Abortion

Communists eat babies. I saw it on TV.

Liche wrote:

Communists eat babies. I saw it on TV.

Would you stop spamming Liche?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

Communists eat babies. I saw it on TV.

Would you stop spamming Liche?

Seconded.

No, I mean in China there is a kind of Fetus soup.

Liche wrote:

No, I mean in China there is a kind of Fetus soup.

Seriously, quit it.

well apparently this topic has become useless, as in a place of almost smart individuals(me excluded) we all think that abortion is fine

enviro wrote:

well apparently this topic has become useless, as in a place of almost smart individuals(me excluded) we all think that abortion is fine

It was always a useless topic, not only for the reasons stated by me and WWW but because it's simply been already treated.

really??
well i never saw it and i though it owuld be an interesting discussion, but apprently
(belive me, i wasnt trolling when i made this)

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.

I'm new here, so let me just say one thing before I post here. I will most likely piss half of you off.

Now, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Are you being sarcastic? And if so, what point are you trying to convey?

Yes, he's being sarcastic.

enviro wrote:

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

Stem cells do not have to come from abortion. Stem cells can be used from the umbilical cord AFTER birth. A number of couples or mothers donate those for stem cell research. However, petri dish babies, those not yet implanted for in-vitro fertilization, are also used for stem cell research. They aren't viable in a petri dish and it costs thousands of dollars to have them implanted Then it's up to the mother/father of those cells - some are frozen, some are destroyed, some are implanted. Instead of being destroyed, they could give them to women who cannot have their own children or have viable eggs.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

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.

Answering CKX too....... sperm isn't *half* a baby until the egg is fertilized. I agree with Zealot on this. If it was, you'd be committing murder each time you masturbated. *cough*

***wipes image from her mind***

I believe in CHOICE. I'm very pro-life for myself, but that's me. I wouldn't dare to presume to make the same choice for someone else and tell them what they have to do. (This part is in answer to Zealot who believes it's murder.) How can you, in good conscience, tell a woman she cannot have an abortion or what she can or cannot do with her own body?

Sex education around the world is lacking badly. As well as forms of contraception. Condoms break. Gels and Foams can be weak. Spermicides can be too weak to kill the sperm. The pill isn't always effective. The "day after pill" is an option for those who have been raped (it's an option for everyone, but specifically, I mention it for those who have been raped). However, not everyone can have the hormones. Factor Five Leiden Gene Mutation causes problems with taking hormones like that. It becomes the individual's choice for an abortion - F5 also means an 80% chance of death for the mother if she decides to carry the child.

This is a messy topic, too many exceptions.

To sum up: I'm pro-choice for the individual, I am pro-life for myself (though I cannot have children now). I'd adopt if I could. I believe the only exceptions should be rape or danger to the mother or baby that would cause harm to the mother. Babies that would be born without a brain (yes, there are cases) and the courts did not allow the abortions (third term abortions after getting full sonograms/ultrasounds and other tests) causes more emotional trauma for the mother/parents than if they'd been allowed the abortion.

I was also born a month early. Thank God my mother and father wanted me...... they have the same view on abortion - it's up to the individual... but it's not for them. Life is far too precious to just throw away. I just can't find it within myself to dictate to someone else what to do with their own bodies - just as I wouldn't want someone to tell me what to do with mine.

kismet wrote:

I believe in CHOICE. I'm very pro-life for myself, but that's me. I wouldn't dare to presume to make the same choice for someone else and tell them what they have to do. (This part is in answer to Zealot who believes it's murder.) How can you, in good conscience, tell a woman she cannot have an abortion or what she can or cannot do with her own body?

I don't believe in coercion. I'm simply arguing that, whether right or wrong, abortion is objectively murder. If it's right or wrong, that's a personal matter. I believe it's wrong and I admire women that avoid abortion regardless of their circumstances. Although I acknowledge that sometimes these circumstances are too precarious, I know that the problem is not reproduction but the economic system.

kismet wrote:

Sex education around the world is lacking badly. As well as forms of contraception. Condoms break. Gels and Foams can be weak. Spermicides can be too weak to kill the sperm. The pill isn't always effective. The "day after pill" is an option for those who have been raped (it's an option for everyone, but specifically, I mention it for those who have been raped). However, not everyone can have the hormones. Factor Five Leiden Gene Mutation causes problems with taking hormones like that. It becomes the individual's choice for an abortion - F5 also means an 80% chance of death for the mother if she decides to carry the child.

This is pretty much what I've argued. However, none of this facts change the fact that abortion is objectively the interruption of life, regardless of whether its justified or not.

I'm basically battling euphemisms here.

kismet wrote:

This is a messy topic, too many exceptions.

To sum up: I'm pro-choice for the individual, I am pro-life for myself (though I cannot have children now). I'd adopt if I could. I believe the only exceptions should be rape or danger to the mother or baby that would cause harm to the mother. Babies that would be born without a brain (yes, there are cases) and the courts did not allow the abortions (third term abortions after getting full sonograms/ultrasounds and other tests) causes more emotional trauma for the mother/parents than if they'd been allowed the abortion.

I pretty much agree. As I said, I'm against coercion. However, I'll criticize all "unnecesary abortions", that is caprice-induced abortions. For example those of girls that use abortion as an alternative to contraception practically going for an abortion each time after they have sex.

kismet wrote:

I was also born a month early. Thank God my mother and father wanted me...... they have the same view on abortion - it's up to the individual... but it's not for them. Life is far too precious to just throw away. I just can't find it within myself to dictate to someone else what to do with their own bodies - just as I wouldn't want someone to tell me what to do with mine.

As I said, I'm against coercion. I can't force anyone to do what they don't want; it goes against my principles. However, I will tell them that objectively they're engaging in murder and will remind them the means through which they could have avoided reaching that point in the first place. Except in cases like rape or necesary abortion to preserve mother's life. I'm also against the notion that "it's their body". I contend it's an individual (or more) within their bodies.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In my view nothing justifies murder, not even economic conditions or rape.

You wouldn't want the rapist's kin to wander the world correct? In this sitituation, you'd want to cut them out of the gene pool by having an abortion.

comrade110397 wrote:

You wouldn't want the rapist's kin to wander the world correct? In this sitituation, you'd want to cut them out of the gene pool by having an abortion.

A rapist is not a rapist due to "rapists' genes"; he's a rapist due to a lot of factors from physiological to social.

Rape is done because horny guys can do stupid shit. As well as serious mental instabilities. And horny chicks can also do stupid shit.