Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Don't much care about incest. Two people in love can do what they want. Rape is not a gray. You havea right to stop a life forced onto you. pretty well defined. No maybes. Choice violated must be restored.

What is that color you get when you mix black and white? Oh yeah, gray. LOL So NOW things ain't so cut and dry huh?

Perhaps next time you'll think twice before awakening Janet Reno from a dirt nap so she don't go Waco on your weak logic. Nice back pedal Mr. Spock.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Don't much care about incest. Two people in love can do what they want. Rape is not a gray. You havea right to stop a life forced onto you. pretty well defined. No maybes. Choice violated must be restored.

Exactly, a woman who uses a condom/birth control is trying to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. It can fail, forcing a life unto her she didn't want in the first place. Those who would want to see abortion illegal would then also be forcing the life unto her.

You can argue that she should choose not to have sex because of the potential of pregnancy. Should I choose to not cross the road on the chance that I will get hit?

reply to post by kinda kurious


You haven't said how it is. You assume your words make it so. Define your terms.

reply to post by Dendro


She chose th have sex. The dude did too. There's your right to chose. No second chances or refunds.

reply to post by Gorman91


So because I don't want to ever have any children of my own for personal reasons, I should abstain from sex for the rest of my life? I also don't want to get hit by lightning, should I not go outside? I have anxiety over falling, should I just never stand?

The soul argument is interesting within an historical context. It used to be used last century as a basis for determining if abortion was allowed. Even inter earlier parts of the 1900's, where abortion was ubiquitously illegal, practitioners would not abort if the baby was with soul. Generally it was thought that when a heart beat was heard, it was too late. The conglomeration of constantly dividing cells is then considered a child.

Personally, if I got pregnant tomorrow I wouldn't even think twice about whether to abort or not. I would simply go iterstate (it's illegal in QLD, where I live) and get the deed done. I have a long way to go with my university education (about 10 or so years) before I will be comfortable enough in my career to support a child (both emotionally and financially). I personally don't think it fair on myself or any potential child that I may have for me to bring a person into the world before I am ready. It wouldn't have the life I would want it to have and I would be ever resentful that I couldn't live my life the way I've had planned for the last 6 years.

The concept of abortion isn't for everyone, but it is a reasonable solution for many. The opinion that it is murder or genocide is just that, an opinion; and a fairly selfish one at that.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Define your terms.

As a casual observer of this thread, I witnessed you tout in post after post that your logic is black and white, no shades of gray, no exceptions, period. If a couple engages in sex and the female became pregnant there was no justification for abortion. Along the way, you belittled those with opposing views and even suggested those who dare disagree with your myopic view cease to participate. In a nutshell, you exhibited intolerance to opposing views drawing on logic as the supreme truth.

I merely pointed out that there ARE, in fact, exceptions to your irrefutable logic which you failed to consider. Your immediate response was to suddenly claim your willingness to consider exceptions. As others have pointed out, when cornered you move the goal posts. Logic? Not!

You seem to think you are somehow entitled to dictate what a woman does with her own body.

Almost NO ONE takes into consideration the woman's pain and guilt she will have to live with if she aborts the child. It's much like Poe's The Tale-Tale Heart. A lifetime of regret, even if she drinks or uses drugs. How do you 'get over' taking an innocent life? You don't without God's forgiveness, because God implemented the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" mandate.


Oh, and for those interested the abortion procedures are brutal! Saline in the early stages burns the baby alive and drowns it.
D&C involves the doctor pulling the baby out of the womb (increasing tearing her uterus and leaving her infertile)
piece by piece and counting them to ensure removal.
Do you even want to know what a partial birth procedure is?

reply to post by kinda kurious


You did not say how there were shades of gray.

reply to post by Dendro


Yes actually. If you want 100% security. But that would be silly.

If you gamble long enough, eventually you lose. You don't just erase the loss, especially if a life is involved. Don't play the game if you can't stand the risks. I don't mind if I get hit by lightning. Sucks if I do. I'll live with it.

reply to post by Clearskies


No one gives a quack about guilt. Get over yourself. You're either a murderer or your not.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine
I am a full time student with three children and you can almost never 'afford' a child, but you can sure take care of it, if you want to. Children are better than puppies.

Originally posted by Clearskies
D&C involves the doctor pulling the baby out of the womb (increasing tearing her uterus and leaving her infertile)
piece by piece and counting them to ensure removal.

D&C is the exact same procedure when a woman has a miscarriage or has endometriosis. They are still able to get pregnant and experience a normal pregnancy/birth.

reply to post by Gorman91


Well then by that argument, I hope you don't masturbate, you are eliminating millions of potential citizens each and every time.

reply to post by Gorman91


You're a man right? What do you know about maternal instincts?
I think you're just grumpy.

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Well then by that argument, I hope you don't masturbate, you are eliminating millions of potential citizens each and every time.

While looking in a mirror no doubt. :shk:

Ugh, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

reply to post by Dendro

Perfectly safe? No,
www.nlm.nih.gov...
"Risks related to D and C include:

•Puncture of the uterus
•Scarring of the uterine lining (Asherman syndrome, may lead to infertility later)
•Tear of the cervix"

Psychological effects are usually not even considered. Especially by planned parenthood.

reply to post by Clearskies


I didn't say it was perfectly safe. There is a risk involved in even the least invasive and simplest surgery. To say that every women who has a D&C is going to end up infertile is more than just a misquotation, it is a completely fallacy.

reply to post by Dendro

Did I say every woman???
My main concern for women (aside from the painful way that the baby is killed) is that in killing these little babies, women are going to self destruct and void any bright future for themselves.

reply to post by Clearskies


There was no disclaimer in your post.

D&C involves the doctor pulling the baby out of the womb (increasing tearing her uterus and leaving her infertile)

You didn't say sometimes or it can occur. By reading your post alone the assumption is that it happens every single time.

reply to post by Dendro
I said "increasing". By that I meant increasing her chances of tearing. Which is similar.

I DID NOT mean every D&C results in infertility. It's like roulette, it may or may not happen. BTW, people having abortions may not need to have any more children later.

See this link about the natural process fallacy:
IVF is not a natural process, neither is cloning.

Originally posted by MindSpin
When I say "natural process"....I'm not talking about sex.

IVF and cloning is not "sex". Nice strawman though.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Come on now...think a bit. I mean if it is left to develop without being killed...it will develop into a human. Sperm and eggs won't do that.

Not really. It needs a host to make it develop into a human.

Alone it won't develop into a human. . . also you shouldn't contradict yourself. Will it develop into a human or is it de-fact a human? Make up your mind.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I don't care how it is created...but once an embryo is created...it is human life. Period.

See IVF. We create and kill them all the time, yet pro-lifers don't protest. Human-life right?

Originally posted by MindSpin
Again...and I told you this before..."unique DNA" is used to distinguish it from the mother.

And not the father? Unique DNA is taken from both. What if it's cloned a person only from a "father".

It would help if you didn't use terms and phrases that don't make sense.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I don't care if they try to clone a women and place it inside her womb...the DNA will not be perfectly matched. Even "identical" twins have very very tiny differences because our DNA is mutating almost constantly on a very very small scale.

Even if that was true it is so small that it doesn't matter.

"Year 2050: Hay guys! Heres a clone we made. . . oh wait it's not a person, there is a 0.001% different because of natural radiation from the earth."

Originally posted by MindSpin
You are the only one talking about "personhood"...I am talking about human life.

If you want to criminilize abortion you need a legal reason to do so. If you want to grant the same rights to the unborn as those born then they would be persons under the law.

Except even those born don't have the rights pro-lifers want the unborn to have.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I am not going to start to decide which humans should be considered "persons" and who isn't. That is a slippery slope and decided by subjective opinions.

We already do that. See IVF.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Like I said...I'll stick with objective science.

Yes like we already do. See IVF.

They have human DNA and are alive. Human. . . "a human". A human ovum, a human toe. . .

They're not persons though.

Originally posted by MindSpin
They contain 23 chromosomes...this is NOT DNA...check any biology book.

A human hela culture has the right amount of chromsomes.

bu-but, left alone, natural process. . .

Leave a "human" in a test tube and lets see it "develop into a human".

bu-but hostile environment!

A zygote in a test tube will last longer in an IVF clinic than in a persons body. Most of them don't even implant themselves into a woman's womb. See spontaneous abortion.

Originally posted by MindSpin
That does not make it HUMAN. We share genetic code with many animals...that does not make them human or part human.

Who said anything about sharing genetic code with animals. Another strawman.

Sperm and egg have human DNA and are alive - fact.

Saying they're not human because they don't have 24 chromosomes is splitting straws. Perhaps you should rethink the term "human":

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MindSpin
Further..."life" is defined by a few characteristics...one of those is the ability to reproduce...sperm can not reproduce.

Source for that? Your opinion?

What if there is a sterile organsim that cannot reproduce. Not life right?

Originally posted by MindSpin
Sperm is not "alive". It is no more alive than a finger that gets cut off is alive.

Sperm and egg cells are alive. So are the cells from a finger cut off. They'll evntually die, but so do all cells. Yes? No?

Originally posted by MindSpin
You can't just decide that you want to change science...sperm is a part of the male...just as a piece of hair is. In fact...a piece of hair has more human DNA than sperm does.

So science says sperm and eggs are not alive? Source? Oh wait you cannot link to one.

Originally posted by MindSpin
This is basic BIOLOGY...it is clear that the BEGINING OF LIFE is when the egg is fertilized and cell division begins.

Clearly everything prior to the "beginning of life" is dead.

They have human DNA and are alive.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Good grief...see above. You can't just make up science as you go. :shk:

So science says sperm and eggs are not alive? Source? Oh wait you cannot link to one.

When was the last time a zygote in a test tube developed into a human by themselves?

Originally posted by MindSpin
When was the last time a human survived living in fire???

In a protective suit.

Zygote needs a host to develop. Yes? No?

Now why would a zygote developed into a human left alone?

Originally posted by MindSpin
Every living thing needs it's proper environment to survive...if it dies in a hostile environment...it doesn't make it more or less "alive" while it is dying.

IVF clinics are not hostile environments. They'll last longer in a test tube in a freezer than in a human body.

Still needs a host for the developing part.

Originally posted by MindSpin
It becomes a person if it isn't killed. . .

I thought it was already a person. . . there are stages of development now? Make up your mind.

Originally posted by MindSpin
. . . provided food and a compatible environment...just like any other living thing.

That doesn't sound like "if left alone it develops into a human" if something else is providing the resources.

Originally posted by MindSpin
spontaneous abortion is just death by natural causes at a very early stage of development.

So? We already put money into preventing natural deaths.

If personhood starts at conception pro-lifers should put their money where their mouth is. But they seem to only take action when they have the ability to shout at women going in an abortion clinic.

Unique DNA argument is a fallacy. . . with future cloned technology, a cloned person is a still a person. A brainless organism such as a zygote embryo or fetus is not a person. See IVF.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Again...you are misusing the term "unique DNA".

I think you are.

Cloning technology = not uinique DNA.

"bu. . but very small mutations! means they're not EXACTLY identicle." = clasping at straws.