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

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

How can you say you have a right to kill the unborn fetus when there will be sure fire ways to keep it alive without you?

I don't. . . if pro-lifers want to pick up the tab with their artificial womb scheme maybe there will be a re-look at Roe.

Pro-choicers don't decide when a woman should or should not have a child, they decided that the government shouldn't make that choice for her. That's something she does herself.

That same principle will apply if we had artificial wombs or fetal donation, only abortion wouldn't be the minimum force to restore her bodily integrity anymore.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

How can you say you have a right to kill the unborn fetus when there will be sure fire ways to keep it alive without you?

Yes, but at what cost? The sanity of both child and mother/father? What about the cases where abortion is a necessary step to ensure that the mother lives? How can you say that you have the right to kill a grown adult, with a life, friends and family of her own? What about the thousands of people who resort to suicide after having to adopt their child out? Or the suicides that result from having to keep a child that is the product of rape (or incest) and thus an ever-present reminder of an event she would much rather forget? In the case of incest, how is it fair that you force a woman to bring a child into such a world (in the localised sense)? What about the cases where said child becomes a victim of incest itself, simply because it was forced into being born? On that note, why should a child have to live in a world where they were not wanted in the first place at all? What about the suicides or mental disorders that result from that? What about the mental trauma? Who are you to say that these people should suffer because of a ridiculously archaic, ignorant and pompously egocentric view that dictates that a woman should not have the right to choose the outcome of her own life? Well?

Another thing. By your logic, it stands to reason that miscarriages and still births are the result of involuntary manslaughter by the fault of the mother. After all, if we assume the rights of a living and functioning person to be imparted to a foetus, then what else could it be? Should we start sentencing such people with the full weight of the law?

reply to post by igor_ats


She does have control. Control over sex. This has been the fundamental thing. A society must not allow actions to go on without consequences. This, at even the smallest level, results in bad things. This isn't morality. This is logic. If people think they can go around and do what they want without consequences then they grow up on a flawed system of logic. But weather that spreads into other fields is irrelevant, or even the consequences. What is relevant is the fact that a human does not have control over another. A child is a sacrifice of one's body to help another. That's what being a mammal is all about. Thus what is the logic of drawing some ambiguous line for when they can just not support them? Support for a child begins at conception and ends when the child leaves the parent. Once that life is formed, yes, the state does have a right to say that you have to take care of it or give it up. You cannot kill it. You cannot make it not exist. You have to either use protection to prevent it, or you give it up. The solution the problem is at the beginning and end of the problem, not some unclear line in between. Do one, the other, or both. You can't kill your mistakes if the result is life.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Did you completely skip over the last enumerable pages of this? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the governs of a free society. If a life is about to cause the death of another life, the life supporting it has a right to break free. While still murder and not right, it is understandable. In as much as killing a school shooter is not right but understandable to save the greater good. If liberty and the pursuit of happiness result in a life, then the life has rights as a product of free will. No liberty was violated in its creation.

As to sanity or conditions? Don't much care. An individual is an individual and you cannot judge all on one example. All have the right to kill themselves or feel sad for what they did. That does not invalidate the life that came about.

That of which is in the mind has no right to govern over that of another.

reply to post by Gorman91


I don't think anyone is exclusively talking about the people who use it as a form of family planning. We're talking about people who are exercising their right to have intercourse for the fun of it and who use ample preventative measures to preclude the event of a pregnancy. Frankly, if you don't understand or choose to ignore the countless analogies people here have made between such predicaments and say, abstaining from the outdoors so as to avoid being struck by lightening, then you should not be a part of this debate. You cannot simply choose to respond to the sections of a person's argument that help to construct your own. This is narrow sighted, dogmatic and a particularly unpersuasive form of debate.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Did you completely skip over the last enumerable pages of this? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the governs of a free society. If a life is about to cause the death of another life, the life supporting it has a right to break free. While still murder and not right, it is understandable. In as much as killing a school shooter is not right but understandable to save the greater good. If liberty and the pursuit of happiness result in a life, then the life has rights as a product of free will. No liberty was violated in its creation.

As to sanity or conditions? Don't much care. An individual is an individual and you cannot judge all on one example. All have the right to kill themselves or feel sad for what they did. That does not invalidate the life that came about.

Hypocrisy at its finest. How can you care so deeply for the life of one person, but not another? Where do you draw the line? You cannot simply decide that the sanity and the quality of life of both mother and child do not come into the argument, simply because it does not agree with your own views. Secondly, do you not see how your two paragraphs contradict one another? On one end, it's okay to murder someone for the 'greater good', but on the other that 'greater good' cannot apply to the individual? I'm not just including the mother/father in that. It is just as much applicable to the child. Why is it that your arbitration and not someone else's be used to decide the ability of one to choose the outcome of their life?

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Oh I have. To be frank, you played with fire and got burned. You shouldn't get to kill just because if that.


I care for both people. I care for all people. but again. I also care about personal responsibility. Perhapse you could argue that's moral bullplop. I argue it's not. Tell a human to act like an animal long enough and it will become one. Simple common sense dictates to tell people to clean up after their messes and when that mess, mistake, or anything else is the formation of a human being, then quite frankly you have no right to kill it until it's about to kill you. I'm all about the individual. my definition of individual just happens to include all age groups, sentient and not. Most old folks are nearly as sentient, if even. They deserve all the rights and privileges of any age group. That goes for anything from when you begin to when you end.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Oh I have. To be frank, you played with fire and got burned. You shouldn't get to kill just because if that.


I care for both people. I care for all people. but again. I also care about personal responsibility. Perhapse you could argue that's moral bullplop. I argue it's not. Tell a human to act like an animal long enough and it will become one. Simple common sense dictates to tell people to clean up after their messes and when that mess, mistake, or anything else is the formation of a human being, then quite frankly you have no right to kill it until it's about to kill you. I'm all about the individual. my definition of individual just happens to include all age groups, sentient and not. Most old folks are nearly as sentient, if even. They deserve all the rights and privileges of any age group. That goes for anything from when you begin to when you end.

This is where I say that we will have to agree to disagree. I feel that no matter what I say, you choose not to listen. Possibly you feel the same towards me. In any case, thank you for the chance for a good debate.

Peace.

reply to post by igor_ats

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

You may want to re-read my comment...because I clearly say I am NOT talking about sex.

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.

It only needs a suitable environment...as some have said before...in the future there will be no need for the women for the fetus to develop.

As far as me refering to it developing into a human...when I'm speaking with people who's position is that it is not human...I have to dumb down the terms so they realize what I'm talking about.

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

I would never participate in IVF and I think in it's current state it is as bad as abortion.

Once they can perfect the science to where they only need to fertilize one egg and implant it successfully...then fine..go ahead. They should of never begin with IVF without perfecting the science first.

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.

You clearly have no clue what I am talking about...and from your lack of knowledge of basic biology...I'm not surprised. Don't worry...I'm going to give you a basic 3rd grade biology lesson towards the end of my reply. I'm shocked you don't already know this stuff.

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

LOL...nice dismissal.

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.

What rights to we want the unborn to have that the born don't??? All I want is for women to stop killing their kids.

We already do that. See IVF.

And it's wrong.

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!

What don't you understand about a hostile environment.

Go live at the bottom of the ocean...see how long you live. Other forms of life do it...I guess that means all life should be able to

Sperm and egg have human DNA and are alive - fact.
...
Source for that? Your opinion?

What if there is a sterile organsim that cannot reproduce. Not life right?
...
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?
...
So science says sperm and eggs are not alive? Source? Oh wait you cannot link to one.
...

I'll just start the biology lesson right here...are we ready children???

To begin with...how many chromosomes does the human DNA have?

www.genome.gov...-3

How many chromosomes do humans have?

The typical number of chromosomes in a human cell is 46 - two pairs of 23 - holding an estimated 25,000 genes. One set of 23 chromosomes is inherited from the biological mother (from the egg), and the other set is inherited from the biological father (from the sperm).

Are you with me still? Human DNA has 46 chromosomes...two pairs of 23.

Now...what is sperm.

www.biology-online.org...

Definition

noun, plural: sperms

The male gamete or reproductive cell involved in sexual reproduction. It is produced by a male organism that unites with the egg of a female organism forming a zygote.

Supplement

A sperm is a cell consisting of a round or cylindrical nucleated cell, a short neck, and a thin motile tail. Its structure is vital to its mobility and function (i.e. sexual reproduction). The compacted nucleus contains half of the genetic information. It fuses with an ovum (the female gamete) to form a zygote. In mammals, the sex is determined by the sperm cell. If it bears Y chromosome, the resulting offspring is a male. If X chromosome, the offspring is a female.

Let me point something out to you...it contains "half of the genetic information".

How many chromosomes does sperm have? Half of 46 is 23...sperm has 23 chromosomes.

Still with me???

Now...a little review.

How many chromosomes does Human DNA have? 46

How many chromosomes does Sperm have? 23

Can a sperm be it's own "human life" with only 23 chromosomes...NO.


No...Is Sperm alive? In the sense that all "cells" are alive....yes it is. Is it's own distinct form of life? NO...it isn't. It is part of the human life form. It is part of the MALE human life form. A sperm cell is just as much part of a man as a blood cell. When I bleed...blood cells fall from my body...dry up and die. When I ejaculate...sperm cells leave my body, if they don't fertilize an egg first...they dry up and die.

Now you had a question about the definition of "life" and that one of the criteria for life being reproduction.


I thought I'd start off slow...since this whole biology thing seems new to you. Here is a kids website for you.

www.kidsbiology.com...

Living Things Reproduce

A very important part of the life of living things is the ability and opportunity to reproduce, to create offspring. Reproduction is the process of one or more living things creating another living thing. Your parents created you. A mother and father dog reproduce, creating puppies. By reproducing, living things are able to pass on their characteristics to another generation.

Here is a little more grown up one...don't hurt yourself.

biology.about.com...

Life can reproduce. Have you ever seen dirt reproduce? I don't think so. Life can only come from other living creatures.

And here is a really big boy one.

www.britannica.com...

Living things are defined in terms of the activities or functions that are missing in nonliving things. The life processes of every organism are carried out by specific materials assembled in definite structures. Thus, a living thing can be defined as a system, or structure, that reproduces, changes with its environment over a period of time, and maintains its individuality by constant and continuous metabolism. This pattern of action or function results from and occurs in a pattern of organization.

I thought I would give you multiple references...since you seem new to this.


So...can Sperm reproduce???? No...so it is not a distinct living thing...it is part of a bigger living organism.

Equate a sperm cell to a blood cell...then you won't get so confused



So let's review.

Does sperm have human DNA...no...it has 23 of the 46 chromosomes that makes up human DNA. Half does not equal a whole.

Is human sperm alive...no...it is part of a living being. Sperm can not reproduce by itself and hence it is not a distinct living organism.

So I don't have to worry about protecting sperm anymore than I have to worry about protecting my own blood cells, skin cells, any of my cells. Together we are all one. Some die...some divide...and as long as that process continues...I stay alive.

Now...are you a little more clear on biology?

I encourage you to read up in the different sections of those links...you may learn something...I suggest starting with the kids biology site.




Let me give you a quick run down of the biological process of human life.

Sperm fertilizes egg, cells begin dividing...this is the begining of "LIFE". Cells continue to divide until death. Ta da...the process of life.

Simple...huh?

Originally posted by MindSpin

Does sperm have human DNA...no...it has 23 of the 46 chromosomes that makes up human DNA. Half does not equal a whole.

Wrong. A sperm cell has human DNA in it. Where on earth do you think it comes from? It mightn't have a full compliment of chromosomes, as is the case for somatic cell lines, but I can assure you the DNA it has derives solely from the biological owner of said sperm (in the most direct sense of the definition). I recommend you look up meiosis. It will do you some good.

Is human sperm alive...no...it is part of a living being. Sperm can not reproduce by itself and hence it is not a distinct living organism.

And by that logic, neither is a an embryonic sac containing barely divided cells. It is part of the mother until such time as it ceases to be an obligate parasite - i.e. until it is able to survive outside of the womb.

So I don't have to worry about protecting sperm anymore than I have to worry about protecting my own blood cells, skin cells, any of my cells. Together we are all one. Some die...some divide...and as long as that process continues...I stay alive.

Oh, but you see, you are wrong. Look up the definition of somatic cells and then the definition of germ cells. What we are talking about here is the potential for life - there is no guarantee that pregnancy will result in the birth of a live child. Often, it doesn't. RBC's, as well as every other somatic cell in your body, do not hold the ability to undergo meiosis. They do not possess the inherent ability to create a child. Sperm and eggs do. Thus, you cannot compare the two.

Now...are you a little more clear on biology?

Are you?

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

Wrong. A sperm cell has human DNA in it. Where on earth do you think it comes from? It mightn't have a full compliment of chromosomes, as is the case for somatic cell lines, but I can assure you the DNA it has derives solely from the biological owner of said sperm (in the most direct sense of the definition). I recommend you look up meiosis. It will do you some good.

You can call it "DNA"...but it is not complete HUMAN DNA. The sperm only contains the nuclear DNA...it is completely missing the mitochondrial DNA. To say it is "Human DNA" is just not correct. "Half Human"...maybe...if that even makes sense.

You guys are playing semantics.

And by that logic, neither is a an embryonic sac containing barely divided cells. It is part of the mother until such time as it ceases to be an obligate parasite - i.e. until it is able to survive outside of the womb.

It is not part of the mother at all. The embryo has distinct DNA from the mother...it is not just part of her body.

To say otherwise is just being dishonest.

Oh, but you see, you are wrong. Look up the definition of somatic cells and then the definition of germ cells. What we are talking about here is the potential for life - there is no guarantee that pregnancy will result in the birth of a live child. Often, it doesn't. RBC's, as well as every other somatic cell in your body, do not hold the ability to undergo meiosis. They do not possess the inherent ability to create a child. Sperm and eggs do. Thus, you cannot compare the two.

No...I am not talking about "potential life"...you may be...but I am not.

Once sperm fertilizes egg...that is life. There is no more "potential life"...it is biological life.

If you don't want to believe me...believe a biology text book.

Developmental Biology, 6th edition by Scott F Gilbert.

Fertilization is the process whereby two sex cells (gametes) fuse together to create a new individual with genetic potentials derived from both parents. Fertilization accomplishes two separate ends: sex (the combining of genes derived from the two parents) and reproduction (the creation of new organisms). Thus, the first function of fertilization is to transmit genes from parent to offspring, and the second is to initiate in the egg cytoplasm those reactions that permit development to proceed.

Are you?

I'm fine thanks. Once you stop trying to deny that life begins at fertilization..maybe you will be too.

I repeat I repeat and I repeat ..... because it seems to be oh so very very difficult for the anti-abortion people to understand just a little bit of reason, logical and not emotional thinking, in this difficult, but very human, problem that abortion is ..... no new problem anyway, same problem since humanity exists .......
jesus, what a hell of a discussion and still people not understanding abortion is NOT NOT NOT ( ok ? ) a pleasure, NOT at all ( ok ? ) a plastic surgery kind of intervention, it is a decision taken by just 1
( 1, just 1 ok ? ) woman in a given bad situation ( and NOT by US ( the pro's ... ) ) , we do not push women to have abortion instead of lots of macho man making women pregnant and then leave them alone with their pregnancy and big problems to assume all of it. It is a very very very difficult decision for each woman in this situation because it is NOT at all what she did expect initially
( in case of rape or health problems or whatever she thinks is endangering her life !!!! ).
Do you really think the "pro"abortion people do push women to have abortions ??? WE are NOT killing thousands of babies you know !!!!!!!!! this has nothing TO DO WITH GENOCIDE - how stupid ..... it is just all about 1, yes just 1 individual woman with all her individual rights that wants to have an abortion, SHE wants, SHE is the PERSON that decides for abortion ..... do you really think we are having a party after each abortion when some poor woman did take away a embryo out of her womb ??? ridiculous !
the "pro"abortion people really would prefer that there are AS LESS, yes AS LESS !!! abortions as possible !!! the less the better of course, but when 1 woman decides to have one abortion because of big big problems who are we/you to defend it ?? who are we/you to push her into illegal abortion situations in suburb slums to endanger a bit more her life ???
pro abortion people just want as less as possible abortions !! peace man, the best in the best of worlds should be NO abortions ok ? but if one has to be done, well let it be in the best as possible clinical clean way, no ? or do you prefer woman got endangered also for bad abortion situation ??? you prefer ? I see you are very human ! I see ! nice to meet you ! I think you really do not LOVE women at all, you are just a stupid macho with guns all over your stupid body but no human feelings into your brain.
You find the pro's inhuman ??? we find the ones that are putting women into danger, into despair and into pregnancy without responsibility much more inhuman ! Stupid world, stupid machos !!!
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT AT ALL to judge women !!!! if some day you do decide to suicide, do I have the right to judge you ???? if one day you decide to masturbate, do I have the right to judge you ??? ( Palin and Tea Party stupids think they may do so ... ) etc etc ... stop judging other people, think just for yourself, judge yourself and leave the poor woman alone with her personnal decision BUT TRY TO HELP HER THE BEST AS POSSIBLE INSTEAD OF CONDAMNING !!! I say : HELP her !!! you see ???
Poor stupid society, nearly getting completly INHUMAN ...
CONDAMN OTHER PEOPLE ....... that's all you can do, what a pitty !!!!

reply to post by Gorman91

I fail to see where morals are. Isn't the point of morals to differentiate between the good and bad to your definition of what morality is?

Yes, to differentiate between good and bad actions, laws etc..

Theoretical potential thats not going to fulfill does not matter for our evolution, thus its irrelevant.

IF all people were genetically the same, and all lived in the same conditions from birth, THEN they would have approximatelly the same potential that can also be fulfilled and the same value for our civilization. But they are not.

Potential activities as humans are above that of evolution. It could be argues that we have conquered evolution, considering that thanks to technology and other things, we will no longer change.

We definately change and evolve, mutations happen, we are not above evolution, whatever does that mean. There is no such thing as "conquering evolution" unless people become immortal, for example by abandoning biological bodies and mind uploading into a computer (defeating natural selection), and stop reproducing or at least reproduce as perfect copies (defeating mutations). Until then, evolution happens, and all technology, society and laws are just tools and adaptations given to us by evolution to survive better as a species. Thus if abortions, IVF and embryonic stem cell therapy would help our species as a whole survive better in the long run, there is no logical reason why not do it. You must use moral arguments to justify your position against them then.

There should be a cap on how many children a couple are allowed to have. Its sick just how many people there are in the world. Humans are like locusts....parasites that are multiplying so fast the demand for food and everything else as humans we need to survive is put at risk. Abortion is wrong but yet acceptable since we have the technology and know how to prevent unwanted acts of inhumanity.

reply to post by Maslo


Nope. All humans have the same potential to do the same things. Some my take longer to do them and others may not be fit, but they all CAN.

Mutations happen and changes happen, but mankind has not physically changed since about 200,000 years ago. Granted since then we grew higher and stronger and some changes happened, these were the result of competition and fine tuning what we had, indifferent to breeding dogs as we do today. They are still dogs, in as much as that form is distinctly human.

And no. No benefit comes about for humanity from killing. Perhaps on one side, but the other side does not. If you steal oil with war, that does not benefit the species. It benefits one group and harms another, with nullified results. Again, building a good house with parts from a bad house nullifies it as a good house.

reply to post by Gorman91

Nope. All humans have the same potential to do the same things. Some my take longer to do them and others may not be fit, but they all CAN.

CAN is irrelevant. The probability of WILL DO if we dont kill them vs. the probability increase of others WILL DO if we kill them is what really matters.

Mutations happen and changes happen, but mankind has not physically changed since about 200,000 years ago. Granted since then we grew higher and stronger and some changes happened, these were the result of competition and fine tuning what we had, indifferent to breeding dogs as we do today. They are still dogs, in as much as that form is distinctly human.

Evolution slowed down since selection pressure and isolation decreased, but it is still evolution.

And no. No benefit comes about for humanity from killing. Perhaps on one side, but the other side does not. If you steal oil with war, that does not benefit the species. It benefits one group and harms another, with nullified results. Again, building a good house with parts from a bad house nullifies it as a good house.

Not all groups are of the same importance for mankind. If you destroy one group which was of little benefit or even detrimental for mankind, and in addition its resources greatly benefit other group that contributes a lot to mankind, it was evolutionary advanageous for humanity in net effect.

reply to post by Maslo


Probability is irrelevant. Can is the key. It's what matters. And it's what gives them value. Leave your elitism at the door please.

Actually evolution sped up because selection is extremely demanding these days. But this has evolved into making us so perfected that we no longer chance physically. We can just changer behaviorally.

All groups are as important as each other.Once again, leave your elitism at the door. A human is a human. Doesn't matter if he never will do anything special. He is equal as the man who does.

reply to post by Gorman91


Then finally justify human equality using only biology and logic, without resorting to moral statements. Why are all people of equal importance for humanity? I does not logically follow from the laws of biology and evolution.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

I thought the same thing myself. Gosh, my life sure would be boring if I had to abstain until marriage or until I wanted kids. Especially since I intend to do neither of those things; and that's not to mention the fact my partner in crime would probably go insane :p

Not only that, but could you imagine marrying a guy, expecting it to be for life, and then discovering you were sexually incompatible?

Btw, regarding an earlier post of yours, although abortion is still illegal in Queensland it is available, there have been no prosecutions since 1986 and, because of the way judges have interpreted the law, it's unlikely anyone could be convicted in Queensland these days.

I hope you never need one, but best to know the facts, just in case.