The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[BradCube]

I don't believe that early term abortins are killing baibies - theya re simply removing some cells that could potentially devlop into a baby if left there. It is not killing.

Most abortions are done at a time where the cells that are in the womb are scientifically classified as living. Depriving this living bunch of cells of life is regarded as killing.

Are we not merely living cells that could develop into a fully grown human? The fact that a featus is at a different stage of development does not make it any less human.

A six week old fetus has no right to life and can not survive outside the womb so I fial to see why its rights are more important than that of a young woman.

An interesting argument, but I can't see how it holds up since even once born we are all at the mercy of our environment. The fact that we cannot survive without it does not give any moral excuse or reasoning in killing someone.

And yes, I do believe this is an issue of womens rights as there are many men out there trying to impose their moriality on womens bodies when it is none of their concern.

Even when it is their future baby who's life is at stake?

It would be like women attempting to create laws stating that every time a man masturbates or has sex where no pregnancy results, he has killed life and should be forced to be pregnant. Not possible, but I am just pointing it out.

The logic your pointing out here is the equivalent of saying that everytime a female has her monthly period she should be forced to become pregnant.

It is flawed because neither a mans sperm nor an egg of a female is classified as living.

 

[BradCube]

Murder is only bad because we consider it to be.

While I personally do not agree with this statement it would seem that the premise of this thread is that people do consider murder to be wrong. Therefore we are not arguing whether is is wrong to kill a human, but whether it is an more acceptable to kill a featus.

 

[BradCube]

Which post are you reffering to? I took a quick search, but I wasn't able to find it quickly.

 

[muz-]

Isnt it better to prevent a baby being born into a world where it is not wanted by its mother..

 

[BradCube]

Isnt it better to prevent a baby being born into a world where it is not wanted by its mother..

Not neccesarily. It could be put up for adoption where it is very much wanted.

 

[muz-]

^ yeh thats true.. but when a child finds out its adopted, it often questions why its parents didnt want it.. and that is something no one should have to ask or deal with.

 

[BradCube]

^ yeh thats true.. but when a child finds out its adopted, it often questions why its parents didnt want it.. and that is something no one should have to ask or deal with.

Many people that have been adopted would argue that the trade-off of continued life compared to asking those questions is well worth it.

 

[muz-]

ohh.. haha fuck that. ur smartness is actually annoying

 

[Generator]

Most abortions are done at a time where the cells that are in the womb are scientifically classified as living. Depriving this living bunch of cells of life is regarded as killing.

It's called a termination for a reason, BradCube.

Edit: There's no need for comments such as that, Damage.

 

[AntiHyper]

From the first of these, my question still stands as to how the featus can have any change if it has no ability to metabolise before it attaches to the uterus wall.

If you look at a chicken egg, there is the egg yolk and the non-yellow stuff. Here the non-yellow stuff are there to "feed" the chick that may be growing inside the fertilised egg.

Similarly I suppose human eggs should have some of these stuff, not a lot but enough to allow the embryo cells to multiply significantly.

 

[Xayma]

If you look at a chicken egg, there is the egg yolk and the non-yellow stuff. Here the non-yellow stuff are there to "feed" the chick that may be growing inside the fertilised egg.

Similarly I suppose human eggs should have some of these stuff, not a lot but enough to allow the embryo cells to multiply significantly.

Yes they do have the ability to multiply, however, there is a finite supply and without being implanted in the uterus it will run out of energy, it cannot absorb outside energy via it's own metabolism.

 

[Generator]

No. If the mother terminates the child for a reason such as that, then she deserve to be burnt alive in a steel box.

It's murder.

Charming, secret - not only do you propose death for a woman who considers an abortion for what may be very valid socio-economic reasons, but you also suggest that the death be as painful as possible.

 

[bshoc]

I for one cannot wait until the intelligent libertarians get their own country.

- This shouldn't even be argued, it's a required economic service. Thus it should exist.

One of the stupidest things ever uttered by man, good thing most "libertarians" are too stupid to understand economics anyway, right up there with the socialists in fact.

 

[Generator]

No such thing, unless you consider rape and threat to life as a socio-economic factor.

The bottom line is, if you dont want a baby, dont get pregnant - if the woman is retarded enough to do so, she has no right to take out her stupidity on her poor helpless child.

Is your world truly that black and white and so unforgiving?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Bshoc, you still haven't responded to my criticism of your application of arrow's theorem to utilitarianism. Please do not reply with another 'you have to disprove it mathetically' post because that is just utter tripe.

One of the stupidest things ever uttered by man, good thing most "libertarians" are too stupid to understand economics anyway, right up there with the socialists in fact.

You go 2nd year economics student!

 

[bshoc]

Bshoc, you still haven't responded to my criticism of your application of arrow's theorem to utilitarianism. Please do not reply with another 'you have to disprove it mathetically' post because that is just utter tripe.

You must forgive me if my intrests in archaic, discarded and outdated late 19th/early 20th century socio-economic theories are not at the same zenith as yours.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You must forgive me if my intrests in archaic, discarded and outdated late 19th/early 20th century socio-economic theories are not at the same zenith as yours.

You must forgive me as I fear your just trying to side-step the fact that you were repeatedly wrong with your dismissal of utilitarianism. Its' not archaic, discarded or outdated - could you please explain to me how you come to your decisions of what is right/wrong?

If you want to debate it, then debate it. Don't just throw up some theory which you know your opponent probably has not had any contact with then say 'disprove it or your idea is wrong' without properly looking into your claim, arrows' theorem in NO WAY affects utilitarianism and IMO it was a cheap tactic to skew the debate.

 

[*Minka*]

No such thing, unless you consider rape and threat to life as a socio-economic factor.

The bottom line is, if you dont want a baby, dont get pregnant - if the woman is retarded enough to do so, she has no right to take out her stupidity on her poor helpless child.

So if a condom breaks, that makes the woman stupid and "retarded"? What a fabulous display of the blame everything on the woman mentality.

 

[Generator]

I know that this may surprise you, but accidents such as that mentioned by minka aren't restricted to those who 'sleep around', bshoc.

 

[musik_junky]

I know that this may surprise you, but accidents such as that mentioned by minka aren't restricted to those who 'sleep around', bshoc.

I dont think we should be trying to punish women (or anyone for that matter). Its basically a fine line between the well being of the mother, and the well being of the unborn child. I dont think we should ban abortion full stop. I mean it has its use if the life of the mother is threatened by pregnancy etc. However, I do think the number of abortions that take place in Australia are too high, and something should be done (e.g. better social welfare to support young / financially challenged mothers) to lower the number.