Abortions illegal in the USA?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

if you can give people a good enough reason the change their opinions, they usually will. Obviously you're not doing a good enough job.

A (repeated) scientific study showed that almost no opinions are changed by argument, irrespective of the quality of the argument.

[Bunga]

And since about only 10% (can't remember the exact statistic an I won't dig up the link) of the weight of the argument is what was said, with the rest being how it was said (especially body language) arguments over the internet never convince people.

I've been convinced once over the net, and convinced two people, counting wu_trax. But I haven't convinced him that I convinced him yet.

[Intrepid00]

I bet you never changed their mind on such a heated topic. This is one of those topics people RARLEY change their mind and proably never over the Internet.

[Bunga]

In this topic with wu_trax, two or three pages back over a relatively minor matter. The other one was about the morality of WoMD I think... could have been nuclear power. Its only in heated topics I bother

[W]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

A (repeated) scientific study showed that almost no opinions are changed by argument, irrespective of the quality of the argument.

Scientific studies show that most people are ****ing morons. What's your point? We're not all ****ing morons.

[Bunga]

Yes we are... thats why we stay on GD rather than get a life.

[IncubusGod]

Bah,personally I think if you've been irresponsible enough to get pregnant when you clearly dont want a child its your fault and not the fault of the (potential) child.

Aborting it yourself is denying a life no matter how you look at it and that is morally objectionable. If it miscarrages or dies,then so be it, it wasn't by your input.

You shouldnt be able to abort the child at any stage simply to suit your own lifestyle. I know several girls who've gotten pregnant by accident and went on the have the child. They wouldn't give that child up for the world now.
I know someone who got pregnant in the very early 80's and had to give the child up, a little girl. The parents ended up getting married anyway and went on the have children of their own.Recently the girl,who is now 20, tracked down her mother and began contact. She was adopted and had a nice life with a couple who could not have children of their own.

If abortion had been legal then,the would not be around today. She would not have been adopted by the childless couple. Denying the child a chance at life is morally wrong.

Some argument is that it's not a child. Well why not? Because its just a fertilised egg? It will grow into a child in the right circumstances. A formed fetus will gestate into a child, a premature baby will,with help,grow into a properly formed infant.
If a baby is premature and the parents dont want it can they kill it? No. Then why can they kill a child in the womb. Because its not yet born?
A premature baby substitutes the mothers womb for another form of life support, the incubator. Why are those two items,designed for the same purpose considered different and why can the child be killed in one and not in the other in certain countries.

Women who are pro-choice are ignoring morality for their own selfishness. "It's my body!I can do what I like" what about the childs body. What right do you have to decide the fate of the child. Who has that right. No-one.
Some people might say God,or Fate, or the Universe and thats fine,its all the same,chance. The chance to be something. Wether or not that works out is another matter. The chance to live and have a life is whats at stake here.And who are you to decide that.

[Bunga]

Have you read the debate we've been having here IncubusGod?

[W]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Bah,personally I think if you've been irresponsible enough to get pregnant when you clearly dont want a child its your fault and not the fault of the (potential) child.

What has fault got to do with anything. Not all killing is out of punishment...

Aborting it yourself is denying a life no matter how you look at it and that is morally objectionable. If it miscarrages or dies,then so be it, it wasn't by your input.

Not having sex is denying a life (or potentially several lives) as well. You want to make procreation required by law?

You shouldnt be able to abort the child at any stage simply to suit your own lifestyle. I know several girls who've gotten pregnant by accident and went on the have the child. They wouldn't give that child up for the world now.

Which says nothing about the act itself. A serial murderer might say after getting a death sentence that he'd do it all again, that doesn't make it right or (shudder) "morally required".

I know someone who got pregnant in the very early 80's and had to give the child up, a little girl. The parents ended up getting married anyway and went on the have children of their own.Recently the girl,who is now 20, tracked down her mother and began contact. She was adopted and had a nice life with a couple who could not have children of their own.

And if my parents didn't have sex, I wouldn't be born. Imagine if Einsteins or Newtons parents didn't have sex! We should make unprotected sex compulsory at any spare moment!

If abortion had been legal then,the would not be around today. She would not have been adopted by the childless couple. Denying the child a chance at life is morally wrong.

Explain why it's morally wrong instead of just stating it, so I have some logic to attack and not just your character. Which I won't.

Some argument is that it's not a child. Well why not? Because its just a fertilised egg? It will grow into a child in the right circumstances. A formed fetus will gestate into a child, a premature baby will,with help,grow into a properly formed infant.
If a baby is premature and the parents dont want it can they kill it? No. Then why can they kill a child in the womb. Because its not yet born?

Because most people consider babies cute. That is all. Morals doesn't come into it, it's just that infanticide is considered ugly, and abortion less so. Most laws have their basis in the taste of the majority.

A premature baby substitutes the mothers womb for another form of life support, the incubator. Why are those two items,designed for the same purpose considered different and why can the child be killed in one and not in the other in certain countries.

Because reason does not rule lawmaking.

Women who are pro-choice are ignoring morality for their own selfishness. "It's my body!I can do what I like" what about the childs body. What right do you have to decide the fate of the child. Who has that right. No-one.

And that depends on where you set the limit of "part of your body"...

Some people might say God,or Fate, or the Universe and thats fine,its all the same,chance. The chance to be something. Wether or not that works out is another matter. The chance to live and have a life is whats at stake here.And who are you to decide that.

Who are we to deside anything? Nowhere did any authority give us the right to live or act in whatever way we want. We still do it. To say we should give up our power of choice and let chance rule is silly. You might as well stop eating right now, and hope nutrition materialises in your bloodstream.

[IncubusGod]

I gave my opinion,critique it whatever way you please. I may be wrong,ambiguous,vauge or naieve however it does not matter to me. I will hold my opinion in accordance with my own morals,ethics and values.They need no justification from anyone else.

Clearly you can disregard my opinions on the matter if you wish,I just wanted to put my two cents down for the record. I am not debating. I think you will find,as others have suggested, nothing said in this thread,forum or arguments in general will change opinions.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Yes we are... thats why we stay on GD rather than get a life.

Finally, common ground.

[W]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

I gave my opinion,critique it whatever way you please. I may be wrong,ambiguous,vauge or naieve however it does not matter to me. I will hold my opinion in accordance with my own morals,ethics and values.They need no justification from anyone else.

Clearly you can disregard my opinions on the matter if you wish,I just wanted to put my two cents down for the record. I am not debating. I think you will find,as others have suggested, nothing said in this thread,forum or arguments in general will change opinions.

Nonsense.

Your point about not justifying your values is all good tho, but I would apreciate it if you explained in more detail. You may think of it as debating, but others might consider it exchange of views and gaining understanding.

[Aryn]

i do understand your viewpoint incubus..
but think of this angle
what right does the 'baby' have to be a parasite and wreck havoc in my body for 9 months? :\
i know i know.. don't anyone get heated about that question. it's a result of a concequence etc etc.

i do have a question though. what do you feel about abortion in the cases where the baby could kill the mother?

[Intrepid00]

Actually, that is a myth based on 'minor' facts in order for Pro-Choice to help argue their theory.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Aryn

i do understand your viewpoint incubus..
but think of this angle
what right does the 'baby' have to be a parasite and wreck havoc in my body for 9 months? :\
i know i know.. don't anyone get heated about that question. it's a result of a concequence etc etc.

i do have a question though. what do you feel about abortion in the cases where the baby could kill the mother?

Its hardly a parasite is it. Its a human life that was created by you. You are responsible for it. Therefore shouldnt you take care of it. Its part of you and your part of it.
Ok maybe its not a great thing that it'll have such an enormus effect on yout body but you cant transplant it to an artifical womb can you?

And I knew the question about abortion in the case where the baby could kill the mother would come up.
It would depend on the case. I mean,every baby in gestation & being born could possibly kill the mother. You'd have to narrow the parameters. You mean as in "This baby WILL kill the mother if its left to gestate",then normal medical ethics dictates that you must treat both as your patients and as much as can possible be done to ensure both survive.
However, as with cases such as conjoined twins and so on,its not always possible to save both. But something must be done or both die.
So perform the surgery,and if the baby dies,then its sad but its an unavoidable concequence.

This is what most medical literature presents in the way of ethics.
This is what I believe.

[Burn]

cant be bothered to read this thread through.

abortions for some
minature american flags for others

[Aryn]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Its hardly a parasite is it.

actually it is until the body recognizes it.
in FACT your immune system tries to kill it automatically. in med. essentials class my prof said because of this it's amazing that we actually exist :P
it's sort of funny that the body tries to kill the baby, then realizes what it is.. and becomes the host for 9 months.

anyways, i know what you mean :P

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Aryn

actually it is until the body recognizes it.

Parasite:
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Whether it's accepted by the body or not (and the fact that they are isn't evidence for them not being parasites; all successful parasites won't cause a reaction on the host, so they can continue to feed), it's still a parasite.

However, under the common definition of parasite, the opposite is true; the baby is not a parasite whether or not the body accepts it.

You can't mix biological and colloquial definitions and expect things to come out hunky dory.

[G_frog]

The definition given there is in terms of survival; it would be more sensible, and from a biological point of view more common, to define parasites in terms of damage to fitness (basically, reproductive success). Clearly offspring are not regarded as parasitic under this definition.

For example, cuckoo chicks are parasitic in the nest of other birds while the native chicks are not, although both impose heavy costs on the 'parents'.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

If abortion had been legal then,the would not be around today. She would not have been adopted by the childless couple. Denying the child a chance at life is morally wrong.

If abortion had been legal for as long as it has been possible, there would have been a lot fewer women dead through childbirth and botched illegal surgery.

To say that preventing the possibility (not even probability) of something good happening should be considered wrong, is madness. Or shbould we all should alternate between f*cking and charity work?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

The definition given there is in terms of survival; it would be more sensible, and from a biological point of view more common, to define parasites in terms of damage to fitness (basically, reproductive success). Clearly offspring are not regarded as parasitic under this definition.

For example, cuckoo chicks are parasitic in the nest of other birds while the native chicks are not, although both impose heavy costs on the 'parents'.

Change it to survival of the host's species?

However, remember, we're talking about Aryn claiming that the foetus is a parasite, if only temporarily.

[G_frog]

The trouble with that is that, in all known cases bar one, organisms are adapted for their own survival and reproduction (or perhaps that of their genes), not that of the species.

EDIT: I don't agree with the parasite argument, because it doesn't distinguish between, for example, foetuses and husbands.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

The trouble with that is that, in all known cases bar one, organisms are adapted for their own survival and reproduction (or perhaps that of their genes), not that of the species.

Damn robots and their zeroth laws.

[Ebany]

With all this discusion about foetuses being human from the moment of conception, what about parents who are having fertility treatement? They will usually have a number of eggs extracted, fertilized, and stored, with them being gradually placed into her womb until a successful fertilization occurs. If this happened with the first attempt, should she then be forced to also have all the others implanted (gradually) as they are all embryos, and all capable of deveoping in the correct environment. Would defrosting them and throwing them out be murder?

Or there was a woman who had ovarian cancer (I think) and before the surgery to remove her ovaries she had some eggs extracted and fertilized with her partners sperm, before storing them for when they were ready to have children. Some years later, the couple have separated, but the woman now wants to use the embryos as her only chance of having a child that is genetically her own. The problemn is the father has decided he des not want the foetuses to become children. He wanted the embryos to be disposed of, is he a murderer? Last I heard in the matter the courts were supporting the father, so are they all supporting murder?

What is the difference between an embryo put on ice and one still safe in its mothers womb? By the whole embryo reckoning, this would ironically make fertility clinics the biggest baby killers of all.