Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Abortion


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

Poll: What is your stance on abortion? (19 member(s) have cast votes)

What is your stance on abortion?

  1. Pro-Choice (12 votes [63.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.16%

  2. Pro-Life (6 votes [31.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.58%

  3. I don't care >_> (1 votes [5.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Ralor

Ralor

    Knight

  • Knight
  • 781 posts
  • A Musical Madman

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:31 PM

I missed this thread before, but reading it I see most of my points have already been said by Iggy in the post at the middle of page 4. The only science I will bring up is
A) A fetus is not a living thing by the law of nature, as it cannot metabolize for itself or achieve homeostasis. To consider it as such based on your own morality is foolish.
B) Until it reaches a certain point (At what I understand to be very late in its development) it does not have nerve endings and feels nothing from the procedure.

Sig312.jpg

 

 

Im dum.


Shhhhh. It's okay. We understand.

3DS Friend Code: 5069-3989-9578
Nintendo Network ID: Niroji

Steam: Musical Madman

 

 


#42 Secret Igshar

Secret Igshar

    Pwner of Noobs

  • Monarch
  • 3,796 posts
  • your worst nightmare

User's Awards

     

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:46 PM

In the news lately there has been a lot of talk about Abortion. Now, I know before I said I was pro-choice but I have to say that I can understand where some pro-life people are coming from. After doing a lot of reading and listening to both sides of the topic, I've come to the conclusion that pro-choice is the best of the two but not just because it's a womans right to choose what to do with her body. It's right because if she gives birth and is a terrible mother, we have another child out there that gets treated terribly. That doesn't get the proper care, the right food to eat, the love it deserves. For that reason alone abortion should be legal. If someone isn't going to be a fit mother then they shouldn't have a kid. Some say you shouldn't have sex and take risks if you dont want a kid. I find that to be bullshit. Sure, if she was doing it without protection she's stupid. She deserves to have something happen to her. But having a child? That shouldn't be a 'punishment' for not havving protected sex. Think of the child that gets born into the world from that. It won't be loved like a planned child would. At least in most cases it wont.

I'm just gonna say that woman should have the choice to abort or not. Not only because it's their body but because they might not be fit to be a mother or have the proper means to care for a child at all.

Pretty much this, except for a few things.

Saying that a woman /shouldn't/ have a child because of some perceived deficit is just as bad as saying a woman /should/ have a child because she got pregnant. You're still making the choice for the woman.


I don't remember if I made these points before in this thread (though I probably did), but regardless they warrant repeating. The main goal of the Pro-Life movement is to decrease the amount of abortions that happen. Therefore, they want to make it illegal. Since if things are illegal, people won't do them. That's honestly the stance of the dumb ones.

Real pro-life advocates should be looking for better ways of fixing the problem. Making abortion illegal is like plugging a single leak in a water balloon that has like five holes in it. You plugged up the biggest leak, sure, but that's not going to stop the water from flowing out. Abortion being illegal will not magically turn an unwanted child into a wanted child.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure I brought this up already in this thread, so I'll stop here. :<

But the main legislative issue is that pro-choice understands the fact that illegalizing abortion won't stem it at all, while pro-life just ignores that fact because abortion is baby murder.



Also @Ralor:

Those arguments really don't work. At all. They convince no one. Christianity (and many other main religions) stand by the fact that abortion is murder, regardless how you try to make it not so with fancy wordplay.

The issue is that the pro-lifers are picketing and bitching about the WRONG THING. They should be looking for ways to STOP unplanned pregnancies from EVER HAPPENING in the first place. If the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies drops, the number of abortions drops. A lot of abortions are had by parents who would carry the child to term, but they simply cannot afford to raise a child. That's a fault of the capitalist system and how ungodly expensive we make it to raise children. Railing against abortion won't fix those problems. If a couple is doing well and will fall down to rock bottom due to an unplanned baby who's on the way, they'll seek an abortion even if it's not legal. :\

blahblahblah the Abortion debate doesn't focus on the right topics, and arguing against the incorrect aim of pro-life advocates isn't going to help anybody.

a5g7ld.gif

Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) u can't own black people

Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) #ThanksLincoln


#43 Valor

Valor

    Valorous

  • Monarch
  • 3,874 posts
  • This is My Design

User's Awards

     

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:48 PM

I'm just gonna say that woman should have the choice to abort or not. Not only because it's their body but because they might not be fit to be a mother or have the proper means to care for a child at all.

Counterpoint: Adoption.

Kind of silly argument in my mind, but whatever.

Iggy kind of laid the smack down pretty rigorously a month back. I will weigh in on this, though:

A) A fetus is not a living thing by the law of nature, as it cannot metabolize for itself or achieve homeostasis. To consider it as such based on your own morality is foolish.

That's kind of a ridiculous statement to make, I feel. Just because something doesn't fit a textbook definition of life, doesn't mean it isn't A life.

Blade had a decent point when he said:

On a serious note you do abortion... you're taking away a possible Einstein, a child who could possible someday find the cure to cancer.

The lack of life will eventually become a definition of life. The idea that you can try and use a scientific reason to justify your own morality on the subject is quite laughable to me. It's like someone who says "TECHNICALLY it isn't a life, so HA!" which is really quite ignorant, I feel, and is pretty disregarding of the social constructs of society which will all live in and abide by. Winning arguments or making statements based on technicalities is a weak tactic in my mind. Very weak.

second:

B) Until it reaches a certain point (At what I understand to be very late in its development) it does not have nerve endings and feels nothing from the procedure.

Euthanasia is also painless and peaceful, but is it right? That's a morality question.

I do side with Igbutt and what he said, and I'll add that I personally feel "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are pretty fucking dumb labels to hide behind in order to skirt the real issues that he raised.

When talking about FEDERAL LEGALITY, personal ethics and morals cannot come in to play. You can't just outright ban abortion procedures at a federal level. Before there were clinics, people were having backalley abortions which were pretty unsanitary (shocker) and incredibly dangerous (impossibiru!!) and it'd happen again with more frequency if it was illegal.

Remember prohibition? That time during which America outlawed beer and no one ever drank alcohol for y- oh wait no people still got their beer.

Remember how drugs are illegal? Isn't it great that no one uses dru- oh wait... maybe they still get it somehow.

Putting women at risk because "it makes me sleep better at night" is fuckin' dumb, man. This shit's gonna happen no matter what, so we might as well give women a safe, clean way to take care of what they need to take care of.

Also, if people are -really- up in arms about the whole "killing future generations of babbies", just remember that every time a guy rubs one out, you're killing children. Ejaculate in a condom? Killing children. Ejaculate in a woman (or man's) mouth? Killing children. Congrats. Let's demonize women, but not men. Because wimmenz are evil.

*drops the mic*

147.png


#44 Secret Felix

Secret Felix

    Knight

  • Knight
  • 823 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:21 PM

I missed this thread before, but reading it I see most of my points have already been said by Iggy in the post at the middle of page 4. The only science I will bring up is
A) A fetus is not a living thing by the law of nature, as it cannot metabolize for itself or achieve homeostasis. To consider it as such based on your own morality is foolish.
B) Until it reaches a certain point (At what I understand to be very late in its development) it does not have nerve endings and feels nothing from the procedure.


Oh boy. First off, let's talk about this uh, "law of nature." There isn't one. A law does not explain the phenomenon of life. Yes, I am nitpicking. This is what happens when you misplay the science card.

Life is a process that is not easily defined, and as such there are multiple "definitions" floating around. I assume you're referring to the one based around an organism possessing x characteristics. The problem with your logic is that an organism only has to possess most of those characteristics, not all of them. Even if it does not possess one of the traits, that does not make instantly disqualify it as being a living thing.

Now, onto the characteristics of life that you've apparently misunderstood. While I can't comment much on the finer points of fetal homeostasis, I can talk about metabolism. Metabolism is an umbrella term for an immense number of anabolic and catabolic chemical reactions within cells. Anabolic pathways build proteins, while catabolic pathways break organic matter down. A growing fetus is undergoing both of these processes to some extent. Therefore, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a fetus is a living thing.

Finally, so what if it does not feel anything? If you kill someone who has congenital analgesia, is that okay? Since, you know, they didn't feel anything. They probably don't even know they're dead.

Also, if people are -really- up in arms about the whole "killing future generations of babbies", just remember that every time a guy rubs one out, you're killing children. Ejaculate in a condom? Killing children. Ejaculate in a woman (or man's) mouth? Killing children. Congrats. Let's demonize women, but not men. Because wimmenz are evil.


Conversely, sex cells are not living things. They do not: (ironically enough) reproduce, grow, take up energy, ect, ect. While you're not killing a human, developing or otherwise, I suppose it's the thought that counts?

(This probably wasn't the point of your spiel, but I feel it needs to be said, anyway.)
Posted Image

#45 Valor

Valor

    Valorous

  • Monarch
  • 3,874 posts
  • This is My Design

User's Awards

     

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:58 PM

Conversely, sex cells are not living things. They do not: (ironically enough) reproduce, grow, take up energy, ect, ect. While you're not killing a human, developing or otherwise, I suppose it's the thought that counts?

(This probably wasn't the point of your spiel, but I feel it needs to be said, anyway.)

That's a very solid point. What I was trying to say just doesn't really hold up in any feasible way that I can justify. I was leaning towards the thought/idea/symbolism of semen = potential humans just as much as a female's eggs are.

Countering my own point, a fetus is, as you said, alive. Sex cells aren't. They have the potential to create life, but that's all. It's not really fair for me to try and compare apples to oranges.

147.png