."

Just because a human embryo changes dramatically for the first few weeks, does not mean that it is NOT a person, a human being. Anyone with half a brain should see that the embryo at least MIGHT be a human being, and err on the side of not taking the life of a human being.

Women should have the right to not get pregnant at all. Oh, that's right. They DO have that right. So, get married and raise the kid, or forego having sex in the first place.

8)

That is not really realistic.  Times of stoning nonvirgins have already passed. Update your reading library.

Sex drive is a normal response of a properly functioning endocrine system.  Not having regular sex causes psychological issues, insecurities, etc.  All people should have as much sex as they can handle, IMHO.

Do you want to stop women from having vaginal sex?  Castrate all men.

It takes two to tango. 

I really really wonder why this topic even exists here lol.

Why is it men are responsible if they have sex, but some how women are magically absolved of all responsibility of choosing to have sex with a partner they don't intend to conceive with? Do you think sewing women's pussies shut is a funny solution? Why would you joke about castrating men to prevent responsibility for the bad choices of women? Either women are equal or they aren't. Freedom and responsibility are irrevocably linked.

Later in the pregnancy, the baby will need to be delivered regardless of if the women gets an abortion.

If the baby can survive outside the womb, what is the purpose of killing the baby before it is delivered? Why not induce early labor, and allow the mother to give up custody of the baby(parental rights) to the state?

I think you wanted to say "the bad choices of both parents". 

Sometimes contraceptives are not effective.  And not having sex is not really a solution.

What are proposing?  Regular masturbation for both sexes?

Not sure why you blame only women for the pregnancy.  Most of the time it is men who pressure young women to have sex.

Don't tell me what I meant to say. Having sex is a choice. Having sex with no intent to procreate is a choice. Having sex with some one you do not intend to have children with is a choice. Both men and women can choose to have sex or to not have sex. Only men have unwanted responsibilities resulting from sex, women can choose to abort a child, or keep it and force the man to provide for them both for at least the next 18 years. Women want all the freedom, but then want men to bear the burden of responsibility if they choose to force them to. This is not equality.

Wow, slow down tiger, you are drifting off a bit down your usual "men are discriminated" alley.

Fetuses are growing in women's' bodies.  It should be their choice to decide what to do with it.

Just like when you have a nasty root canal you go to a dentist to fix the problem.   

Pregnancies are very taxing on women's bodies.
Not every woman wants or has the means to go through with it.

Men are bringing the sex argument not to have pregnancies.  It is simply a stupid argument.
Sex is as natural as breathing.  Everyone should have sex before marriage.

Contraceptives are not always effective.  Sometimes people have unprotected sex which leads to unwanted pregnancies.
Those are the facts.  Deal with it.

You jump so far off-point that you prove you don't have the answer.

The practical answer for stopping abortions is no more sex. But why stop abortions? Because we don't know for a fact that abortion is not murder.

If you have sex, have the kid you produce. If you are the parents of that child, raise it properly. The best way to do this is marriage.

If you just can't take not having sex, but you can't stand marriage either, masturbate.

8)

If it is their choice, then it should be a mans choice to not have any responsibility for the child if they choose not to. If one reads what you wrote carefully, you will notice there are no responses given, only a string of non-sequiturs. You are just so impressively progressive and postmodern, so postmodern in fact you don't even need a logical argument and can comfortably rest your laurels in character attacks instead. Freedom = Responsibility, this is a fact regardless of how trendy you think your opinion is captain cuck.

i will also be against the general opinion but in my opinion abortion is permissible, no one outside of me can decide on my body, not having sex before marriage must be a choice not an imposition, i believe that abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy can be done only for serious cases of congenital diseases...

Murder is not right. Murder of a person that you caused to come into being and to trust you, is the most dastardly kind of murder.

You have the ability to control aspects of your body. But do you have the right to abort, or is it the wrong, even though you can do it?

8)

If the abortion is completely voluntary, ie a couple or a woman decides to abort what would become a very healthy baby,

then this has some very negative philosophical implications. Someone who is willing to terminate a faultless human life form, which is completely dependent on their power to flourish, just for their own convenience would have to be a very morally compromised individual, to say the least...

But if we completely ban it it's going to be just as bad with victims of rape being forced to deliver the baby and deformed children being allowed to be born and then suffer all their lives.

That's why we should never go black or white on anything and work out a compromise. Abortion is not only good or only bad, just like a knife can be sharp or dull, used to spread butter on a toast or stab someone in the back.

If we're to express our opinion:

*I am for abortion;
*Until the fetus isn't born... You know
*Everything happens in life, you can't protect yourself from pregnancy, if it happens, you must have a last-resort.
*What should rape victims do when government bans abortions? Carry the seed for 9 months and then leave it for government to take care? You will loose many precious time of your life.
*A lot of abortion doctors are inexperienced and can lead to serious injuries, they even do aborts illegally. They should have a license and experience.

This is only my opinion. It may be very straight forward. But this is what I believe.

Thanks for expressing your beliefs. But think.

Can you remember back to the time that you were 2-years-old? How about 1? How about 3 months in Mommy's tummy?

As we get older, things of the past change in our view. You might remember your favorite toy from when you were 10-years-old. But it isn't as important to you. You don't view it in the same way that you did when you were 10, even if you can remember your 10-year-old feelings.

The only difference between your current memory and your fetus memory is that you, now, think in different terms than you did back then. Back in embryo stage, your memory was mostly cellular. But at no time were you less a person than you are now. The only difference, now, is your focus and your experience.

Don't kill the fetus. Don't kill the embryo. They are people. It's murder.

8)

abortion is more or less like committing a murder,  Yes!  It's your body but why not make use of protection when having sex,  moreso abortion is dangerous to the health of who ever wants to do it, there are lots of cases where by doctor do tell the patient not to do it because of the risk involved.

If a person decides not to use protection and had several abortion,  there will be a time where by she won't be able to overcome it,  health wise and for the sake of not feeling guilty of committing murder it's better not to do it

If someone is not able to speak for themselves, it don't mean we could kill them at our will. Abortion at will should be punished as a murder unless the birth may lead to medical complications to the mother and prescribed by a doctor.
Studies have shown that fetus feels. And even most of the civil laws accepts the right of the fetus on the wealth as a probable person.

- Fetuses are not babies;

- Unwanted kids will have psychological problems;

- Force motherhood it's a kind of punishment, but only for women: they practiced the "terrible sin of sex"; There is something sadistic, really sick about it.

- People should take care of their own lives. Usually the same people who are against abortion support the death penalty and many are against universal health care. That's intriguing... they are pro-punishment, not pro-life.

I don't really know my stands on this....honestly because of the fact that I don't know the situation I will be in as a doctor at any moment...better still I largely agree with you

I don’t have a uterus.   So I believe I should have no say in what other people do with theirs. I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control but I think it is a better alternative than raising an unwanted and unloved child.

These questions never lead to any conclusion.
They are philosophical discussions and the positions of each of us depend on many parameters, religious beliefs, education, standard of living and lifestyle.
It is good to protect life but on the other hand we cannot condemn a 12 to 13 year old child to become a mother for a wrong decision to make sex.

i totally agree with the reasons you have explained above why sometimes there is need for abortion but different religions have taken strong positions on abortion; they believe that the issue encompasses profound issues of life and death, right and wrong, human relationships and the nature of society, that make it a major religious concern.
People involved in an abortion are usually affected very deeply not just emotionally, but often spiritually, as well. They often turn to their faith for advice and comfort, for explanation of their feelings, and to seek atonement and a way to deal with their feelings of guilt.
Because abortion affects heart as well as mind, and because it involves life and death.

I have high regards to government which countries who can allow and give rights to their citizens to kill themselves in the name of freedom. This should go along in the issue of abortion where pregnant women to have rights to decide for abortion. We give them rights to chose and vote, abortion should be a right for them as well. Not a question whether its murder or not unless defined in their law its murder which is punishable by the law that CIVIL society shall witness.

"If she's free to abort it, I'm free to abandon it."

Unless the pregnancy is forced upon the woman, I think it all boils down to modern women not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. The only time I would agree with an abortion is for pregnancies that occurred due to rape. In this case the woman should be able to get rid of it (the earlier the better) and the rapist would have no say on it.

For those resulting from consensual sex, if she don't want it but he does, then he supports her during pregnancy and then he take custody of the baby. If she wants it but he don't then she keeps it and pay for all expenses during the pregnancy. Either way they share the expenses after its born since they made it together. 

If neither wants it then the government loans them money for the pregnancy, then takes the baby after it's born then put it up for adoption so someone who actually wants it may take it. 

Very spot on.

For me, abortion is a form of cowardice. They should not kill that innocent fetus just because it happened unexpectedly because it was not the right solution. If their government legalize it then I feel pity for them; whatever you will say killing is wrong thus should not be tolerated at all cost. If a woman get pregnant which is not accprding to her plan then she have no choice but to face it with her furture husband by her side. No one saide it would be easy but they could make it once they embraced and accept the blessing they get.

This is a subject I can see both sides of.  Although I'd personally lean more heavily towards the anti side of things, I can see some circumstances where abortion might be the right thing.

But at the end of the day, it does not affect me one bit, and I do not put much effort or thought into something that does not affect me. We had three children, and would never even entertain the thought of abortion.

But as long as it is legal, it's none of my concern what someone else does that has no effect on me.


The one place I do draw a hard line .... is that if one chooses to do this, I don't want it funded by my tax dollars. You made your decision, it's your problem, not mine. Likewise, if you are on welfare and churn out 11 babies with 9 different baby daddies, I shouldn't be funding and financially furthering your poor choices. Your problem, figure it out without my money. 

George Carlin summed it all up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgjGwOByays

While I’m pro-choice, I also feel that this is total government overreach. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/10/11/california-to-require-abortion-medication-at-public-colleges/amp/

I kind stand anti-abortion not because of religion but because of teenagers are into sex nowadays and their partners are getting pregnant, they chose to hide it and abort their child i mean face your consecquences instead of killing your own child.

But when the time i chose between the child and mother especially the child is fetus, i would chose to abort the child and save the mother.

They can abort their baby for any reason or no reason but they can't kill a child they don't have the right to kill a child. If anyone don't want to carry a child then why they sleep together without protection? Every girl should be punished if anyone aborts a baby without any valid reason(Mother will die if she births a child).

Still don't agree with abortion, although I am not perfect and not that much religious, but I believe in bible, and I believe that abortion is like killing a human being as it has already heart even if he's still fetus. So, we need to embrace the consequence of our actions, and that is love our child, even if you like it or not.

I'm also against abortion. People has it’s own views and belief about abortion. Many religious and others obstruct abortion is a murder killing baby inside the womb of a mother. Actually, some cases opt to choose to abort the baby because this might cause the death of a woman. Nonetheless, doing the right thing will give us good karma in life.

Male (Lets begin a norm of premising each post in this thread with our sex)

Alright now that I've established that norm, I hope to catch people up on the correct medical terminology because words are being thrown around in contexts where more specificity and/or accuracy is needed.

fetus-an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

embryo-the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

I identify as a military hovercraft.

ok captain conflation gender identity and biological sex are not the same thing.  I asked for your biological sex because that is what determines who can have abortions.  We aren't talking about gender identify which is what you're attempting to ridicule.  You'll have to find another opporutnity to make fun of an already emotionally vulnerable group of people.  

If you are going to regurgitate the nicknames I give you back at me, at least try to make it amusing. That is sad, as well as your pathetic attempt to guilt me for not bowing to your insane ideology. People can believe they are whatever they want, they are not entitled to force me to share their delusions.

Some religions believe that at conception the fetus has a soul and thus is a human. Others don't think the soul enters until after birth. And then we have agnostics and athiests who don't believe in souls. Until everyone can agree on what makes a human a human as opposed to, oh I don't know, an ape, or "when" they're effectively a human, then there can be no discussion really as to what's right and what isn't.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should mind their own business and let those that think it's the right choice for them do it up until the fetus can be sentient which is around 18-25 weeks (I do still think that's a bit long but it at least has some science beyond it). Beyond that, once we've reached the point where the fetus can be removed at any time and implanted into a man or woman who can then carry it to term, then change the law and let all those people that think it's murder volunteer to be surrogates.. or better yet, maybe there should be a lottery and they have to be forced to carry it. Let's see if all the pro life people sing a different tune at that point.

There should be a poll  for this, I'm a Christian so I am against abortion, but in every rule, there is an exception like the mother is going to die if he pushes through with conceiving the baby so the couple has no choice but to go through an abortion, so the mother will be saved, abortion is not good but there are instances that it is accepted, like the example that I've given.

Not all the cases corresponds to your idea, open your mind to a broader scenario. Imagine a young child being raped and became pregnant. In this case, the child is not capable of giving birth and might be the reason of her death. The only thing to do is to choose whether to kill the baby so that the young child will leave or don't kill the baby but the child were died due to incapability to give birth. To conclude, having an abortion is not always a negative thing.

The broader scenario would almost eliminate abortions altogether. Why? Because the only legitimate reasons for abortion are the iminent death of the mother if an abortion isn't carried out.

8)

Abortion is a big no. Life is priceless and it is the highest value that man can attain in this world, without it we are nothing. As human being it is life that makes us who we are now and thus we must respect and protect life. Abortion is murder it is killing a life. The fetus inside the womb has a life, if it has no life how come it can grow and will turn into a human being. Life is a gift that must be treasured be it in a fetus or a grown up man it must be take care well.

I'm against in abortion because we know that is big sin and why do people go to sex if they do abortion. Once you enter in a relationship accept the fact that you may get pregnant. So if you don't like to be pregnant use safety methods so that you can not get pregnant and no abortion.

NO. Big NO. Religiously speaking, it is bad because it's killing other human being. One of the basic rights of a child is the right to live. And obviously, abortion deprives the child from living. It's not enough reason to say that it's your body and you get to decide what you want to do with it. I don't think it's humane at all. Actually, one doesn't have to be religious to see that killing is bad. It's just a matter of conscience and finding your humanity.

If you don't want the child, then just let him/her be adopted by someone. Just let the child live. Or, maybe you should have been very careful in the first place.

I will hate abortion perpetrators forever!
out there are many women who really miss a baby born from her womb but can't
every child born has the potential to become a potential leader who will change the world in the future
don't kill, it's better to put your child in an orphanage so that the country is taking care of your child.

Abortion should not be legalize, although to some countries it is legal, but as a human and believer in God, still we should be afraid of our creator and have some pity to the lives of babies, give them chance to see the beauty of the world, the chance to live and make a living, let's all be fair and always see the kindness in every situation.

Here is a Christian/Jewish video from the 1990s.

https://youtu.be/PyQzAgEkJ5o

As an empathetic Christian, you should be pro-choice.

Christians have turned 180 deg on the issue.  Radicalization takes time, I guess.

One difficulty is where do you draw the line. If it's acceptable to kill a newly fertilised egg, but unacceptable to kill a newborn baby 9 months later, then where is the cut-off point of acceptability? Is contraception then unacceptable?
I've never been sure where I stand on this, newly fertilised egg, maybe okay, newborn baby obviously not.
But then I'm a man and I'm talking about what happens in a woman's body, so am I even entitled to have an opinion? Probably not.

for me id say morning after pill and stuff ok in the first month. as thats not abortion as such because its still a gooey bubble of cells and a tail.

but the real cut off line is the 23 week area where the fetus becomes viable life. you know, the point where if the mother had a emergency c-section the baby would survive as it would have developed enough to live without its mother sustaining it.

however the 23 week cut off line should b for proper things like the health of the fetus looks like its disabilities wont allow it to have a rewarding life... where life itself would be an agonising punishment

I'm a pro-life and abortion will never be good for whatever reasons. Killing will never be justified. Killing is mala in se. It is inherently bad whether or not there are laws penalizing it. Every fetus has right to live and no one has the right to take such right to him.
Some will argued, what if that child is not her choice like a product of a crime like rape. Then I will say that a child is not and will never be guilty of such. There are many options other than abortion. If someone is not comfortable seeing that child, then maybe she can always choose an adoption. Those who resort to abortion because they cannot support the child financially then why did they choose to get pregnant in the first place? Nevertheless she has the option to take the child to the orphanage, but not to deprive the child of life because everyone deserves to live.

^ sounds like a man with no 'see it from the womans' point of view
(im male too but i am open minded)
1. say a fetus is birthed at 20 weeks. it does not survive. OBVIOUSLY
is that then the mother commiting murder because she was unable to kep it healthy for the whole nine months? would you define that as neglect?
at what point do you see the switch from becoming biologically relient on mother to being a self sufficient entity that has life.

2. if a person raped you as a male and gave you aids. and you were told that receiving the virus is life and how you have to put up with the pain and agony and let it play out. with no intervention to stop it. would you agree or would you be asking for any possible way to remove the virus living inside you

3. for emphasis. at what point do you define life.
as being the difference between a  bunch of cells that are reliant on a body for survival. or a sentient life that is self sufficient to survive on its own.
where do you draw the line of when life is life and when something should be treated or just left to grow

4. last point. when life is not worth living where there is no sign of a good lifestyle or happiness and only a life of pain would ending that life (suicide/euphanasia) be acceptable. or just aggressively thought of as murder in all cases
eg
a doctor giving a patent the right to DNR(do not resuscitate)
a person in agony taking an overdose
a family member asking the doctor to turn off the life support when there is no sign of recovery
a doctor informing a family that the person will only know a life of pain and suffering

My answer is negative in this case. Go for protective sex, if you are doing it just for fun and you dont want kids. Killing a life in womb is not allowed in any religion as far as my knowledge goes, it's a sin.

How can we have a civil debate, when babies are being murdered? It's criminal. A civil debate is an attempt to pacify those who are against abortion.

Let's have a criminal debate.

8)

Op. From all the three point you have mentioned to support your Stan on why there is need for abortion, I believe that in the first place the person in question shouldn't have had sex in other to avoid the pregnancy which will lead you to think of way out. And the only way out in your submission is to kill another human being in the name of trying to safe another life as you rightly put.

Fetus != baby.

Give the man a cigar. In fact, give him one for every aborted fetus.

 :D

do humans have tails?
no

then a fetus is not a human baby for the first few months of gestation

do humans have self sustainable lungs and hearts
yes

then a fetus is not a human baby for the first few months of gestation

If we were to consider every fetus a parasite, why do they even nourish in their body? Would you consider a human with a pacemaker not a human?

If we are to reason, we can reason anything like
Do humans walk?
yes
But a 6 month old can't, so it's not a human body.
Do humans talk?
A 3 months can't so it's not a human body.
Do humans fart?
Yes, So does a moneky, so a monkey is a human?

if we brought religion into it like most try.
if 'god' wanted a fetus to live then fetuses would be viable after a few weeks of gestation. not months

if we brought law into it like most try
if 'judge' treated all death as murder. then a heart attack would be a chargeable offense. let me guess imprision a doctor for not doing adequate checks. or imprison a employer for making the person work on the day of heart attack. or imprison and seize a food company for not offering 'food' anonymous addiction services which could have prevented it

whats next. treat a persons right to deny life sustaining treatment as criminal
start imprisoning someone for refusing a pacemaker or other hospital treatment
stop letting people having next of kin/medical advocates, because certain medical decisions come with prison sentances?

EG if someone is in a coma. if family or doctor say its time to turn life support off.. would that suddenly be treated as planning an assassination??

I stand in the religion, i believe that when i child is already forming inside a mothers child, it has right now have right to live. You must not abort it because it is inosent, there's no reason for her or him to die. It is like murder. You must think first before having some sexual intercourse. Use some contraceptives so that you will not be a killer or murderer

if it has a right to live. try proving it scientifically by doing a caesarian at just a few weeks. i guarantee you the baby wont live because it has not yet got to the gestation age to actually be able to live independently and have independent rights and abilities

imagine a kid thats disabled and dependant on parents. go on give that kid a right to independance and let it fend for itself...
.. see where the problem comes in.

if something cannot be independantly self sustaining then freedom and independance rights work against that things best interests

Honestly for me the only people who has a say on the matter is the baby's parents. If the parents decide to abort their baby due to poor financial status then go for it. I hate prolife people, if that's what they think they are, just blabbering about it but doesn't do any action to prove their statement. I mean c'mon if you truly hate it why not fund an org to adopt and protect those innocent babies. This is only my opinion.

It always depend on the parents of course but imagine if a baby was born then the future it would be the president or have a good future? How was that? Abortion was a crime because you'd kill a person. Even if it is good from overpopulation, it was not good for us to do that.

What if that baby was going to be a school shooter? Or serial killer? Or the next Hitler?

Or what if the mom was going to discover the cure for cancer, but she ended up in poverty trying to pay for a child she didn't want and couldn't afford?

These "What if" arguments are meaningless.

A fetus is not a person.

This is an issue that has been dividing the country for a while, but more so in recent years.

Unfortunately, with the rise of hyper-bipartisanship, people feel the need to immediately side with the argument that belongs on their side of the political spectrum, even if they do not fully understand the implications of what they are saying. People get so heated and animated over this argument, on both sides, calling people who perform abortions MURDERERS and people on the other side saying that the baby is "part of their body, so it is their choice". It is stupid in my mind to have these arguments, as both sides both present arguments that are logical and make sense. There is nothing to disprove, or show using facts, it is purely subjective, and therefore I do not think we will ever find a peaceful common ground when it comes to abortion.

In my personal opinion, I believe if a woman is pregnant and not prepared to have a child, they should make the decision to get an abortion at the very earliest stages, otherwise, just put the child up for adoption. Of course, there lies the argument of how early is early enough, which again, I do not think we will ever find a middle ground for. There's that infamous clip of Ben Shapiro telling the girl who is claiming to abort a "bundle of cells", to which Ben replies that SHE IS technically just a bundle of cells. While funny, he isn't wrong, and it even made me question my own beliefs a little bit.

To conclude, I think Dave Chappelle presented a funny, yet valid compromise to this issue in one of his recent comedy specials...
He says that when arguing about the issue of abortion, men should stay out of the discussion all together. This is purely a women's issue, it is their body, we should not be the ones to decide what they are and are not allowed to do with the child they are bearing. HOWEVER, in the case where a woman has the ability to choose whether or not she wants to keep the baby, we as men should have the ability to decide whether we want to pay for the child or not!

Arguments over abortion are a waste of time, as you will rarely change anyone's mind about the issue. All it does is create unhealthy debate and drives a wedge between the right and left.

Not trying to pick a fight here but,

I do agree that technically a fetus isn't a person, yet.
However, imagine that you 8.5-month pregnant wife walks in the street and get punched in the wombs multiple times and lose the fetus.

What would this be considered?  removal of a parasite? (ref previous posts, not by you).
Murder? but the fetus isn't a person.
A  minor assault, at the same level, as if a tooth was broken?
At the end of the day, you/she can make another fetus, so no harm done, right?


Then, the pro-life say that every fetus deserves to live. I am sorry, but I don't agree with them either. There are cases, where it is just best for the society to end a pregnancy, even (very)  late.
I will eventually become a father in 2020 or 2021. And if the doctors were to tell me that my fetus would be the bearer of a very extremely painful disease and if the option to abort the pregnancy was given to me I would take it.
The same way, if something was to happen to me and I finish in a bed, just able to blink an eye and being fed by tube and hooked to a respirator, I would beg to be unplugged and my misery to end.

In the event of a healthy unwanted baby, the adoption looks like a good idea, however, our current system if flawed and adopting is so long that most couples are deterred by it.
My wife and I talked about making a baby ourselves and also adopting one. Adoption is so complicated (takes years and cost more than 1 years of salary = $50kusd) that we might not even bother.
Too bad, we really wanted to help an orphan.

firstly it might be best to get a female pregnant and then ask what she wishes to occur inside her body.
because a guy cant take an abortion option.. he isnt the one thats pregnant
he can only inform the woman of all the options and whats best. its ultimately her decision and no guy should be demanding she aborts or keeps it. its her decision

its not about defining a fetus as a parasite. its not about defining it as a helicopter or a cancer. its just defining it as not self sustainable independant human

this is why kids that are born are their parents responsibility and liability until they 'come of age' to be independant and make their own choices

unfortunetly this is why kids end up in gangs and used as street drug dealers, because they aint smart enough to make their own decisions and do whats right and because legally they are not accountable for their actions so end up getting used by dealer to be little hustlers because the kids wont get in trouble until they become juvenile age-adult
i say this because its an example of why even kids after birth dont really have their own rights and responsibilities fully and its their parents that are accountable and make the decisions for the kids best interest

That's a false equivalence. No one is performing abortions at 8.5 months.

Hate to nitpick here, but the term you're looking for is Hyper Partisanship, the term you used -- hyper bipartisanship would just mean that people work together all the time.

But yes, the loudest on both sides are not the majority on both sides in the least. I think there are a good deal of women who have abortions who hate having to do it, and think that it is horrible because they're ending the life of 'their child' but they know that in this very moment they wouldn't be able to provide for the child like a child should be provided for. And honestly, that's OKAY. I think we'd be a much better place if certain people in certain financial situations knew that they shouldn't be having kids right now because it wouldn't be a healthy and happy life for the parents and the children.

I know I'm probably going to get hate for the above, but I'll go even further for a second. Even if a person does have the resources to provide for the child, but knows that they're not equipped -- personally both mentally and physically, to go through with raising a child, then I don't see anything wrong with aborting that child.

We should continue to push for safe sex, birth control pill usage, and so on instead of fighting about abortions.

My wife is of the same opinion as me.



Yes you are right, In my country you are not allowed (by law) to leave your children by themselve at any time if they are less than 14yo.
It even means they can't walk to school by themselves, if anything were to happen to the child (being run over), the full responsability of the parent would be engaged. Even leaving them in your own house 5min  to go get a loaf of bread next door if prohibited.
But then, when do you define the cut-off limit where it is still "fine" to terminate a life due to X, Y or Z reason?  Is it before they "become of age" ?




True, I was refering to your point saying that a fetus isn't a person.
Hence killing someone else fetus would be a lesser crime than killing a person. And probably even a lesser crime than killing someone's cat / dog.

---

People should be allowed to do what they want of their body, they should be able to abort if they want to, however, I am of the opinion that a limit must be set to where abortion is only possible due to life-threatening to the mother and or the fetus and not just a change of mind.
Maybe it is 12 weeks, maybe 16 weeks, but definitely not 7-8-9 months !

The logical cut off is probably around 26 weeks, for a number of reasons.

Amniocentesis can't be performed until around 14-16 weeks, meaning we struggle to detect many genetic defects (many of which are not compatible with life) before that.

The anomaly scan is performed around 20-22 weeks, and this may be the first time we discover many congenital malformations, again many of which are not compatible with life.

The limit of viability is around 24-26 weeks, where a fetus has a 50% chance of survival (albeit often with major disabilities).

firstly im glad your wife is in agreement. but you worded it as if it was purely your choice.
its her choice to which you have to agree(stay with her) or disagree(get a divorce). she still has the control
its you that has to agree or disagree to HER decision

there is no one rule for everything
life and awareness are 2 different things
take a 40yo person who is getting dementia. they become no longer aware and no longer capable of looking after themselves. so its not a case of not putting someone in as their carer/guardian because they passed some age limit of awareness

take a terminal cancer patient who is fully aware of his actions and wants to die. he should be allowed to, and not be forced to be put on life saving treatment

take a terminal cancer patient who is in a coma and unaware of his actions. should be kept on life support for 1000 years? instead someone who has care/guardian status of someone unable to make independant decisions has the power to make independant decisions

so for pregnancy, the MOTHERS has the power
obviously the decision should be on the best interests of the child, but also how it will affect the womens future

so when we know that at say 25 weeks a fetus wont survive if birthed or surgically removed(c-section) the fetus's best interest is not to be punished with 1000 years of life support because it doesnt even have developed lungs of its own
and wont have the brain capacity to learn and live an active independant life

however if a fetus gets to be the stage where science knows it has a good chance of a good active independant life. then it should be much harder to warrant an abortion. unless its proven that the child would negatively impact the mother beyond reasonable amount

it also impacts the debate of 'loss of life: murder or self defense'
loss of life is just loss of life but the reasons for it need to be defined

just calling all death murder is ignorant
death happens. its the why that counts and who gets to decide that counts

so if a mother knows for sure that the baby is going to cause more harm than benefit to the mothers life and negatively impact her life more than she can expect to cope with. then its self defense

This is the same as saying, if your wife wants to kill your neighbour

its her choice to which you have to agree(stay with her) or disagree(get a divorce). she still has the control
its you that has to agree or disagree to HER decision

It's her who chooses to kill or not to kill the neighbour.


The baby is not her body. They are 2 seperate bodies.

And if they were 1 body then your statement would be contradictory because "being allowed to do what you want" and "a limit must be set" does not align with eachother.

It should be a decision of both father and mother of the child rather than only mother. I agree that most of the pain goes to a mother but if the two had done with each other's permission then this also should be taken with each other's permission.

No, it shouldn't be because you shouldn't be able to legally agree to end someones life.

Abortion is always a tricky subject in politics. There are an equally good amount of arguments that stem from both sides pro lifers and pro abortionists. I don't think it should really be that hard of a decision to please both parties. In my opinion it should go something like this, women who are forced into having children by some sort of sexual violence towards them, women who face complications that could cause the baby to become born deformed, and women are unfit or unstable financially should be some of the only reasonable arguments for obtaining abortions.
   Women shouldn't be able to abort because of sexual carelessness, "like oops, I'm pregnant" because they didn't properly use protection with their partners, Or because of narcissistic selfishness.
  I think if the pregnancy results from consensual sex and it was just an honest mistake, then the father should have a stake in the claim, it shouldn't just be the women who get to decide on their own, since it takes two to tangle.
   Just my two cents!

I don't think the pro-murder gang would ever accept those terms.
They want recreational abortion.
It has nothing to do with rape or risky pregnancy.

Its better I say I don't stand but would prefer to look at each situation as it presents itself as I see myself changing if some situations that beyond human comprehension should happen.

For example, in a case where the pregnancy is due to philandering activities then abortion should not be tolerated but in situations where it poses a threat to the life of the mother or its a case of rape which the victim is not ready to keep, then I would support an abortion for it the pregnancy to be terminated.

Absolutely. Everyone who is pro-choice is pro-murder. Further, they all want to ban condoms and other contraception, because abortion should be the only necessary contraception method. ::)

Or maybe your ridiculous hyperbole does nothing to help the debate other than to prove that no one should take what you say seriously.

I already consider it as murder so I am against it,
We should be ready for the responsibility you couldn't just do it and kill it if you aren't ready that is why wehave contraceptive's to prevent having a baby while you are not yet ready.

Okay let's consider those possibilities, but have you consider if that those parents cannot raise a child due to financial crisis that's why they chose abortion. If they can't even feed themselves then how do you expect for them to raise a child properly ?

I've seen children on the streets asking for food or money cause their parents couldn't provide those things, they couldn't even go to school cause they need to earn for a living. For me its better to die than suffer a life like this.

People who doesn't agree with abortion should prove that their statement is correct and reach out to those children who are in really poor conditions.

Not my words but interesting:

"Our individual DNA process is a continuous process, unfurling from the moment of conception. There is no later stage of our existence that is not dependent on earlier stages of our existence, as a continuous entity in space and time. Our DNA process is continuous in both space and time from the moment of our conception, to the moment of our death.

Acceptance, rationalization of the termination of an already unfurling DNA process, once invited to unfurl, requires the irrational acceptance of temporal bias. In the continuum of space/time, that continuously unfurling DNA process is not a complete individual human 'yet.' That is because we are not regarding that human over the complete time-space continuum that it exists in. But, the only thing required to see the complete individual human is the passage of time.

We are of course much more than our unfurling DNA processes, but whatever we are, the basis of our life, cannot exist without the unmolested possession of that unfurling DNA process.

The fetus is a concrete example of a new individual DNA process, unfurling. There is and has been a conflict to define the most fundamental aspect of an individual -- the term of its existence. The resolution of this conflict -- between the newest individual and others -- is resolved by others, based on whatever philosophical or moral guidance they bring to the conflict. The rationalizations in support of abortion boil down to the convenience of the others, based mostly on a shaky temporal bias that is permitted to stand, unquestioned"

Just because it doesn't align with your interests it doesn't make it false.
How is it a hyperbole?
Would you or would you not accept abortion being legal only in case of rape and when the mothers life is in danger?
If your answer is no then my statement is 100% correct.




https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

I would recommend everyone against opening this link since it's his first post and the link itself doesn't seem related to the subject.

You don't think the phrases "recreational abortion" and "pro-murder" are hyperbolic? ::)

The rest of your argument is entirely missing the point. Of course a fertilized egg is alive. So are unfertilized egg cells and sperm. So are all your skin cells that you wash off every day. So are the organs of the deceased which we remove and carry in a box to transplant in to someone else.

All those things are alive. None of them are a person.

 Firstly, "a girl has the right to abort a baby for whatever reason they like as long as it's in womb" is a misconception the time period. Most abortions are performed  by ≤13 weeks' gestation.
Secondly, who are you to say a girl what she should do with her body? Pro-choice King?

No, I don't think it's a hyperbole.

Sperm,eggs, or skin are not human life.
Look at the third question in the research paper again


What is elimination of human life if not murder?

It's not a hyperbole, it's a logical sequence. "Pro-choice" is pro-murder. You have been mislead it's not murder, but we've established it's elimination of human life. What is it then?
And it's not your fault for thinking that, because everyone is shoving selective information down your throat through the media constantly. You had no help but to think otherwise.
But if you choose to ignore the data presented to you, only then you can be blamed.

Here's the recreational thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10794046


So, only 51% of abortion patients used contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant. In the whole month! 51% of them didn't use contraceptives at least once in the whole month!
People aren't using contraceptive methods because they're taught abortion is just dumping a clump of cells.  They rely on abortion if they accidently get someone pregnant so they don't try to stop pregnancy happening at all.
And there are people pushing for free abortions to make people use contraceptives even less, since now, the only thing making them be careful is the 500$ price of the abortion.

By whose definition? Yours?

A skin cells contains all the same genetic material that a fertilized egg does. It also contains the exact same ability to think, feel, interact, feel pain, or indeed feel anything at all - i.e. none. We can also take the genetic material from a skin cell, place it in the right conditions, and use it to grow an entire organism. Why is one human life and the other isn't?

Of course they did. I agree with that statement. It doesn't change the fact that a fertilized egg is no more a human being than a skin cell is.

Then what if your mother do abort you? How would you feel? Even that was not born or it was not a baby, that was alive and I think that was considered as a crime. So when do a person start? Of course from the womb so it was still considered to a murder.

The answer is simple.  A person starts when the mother has the baby.  Thats also when they write the birth certificate, assign a name, etc.    Everything that happens before that is up to the woman and her medical professionals.  Not the men on a bitcoin board.

I agree,  I didnt see anything good about abortion.  For me it was always a wrong thing to do.  Whats in the womb is a blessing,  even it was plan or not.  Still must live and see the world.  Abortion is killing an innocent child. Just always put your situation on to someones shoes before you decide weather it was right or wrong. 

Skin is an organ, not a human beign.
Skin cells can't grow up and get jobs.
Zygotes can.


So, the vaginal canal magically turns someone into a person?
He's not a person 1 minute before birth, but the minute later he's a person?
Are babies born with caesarean section actually people o.o

Except we have the technology to turn any cell in to an entire organism. So a skin cell could grow up to get a job in the right conditions. Just as a fertilized egg cell could grow up to get a job in the right conditions. In your mind, what is inherently different between these two cells that one is a human and one isn't?

Also, if unrealized future potential is what we are going on here, then sperm cells and unfertilized eggs have the same potential to grow in to an entire organism, given the right conditions. Do we make periods illegal too?

i think that new terms should be defined to make it easier
0-2weeks: pregnancy cancellation
2-12 weeks: pregnancy abortion
12-24 weeks: pregnancy termination
24weeks+: (multiple terms based on circumstance)

after the 24th week when the fetus becomes actually viable of life (can actually live if birthed/surgically removed) .. then at that after point the debate should be the pro's or cons of what should happen.

but debating the pre-24week stuff where the fetus has no chance independantly anyway. then that becomes the mothers sole decision

the reason i also think the 3 categories of the 0-24 should apply is that
each should have their own advice levels.
for instance 0-2 should just be contraception support
2-12: advice. pros/cons of no support system, no job, no father in the picture. but still moths decision
12-24 should be the bit where the cons need to be real negatives like the fetus might have abnormalities and not a good life experience if it was born

after the 24th week .. then abortion should not occur unless there is real harm caused if it was born. such as if a mother has cancer and the only cure was radiation. but due to pregnancy its a decision of will kid grow up without a mother. mother dying at childbirth..  or stopping the pregnancy to save the mothers life

It is scientifically proven that the soul is introduced into the embryo within 24 hours after conception. It turns out that this is a spiritualized creature, but which so far depends on the mother and doesn't have developed mind. Although it is also proved that the child in the womb feels, sees and hears everything. It also directly perceives emotions from the mother, etc.
I mean that the child depends on the mother, as well as the already born child. But no one says that it’s normal to kill a born child. Why then do we continue to do this?

New life is not our property. If we have created a new life, we must reach the end.

Sperm or egg cells are not human life by the definition that a zygote, or a fertilized egg, is objectively the beginning of human life according to biologists. The formation of any viable human begins at conception which is the joining of a sperm and egg cell. Skin cells cannot engage in fertilization.



You're using the word "think" loosely here. Skin cells responding to stimuli is an autonomous process that doesn't involve any sort of thinking. Because a skin cell can't think, it can't respond to pain either.


This is like saying a tumor is human life. A mass of skin cells do not result in the formation of a sentient being. A zygote does.


The idea of calling a zygote human life is to apply an objective standard to abortion. I am not one to argue that a terminated zygote is more tragic than the termination of a 8.5 month old fetus in the womb because the latter is devastating while the former does not create the same emotional impulse.  Clearly there are differences between a zygote and a developed fetus and you can rationally reason yourself through the physical differences. I tend to be pro-choice but see the logical flaws in supporting abortion and struggle with the rationality myself.

If you support abortion and want to make an objective argument, you can't arbitrarily assign value to human life based on development or based upon your feelings of the context of the abortion. Many pro-life individuals believe abortion is okay anywhere conception to before "X" weeks. But in this instance, they are arbitrarily creating standards for when abortion is okay and when it's not okay meaning that you cannot objectively say human life has an innate value. In addition, you need to ask yourself this question. For example, if you believe after 26 weeks abortion is not okay and anything before is all right, what makes the fetus any less of a human being before 26 weeks versus after? Sure, you could point to physiological and anatomical differences but major development of organs already happened within the first month of conception. Human life is in fact human life with or without certain anatomical features. So, there's issue in assigning arbitrary weeks as a cut off for an abortion because it's impossible to objectively articulate at what point the "clump of cells", as the pro-choice crowd calls it, becomes worthy human life.

This is wall that separates pro-choice from the pro-life crowd. Pro-life individuals believe that human life objectively has innate value and human life begins at conception. Thus, any form of termination from conception is ending innocent human life. As someone that's pro-choice, they're not wrong in their line of thinking. I just reject the notions that all human life has innate value.

Precisely! Just the same as zygotes and embryos, up until around week 22. They can't think, feel, sense, interact, respond. They don't even have a functioning nervous system. They are a mass of cells, not a human.

In order to prevent all these arguments when it comes to abortion why don't the people who engages with sex for just pleasure and not for babies just use condoms for the sake of everyone because this prevents abortions and prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

pregnancy is about the female. not the man. so its not the responsibility to force a guy to do something. nor is it the responsibility of the man to force the woman..

yes people need to take better precautions. but if u told everyone to look both ways when crossing the road. does not mean that people no longer get run over.. it will still happen.

all that we can do is make sure the woman who is pregnant is making a educated decision. but that decision is her own. there is no need for those shouty 'its murder' stuff because 'death' alone is not just murder. death is a natural part of life. its the moral/reason for the death that makes  difference. yep assisted suicide is a moral positive. its not murder. if the benefits of death outweigh the negatives of life. then the morals are clear. thus a fetus has no chance of a good life or even surviving birth. means abortion should be ok

i truly find it ever so funny that americans are the loudest 'its murder' preachers. yet they are the same ones that want to own guns to protect themselves from invaders. both foreign and domestic. so if death is ok for self defense. than so should some reasons for abortion linked to self defense of the mother.

but hey im just ranting. as my opinion does not count the only people that should even have an opinion are women that are currently pregnant

Right, so this is the logic I would use in explaining why it's less tragic to abort a zygote when comparing it to the abortion of an 8.5 month fetus which is why I tend to be pro-choice for early termination. A zygote cannot feel or respond to stimuli -- it isn't sentient.

Regardless though, that zygote is human life. So I have to make the unfortunate concession that I am okay with ending innocent human life in regards to terminating a zygote.

I agree, as I stated in a previous post here:


A fertilized egg, a skin cell, a tumor, a transplanted organ - they are all human life, but they aren't a human being. Removing a few fertilized cells is not murder any more than exfoliating your skin is.

Murder is about the murderer, not the bystander. So its not the responsability to force a guy to do something. Nor is the responsability of the bystander to critique the murderer.


Skin cells can be injected with genes that transform them into eggs or sperm.
They're still not human. They're eggs or sperm.
When these are matched together a zygote can be made.
Only a fertilized egg is human life.

Skin on itself is just skin. It's not human life.
Just because you can inject skin cells with genes that transform it into sperm doesn't make it human.
If that sperm fertilizes an egg, then that zygote is indeed human life because biologists agree that fertilization of an egg marks the beginning of human life.

No matter what the age of a person, killing him/her is murder. The first 9 months of life are simply a stage of life of a person.

8)

How many times do I have to say this. I agree that a zygote is human life. What it isn't is a human being.

Is an acorn a tree? No.
Is a seed a plant? No.
Is an egg a chicken? No.
Is a zygote a human? No.

An acorn is a tree in process, just like an oak tree.
A seed is a plant in process, just like the plant.
An egg is a chicken in process, just like the chicken.
A fertilized human egg is a human in process just like an adult man or woman.

8)

This sentence is a great example of why people argue about abortion.
Some will never accept that a zygote is a human. I also don't believe that it is. For me it's just a process that is supposed to form a human, not a human (but we cannot be sure that it will). For the same reason I do not believe that a body with a dead brain is a human being. We exist as long as our brains function. A body connected to machines that keep it alive while the brain is dead is not a human anymore. It's the remains of a human.
A child becomes a human being when its brain is formed and it starts feeling things and its life ends when those brain functions cease.

I so much believe and support the answer you just provided above and whoever still have a contrary opinion  should remember that there is a repercussion for their action and in action about killing an innocent child.

You have completely ignored this part


Plants aren't sentient, nor are they potentially sentient.
An egg is not always a chicken. Most eggs aren't fertilized.


Fertilized eggs are indeed little chicks.

Can you elaborate why you think a zygote isn't a human being?

I ignored it because it's a non argument due to the fact it's factually incorrect. Somatic cells aren't injected with anything, oocytes are. Also it's a nucleus, not "genes". The technique is called nuclear transfer. Also, it creates a pluripotent cell, not a sperm or an egg.

Irrelevant to my argument. An acorn is not a tree, and a zygote is not a person.

When someone is declared brain dead, then their life is over. Their body can continue to function, their heart beat, their kidneys filter, their hair grow, but the person they once were is dead, both biologically and legally.

Why, then, would a zygote, which not only can't think or be conscious, but doesn't even have the necessary structures to do these things - no cortex, no cerebellum, no brainstem - be a person? Biologically speaking, there is nothing a zygote possesses which a skin cell doesn't also possess. Why do you assign personhood to one but not the other?

Seems like I have read an outdated article.
I have found this, it doesn't create sperm or eggs but involves genes as well. You're going to have to link me if you're thinking of something else, as I don't know precisely what you're talking about.



So you believe its a person once its heart starts beating?


Because a skin cell will not grow up and work.
You have mentionted the above intervention in turning a skin cell into an embryo, but it is an intervention. A skin cell on its own will not grow up and work.
It will, once it's turned into an embryo, and then it is human life.

The process is called nuclear transfer. It's how we grew Dolly the sheep from a somatic cell. You can look it up.

That's the exact opposite of what I said.

I said that a person can be dead even if their heart is still beating and all their other organs are functioning, if their brain activity has ceased. Given that a fully grown adult without a functioning brain is no longer a human life, why would a fetus which doesn't even have a brain, let alone one which can function, be a human life?

Neither will a zygote. It needs a uterus, a placenta, an amnion, a chorion, a constant supply of blood from the mother to deliver nutrients and remove waste, a variety of hormones from the mother, warmth, physical protection, immunological protection, etc.

As I said before, it the potential to turn in to a human being at some point in the future given the right conditions is your baseline, then you can equally apply that reasoning to every single sperm or egg.

The consensus is the formation of a zygote marks the beginning of a new individual human life.
So if a skin cell was human life, once it became a zygote it would be a new individual human life?
I don't think that's how it works.


A born baby won't grow up and get a job without a mother, a constant supply of food&water and a warm enviroment.
So a zygote's going to do it as much as a born baby will.
In its natural condition, it will be born, if there isn't an intervention or an anomaly.

A skill cell will not be born in it's natural condition, it will just remain a skin cell.




Where do you draw the line?

Not accurate. Half of all fertilized eggs never implant.

Unfortunately, you are now quoting things I suspect you do not understand, since they do not support your position. Electrical activity is neither a brain nor consciousness. Nor is a neural tube. Nor are connections between nerves and muscles. Nor are spinal reflexes - brain dead patients can still hiccup, stretch, and move. The cortex, which is responsible for human consciousness, does not develop until 24-26 weeks. 24-26 weeks is also the limit of viability, when a fetus being delivered has a chance of surviving (albeit a low chance, and likely with significant physical and mental disabilities). That's where I draw the line.

i can't really decide on my own anymore, if i would be a greedy billionaire, i would preer to ban abortions so women give birth to more cheap money earning cattle, ready for exploitation,

if i would be a relative to the women, that is unvoluntarily also financially unsecure and unstable i would rather decide for the women.

etc.

regards

8 pages on and all i can read is where men think they have a womb and that they have power to make the decision.

the women who is pregnant should be the only one making the decision...
.. end of

That's shitty logic.
Should only parents decide if they're going to kill their born children?


We're arguing over semantics.


Nor does it have to be a brain or a consciousness. It's developing.
So you believe a the fetus becomes a person at week 24-26?
What differentiates a 23 week baby from a 24 week one?


Don't be transphobic. Men have wombs too.

Yes, it's developing. At some point it will develop in to a human being. A collection of cells with no brain is not a human being.


See:

The baby isn't a person when it's 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds old but when it's 24 weeks old, in that magical second, it became a person.
You can't become a person in one day.
How would anyone legally define this?

What is a person anyways?
Merriam-Webster
A person is a human. Human life is - human.

It's not ideal, but it's one solution that is already used the world over for anything age related - being able to drive, drink, get married, join the military, etc.

Yes. You're allowed to kill people in Afghanistan when you're 18 years old but you can buy a beer when you're 21.
As horrible as these are, they usually won't end human life (unless they die in war, which is rare for US troops).
Abortion will.

How do you deem a cortex developed?
There has to be a split second between "developed" and "undeveloped". There has to be a second between those two frames.
It's undeveloped at 24 weeks and 2 days and 50 seconds but it's developed at 24 weeks 2 days and 1 minute?
Can you not be a person at one second and magically become one the other?

You've completely missed my point.

Why can you not join the military at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, but you can at 18 years?
Why can you not buy alcohol at 20 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, but you can at 21 years?

You have to apply an arbitrary cut off to a continuous process (time), so you are always left with situations like this.

Now, if you read my previous post, cortex development necessary for consciousness takes place at 24-26 weeks. So no, a fetus obviously isn't unconscious at 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes, and conscious at 24 weeks. It is a gradual process over the space of 2 weeks. If you make the cut off 24 weeks, i.e. before that process has begun, then you can be sure the fetus is not conscious since it does not have a cortex.

Read the first page, but not all 8.

Just one question.   How does a life stop being a life if the mother was raped?

Alcohol arbitrary cut off dates don't end lives. Abortions do.
You can't apply an arbitrary cut off date to a fetus, because nothing can not be a person at one second, and magically become one the next.


The point is still the same, there is a second in between the fetus being a person and the fetus not being a person. There is a second where you have to draw the line whether the cortex is developed enough or whether it isn't. A literal second between hundreds of fetuses and you'd have to draw the line to which can be destroyed and which can't and thousands and thousands only differ in seconds of age.
There is a second during that week where you make the cut.

This argument is the continuum fallacy. I would suggest you read about both it and the sorites paradox.

And I never said they could be. It is a continuum. Please read what I said again:

This is a good discussion, I like it.
I'd say the continuum fallacy goes in favor of the pro-life argument :)
The most common example of the continuum fallacy is Freds beard.


The continuum fallacy proves there are things that are continually developing so we can't set a value that's true/false on them at a definite point in time. It's impossible.
It's obvious Fred has a beard 4 months in and that he doesn't have one 2 weeks in. But where do you draw the line? You don't because you can't.
At 2 months in, some people would say yeah, that's a grown beard, others would say no way that's a full grown beard. A transition happens where most people attribute different things to the same transitioning object. In this sense weeks and even days matter.

When human life is involved, we can't take the risk.

Sure, but that doesn't change my original point.

If we set the cut-off before the process has even begun, before we have even started working along the continuum, then there can be a clear consensus.

In your example, Fred doesn't have a beard at 2 weeks, but he does at 4 months. Anything between those values is on the continuum, and therefore up for debate. So let's set the cut-off at 2 weeks, as there is consensus that that is not a beard.

The structures which are needed to provide consciousness are not present at 24 weeks, but may be present by 26 weeks (note, still not consciousness, just the structures needed for them). Anything between those values in on the continuum, and therefore up for debate. So let's set the cut-off at 24 weeks, before the continuum has even begun.

Everything is really simple. Any person is a soul in a material shell. The soul is instilled in a person from the very beginning (after conception). It is scientifically proven. Scientists have noticed that after conception, some energy is absorbed into the embryo. Therefore, no matter how long you have an abortion, it is, in any case, a murder.

I accept as true with you all because nobody will support illegal abortion It disrupts our society I feel abortion should be hated by those that don't hate it. He who has not to inherit this world has no-fault If they can't raise their children then why give birth. you're right within the clinic, no, they're more likely to kill.

One thing I don't often see discussed in this debate, is the significant influence that profit plays in this conflict. Selling fetal tissue is EXTREMELY profitable. One thing being overlooked almost completely is the financial motivation for supporting partial birth, or post birth "abortions". This methodology allows the baby to be kept alive longer, giving the peddlers of baby parts more time to find a buyer and arrange delivery the very valuable biological material.

When examined in this context, this whole system that has been implemented has been crafted into a horrifying organ trafficking scheme literally selling dismembered babies for profit. Of course, if you just call it "abortion" and all the moral implications of such a vile scheme are washed away, and protected behind a veneer of "women's rights".

Pre-birth is simply a stage in human development... just the same as aging is. This means that pre-birth killing is murder just like killing a human being at any other stage is. Murderers should be executed.

8)