Abortion

this is a serious topic.

i want to see your opinions

pro choice or pro life

remeber you cant always be 100% for ethier one. its a moral dilema to be that way

i think pro choice, but only if raped, unable to handle finacial stress, or cant birth.
if you were jsut stupid, birth the baby and adopt it out

Pro choice ftw!

but what if they were just careless, didnt use comdoms. you would still support it
becuase then they're is no punishment for thier careless deeds

enviro wrote:

but what if they were just careless, didnt use comdoms. you would still support it
becuase then they're is no punishment for thier careless deeds

Its there choice, if it was a mistake, they can choose to have a abortion.
If they did it on purpose, they are weird, but they are still individuals and they can make that choice by themselves, I mean they pay for it and all.

i think you are right, but maybe they should still brith it

also what if you were trying to have a child, and you fond out it was going to be retarted, would you abort(or allow it)

enviro wrote:

i think you are right, but maybe they should still brith it

also what if you were trying to have a child, and you fond out it was going to be retarted, would you abort(or allow it)

Hmmm... well I would say abort it and try another one and hope its not retarted.

i dont know.
i mean you figure that out at stage 3, by then the baby is ike 4 weeks from being almost fully developed

enviro wrote:

i dont know.
i mean you figure that out at stage 3, by then the baby is ike 4 weeks from being almost fully developed

Then I guess I dont have a choice and have a retarted baby.

no no
you can still abort
it wont hurt, but still i mean

enviro wrote:

no no
you can still abort
it wont hurt, but still i mean

Oh rofl, then I don't know Il see then .

We already discussed this topic....

Simple: Scientifically and objectively abortion is murder for it implies the interruption of life.

Is interrupting this life ok or not? In my view nothing justifies murder, not even economic conditions or rape.

bu sometimes the egg attached to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus
if left to develop, it will burst killing mother and baby.

would you let an abortion for that, or else both die!

enviro wrote:

bu sometimes the egg attached to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus
if left to develop, it will burst killing mother and baby.

would you let an abortion for that, or else both die!

If it's saving one life or the two are lost then of course saving one life is the alternative to choose.

good
also do you belive yourself a knwoleageable person on life and global warming(not comparing, just aksing)

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

We already discussed this topic....

Simple: Scientifically and objectively abortion is murder for it implies the interruption of life.

Is interrupting this life ok or not? In my view nothing justifies murder, not even economic conditions or rape.

Spermcells are alive, is having sex "murder" then to?

CoolKidX wrote:

Spermcells are alive, is having sex "murder" then to?

Spermcells are not humans in development.

enviro wrote:

good
also do you belive yourself a knwoleageable person on life and global warming(not comparing, just aksing)

This is utterely irrelevant to the discussion.

i think this is a racial question, its a matter of race if its murder to kill a baby before its born, sure some babys of certain race of course have less value, and to prevent overflow of people.

Largely, I think that this subject is - whether intentionally or not - illusory; it reduces our level of discourse and it keeps the general public unaware of the genuinely important issues - like Capitalism v. Socialism. It raises blinders to the things that truly require attention, along with gay marriage, illegal immigration, gun rights, etc.

But, if I had to answer, I would have to be considered pro-choice, for lack of giving a shit about an embryo, which is the operative word here. It's not a baby. It's an embryo.

You could, perhaps, raise the argument that the unwanted fetus is coercing upon the mother. Their relationship is involuntary, and since the mother is an actual living and breathing human being I would have to think that any recourse could be seen as legitimate and even necessary on her part.

Again, though, abortion is a stupid issue.

By the way, here's a fun little link a found a while back when arguing about abortion. Check it out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/

that was pretty funny.
but what about stem cells,(form of abortion)

do you belive that women should be able to sell there eggs for stemcell research?
tehre not going to use them, so why not right. stem cells could help cure spinal problems and what not

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Spermcells are not humans in development.

Yes they are, they can be used to make a human.

Also you make it sound humans are more important then something else which is not human.. which is kinda right.
But I can hardly say a embryo is a human, but a hyuman in devolpment so it is not yet a true human, like a sperm cell it is not truely human yet though it can be a human.

i think we are al equal(including animalsz)
but we gotta face it
have you seen hoover dam? now look at at a beaver dam? i think hoover dam is more immpresive than a pile of mud and sticks

still, shes gonna waste em, why not use em foro ther purposes

P.s i still for animal rights?

CoolKidX wrote:

Yes they are, they can be used to make a human.

Sand is not glass in development. Gravel is not concrete in development.

They need to be combined with other materials and put into a process so taht they can be called "x" in development.

So happens with sperms and ovules.

If we take your logic for granted then you're suggesting we men are in risk of having our balls burst with babies.

CKX wrote:

Also you make it sound humans are more important then something else which is not human.. which is kinda right.

Matter of personal morals.

CKX wrote:

But I can hardly say a embryo is a human, but a hyuman in devolpment so it is not yet a true human, like a sperm cell it is not truely human yet though it can be a human.

My arguement is "Where does the life of a human start?" Scientifically it begins with conception regardless of whether the embryo doesn't look human or whatever you want. What is developing in there is a person, there's where our life begins.

Some argue that our life begins when our nervous system is finished.... and where the hells does the nervous system come from just like the rest of the boily systems?

Others, like the ridiculous 1948 UN declaration of Human rights declare that a human is not human until it's born. The fucking UN Declaration of Rights literally condones 8 month-oldpregnancies abortions. Mind me telling you there are babies that have been born and been able to develop properly even after having born after 5 months of gestation. I was born after 8 months of my mother's pregnancy. If one day before my birth my mother had decided to abort, the UN Declarartion of human rights would have condoned her.

That is plain stupidity.

I'm merely arguing that scintifically a human's life starts with conception and therefore abortion is murder.

The internet wrote:

You could, perhaps, raise the argument that the unwanted fetus is coercing upon the mother. Their relationship is involuntary, and since the mother is an actual living and breathing human being I would have to think that any recourse could be seen as legitimate and even necessary on her part.

I do have to argue against this comrade. Most sexual intercourses are voluntary and 100% of pregnancies are product of sexual intercourse. Based on this, most pregnancies are product of a voluntary act. It is a known fact that no means but abstinency or sterilization are 100% effective contraceptive methods so any sexual intercourse carries within itself the risk of implying pregnancy. That is, default, pregnancy is an implication of sexual intercourse regardless of the contraceptive methods used.

When having voluntary sex and counting with knowledge what sex implies, one is voluntarily accepting the implications of sex. Therefore pregnancy is indirectly voluntary. So, the fetus is not coercing upon the mother, the fetus is a product of a voluntary act by the mother.

So now two questions arise:

What in case that people don't know that sex implies pregnancy? Although seemingly impossible, many persons around the world don't know this even after having children (some don't tend to associate sex and pregnancy [pretty much like many persons who actually understand how this phenonmena are linked] for they lack knowledge). In this case, and only in this case can be argued that a voluntary sex relationship may involuntarily imply pregnancy. Would that imply the fetus is coercing upon the mother? I would argue it doesn't on grounds that its a being without a will of its own and is a human product, this meaning that unlike parasitic entities like microbes, it is not alien to the mother's body but a product of it.

What about rape? In this case sexual intercourse is involuntary and all its implications are as well. Pregancy is being forced upon the mother. In this case I can't argue about coercion being involved in the ecuation. However the coercion is excerted by the rapist and not by the fetus.

Now, I'm not arguing about whether abortion is correct or not, I'm simply advancing the point that it is murder for it implies the interruption of a human's life. Whether this murder is justifiable or not is not my point, just that it is actually the interruption of a life.


Now, I agree that abortion is a stupid and distracting issue, at least when discussing whether it's right or not.. In my view and as a staunch anti-abortionist I don't see why reproduction should be a problem, but somehow it is. And why? Because of capitalism and its consequences among which accounts lack of social organization and teh impossibility to suffice the needs of the members of society.

I personally wouldn't like to have kids as the world is right now, nor I can sustain them without a massive sacrifice, and that supposing I can even inspite of sacrificing, nor is it fair, in view view, to bring them to such a fucked up place as this nepharious capitalist society. The only reason I haven't undergone vasectomy is because I have both the hope that I'll see socialism before becoming a sterile and impotent old man and because I still have the faint hope I'll find a woman, who by the way, should share my views on abortion.

CoolKidX wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Spermcells are not humans in development.

Yes they are, they can be used to make a human.

Also you make it sound humans are more important then something else which is not human.. which is kinda right.
But I can hardly say a embryo is a human, but a hyuman in devolpment so it is not yet a true human, like a sperm cell it is not truely human yet though it can be a human.

sperm cells are half a human
the result when a normal cell goes through a division(mieosis)
the cell is spilit into 4 parts, thus ensuring it has 23 chromosomes(instead of the normal 46). although the egg goes through mioesis, one of the "eggs" takes the cytoplasm from the others so there is only one./

when the sperm meets the egg, then the chromosomes attached and then only then can you call it a human in deveopment

Tyrlop wrote:

i think this is a racial question, its a matter of race if its murder to kill a baby before its born, sure some babys of certain race of course have less value, and to prevent overflow of people.

WHat the fuck?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

WHat the fuck?

Being honest I expect that to be a "protest trolling". Meaning he trolls in protest for what he considers a stupid thread.