Abortion

[TheRealFolkBlues]

You have all the freewill in the world, but only if it doesn't violate the rights of others.

[Chidori]

Killing a selection of cells that have not yet formed into anything even remotely human is hardly cruel. It would be far worse to let the baby be born into a family that can't support it or take care of it properly.

[DarkWarrior]

Except they are living, and appearances & timelines aren't everything. I also refer to my arguments in the Cloning topic (http://www.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/forum/f24/t2663/), as they all seem to fit rather well here.

[Chidori]

It's all down to the way you look at it. I mean there's a huge difference between cutting down a tree and crushing an acorn. It's something that could pontentially become a human, it's not an animal yet and unless you find it morally wrong that you killed something that could have become human I would say that unless the one pregnant is either in the position to be able to give that child a well supported life or be willing to go through 9 months of stress in order to give a family who can't have children a child abortion is the best option.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Killing a selection of cells that have not yet formed into anything even remotely human is hardly cruel.
Our body is nothing but a clump of cells. What's your point?It would be far worse to let the baby be born into a family that can't support it or take care of it properly.
So it's okay to kill a person for the sake of convenience? What's stopping anyone from putting a child up for adoption?I mean there's a huge difference between cutting down a tree and crushing an acorn. It's something that could pontentially become a human
I think there's a big difference between a human being and a tree =/

The whole development argument is flawed. A 5 year old is nowhere near as developed as a 20 year old, so we can kill the 5 year old?

It's also interesting to note if the doctor does any harm to the child once it's outside of the womb is sued and that if someone kills a pregnant woman, it's counted as double homicide.

[DarkWarrior]

t's all down to the way you look at it. I mean there's a huge difference between cutting down a tree and crushing an acorn. It's something that could pontentially become a human, it's not an animal yet and unless you find it morally wrong that you killed something that could have become human
At the point of conception, it is human. If we were talking about a sperm or an egg, then it really wouldn't matter, because they aren't genetically human. They merely contain chromosomes But after conception, it's human, and subsequently, abortion kills that human. I would say that unless the one pregnant is either in the position to be able to give that child a well supported life or be willing to go through 9 months of stress in order to give a family who can't have children a child abortion is the best option.
Adoption is a viable option. There are tons of people unable to have children who would be happy to adopt one. There are plenty of programs available where the mother can go through each step of the process, and decide which parents will adopt the child. Sure sounds like a better option than killing off the child.

[Henriksson]

Adoption. Ever heard of that before? There are good people in the world that will take care of other peoples' children and treat them as their own.

I'm with TheRealFolkBlues on this one. We cannot brush away a potential human life.

[Chidori]

haha, seems everyone disagrees with me on this one. and as for the adoption thing I have already meantion it Henriksson and it's all up to the mother, if they are willing to go through those 9 months of sickness stress and birth itself then yes of course adoption is the better option. Our body is nothing but a clump of cells. What's your point?
If you had read beyond the first 5 words of that sentence you would have seen what my point was.So it's okay to kill a person for the sake of convenience? What's stopping anyone from putting a child up for adoption?
It's not a person, it will pontentially become one if the mother were to decide to keep it and I have already said why someone wouldn't want to go with adoption.I think there's a big difference between a human being and a tree =/
Well done, I'm glad you've made that observation. I was using it as an example, It appears you didn't pick up on that.A 5 year old is nowhere near as developed as a 20 year old, so we can kill the 5 year old?
That has nothing to do with my point, compare an embryo to a 5 year old then say something that doesn't make you sound like a fool.At the point of conception, it is human....But after conception, it's human, and subsequently, abortion kills that human.
That is true on a completely technical basis, but morally there is a huge difference between killing something in the earliest levels of development than something that is fully functioning outside of the womb. What is produced after conception is a microscopic organism than has the chance to become human, yes it is technically human at this stage but there's a huge difference between it and what is globally accepted as being human.

I highly doubt I'll be able to reason with you anyway seeming as you are all convinced it's so wrong, It's all down to the mother and if I got someone pregnant it would be her decision i would respect it either way. You all seem to think adoption is so easy but the emotional stress of going through pregnancy and then giving up the child is a horrible ordeal whatever way you look at it.

[killshot]

The mother has the right to do what she wishes with the fetus. Disposing of a fetus before it reaches maturity is the same as it never existing in the first place. I see no problem with killing something that has never experienced life in the first place. Adoption is certainly an option to consider, but I don't think it should be viewed as the only moral way out of the situation. Both abortion and adoption are just ways of getting rid of an unwanted child, so I don't think women should be looked down upon just for taking the easier and safer way out.

By the way, the cloning topic that DarkWarrior mentioned has more of my opinion on this subject. My arguments seem to apply to this topic as well.

[Henriksson]

The mother has the right to do what she wishes with the fetus.
Let me ask you: Why? You don't seem to have given a reason why.

[killshot]

Because the fetus is growing inside her body. Until it is born, it is only a parasite that puts the mothers health at risk. It is common sense that the mother should be able to make decisions involving her own body.

I'll ask you a question back: Why shouldn't women decide what happens to the fetus growing inside their uterus?

[Underling]

desu

[DarkWarrior]

haha, seems everyone disagrees with me on this one. and as for the adoption thing I have already meantion it Henriksson and it's all up to the mother, if they are willing to go through those 9 months of sickness stress and birth itself then yes of course adoption is the better option.
Because the comfort & convenience of one person comes before the life of another.It's not a person, it will pontentially become one if the mother were to decide to keep it and I have already said why someone wouldn't want to go with adoption.
It is a person at the moment of conception, and no later.That has nothing to do with my point, compare an embryo to a 5 year old then say something that doesn't make you sound like a fool.
While there is a difference, they're both still human, so I don't see the relevance.That is true on a completely technical basis, but morally there is a huge difference between killing something in the earliest levels of development than something that is fully functioning outside of the womb. What is produced after conception is a microscopic organism than has the chance to become human, yes it is technically human at this stage but there's a huge difference between it and what is globally accepted as being human.
Whoa whoa whoa, hold up. Globally accepted? The Pro-Life cause would not be nearly as large as it is if it were "globally accepted". Just because you think it is one thing, does not make it what everyone else thinks. Human is human is human. This is fact. What people are willing to accept, that's another matter.I highly doubt I'll be able to reason with you anyway seeming as you are all convinced it's so wrong, It's all down to the mother and if I got someone pregnant it would be her decision i would respect it either way. You all seem to think adoption is so easy but the emotional stress of going through pregnancy and then giving up the child is a horrible ordeal whatever way you look at it.
This, this right here, no. The mother decided to have sex. If the mother didn't want the baby, then she should not have had sex in the first place. Just because it inconveniences her, does not mean that it's her "right" to kill it.but I don't think it should be viewed as the only moral way out of the situation. Both abortion and adoption are just ways of getting rid of an unwanted child, so I don't think women should be looked down upon just for taking the easier and safer way out.
Then you really have no idea what adoption is. It's not just "getting rid of". "Getting rid of" is absolute abandonment. Adoption is a way of acting responsibly on behalf of a child that the mother just can not take care of yet.BY NOT HAVING SEX RIGHT NOW YOU ARE DEPRIVING THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL BABIES OF LIFE YOU MURDEROUS BASTARDS
Addressed. (http://www.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/forum/f24/t2948/#p6)

[Chidori]

It is a person at the moment of conception, and no later.While there is a difference, they're both still human, so I don't see the relevance.
Can you really not see past technicallities and realise the immense differences between killing a living human and something that was merely an egg and a sperm a week earlier. Whoa whoa whoa, hold up. Globally accepted? The Pro-Life cause would not be nearly as large as it is if it were "globally accepted". Just because you think it is one thing, does not make it what everyone else thinks. Human is human is human. This is fact. What people are willing to accept, that's another matter.
Yes it may be human and yes your entire arguement is based on technical fact but that doesn't change the fact that there's a difference between a human and an embryo even if they are different stages of development of the same species. You can't deny that and maybe using the term globally accepted was the wrong way to phrase it but a majority of people would recognise that there is a difference. This, this right here, no. The mother decided to have sex. If the mother didn't want the baby, then she should not have had sex in the first place. Just because it inconveniences her, does not mean that it's her "right" to kill it.
Wait, what? How on earth can you say that, at this point the child is a part of her body, it's growing inside her and she has every right to do what she wants with it. Whatever way you look at it you can't doubt that is is the mothers choice, as killshot said until it is born it is just endangering her health. Again you're jsut basing your entire agruement on thinking that a fetus is the exact same thing as a fully developed child. If a mother wants to kill her child that has been born of course that's wrong, of course thats not right. But killing something that wouldn't be alive without feeding off her is completely different, you can't force a woman to be pregnant, if she wants an abortion it is her every right to remove that burden. As for that if she didn't want a baby she shouldn't have had sex ramble, that's rediculous are all women going to asume that the contraception is going to break? or were you not aware such a thing exsisted. inb4 'BUT WHAT IF SHE DIDN'T UZE ANY' because if that was the case then it's her own fault but it's still in her every right to abort it if she wants to due to reasons i have already explained.Then you really have no idea what adoption is. It's not just "getting rid of". "Getting rid of" is absolute abandonment. Adoption is a way of acting responsibly on behalf of a child that the mother just can not take care of yet.
Now that's just picking on the slightest technicalities. Yes of course adoption is gettting rid of the child, it's jsut a different way of phrasing it. Gettign rid of can mean all manner of things, it's the situation it happens in that brings the full definition. I phrased it in 3 words whereas you did in 19, i saved time.

[Underling]

desu

[DarkWarrior]

Can you really not see past technicallities and realise the immense differences between killing a living human and something that was merely an egg and a sperm a week earlier.
And a born baby was only just an egg & a sperm just 9 months ago. Point?Wait, what? How on earth can you say that, at this point the child is a part of her body, it's growing inside her and she has every right to do what she wants with it. Whatever way you look at it you can't doubt that is is the mothers choice, as killshot said until it is born it is just endangering her health. Again you're jsut basing your entire agruement on thinking that a fetus is the exact same thing as a fully developed child. If a mother wants to kill her child that has been born of course that's wrong, of course thats not right. But killing something that wouldn't be alive without feeding off her is completely different, you can't force a woman to be pregnant, if she wants an abortion it is her every right to remove that burden. As for that if she didn't want a baby she shouldn't have had sex ramble, that's rediculous are all women going to asume that the contraception is going to break? or were you not aware such a thing exsisted. inb4 'BUT WHAT IF SHE DIDN'T UZE ANY' because if that was the case then it's her own fault but it's still in her every right to abort it if she wants to due to reasons i have already explained.
So then, please, explain when the fetus is human? The moment of birth? Then why is it possible for a baby to survive when a mother dies, some 7-8 months into pregnancy, if sufficient medical care is given? It's living outside her body, and is not feeding solely off her.
Anyways, yes, I can assert the logic of "You took the risk, and now you have to be responsible for it" logic. She had sex, and now she's pregnant. She has a responsibility to the fetus/child, at this point. To carry it to term, and to allow it the best possible beginning for it.Yes it may be human and yes your entire arguement is based on technical fact but that doesn't change the fact that there's a difference between a human and an embryo even if they are different stages of development of the same species. You can't deny that and maybe using the term globally accepted was the wrong way to phrase it but a majority of people would recognise that there is a difference.
That's an assumption, and not actual fact, there. I'm not going to follow along with "The majority of the people probably would agree with me" logic, simply because you have no idea if this is the actual case.
No matter how arbitrarily you continue to label an embryo as human, an embryo is not the same as a newborn child, it's a different size, it's a different shape, it carries out none of the same functions as a fully developed human - it's just as much merely a collection of cells as it was before conception. It is solely the fact that you know it has entered a process which will result in the creation of a fully-formed human that makes you morally avert to killing it. Not what it is, it's potential.

I would be more willing to accept a case against abortion along the lines of protecting a foetus once it had developed enough consciousness to be aware, but you'd still be arguing against harming a foetus, not the murder of another human.
Nor is a born child a fully-developed human, then. It could even be argued that a human isn't fully developed until post-pubescence. Which would be just as accurate. Yet we consider children to be as human as anyone else.Now that's just picking on the slightest technicalities. Yes of course adoption is gettting rid of the child, it's jsut a different way of phrasing it. Gettign rid of can mean all manner of things, it's the situation it happens in that brings the full definition. I phrased it in 3 words whereas you did in 19, i saved time.
Implications in words. Getting rid of implies the dumping of something. Which adoption isn't. It's a responsible decision on behalf of the child.

[Chidori]

I can see this argument is getting nowhere, we are both to thick headed to accept eithers points, well to me it seems your only point is that it's human after conception which you are blindly thinking is exactly the same as what is produced at birth. I am growing tired of this as you seem to not be able to the notice the difference between two things that are scarce in similarities. And a born baby was only just an egg & a sperm just 9 months ago. Point?
It's things like that show you have nothing of importance to say. There's a difference between 9 months and a week as there is a difference between a microscopic featus and a child.

Realise these differences then look at the topic form my point of view. I'm bored of this thread now so let's see some new arguments from new people.

[Underling]

desu

[DarkWarrior]

Chidori, I find your arrogance tiresome. If you can't debate without a smug, superior attitude, don't debate at all.There's a difference between 9 months and a week as there is a difference between a microscopic featus and a child.
Thing is, I hold the belief that if it is at all living at any point, conception or afterwards, and it (is currently/will eventually be able to) support itself, we should allow it to get to that point, not "Exercise free will" just because we can.

Underling, at least your thought process & what you defend are in order. Tons of people seem to think that abortion, at any stage is acceptable. At least your position makes sense, despite that I disagree with it.

[Underling]

desu

[Chidori]

Chidori, I find your arrogance tiresome. If you can't debate without a smug, superior attitude, don't debate at all.
That's merely down to how you've interprited how I go about arguing, if you think I've held that attitude then so be it but that's in no way down to me trying to achieve superiority over you or anyone else.

[DarkWarrior]

I am growing tired of this as you seem to not be able to the notice the difference between two things that are scarce in similarities.It's things like that show you have nothing of importance to say.
^ This, this is arrogance.

Anyways,I would also like to point out that abortion was originally legalised in this country to prevent dangerous illegal procedures being carried out, which would be inevitable if it were completely banned
I'd like to point out that nothing should ever be legalized to prevent it from happening illegally. That's rather backwards, and defeats the purpose of having such laws in the first place.

[HeavyDDR]

Honestly, if people are gonna be THAT stubborn about abortion, than THEY can have all the kids people don't want.

We have way too many people on this planet, losing ones that aren't even alive yet is barely murder. Believe it or not Mr. Christians-and-Religious people, having a million-trillion humans on the world isn't a good thing.

It comes down to this; what are people going to do first, stop having sex or stop believing everyone is important even if they're doing nothing for society and they're not pedophiles?

[Underling]

desu

[littlekuribohrulz20]

for example, if you had never been born, the world would be ALOT better.

and people not having sex? I'm sorry, but that's just NEVER going to happen.

[Nina]

Abortion to me is sickening. But if it was made illegal, people would find other, unsafe means of aborting. It's a tough call :/ I'd say only in the first trimester should it be allowed. That should be ample time to have an abortion. Although I hate the idea of it...

[Someguy]

And what if the person is raped? What then? Does the parent still have the responsibility to take care of a life that they did not want to be in the first place? If the female is raped, it should not be their responsibility to take care of the child and raise it if they do not want to, and in this case, the abortion is completely justified. On the other hand, if someone goes sleeping around, they are asking for it and have no right to kill the child. Therefore, abortion CAN be acceptable, under the right circumstances.

[darkarcher]

That really depends on your perspective. If you consider it a person, then it shouldn't be terminated merely because it's inconvenient.

However, nobody can actually say "what if the person was raped?" unless they've actually been in that situation, so I can't actually justify either side of this.

[Someguy]

I had a friend who was raped, and they also had very bad health and would not be able to GIVE birth without dying, so I think that in that case, abortion was legitimate. In some cases, abortion is the answer to saving a life as well as taking it, if you even count the fetus as a life. Personally, I believe that if it has no mind of it's own, it is not alive in an aspect that gives it human rights.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

"And what if the person is raped? What then? Does the parent still have the responsibility to take care of a life that they did not want to be in the first place?"

Put it up for adoption then.

[Someguy]

And what if they have a disease that will cause them to die when they give birth?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

"And what if they have a disease that will cause them to die when they give birth?"

The only time abortion is tolerable is if the mother's life is in danger.

[Someguy]

Also, what if the person is raped, and they do not want to go through the nine months of Hell?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Punish the rapist, not the child.

[Someguy]

That is avoiding the question.

Edit: The question was, what if she does not WANT TO GO THROUGH THE NINE MONTH HELL?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

I consider babysitting hell, so does that mean I can kill the kid?

[Someguy]

Irrelevant.
What I said meant what if the person does not want to go through labor? Do they have to anyways?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Life, liberty, property.

[Someguy]

What?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

John Locke.

[Someguy]

I asked you a question, which was:What I said meant what if the person does not want to go through labor? Do they have to anyways?
What is your answer?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

What if I don't want to follow the law?

Ever figured I'm answering your question philosophically?

[Someguy]

I'd like a direct answer.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

I'd like you to stop being a lazy ass.

[Someguy]

Excuse me?

Edit: Just answer the question.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

I already did. You just haven't seeked it.

[Someguy]

...

[MrsSallyBakura]

*sigh*
Ok. Obviously the question is getting nowhere to being answered. Let me try.

First I'd like to say that abortion because of rape is rare. I heard one statistic say about 2%. I'm not sure how true that is, but I'm pretty sure it's not as common as getting an abortion because the girl had sex, didn't use contraception or it didn't work or she screwed up with finding out when her period was, something like that.

Now if a rape/pregnancy were to happen, having an abortion isn't going to make her situation better. Sure she won't have to go through "nine months of Hell," but she's probably already feeling an extraordinary amount of self-loathing, and if she feels that her child is a human, whether before or after the abortion, knowing that she destroyed the innocent life that was the effect of her rape rather than the cause, will just make her feel worse. If there is absolutely 100% no doubt in her mind that the fetus is not a human, then maybe she won't feel that same repercussion, but many women do even when they haven't been raped, which is why you may hear a lot of women telling stories about how they regret their abortions. There are women who don't regret it, or at least say they don't, but there are those who do and there are women who years and years and years later have dreams about what their child would be like, or hearing footsteps in the middle of the night. It's a strange psychological response to an abortion, and mixing that with the psychological effects of rape... unimaginable. Some groups deny post-abortion syndrome, others claim these groups to be biased toward abortion, so it's a touchy subject, but I've heard enough from the word-of-mouth from those who knew people going through some of these symptoms, so that's the evidence I'm using.

Now, going through a pregnancy, knowing that the father of this child is a horrifying criminal who personally violated her, isn't easy either, obviously. But again, why should the child be punished for the crime its father committed? Even if the father is caught and thrown in jail, it will probably only make the woman feel a little bit better but not enough to diminish her self-loathing, so she has the abortion to take away some of the burden. In that case you'd be punishing both parties, one of which is completely innocent. You could argue, "She shouldn't be punished with a pregnancy." She shouldn't have been punished with rape either, she is just a victim who did nothing to deserve it, and unfortunately the pregnancy is only the effect of the rape. The child is in the same position she is in if it were to be aborted. You can't make a fair choice no matter what.
Besides, the child won't turn into his/her father. The child could become an amazing and successful person. It is an opportunity to show others that even though you are a victim of evil, good can come out of it.
And you can always put a child up for adoption. No, adoption isn't nearly as easy as it sounds, I get that, but it's possible to find a barren couple out there who can't really afford a trip to China and raise a baby who would love to finally have one.

Nothing is easy or simple when dealing with a pregnancy because of rape. But abortion isn't the only option.

That's my 2 cents. A very lengthy 2 cents, but take it or leave it as you wish.

[Someguy]

Oh THANK YOU Mrs SallyBakura! Someone with actual THOUGHT put into their post!
Anyways...
That is a very good point, and though I disagree with the opinion, I respect YOUR view of it because you have logic to support it. On the other hand, you also have to look at WHY people who get abortions in the first place, like living conditions, money issues, location, safety for the what would be child, the child is unwanted, etc.
Also, there are times when poor planning gets in the way, or times when the child is not wanted, but the parent/parents are too stupid to realize that they are not right to raise a child. In these cases, abortion is right in my opinion.
I may sound like a cold, heartless person...but my friend had to get an abortion for already stated reasons, and they are glad they did it because they know if the child had actually developed, it would have had Hell for a life, because they came from an orphanage themselves, and they know how terrible life can be in one, because as stated, do to medical conditions, she would have died giving birth, and the child would have gone to an orphanage.
Yes, there are cases where the mother regrets it, but the same cases happen to many who give up their child to adoption. Because of which, I would not use this as part of an argument.

EDIT: Also, on an unrelated note, if the child-to-be in question has not yet developed a brain or brain cells, does it still have an opinion?

[Brandi]

Abortion should not be used a method of birth control. In very specific cases in which the mothers life is in danger upon giving birth, and perhaps if the mother was raped and has a mental illness or a disease that would pass on to the the child and give them a horrible life, then it might be considerable in terms of morality. I'm not completely sure how a birth would go if a mother was raped by a family member. There are possibilities of the baby having issues after being born, but I don' t know how probable that is.

[MrsSallyBakura]

On the other hand, you also have to look at WHY people who get abortions in the first place, like living conditions, money issues, location, safety for the what would be child, the child is unwanted, etc.
Also, there are times when poor planning gets in the way, or times when the child is not wanted, but the parent/parents are too stupid to realize that they are not right to raise a child. In these cases, abortion is right in my opinion.
Another reason to support adoption. Like I said it's not as easy as some pro-life activists make it out to be, but like I also said, there are barren couples out there who can't afford a trip to China but would love to raise a child of their own. If the parents weren't responsible enough to not have sex or use birth control, I don't think the baby should pay for their actions.
EDIT: Also, on an unrelated note, if the child-to-be in question has not yet developed a brain or brain cells, does it still have an opinion?
Good question.
Instead of directly answering it, let me show you this: http://www.webmd.com/solutions/sc/pregnancy-week-by-week/weeks5-8
People underestimate how quickly the embryo's organs develop.

[Someguy]

Good question.
Instead of directly answering it, let me show you this: http://www.webmd.com/solutions/sc/pregnancy-week-by-week/weeks5-8
People underestimate how quickly the embryo's organs develop.
Ok? That still does not answer my question, I asked if it still had an opinion.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I already said that it wasn't going to answer your question, but if it pleases you then I will.
I have no idea it it has an opinion. I don't even know if babies who are 2 months old have an opinion. How can we know if it has an opinion if we can't really remember that far back in our lives? A few people can randomly remember something from when they were only a few months old, but those are based purely on sight, therefore they don't know anything outside their own needs. How can they have an opinion about something if the issue has never been presented to them?
That can go for any human being who has never been exposed to the outside world all that much.

[Sophie]

OBJECTION!!!

A fetus is not a child.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Says who?

[Sophie]

Says science.

[TheFall]

Science says that it is a developing human.

Since I am a Christian, I'm mainly against abortion. Abortion because you didn't play it safe, didn't wait for marriage, well that's kind of your fault. Take responsibility for your actions. However, the subject I'm iffy about is if the birth of the child will kill the mother. THis is the only part of abortion that makes it fine, for me. The other abortion is murder whilst the latter is self-defense.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Science says that it is a developing human.
This.
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php
It may not say, "This is a human being" directly, but if you seriously take a look at all this, I don't see how it can't be. The vast majority of time in the uterus is growth. The heart has its first beat by the 5th week and sex is determined immediately.

[TheFall]

Yes, a person with sanity! If it's not human, what is it? A turtle? No! A developing human child must be placed under a species if you don't want it to be a human. I call abortion "legalized murder". I think I got that from my Christian history book. Go figure.

[killshot]

If it's not human, what is it?
A fetus is nothing more than a potiential human being. Until it can exist outside the womb and develops consciousness, it is little more than a mass of organs.

[Sophie]

Something with no heart beat and no brain activity isn't even living! How you can justify giving it the legal rights of a human is just disgusting.

But you will never understand. Until you yourself are raped and have to live with the constant reminder of the horror for nine agonizingly painful months, you will never understand why abortion is necessary.
And don't you start pulling that "Oh well in SOME cases it okay" bullshit, because that's just pathetic. There is no gray area when it comes to abortion. Have some integrity, if you believe it's murder then it shouldn't be acceptable in any circumstance.

[Someguy]

A fetus is not human, it is a developing human. There is a HUGE difference. If it is not a COMPLETE human, then it is not covered under any law.

[darkarcher]

Something with no heart beat and no brain activity isn't even living! How you can justify giving it the legal rights of a human is just disgusting.
By the time most people have their abortions, the fetus has developed both brain activity and a beating heart.A fetus is not human, it is a developing human. There is a HUGE difference. If it is not a COMPLETE human, then it is not covered under any law.
How, then, would you describe a complete human? Technically a fetus is considered such for the full 9 months of gestation, but modern medical techniques can keep babies alive that were only in 5 months of gestation. So, where do you draw the line?

I personally believe that abortion is wrong. Sophie is right in saying that you're either for it or against it, because you're setting double standards otherwise.

[Sophie]

Poster is most likely male.

I don't believe abortions should be preformed once the baby has developed. And third trimester abortions are illegal.
Here you go, a fetus at a month.
http://survivors.la/images/04-weeks.jpg
That is not a human.

[darkarcher]

It still depends what you consider human.

Also, I am not the only person who has said such. There are multiple females who have stated the same as I.

[Someguy]

How, then, would you describe a complete human?
I count a complete human as something that can learn, want, and think. Babies can do this, a fetus cannot. Therefore, I believe a fetus is not a human being.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Babies can do this, a fetus cannot.
Do we really know that a fetus can't think? How do we go about studying that?
The only reason why a fetus cannot learn is because it is kept secluded from the rest of the world. You could keep someone outside the womb locked in a room for its lifetime and it wouldn't learn anything either. Learning is a social skill, and not everyone who is born is automatically social. The vast majority of people are, but I learned in my psychology class that some girl's parents kept her locked in a single room, giving her food everyday, and even though she was 12, she couldn't talk, walk, nothing except make lots of noise.

Though on the other hand, how come as soon as the baby is born, it has reflexes? Does the brain not work while in the womb and then all of a sudden as soon as it's born it automatically knows to suck on his mother's breast for milk and how to grasp a finger? Brain activity starts during the first trimester. By the 5th week the brain and nerves are working properly. Same goes for the heartbeat. It has a beating heart starting in the 5th week of pregnancy. As far as I know, most women have their abortions after that.

And the only reason why a fetus doesn't "want" anything is because it has everything it needs right inside the womb; there is nothing to want. Besides, like with learning, how do we go about studying what a fetus wants? And just because you can't study it, it doesn't mean that what is desired to be studied is impossible.
Something with no heart beat and no brain activity isn't even living! How you can justify giving it the legal rights of a human is just disgusting.
Excuse me, but I have yet to call your opinions disgusting. You, on the other hand, are being incredibly rude and completely misunderstanding my point.
Both a heartbeat and brain activity begin during the first trimester. Most women have abortions after the first month of pregnancy; as far as I know, I don't think most women even know that they're pregnant until sometime during the second month.
But you will never understand. Until you yourself are raped and have to live with the constant reminder of the horror for nine agonizingly painful months, you will never understand why abortion is necessary.
Didn't I already cover on the last page about Someguy's question about rape? Maybe I won't understand that situation at its fullest, but I do understand that it is unimaginably difficult. I already said that an abortion wouldn't be the best answer in the first place.
And I can guarantee that if it ever did happen to me, I won't get an abortion. Even if it means going through "9 months of Hell," I won't do it. The fetus shouldn't be the one punished for the horrible man's crime.

If you could just do me a favor and stop being so bitter. Pro-life people are not idiots and neither are pro-choice people, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that. Please be willing to do the same.

[Someguy]

I don't count a fetus as human, it has no wants or desires as far as I'm concerned, it can't communicate wants, and it doesn't have any way of displaying thought or emotion, as far as we know. If these facts are proven wrong, then my stance will change, but until then, my opinion stands.

[Chidori]

The only reason why a fetus cannot learn is because it is kept secluded from the rest of the world.
your'e making it sound as if having a fetus inside the womb as opposed to out of it is a bad thing.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Well it's not what I meant at all... I mean exactly as I say it. There are no implications of any other meaning.
I don't count a fetus as human, it has no wants or desires as far as I'm concerned, it can't communicate wants, and it doesn't have any way of displaying thought or emotion, as far as we know. If these facts are proven wrong, then my stance will change, but until then, my opinion stands.
Fair enough. I still think that a fetus can do more than given credit for and these things should in fact be studied and spread in the scientific world instead of being shrugged off.

[Brandi]

I agree with someguy's latest speculation.

If it isn't aware, it doesn't care. This can be said for all fetuses in a notably early stage, not just human ones. Although, people generally do not take into account the well being of an animal fetus as vigorously as that of a human.

In regards to MrsSallyBakura and her last statement, I would like to note: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The fact that you are currently unaware of any confirmed scientific evidence suggesting that fetuses 'can do more than given credit for', does not necessarily mean that they undoubtedly can.

I'd like to point out as a general statement, that, logically, the argument that abortion should be illegal with the basis of it being morally wrong is merely an appeal to emotion. It would be easy to claim that we as human beings generally have an idea on what is right and what is wrong. However, the differences between right and wrong are purely subjective and aren't always relevant in terms of legalities.Sophie is right in saying that you're either for it or against it, because you're setting double standards otherwise.
This is a false dilemma, a very notable logical fallacy. The stances on abortion in regards to whether you support or discredit it are not mutually exclusive; Especially considering that there are a whole spectrum of possibilities as well as different impressions that can be formed around such.

I am both for and against abortion, given multiple, possible, circumstances.

If it endangers , shortens, or burdens the life of the child, or if it can potentially kill the mother, then abortion would be an acceptable decision. (Note that, in some areas, putting a child up for adoption is not always a very good option. Also there is also the fact that some women may not get payed leave while being pregnant, and that may seriously hurt their financial situations if they have no one other than themselves to support themselves.)

If the 'mother' very often and very casually uses abortion as a means for birth control, then it is in my eyes, immoral and demeaning to the 'mothers' character and therefor an unacceptable decision.

My mother wanted to abort me when she found out she was pregnant solely because she did not want to lose her womanly figure. In my opinion such a decision would be very selfish of her to make, yet it is in no way grounds for me to perceive abortion as a purely negative choice. Such would be naive. However, Luckily for me, her best friend persuaded her into giving birth to me. She also later had to persuade my mother to give birth to my younger brother and sister as well. My mother denys that she ever considered abortion yet my father, her best friend, and the rest of my family claim that they all jumped on the bandwagon to persuade her into ultimately going through with all of her pregnancies. I am more so inclined to believe the rest of my family over her, seeing as how she generally has a tendency to lie about things to make herself look better. That is irrelevant I suppose, but I have finished with voicing my general opinion for now.

[inamerica55585]

once the fetus has brain activity and a beating heart it is a living creature. before that is fair game. 'nuff said.

[darkarcher]

Brain activity and heartbeat are not required for life, either. There are countless organisms that have neither a heart nor a brain and they are very much alive.

[Someguy]

Brain activity and heartbeat are not required for life, either. There are countless organisms that have neither a heart nor a brain and they are very much alive.
But are they human?

[Sophie]

But are they human?
Exactly the question no one can answer.

[inamerica55585]

well the only way to define what is truly of the species homo sapiens sapiens is as follows:
1. does it have human parents?
2. does it possess basic motor function and speech capability?
3. is it capable of adaptation and rational scientific reasoning?

if yes to all, then the subject is probably human.

[darkarcher]

2. does it possess basic motor function and speech capability?
3. is it capable of adaptation and rational scientific reasoning?
The only problem with this is that there are disabilities that remove these qualities from people. Does that mean that those people are any less human?

[MrsSallyBakura]

That's true. People used to think that mute/deaf/blind/lame people were cursed by the devil so they were social outcasts and spat upon and whatnot. African Americans and other races were considered beneath white humans and still are by some groups today.

Everyone seems to have their own definition of what a human is.

[Sophie]

*sigh*
It's obvious no one is denying it's species is human.