^ The unborn child is probably the most innocent victim of all.

Its not actually a child for a feew months anyway, its still a clump of cells

It's not actually a lump of cells, it is a child and it is life. Science calls conception the start of life.

Ergo, it is alive. And since abortion terminates life, it is murder.

So what? Who cares?
The Baby isn't aware, it's barely even human for a good few months. The mother mean while is fully human and fully entitled to decide what goes on with her body. If she doesn't want the baby then who are you to force her to carry it?

Depends on the situation. There have been cases where mothers have committed suicide because they are carrying the baby of their assaulter. There was one case in some country where abortion is strictly forbidden by law, might have been Chile, where a mom killed herself and her child which she gave birth to after having been raped, because she was so traumatized and couldn't handle having a child like that.

Here two lives where lost, instead of one incomplete.

I don't think a foetus - or that clump of cells - is life immediatly from the moment of conception. I think it's still just potential of life. As Popogeejo said, the baby won't even have a conciousness, not until several months in.

But these are extreme situations. I don't think anyone could argue against abortion for a 12-year old girl who gets brutally gangbanged and rendered pregnant.

But if people have casual sex, and just aren't careful, then I don't really think abortion is okay. At least not when you're adult, and have full responsibility for your own life and actions.

Again. Science has proven that life begins post-conception, in this case, HUMAN life.



Wrong. Science has also proven, yet again, that a baby's DNA is seperate from the mother's DNA, thus making it a seperate person.

Unless you can disprove that, which is an impossibility...



Who are we to decide if pregnant women are allowed to smoke, drink, or ride on roller coasters and thrill rides? According to your logic, the mother can decide to do whatever she wants with it, even if it risks the death or deformity of the unborn child, no?

Anyway, have you watched Silent Scream? Changed my perspective on abortion.

It seems to me that a major part of the argument has to do with what counts as human and separate from a woman's body. It's generally agreed that killing babies is as wrong as killing older humans; the major difference between the pro-life and pro-choice sides is whether a baby is a baby when they're born or when they're a fetus or an embryo or just a zygote. Some believe that from the moment of fertilization, that zygote is a baby with a soul and the same rights to life and dignity as any other human; some argue that we can't count it as human until some later point. Both sides eventually drag science into it and still can't agree on anything. If we're going to keep getting into this side of the argument, relevant evidence should be provided.

Another major angle that people have been looking at is the woman's right to control her body. "Why should she have to carry the child to term?" a lot of people ask.
Regardless of the circumstances of the child's conception, we should not be looking at this as a matter of convenience. People keep bringing up rape and incest, and those are serious concerns, but they're only about 1% of cases! (citation) Health concerns are another issue, but abortions due to health concerns don't make up a large percentage either. More cases are because a lack of socioeconomic support that leads women to feel that they don't have a choice. A number of cases are because the father puts pressure on the woman to not have the child-- that hardly speaks to woman's rights!

But the most common reason for abortion? "I just don't want a kid now." So just because a woman doesn't want to deal with the consequences for her actions, she shouldn't have to? I can't accept that.


As an aside, I find it interesting that (in the US at least) a larger percentage of men support abortion than the percentage of women who support it, (poll) and that the feminist movement in general was opposed to abortion, and branches of it still are today.

I again say so what? Science doesn't say human life is sacred. Science doesn't say the baby has any say in the matter. Science simply says what is what and leaves us, the individual to decide what to do.


I never said that the two were not seperate though I assume this is your round about way of saying "Who are we to decide what goes on with the babies body" right? My answer would be the baby doesn't have a body. It barely has a form and not even aware. The mother however is and making her carry a baby she doesn't is unfair. Why bring a baby into the world that doesn't want? Aborting it, while possibly sad, would stop it suffering before it's even aware it exists.
Odds are you'll say "Let the mother carry it, give birth and put it up for adoption" but that's silly. Adoption agencies are already having trouble with all the kids in the system as it is so throwing more into that system just makes matters worse for every single person in that system.


There's nothing stopping an expectant mother from smoking or drinking anyway so that's moot. If they wanted a healthy baby then I'd advise against it but I have no legal precedent to stop them.
For the rollercoaster thing, you stop pregnant women getting onto those because they risk increased harm to themselves.
Letting women decide to have medical procedure doesn't compare.


I try and avoid propaganda films, especially outdated ones.

I missed you Popo ^-^

Will reply in full to the topic when im not about to go to bed
RE: coming in morning ™

Do you believe it is sacred?



You can't deny it has it's own DNA. Even if it's as you believe, a lump of cells, they are their own collective DNA. Two seperate beings. There's no contest.



The fact that it is more convinent for her to get out of a stupid choice she made because she was too irresponsible to control her casual sex drive or to have her partner wear protection, because that is sooo unfair for the mother. If she didn't act irresponsibly in the first place and was very conscious of the consequences she wouldn't have to have an abortion.




That's a falsehood. Agencies are not having trouble, it's the people who are looking to adopt (background checks but that's not the issue here). There are a multitude of couples who, (and two I know personally through my Church) who have successfully adopted despite the rumors of how hellish the process may be.



Excuses are not an acceptable mask for blissful ignorance. If it's so outdated, why not disprove it right here right now? I'll let you spit in my mouth if you can disprove that film after you watch it.

I don't understand how anyone can feel comfortable about the procedure at all, let alone swallowing those myths of "the mother's life or the baby's life hangs in the balance, one or the other must live!" that happen on House*.

* [Mothers can die when in labor, but that is due to infection, blood loss, etc., nothing involving the infant.]

Condoms never break. Rape never happens. Nobody ever makes mistakes.
This is the problem with pro-lifers. You pretend that nothing bad happens and the only way a woman could get pregnant is by her own stupidity. Accidents happen, rape happens. Amazingly it is possible to get knocked up without intending to and with reasonable, realistic precautions taken. Sure, they are those who sleep about and end up with the inevitable but you can't paint all women with the same brush.


And there is a horde of children who are still waiting to be adopted and odds are will never get adopted. We do not live in a perfect world. Not every child gets adopted and the system, while trying it's best, doesn't do the kids justice. Why do you want to put more kids into an over worked system?


Propaganda is a legitimate source to base your argument on. It's emotive bull.... funded and made by and pro-lifer.
The whole film is patently biased.
"Footage shows the foetus trying to escape"
No. No it doesn't. It shows a foetus twitching and then the movie just makes assumptions.
If I were to cite a pro-choice documentary called "Babies love dying" you'd be calling it out for the clear bias it is.
Also, the methods used in that movie were archaic even for the 80's. It's like a film about modern criminal execution where the execution method is burning at the stake.
For further reading here is this: http://my.opera.com/JoanRC/blog/2010/01/02...propaganda-film

Let's cut to the jib. Moral or not abortion happens. There will always be women who want to get rid of their baby, whether it be legal or not. Here's a movie for you: When Abortion Was Illegal: Untold Stories
Now, would you rather women seeking safe, professionally done procedures that assure the best for mother and termanie or do you want women seeking dangerous back alley abortions where they could really mess up?
Do you want the may to suffer, or the few?

Are you suggesting responsibility and accountability be stricken from ANY pregnancy? Do you know how reckless that is? Those two factors are important in the real world. If I wanted to have sex, I would have had my partner wear a condom and I would take the morning after pill as a precaution. Don't tell me stupidity (I wouldn't call it stupidity but ignorance of how far contraceptives go) should be written off.

Mistakes don't "just" happen. I won't believe that for a second. If the condom breaks, then the partner doesn't know how to use it. Condom breakage is rare, I've looked at condom websites and they all say the same thing. Unless you don't properly put one on or use it properly.

Wouldn't being responsible and PREPARED (or abstinent) be better?

Look. Every couple I know who has casual sex wears protection and other preventative measures. I've even interviewed them for an essay I had to write in a theology course.
There are birth control pills available on the market. A couple having sex should take advantage of that.

A close friend had unprotected sex and got pregnant because she didn't think about the consequences. She had an abortion out of uneccessary fear that her parents would disown her when they would have helped her. She's regretted that decision.





We could curtail this problem if couples/women were responsible and aware of preventative measures.



Because there is no science that can tap into a person's brain and show their thoughts on a computer screen.

However, science can show that a baby's hearbeat increases during an abortion in the 11th week. Is this an indicator of pain? I'm not entirely sure. But it makes you wonder, no? If the baby can actually feel pain.




Watched the film. Interesting, but some stuff that caught my eye that seemed suspicious.

"90% of women are happy that they had an abortion a year later."

Where can I find the source of that statistic?

Also from the testimony, these women didn't feel comfortable about their decision.



And there is the falsehood.

Even in the safest clinics possible, mess-ups occur. Hemmoraging, damage to the cervix, and perforation of the uterus just to name a few. I can cite from a number of medical journals.

Doesn't the fact that the unborn baby has its own DNA seperate from the mother tell you something?

I have to point out here that of course they are going to blame everyone but themselves. Accidents DO happen, even women on the pill have fallen pregnant. This is why the Morning After pill is available, so that when an accident occurs there is another way of trying to prevent pregnancy.

I just want to interject and say this is a debate and we are all entitled to our opinions but this is becoming a fight that neither side will win, so please try to avoid this going on much longer. Lively debate is healthy but make sure to keep above the belt.

Then I'm afraid you're the one living in denial. Humans make mistakes, condoms can break, unplanned things can happen. How can you cite science so much and then deny human error?


Wow, condom sites say there is nothing wrong with their product!? Sure, if the condom breaks then the person doesn't know how to use and has thus made a mistake. But wait, mistakes don't happen!
There is no contraception method that is 100% guaranteed. Even then that's just contraception errors you're addressing while happily over looking cases of rape.


See my previous comments about mistakes happening, rape happening and so forth.


Heart rates have nothing to do with perception of pain. The baby very literally has no feasible means of feeling pain. It's nervous system is just not up to it. Science says this. Science may also say this lump of cells is life but most scientists would also say it's not yet human.


No one has denied this but there are tremendously safer than if they weren't done in professional clinics and you're smart enough to know this.
Very few medical procedures are 100% safe but it's still better to have a pro do it in a safe environment than to have some quack in a back alley do it.


That the clump of cells has the potential of becoming a human.

Again I say: Moral or not abortion will always happen so it's better to make it as safe as possible than to criminalise every woman who doesn't want to go through with her pregnancy. Of course people should use contraception but unwanted pregnancies can happen no matter what and there will always be women who want rid of the baby. To deny this is to deny reality.

Note: I tried to make this post before Chiyo's but the site timed out for me.

Let me begin by saying that I find it tremendously ironic to be reading some of the comments contained within this thread on an FMA forum, an anime that I believe accomplishes much in terms of highlighting the inherent value of each and every human line, regardless of its form or appearance.

Most of the modern arguments that I encounter in terms of affirmative abortion rights do not center around the question or whether the foetus is alive or human because science demonstrates that these conditions are true (the foetus is alive because it carries out / exhibits the vital processes of homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction and is human because its DNA defines it as such). Rather, modern "pro-choice" theory developed over the course of the last few decades concentrates on examining whether a mother's right to exercise control over her body morally overrides the foetus's right to live.

The fundamental right to life is firmly embodied in most all philosophical legal constructs of which I am aware. Indeed, the need for a legal system grew organically out of the desire of man to protect himself from those who would do him harm. While a similar "right not to be killed unjustly" proposition was introduced in 1971 by Judith Jarvis Thomson, I find this proposal to be quite disingenuous as longstanding legal and ethical systems have almost exclusively assumed that a person can be harmed only under special circumstances, rather than assuming that anyone can be harmed except in circumstances in which doing do would be unjust (i.e. "the policeman can shoot the robber because he has broken the law", rather than "the policeman cannot shoot the civilian because he has not broken the law").

Another point that is evident in classical systems of law is that not all rights are of equivalent worth and merit. For instance, I would almost certainly be sentenced to a longer prison stay if I were to kill my neighbor as opposed to if I only trespassed on my neighbor's property. This being said, one needs to determine in the abortion debate whether or not one human's right to live can be superseded by another human's right to own and control her body. While both rights are obviously precious, I believe that it is clearly obvious, at least from a legal if not moral perspective, that one's right to life is practically always paramount.

The above being said, one ought also mention that circumstances do exist where a person can justly undertake an action that would, by effect, result in the killing of an innocent person. As the particulars of this construct are quite intricate, I will not go into detail about this principle here, but rather provide a link for further reference (Principle of Double Effect). Suffice to say, this idea does not apply to the case of abortion as the killing of the foetus is the direct method by which an abortion is induced, not an unfortunate side-effect.

Some have recently posted comments asserting the permissibility of abortion on the basis of the size or relative awareness of the foetus or upon the mental needs of the mother involved. I must contest that, following my careful examination, most all of these arguments qualify as straw man arguments, red herrings, and/or false dichotomies. In particular, it is of little use to appeal to the comparative emotional wellbeing of the mother, especially in cases involving rape and/or incent, as negative psychological consequences may occur regardless of the abortion decision (and therefore must be considered as a separate issue).

In closing, I would like to make one remark that I feel is of particular importance. The abortion debate, contrary to the belief held by many, is not about "forcing" one's particular beliefs on others. It is by no means strictly a religious or spiritual question. The legality of abortion is contested by "pro-life" advocates because it involves an inherently innocent third party that deserves equal protection under the force of the law in accordance with basic human decency.

All human life, no matter how small, hidden, weak, poor, or undesirable, ought to be valued.

I'm against it. Leaving out the speech about if the fetus is already a living being or not and all the religious stuff, I think that if you don't really want that baby for whatever reason (it was a mistake, you were raped, you cannot raise him/her because of economical problems) then you should "simply" give him/her up for adoption. Yes it sounds cruel, but in my opinion it's way better than abortion.
I don't know how the whole adoption system works in other Countries, but here you can refuse a just born child and the hospital will take care of the child (and all the bureaucratic stuff) till he will be sent to a shelter, and both the parents can ask to remain anonymous. The disadvantage is that not always the child will have the luck to be adopted and so he/she may be will never have a proper family, but at least he/she will be able to live his/her life.

But those children may grow up knowing they weren't wanted, being passed between households and adoption centre's until they are old enough to "look after themselves" and end up getting themselves/partner pregnant for the whole cycle to start over again. Even if they didn't want it, giving up a child can emotionally destroy someone. They carry a child for 9 months knowing they simply cannot give that child a decent life...who is anyone to say that is the better option?

As far as I'm concerned, unless you have been in that situation, you simply don't have the right to judge either way. It should be up to the individual, and as long as she doesn't abuse her right (i.e, use it as a form on contraception) to decide.

Personally I think that the remorse of having maybe killed a baby it's worse than being unsure about that baby's future. I mean at least you're giving him/her a possibility.
Probably it will end as you said, but maybe he/she will learn something by his/her personal story, knowing that being abandoned is painful, and will try to be more careful about wanting or not a baby. It sounds too optimistic I know, it's unlikely, but it's better than nothing I think.



I agree with you in fact I won't go all "you are an assassin/ you'll go to hell" if a woman decide to have an abortion. I maybe will try to convince her to not do it with all my might, but the last decision is her not my.

You know I voted on here for "Depends on the situation."

I was raised in a strict Christian home, and it was pressed into my brain, pro-life! pro-life! I've also seen both sides.

We had a friend who was raped, she decided to keep her child and love that child. But in truth this woman was in agony. She told me at one point that she wasn't sure why she kept her child, she said she saw both side, the baby didn't have a choice in the way it was concieved. She said she didn't feel like she could just kill a child. So she decided to keep it, but not give it up for adoption. She said the hardest part of that, is that her child reminded her of what she went through, and who did this to her. In a sense she was in between a rock and hard place. She loved the child but hated the man that raped her, and she saw him in her child everyday.

To me, I feel that's unfair to a child. BUT she still loved her child. She was protective of her child. Its almost tragic if you can see what I mean.


------------

There was a guy that I knew in collage, and he was in my writing class, we had to write a paper about anything but it had to be pure discription. He wrote about him and his fiancee dealing with the descision to abort their unborn child. Its a very emotional decision, it took a toll on their relationship, they ended up parting ways, he said she suffered from depression, mostly struggling with the fact of whether she did the right thing. It was almost like a deep wound that stayed open and they ended up parting ways.


--------------

My Two Cents:

In my opinion, no one is perfect. Its a touchy subject, because people feel, the baby is a living breathing, human, when in fact, when the proceedure is taken place, the baby doesn't have developed lungs or brain. Just a heartbeat. People say well that's proof enough that this child is alive. The issue will never come to a complete even plain so there will always be controversy over abortion.

I do believe that if people are safe, i.e. use condoms, use birth control, or other forms of contraceptives.... unnecessary things can be avoided. Yes, condoms break. I'm 25, and married, you can say experience ..... not that anyone needed to know that, but to prove a point, yes they do break.

In the case of rape, I think that's its purely the womans decision on that issue. If you keep it great, if you don't, then so be it.

---------------

With that said I'd like to address this comment:



I see what you're saying, but I"m sure that Arakawa wasn't intending to spread the word about pro-life choices. FMA has nothing to do with abortion so if someone feels that they are pro-choice but still like the anime, that doesn't seem off to me. FMA is mostly about selfish gain and how to go about getting what you want, dealing with the consequences and trying to make them right. BUT that's my opinion on the anime Not saying that its anyone elses.

Okay I'm done

IceSkadi - I think we can all agree, if the world were a easier place to live in, such a decision would be a great deal easier. If a woman could believe her child would have a happy life, with her or not, the idea of aborting a potential life could be reduced.

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 20 2010, 09:45 AM)

"But those children may grow up knowing they weren't wanted, being passed between households and adoption centre's until they are old enough to "look after themselves" and end up getting themselves/partner pregnant for the whole cycle to start over again. Even if they didn't want it, giving up a child can emotionally destroy someone."

The problems that I see with this line of reasoning include:

Too many assumptions
One cannot possibly know what will happen to an individual child that is given up for adoption. Children raised both within a traditional family structure and the adoption system can have very positive or negative life outcomes. Attempting to analyze the respective probability of a single child having a positive or negative overall life experience is myopic, subjective, and downright impossible. Additionally, always assuming the most negative outcome possible hardly strikes me as a fair analytical approach.

No consideration given to the wishes of the unborn child
As we have at this point established fairly concretely that the foetus constitutes a unique, living human person, it seems only logical to me that equal consideration be given to this stakeholder (especially in light of the fact that he or she is most intimately reliant on the final decision that is to be made). Given that direct communication with the foetus is not possible, and thus he or she cannot even consent to any particular course of action, it seems only right to err on the side of caution. Most current legal constructs that I know of always assume, by default, that a person wishes to continue living (this is why DNR orders exist). As such, I believe that a rigorous legal approach would indicate that preserving the life of the unborn is necessary.

Asserting that a difficult or painful life is not worth living
These types of arguments genuinely confound and frustrate me. No person's life can ever be perfectly happy, and inversely no person's life can ever be comprised solely of pain and anguish. Although it is a highly unfortunate reality that many children suffer deeply within the adoption system (as well as other circumstances), this by no means indicates that such lives are better left unlived. Being in the FMA forum, I feel quite compelled to point toward the intense suffering of the Elric brothers throughout both of the animes and the manga. After seeing how love has allowed the Elrics to transcend their dire life circumstances, I doubt that anyone would argue that they would have been better off dead from the onset of the series. I believe that we, particularly those in the more prosperous nations of the world, need to realize and accept that not everyone needs to be wealthy and pampered in order to be happy.

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 20 2010, 09:45 AM)

"As far as I'm concerned, unless you have been in that situation, you simply don't have the right to judge either way. It should be up to the individual, and as long as she doesn't abuse her right (i.e, use it as a form on contraception) to decide."

As I said before, this really is not a question of restricting individual liberty. Because an innocent third party is involved, society at large has both the legitimate ability and duty to safeguard the wellbeing of the unborn child. Furthermore, firsthand experience is not necessary to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action governed by natural law. For instance, I need not have committed a robbery or been the victim of a robbery to assert that robbery itself is unjust.

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 20 2010, 09:45 AM)

"They carry a child for 9 months knowing they simply cannot give that child a decent life...who is anyone to say that is the better optio?"

Perhaps the unborn child whose very life depends totally on the mother's decision?

Very interesting discussions going on, I'll read all these walls of texts through when I feel a bit more collected, and see If I can contribute with anything at all to this debate XP Not that I've studied this topic very thoroughly... maybe I'll learn something new here.

Glad to see that there are people here who like to debate, anyway. If nothing else, I like following debates and hearing peoples opinions, even if I'm not very good at argumenting myself.

Another facet of the argument I've been seeing a lot of lately is the "adoption is always possible" vs "the adoption system is broken" argument.

Well, does it have to be? Why isn't more being done to fix the broken system? I'd think both sides would at least be able to agree that someone who has been born has the right to a decent life. So why aren't we doing more to ensure that?

Again with the "can't be considered human" thing: The thing that bothers me with the "it's not a human" argument is this: So at some point, and this point varies, pretty much everyone agrees that an unborn child is now a human baby that shouldn't be killed. Conception, heartbeat, has a brain, movement, second trimester, third trimester, nobody can really agree on the "when." But in general people think there is a "when" before the baby's born. I found a blog post a while back that spells out the problem with this a lot better than I can:
Nuisance today, human tomorrow. Can we honestly believe that?

"Right to choose." Yes. Women have the right to choose: We have the right to choose whether or not to act in a way that may result in the creation of a new human being.

How many times does one chose to be raped? How many times does one chose for contraception to fail?
And either way this is once more grandstanding rubbish. It's all well and good to say "They shouldn't do it so they shouldn't get help" but that passiveness just adds to the problem and denies reality.
"Oh, your car crashed? Well you shouldn't have driven it then. No help for you. What? You wore your safety belt and drove as safely as possible? Still your fault for driving."

The pro life argument always boils down to "we should live in a perfectly moral world" which is insane.
If not that then it's the philosophical quagmire of "What is human?" because tangents that go no where sure beats addressing the practical issue at hand.
Look at the world for what it is, don't deny human folly and find a practical way to deal with it.

Neither do they have rights to chose what happens to them until they legally become an adult. Unlike the foetus, a 12 year old is CERTAINLY aware of what is happening to them and they still don't have a great deal of say in it.

In simple summary Cardinal, you class the initial clump of cells as a person who has a right to live....I class it as a clump of cells...thus in no way will we ever agree.

They should get help. Even now there isn't enough help out there for women who choose to keep the child. They should be well-informed of all their and their child's options, given medical attention, and be provided with support for living in a society that often looks down on them for having an unplanned child. People always talk of "removing crisis pregnancies"; why is more focus always put on removing the pregnancy than removing the crisis element?

Of course contraception can fail. But that's something you think of before you decide to use it. You know the risks, you know your body-- a woman's only capable of getting pregnant on a few days out of each month when she's not on the pill (when she is, it's a lot harder to tell). Is it honestly that much of an imposition to say, "Honey, it's about that time of month again, we don't want to risk that now, so let's not do it tonight?" Giving proper consideration to the risks still won't stop unplanned pregnancies, but it would certainly reduce them.

People keep bringing up "rape's not her choice OH WHAT NOW" and yes! That's a much tougher decision! But it only accounts for 1% of abortions at this time! (cite) In 2006, there were 846,181 abortions reported to the CDC in the U.S. (cite) So roughly 8,500 of those likely were because of rape. That's pretty horrific. But even worse is the number who weren't raped, the hundreds of thousands who felt that they had no choice or that a child would be too much of an inconvenience.

I'm not arguing for "ban abortion and who cares about the women." I'm arguing for "support the women so that they don't feel that abortion's the only option, and educate them so that they don't get into a situation that would cause them to consider it in the first place." Mistakes and unexpected circumstances will always happen, but we can reduce them.

You've got to remember though that these numbers only go on reported rapes but it's been said by numerous women's charities and legal and medical professionals that rape is one of the most under reported crimes there is. I doubt that if it were possible to include these unreported crimes in the statistics it would suddenly bump it up to something dramatic but it would certainly give it an increase.


Totally agreed. I wish I could say more but there isn't.

I am not sure that I follow this line of reasoning. As a minor, a twelve year old child undeniably has significantly truncated legal status, but he or she is most definitely entitled to all of the basic human rights, including the right to life. This being the case, I do not see how this argument constitutes a valid analogy. The abortion debate is not a matter of parental rights in relation to the control of children as the action involved is forbidden by law (i.e. a parent of a twelve year old child cannot lawfully kill that child).


Speaking quite specifically to the "awareness" point of contention, I believe that there is a logical flaw in the proposition that killing is illegal or wrong because it imparts pain on another individual. The very act of taking the life of another person is objectionable in and of itself as it deprives another of an incontrovertible, natural right. One defined as a living human need not exhibit awareness or consciousness in order to be entitled to protection under the law. As an example, if I were to murder someone in their sleep, I could successfully deprive a person of his or her right to life whilst he or she lacks consciousness and awareness and without causing him or her pain. This action would still be defined as murder under the law. Furthermore, as topics of metaphysics, nebulous concepts such as awareness and consciousness are impossible to pin down precisely and therefore ought not to be used as legal qualifiers.


I am not assigning the title of living human to the foetus of my own accord; I utilize this description only under the guidance of rigorous scientific analysis. As I explained at length earlier in this thread, the foetus is more than a simple clump of cells because science has defined otherwise. I reiterate the fact that this debate is not a matter or religion or conviction, but of science, philosophy, and law.

You are the reason I miss posting so much, ^^



I would agree completely here,
As I seem to remember the discussion leading this way a while back, I distinctly remember Bacon using a very simple and somewhat effective analogy to this, Goes something like this: "Untill the 'feotus' has taken form and its cells have taken a direction towards making organs, tissue, ect. then it is a gloryfied parasite."
As my own responce to this analogyis that it is very crude one, but still essentially sums up how I personaly feel on the subject of the argument of the clump/baby argument. Please for the love of god don't flame or get irate at me for this, it is an opinion, and as an opinion, it cannot be wrong, just not your own.

~ If I hadn't just finnished a 12h shift and felt more awake I would reply to more posts,

QUOTE (Le Monkey @ Mar 24 2010, 03:32 PM)

As I seem to remember the discussion leading this way a while back, I distinctly remember Bacon using a very simple and somewhat effective analogy to this, Goes something like this: "Untill the 'feotus' has taken form and its cells have taken a direction towards making organs, tissue, ect. then it is a gloryfied parasite."
As my own responce to this analogyis that it is very crude one, but still essentially sums up how I personaly feel on the subject of the argument of the clump/baby argument.

This is a very backwards argument from a purely scientific perspective as it relates the substance of a living organism to an amorphous and immeasurable value such as relative overall size and/or appearance. The genetic material contained within the foetus contains the biological "definition" of a complete adult human complete with organs and full human appearance. A unicellular organism, such as an amoeba, contains much simpler genetic code that defines it simply as an eternally tiny creature with no destiny beyond such future. I think that we have all relate to the saying "don't judge a book by its cover", and I believe that this argument applies here in a scientific sense. To base the value of something based on nothing more than a gut reaction is misguided, immature, and certainly not intellectually respectable.

QUOTE (Le Monkey @ Mar 24 2010, 03:32 PM)

Please for the love of god don't flame or get irate at me for this, it is an opinion, and as an opinion, it cannot be wrong, just not your own.

Only if you ascribe to the idea of moral relativism (that is a whole different discussion).

I have to say I'm more for than against it.

Cruel as it is, if I were to get pregnant, I would get an abortion just to not have to go through the pregnancy (well, the giving birth part more so)...

Regardless of whether the pregnancy was caused by irresponsibility (unprotected sex) or an unfortunate happening (rape), it's still the mother who should ultimately be deciding. Either way, I doubt at 2 months or at 7 months the "child" will have the slightest inkling of what's going on.

And to those of you questioning the child's happiness if he/she were born, knowing the circumstances of why, I have a friend who (seemingly) wasn't born out of love. Her mother and father conceived her when her mother was but 16 or 17, and wanted a child only for the child support tax reduction (or something like that). This friend of mine is incredibly hurt by this knowledge, moreso than she let's on I'll bet. Now, if the child was born out of rape or by 'mistake', it may still feel ashamed or worthless, among other feelings.

But not thinking only for the child, but for the parent too. Some women can't go through the process of child birth, and would be hurting themselves by trying. Would it be okay then for her to have the baby but leave it (possibly) without a parent or guardian?

Personally, I think it should be up to the mother, regardless of the situation. If she wants to abort her child, so be it. It's her burden to bare either way.

I respect life. If a baby was born from a rapist, does that make the baby any less of value than a baby born to a married couple?

Besides, if someone was pregnant at a young age, there are people and charities more than willing to help and assist the mother, even religious groups. I know one in my community that takes care of pregnant teens in ways I never thought possible.

To be blunt, I don't consider abortion a right when it's used as a tool of mass murder to regulate the population in countries like China. Over there, the woman has no choice. One child policy. And for years, there was a preferance for males where females would be aborted. A horrible irony where the mother has no choice for abortion.

^Again, cruel as it is, I would have an abortion just to spare myself from the pain of child birth. I don't know from experience, but apparently it hurts like hell... I wouldn't go through that for some kid I wouldn't even want :/

Regardless of how the thing was conceived, I wouldn't go through all that just to have it then throw it away, rather than just kill it, not go through the pain and annoyance, and be done with it. It's nasty, I know, but I would.

It wouldn't know either way. I doubt it's really capable of comprehension anyway. Just a lump of cells in a alien-human like shape. I'd get rid of the thing and donate it for that stem cell research thing. That's a topic for another time, but I'd much rather help someone who's already alive and has a family than some kid I don't even want in my body :/

Sorry, but this is just a stupid argument and you should be ashamed for using it.

You may as well say having a national army is terrible and wrong because of the Nazi's. In America you gave a bunch of black people Gonorrhoea to see what would happen. Let's ban all medical research them! Hey, members of the Catholic church used their position to rape young boys. Let's ban religion!
Just because someone abuses something doesn't mean what they're abusing should be banned.


Nope. That's why you can abort both. It would be nice if the married couple took as much precaution as possible but if the wife accidentally gets knocked up and doesn't want to keep the baby then she should be allowed to terminate it. Same goes for the rape victim. If she wants to keep it for whatever reason then by all means, but if she wants rid of it then let her.

just wrong! I could never want to get rid of an unborn baby; it would go against every moral I have! I can't even believe that some people actually consider it...

Can we be careful how we word things Night Watcher? If you don't believe in it that is your opinion, but "I can't even believe that some people actually consider it" is insinuating people who do agree with it are wrong, or even cruel. We want to avoid this as much as possible.

Thank-you.

Personally, although I am not a religious person, I am a little uncomfortable to say the least at the idea of abortion. I, in my own morals, like to think of an unborn child as a child whether it's developed or not.

That said.... I don't really think it should be make illegal. The fact is, I don't see how this law could be carried out or enforced. I think it would be hard to prove that someone gave themselves an abortion, so I don't think that anything would be there to stop a desperate woman. I think that abortion is one of those things that if a woman decides to do it, she is going to do it. So the fact of the matter is, people will get abortions, whether it's in a hospital as a safe medical procedure, or by other means that may end up harming the mother as well. (As in things like coat hangers, purposefully falling down the stairs, etc.)

So although, I personally, would never get an abortion, I think that the well-being of the mother is an important factor in the decision to illegalize abortion. Because I do believe that it's one of those things that are going to happen whether the law forbids it or not.

I don't know much what to say because it's a topic nobody really knows all about and it's something that mixes elements of morality with other topics of ethics and reason. I am for abortion in general though I've learned in some pseudo psychological studies that the fetus in it's growth after 3 moths if I'm not mistaken develops the nervous system ergo his psyche. Don't know how relevant will it be for him to question himself about living or dying but that won't be the point. Most countries don't have the necessary support to provide all the care for a child and enough experience to raise him in social services' care. If someone wants to abort erases from the future all the aspects of his decisions and thoughts, though it's a bit foolish to think this way if you are a rape victim or a person who can't raise a child (either crazy or life sentenced or other extreme cases). Even so I still think that's the mother's decision and power to either end his life or not, if she can live with or without the child or the consequences of her decision. I think it's as fair for someone to have the circumstances of abortion as it is to have the circumstances of theft, murder, fraud and so on. Who judges us? We are free to do whatever the hell we want as long as we're able to suffer the consequences.

I've never really known how to feel about abortion.

I think it's better to let the baby live and if you can't look after it, put it up for adoption....but I do know that it's a woman's own body. I guess I'm just glad that as a female myself, no one will ever be able to kill my baby. No one can make me abort it.

Of course I don't currently want to be pregnant(which is one reason why I'm still a virgin) but if I did get pregnant I wouldn't want to do away with it unless it was bad for my health. I know I'm really thin(naturally) but even though I'm naturally very thin I wonder if that will give me issues when giving birth that could be dangerous to me. It's not like my hips are that wide.