Abortion Unfiltered

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

WOW "proff" retract the claws, for starters its not very polite, where did you say you lectured??
And any biologist that has taught me, and they have taught me well, will tell you that life is defined as the ability to do certain things (which I listed earlier post) and both pond scum and bacteria have these abilities.

Umm, we're saying human life, not just life... At least admit to clear science

carlybabe1

Do you not believe that the right to life is worth more?

No. I believe that if an abortion is wanted, that a woman has the right to that, I also belive that there should be a time limit on it, and I believe this very strongly. I think after 16 weeks it should only be allowed under dire circumstances, i.e physical harm (paralysis) and/or the risk of death to the mother, not psychological damage or anythnig that cant be disputed, but death,

Do you believe that the right not to be pregnant (if it is even a right) for 9 months is worth more someone else's right to live?

Absolutely, I absolutely think that the woman has the choice of removing from her person, that which she does not want...simple as.

I dont look at the pics and see a baby, I see the potential to evolve into a baby, but not a baby

Ultravid

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Do you believe that the right not to be pregnant (if it is even a right) for 9 months is worth more someone else's right to live?

Absolutely, I absolutely think that the woman has the choice of removing from her person, that which she does not want...simple as.

I dont look at the pics and see a baby, I see the potential to evolve into a baby, but not a baby

That is an incredibly selfish attitude. The woman CHOSE* to have sexual intercourse. If she is then pregnant, that is a direct result of her CHOICE. The new human life her CHOICE helped create is now entitled to LIFE.

You see what you want to see.


*I'm not advocating that abortion is ok in rape cases; it's not. Just so you know where I stand.

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

Excuse me but that is an incredibly selfish attitude. The woman CHOSE to have sexual intercourse. If she is then pregnant, that is a direct result of her CHOICE. The new life her CHOICE helped create is now entitled to a peaceful LIFE.

You see what you want to see.

Of course the woman could have been raped, forced into bearing a child in a broken marriage/relationship or an accident could have occurred during sexual activity that she took care to avoid.

Ultravid, do you refrain totally from sexual intercourse?

carlybabe1

bquinn wrote: »

Umm, we're saying human life, not just life... At least admit to clear science

Ok, on the very offchance that I didnt make my point clear the first or second time I'll say it again. The point I'm making is that you see a fetus/baby at 8 weeks, you say its life and it should be preserved
foresaking the rights of the woman that has to carry it

I see a clump of cells, with the potential to become a baby, it has life, as in 'it exists' the same way other life exists..they may be in a different form, but they are still life....
science is not what I'd call clear

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

Of course the woman could have been raped, forced into bearing a child in a broken marriage/relationship or an accident could have occurred during sexual activity that she took care to avoid.

Ultravid, do you refrain totally from sexual intercourse?

The circumstances of conception have no bearing on the right to life of that new human life which is conceived. See my additional point I tacked onto the end of my last post.

I'm not sure it's any of your business, but since you asked, yes I refrain completely from sexual intercourse and I am leading a very happy and fulfilled life. :P

bquinn

stakey wrote: »

By pro-choice I mean I believe the individual whom is pregnant has the right to choose what affects their bodies and mental health.

My issue with the pro-abortion/pro-life labels is it makes the argument very black and white which suits one side but is very far from the true realities of the situation.

Why wouldn't I support social programs that will help people who wish to continue with a pregnancy? If that is there choice then yes, of course I'd support it. However I'd prefer that it was state backed and fully neutral and unbiased.

Thank you, we agree on that. (I could argue that state backed would not necessarily be fully neutral and unbiased, but that's another thread.) Can you answer the other part of that question?

You had said you don't think abortions should be handed out to every woman. What limits would you put on it then?? I really want to know. If we can agree to certain things, then we can move forward with this discussion. Thanks.

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

Of course the woman could have been raped, forced into bearing a child in a broken marriage/relationship or an accident could have occurred during sexual activity that she took care to avoid.

Ultravid, do you refrain totally from sexual intercourse?

That line cracks me up: you are calling pregnancy, as a result of sexual activity, an 'accident'? Pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse is when things have gone right - it's like the lotto win. The stars align and a new life is created! It is no accident! That is a ridiculous notion!

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

The circumstances of conception have no bearing on the right to life of that new human life which is conceived. See my additional point I tacked onto the end of my last post.

So within 1 week of a child of say 12 being raped you would have it that she brings a child to full term despite her body possibly not being able to adequately support the pregnancy or the possibility of both children dying in child birth?

Ultravid wrote: »

That line cracks me up: you are calling pregnancy, as a result of sexual activity, an 'accident'? Pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse is when things have gone right - it's like the lotto win. The stars align and a new life is created! It is no accident! That is a ridiculous notion!

Yup. Because people take part in sexual activity and sometimes accidents do happen, you'll have to be realistic here and accept things like contraception and birth control (or is that against your morals too?).

bquinn wrote: »

You had said you don't think abortions should be handed out to every woman. What limits would you put on it then?? I really want to know. If we can agree to certain things, then we can move forward with this discussion. Thanks.

I don't think there should be any limitations up to 16 weeks. It should be the choice of the mother up to then and beyond that upon advice of medical experts.

carlybabe1

bquinn wrote: »

So when do you say they should not be handed out? Sorry, if you already said it, but being new to forums, I'm not up on who is who. I now recognize Virgil, ultravid, zulu, phototoxin, Claire and carlybabe, and know where they stand.

I have another serious question for you. You say you are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I've had this discussion with others, and have found some truly pro-choice people, but have also found some truly pro-abortion people. If a woman is 6 wks pregnant (before the stage you think they are a person). Does her family have the right to force her to have an abortion? 2nd, If your answer is no (which I'm assuming it will be, since you're for choice), would you support a place that offers assistance (housing, medical care,...) to a woman who wants to have her baby, but has been thrown out of her house by the father of the child or her parents...?

I absolutely would, and I actually think that it would be a really good idea to have that, its only a few years since a spate of children having children and leaving them in public, imagine having to go through that on your own

Ultravid

stakey wrote: »

So within 1 week of a child of say 12 being raped you would have it that she brings a child to full term despite her body possibly not being able to adequately support the pregnancy or the possibility of both children dying in child birth?

Yup. Because people take part in sexual activity and sometimes accidents do happen, you'll have to be realistic here and accept things like contraception and birth control (or is that against your morals too?).

How many abortions, of all abortions carried out, are done because of rape? What percentage is it?

Whatever the circumstances of conception, the child has a right to life.

Say a women is raped, decides to keep her baby, but upon it's birth, she can't bear to see the child and wants the doctors to kill it - should she be allowed her request? If not, why not?

Rape is an act of sexual violence. Abortion is an act of violence against the unbron child. Both rape and abortion have this in common: violent assualts against innocent victims. Whereas rape is an act of violence for which she, the women, the victim, bears no responsibility, abortion is an act of violence for which she would be morally culpable.

The abortion argument cannot be won on its own merits which is why you bring up the 12 year old rape victim scenario. If it is not legitimate to kill a person conceived in rape after they're born, then it is no more legitimate to kill that same person before they're born. The true agenda is abortion on demand.

Clair Robinson

Can someone please explain to me how a single cell that can undergo mitosis is considered a human person. Any somatic cell (or was it non somatic) can be turned into a new human person. Even a collection of cells that do not form anything coherent.

That seems to be the thing that is missing out, how on earth do you people justify it. I'm sorry but I cannot fathom anyone who understands biology would consider a zygote a human person...

I was talking about this with some friends, and they just think you have to be a person who didn't pay attention in biology classes (or didn't take them).

And bquinn your wrong and carlybabe1 was right. Just by looking at the single cell of a human you would not be able to tell the difference between many other things. You would need a DNA analysis. Most single cells of creatures look pretty much the same. Unless they have major identifying markers like a chloroplast. In fact I looked through a microscope on Wednesday at different plant cells, and they are very very similar.

Anyway for me personally doesn't really matter for the people on the pro abortion side. I notice trends as societies become more civilized and advanced we tend to do things like legalize gay marriage, allow stem cell research, assisted euthanasia and allow abortion. All made with good consequentialist reasoning....

But I just wanted to understand how people could think they way they do, religion was one answer and the other answer seems to be ignorance of biology.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

I'm pro-choice

Except when it comes to the childs choice to life.

i don't think they should be handed out to every pregnant woman.

just every woman should be allowed.

But if you're completely and utterly against any abortions, you're anti choice IMHO.

Rubbish, I'm pro-choice. I completely respect the child's choice to live.
For some reason, you don't though.

Clair Robinson

Ultravid wrote: »

The true agenda is abortion on demand.

I like the sound of that. Damn i got pregnant again. oh well time to go over to the clinic and pop it out again. Because women make a decision like abortion oh so easily. Out of curiosity are you a woman Ultravid? It won't make any difference to the debate and your arguments will be worth the same, I'm just curious.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

WOW "proff" retract the claws, for starters its not very polite, where did you say you lectured??

Here we go. :rolleyes: Carlybabe, can you just leave out the inflammatory comments and snide remarks please? You don't want this thread locked as well do you?

Thanks for answering one of my questions. Would you mind, awfully much, also answering this:

Do you believe that the right not to be pregnant (if it is even a right) for 9 months is worth more someone else's right to live?

Clair Robinson

Zulu wrote: »

Except when it comes to the childs choice to life.
just every woman should be allowed.
Rubbish, I'm pro-choice. I completely respect the child's choice to live.
For some reason, you don't though.

Why do you consider a zygote a child? Why do you consider a human formation that MAY become a child a child? You said you would rather err in the side of caution but why? we understand that to have consciousness we need a physical brain, if you do not have a physical brain you are not conscious nor can you be until you have one. Why do you consider assortments of cells to be humans?

Did you ever think the child might not want to live, like me? I would rather my mother have aborted me than risk her life.

Zulu

Clair Robinson wrote: »

I like the sound of that. Damn i got pregnant again. oh well time to go over to the clinic and pop it out again. Because women make a decision like abortion oh so easily.

They don't?

How come? I mean - it's only a clump of cells, right? a parasite; a cancerous growth; kinda like pond scum.
How could it be a difficult decision?

It's not like you're killing a person, right???

Clair Robinson

Zulu wrote: »

Here we go. :rolleyes: Carlybabe, can you just leave out the inflammatory comments and snide remarks please? You don't want this thread locked as well do you?

Thanks for answering one of my questions. Would you mind, awfully much, also answering this:

Do you believe that the right not to be pregnant (if it is even a right) for 9 months is worth more someone else's right to live?

And by that you mean the right of a single cell to undergo mitosis until it is formed into a full human. Why must this occur inside the woman, doesn't the woman have a say whether her body can be used as an incubator for the what some may consider symbiotic parasite?

carlybabe1

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me how a single cell that can undergo mitosis is considered a human person. Any somatic cell (or was it non somatic) can be turned into a new human person. Even a collection of cells that do not form anything coherent.

That seems to be the thing that is missing out, how on earth do you people justify it. I'm sorry but I cannot fathom anyone who understands biology would consider a zygote a human person...

I was talking about this with some friends, and they just think you have to be a person who didn't pay attention in biology classes (or didn't take them).

And bquinn your wrong and carlybabe1 was right. Just by looking at the single cell of a human you would not be able to tell the difference between many other things. You would need a DNA analysis. Most single cells of creatures look pretty much the same. Unless they have major identifying markers like a chloroplast. In fact I looked through a microscope on Wednesday at different plant cells, and they are very very similar.

Anyway for me personally doesn't really matter for the people on the pro abortion side. I notice trends as societies become more civilized and advanced we tend to do things like legalize gay marriage, allow stem cell research, assisted euthanasia and allow abortion. All made with good consequentialist reasoning....

But I just wanted to understand how people could think they way they do, religion was one answer and the other answer seems to be ignorance of biology.

Oh thank you thank you thank you :):):)
I dont believe it either, that anybody who knows anything about biology could see it that way either

Clair Robinson

Zulu wrote: »

They don't?

How come? I mean - it's only a clump of cells, right? a parasite; a cancerous growth; kinda like pond scum.
How could it be a difficult decision?

It's not like you're killing a person, right???

EXACTLY


I was speaking of an example later on, like after full brain development, probably should have clarified that, otherwise yea it is just virtually a parasite. Actually a baby can be considered a parasite throughout its full 9 months. But it is a parasite we choose to have.

But i guess if you have some attachment to cell growths inside you and you have biological maternal desires to see a parasitic growth to full term, then even aborting a collection of selves may prove evolutionarily psychologically difficult for you.

But look if you have a problem with collections of human cells dying then the only way you would approve people having babies is not through natural conception but through strict IVF only. Because otherwise naturally attempting to conceive would have women killing multiple collections of fertilized cells that are naturally aborted by the women. If you are going to stick to your ill informed position that you consider collections of unformed human cells a whole human person...

Dave!

Zulu wrote: »

They don't?

How come? I mean - it's only a clump of cells, right? a parasite; a cancerous growth; kinda like pond scum.
How could it be a difficult decision?

It's not like you're killing a person, right???

Irrelevent really. Whatever their reasons for doing so, abortion is rarely taken lightly.

I'm sure there's an innate impulse to protect the fetus, so that probably plays a part; maybe some women are simply 'grossed out' at the idea of an abortion, so they're not too keen on getting it done; maybe some women feel societal pressure to keep the baby (abortion is still a very contentious issue in Ireland).

Regardless of whatever irrational influences make them dislike having it done, it's irrelevent. Sure I washed a moth down the sink last night and felt quite a bit of remorse after doing so. But it's a f*cking moth, so who gives a sh*t? It's irrational.

Clair Robinson

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Oh thank you thank you thank you :):):)
I dont believe it either, that anybody who knows anything about biology could see it that way either

Well from browsing through the few pages of comments you seemed to have your biology down pat, unlike some of these phonies who just read a few articles. Did you say you were a teacher of university biology for 22 years? Or was that someone else? I have slow internet so I'm not to inclined to go back pages searching...

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

Here we go. :rolleyes: Carlybabe, can you just leave out the inflammatory comments and snide remarks please? You don't want this thread locked as well do you?

IM POSTING THIS IN BOLD CAUSE YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM READING STUFF IN ITS ENTIRITY, EITHER THAT OR YOUR JUST SELECTING STUFF TO SUIT YOU,NOW YOU WOULDNT DO THAT SURELY?????

YAWN............:rolleyes: KINDLY DO US ALL A FAVOUR READ THE WHOLE POST BEFORE YE JUMP IN WITH YOUR 2CNTS WORTH

Thanks for answering one of my questions. Would you mind, awfully much, also answering this:

Do you believe that the right not to be pregnant (if it is even a right) for 9 months is worth more someone else's right to live

I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT BUT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IF YOU'D READ THE POST IN THE FIRST PLACE ZULU

Zulu

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Why do you consider a zygote a child? Why do you consider a human formation that MAY become a child a child?

Well, it will become a fully grown adult if it's not killed.

You said you would rather err in the side of caution but why?

Why not! It's the safest bet. You'd extend that right to a presumed rapist/murder, why not an innocent child?

Did you ever think the child might not want to live, like me? I would rather my mother have aborted me than risk her life.

Well good for you. This comment is more for personal issues and doesn't really have place here (in humanities).

carlybabe1

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Well from browsing through the few pages of comments you seemed to have your biology down pat, unlike some of these phonies who just read a few articles. Did you say you were a teacher of university biology for 22 years? Or was that someone else? I have slow internet so I'm not to inclined to go back pages searching...

no no no, Im studyin biology for the last four yrs, and by all accounts should be extremely grateful for the lectureres Ive had. It was someone else that claimed that

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

Say a women is raped, decides to keep her baby, but upon it's birth, she can't bear to see the child and wants the doctors to kill it - should she be allowed her request? If not, why not?

Don't be rediculous, we're discussing aborting at the earliest stages when the 'child' has no cognitive faculties or anything else that defines it as human (which you argue against).

Killing a living breathing human, independant of the womb with it's own cognitive faculties is of course illegal and should remain so.

Ultravid wrote: »

Rape is an act of sexual violence. Abortion is an act of violence against the unbron child. Both rape and abortion have this in common: violent assualts against innocent victims. Whereas rape is an act of violence for which she, the women, the victim, bears no responsibility, abortion is an act of violence for which she would be morally culpable.

No, but according to you the woman must bare the child of her rapist. How do you think this fits in with a womans mental health? How do you think the bonding between a mother and her rapists child is going to be?

Ultravid wrote: »

The aboriton argument cannot be won on its own merits which is why you bring up the 12 year old rape victim scenario. If it is not legitimate to kill a person conceived in rape after they're born, then it is no more legitimate to kill that same person before they're born. The true agenda is abortion on demand.

This is why we go back to the definition of what a child is, for me it has to have it's own cognitive faculties, higher brain functions and be capable of living independently from the host.

But despite this you obviously have no issue forcing a 12 year old CHILD to give birth to another child.

Zulu wrote: »

Except when it comes to the childs choice to life.
just every woman should be allowed.
Rubbish, I'm pro-choice. I completely respect the child's choice to live.
For some reason, you don't though.

You're not pro-choice, you're anti-choice. The 'child' is incapable of deciding it's own faith due to it not having any awareness of its own existance or any cognitive faculties what so ever.

You would prefer to give YOUR choice for an unborn 'child' with no cognitive faculties over the mother which you seem to prefer to use as an incubator for any form of life.

Zulu

Dave! wrote: »

Irrelevent really. Whatever their reasons for doing so, abortion is rarely taken lightly.

It's not really. The implication is that the person does actually view it as killing a human life, and thus struggles with the idea.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

IM POSTING THIS IN BOLD CAUSE YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM READING STUFF IN ITS ENTIRITY, EITHER THAT OR YOUR JUST SELECTING STUFF TO SUIT YOU,NOW YOU WOULDNT DO THAT SURELY?????

Christ, here we go. Carlybabe, why the aggression? You've gotten the two other threads locked, are you going for three in a row? Can you not converse with the adults with out the emotive outbursts?
PS:I think your caps lock is on. To turn it off, press the "Caps Lock" key on the left hand side of your key board.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

Well, it will become a fully grown adult if it's not killed.

Finally the crux of the matter. It isnt a full grown person,nor is it a consciousness as of yet, but it probably will be, noone can deny that, they can just choose not to hold it important yet though. This is where pro choice and pro life will never meet eye to eye.

Clair Robinson

Zulu wrote: »

Well, it will become a fully grown adult if it's not killed.
Why not! It's the safest bet. You'd extend that right to a presumed rapist/murder, why not an innocent child?
Well good for you. This comment is more for personal issues and doesn't really have place here (in humanities).

Okay so your concerned about potential to become human. And your not responding to a majority of the things I'm putting out there.

But look if you have a problem with collections of human cells dying then the only way you would approve people having babies is not through natural conception but through strict IVF only. Because otherwise naturally attempting to conceive would have women killing multiple collections of fertilized cells that are naturally aborted by the women.

Also the dead skin off your nose has the potential to become human, it has all the ingredients required to and can be coaxed into becoming a full devolving cell, capable of undergoing mitosis.

Potential to become a human person is BS. Becuase that means exactly what i'm trying to articulate, potential to become a human person DOES NOT MAKE IT a human person.

=.= I'm out, I now know how non believers can be full blow anti abortionists that consider single cells to be human persons. Inability to understand or a willful ignorance of the science of biology.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

You're not pro-choice, you're anti-choice. The 'child' is incapable of deciding it's own faith due to it not having any awareness of its own existance or any cognitive faculties what so ever.

And that's why I'll defend it's choice!

You would prefer to give YOUR choice for an unborn 'child' with no cognitive faculties over the mother which you seem to prefer to use as an incubator for any form of life.

Sure, it's only for 9 months. Eight if you consider she probably won't even notice the first.
It's not a whole lot to ask really.