|
Post by Qwerty333 on Aug 17, 2011 3:45:36 GMT
Is Abortion the same thing as "killing" babies? Is it morally wrong? Should it be illegal? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? I'm shocked that there hasn't been something about abortion in this board already. So debate everything about the morals, ethics, and legalities of abortion here.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Aug 17, 2011 3:49:44 GMT
I loik life
I find it a shame that all that life which had so much potential had to go down the drain. They could become influential on the world, or they could just be an average guy like Ha55ii, who is normal but has talents appreciated all over the globe.
But my opinions are not very strong on this. I suggest even if you are pregnant, put it up for adoption preceding birth. Don't just abandon it... ;(
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Aug 17, 2011 5:09:54 GMT
This is basically what I have to say:
I think that if somebody gets pregnant, then they should have their baby. Now, of course, there would be exceptions, like rape or something. But if you're going to be ignorant enough to have sex without protection and not plan to get pregnant, then you should have the baby and take responsibility for your own actions. If you simply cannot take care of a baby, don't abort it. Put it up for adoption. For all we know, a baby was just aborted that would have discovered the cure for AIDS.
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Aug 17, 2011 9:46:38 GMT
If you are raped, that would be painful enough having to give birth to your rapist's child would be horrifying abortion is ok. if the condom breaks, and you don't have the money to look after a baby, have an abortion. if some random guy jizzes inside you when you're pished, and you don't even know who he is, have an abortion. i think abortion is fine. also childbirth hurts
|
|
|
Post by ShiningSilver on Aug 17, 2011 13:03:46 GMT
If the abortion is for the reason of rape, (as the other people have already said), it would be fine to have the baby aborted. Though, I feel like if someone is just going to have sex and not care about getting pregnant and them just aborting whenever they feel like it, then that is completely wrong. Why would you be so ignorant aborting babies? I feel like you should at least put it up for adoption.
If something like health reasons happen, (harmful for the person pregnant, or harmful for the baby, etc.), then you could have an abortion.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 17, 2011 19:50:56 GMT
Abortion cancels out the developing mind of the child before they can develop. Instead of living a life in poverty or the overcrowded adoption system, the child simply is never born in the first place. Instead of running into times when they wish they had never been born, they really had never been born. With no developed mind, nothing is there to kill.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Aug 17, 2011 21:24:20 GMT
A babies heart developes before its brain, and sometimes abortion is necessarily to save the mother's live. I've had personal encounters with that. Abortion is morally wrong, as a fetus at least has the potential for life, but it isn't murder and sometimes it most be done.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Aug 17, 2011 21:29:48 GMT
A Fetus is not a person, An egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not a tree, and I repeat, a Fetus is not a person. We've been over this...
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Aug 18, 2011 1:15:18 GMT
Imagine all the baby wheat plants that get ground up to make your bread...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 18, 2011 1:43:14 GMT
A fetus has the potential for life. So does sperm. Should contraceptives become illegal?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Aug 18, 2011 6:24:15 GMT
Should contraceptives become illegal? I think there's a difference there. Contraceptives prevent a baby from developing in the first place. Abortion stops the development after it has begun.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 19, 2011 5:34:50 GMT
Depends on how you define "begun". A cluster of vague cells does not a baby make. If anything it's just preparing for development.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Aug 19, 2011 14:43:46 GMT
Depends on how you define "begun". A cluster of vague cells does not a baby make. If anything it's just preparing for development. A fetus is not a vague cluster of cells. The zygote stage ends before most people relize they are pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by ShiningSilver on Aug 21, 2011 0:37:04 GMT
Random question: I wonder how one would even define consciousness and how would one find out if an entity is conscious?
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Aug 21, 2011 2:32:32 GMT
It's a philosophically unsolvable question. For all we know every quark is conscious.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Aug 30, 2011 2:33:53 GMT
If your'e talking about just plain consciousness, then it's wrong to kill animals and eat them because they are conscious. If you're talking about self-awareness, even a new-born (to our knowledge) isn't self-aware. And I'm sure that you believe it's wrong to kill a new-born. That even applies to what qwert says. If you kill a new-born, you kill it before it's developed enough to not like its life, wish it had never been born, or fear death. So what's wrong with killing new-borns?
|
|
|
Post by priok on Aug 30, 2011 3:57:56 GMT
I think that it's not too big of a deal, it should probably be the mother's choice. I have heard that it would be a waste of things, which is probably true, but I have not really thought about it well enough to accurately say what I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Aug 30, 2011 12:43:47 GMT
I'm still wondering the difference between a new-born and a fetus besides morphplogy.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 30, 2011 14:50:19 GMT
Well, a fetus isn't truly alive until birth.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Aug 30, 2011 20:52:20 GMT
Wait, not alive until birth? Are you implying that, even after the baby is done being constructed, it isn't alive until it exits the host body? Why do I find that hard to believe?
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Aug 31, 2011 0:57:59 GMT
The difference between a fetus and a newborn depends on the age of the fetus, but eventually the only difference is that one is inside the mom's body and the other isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 31, 2011 5:35:08 GMT
There's a reason for it: Usually the fetus cannot survive outside the body, whereas the newborn can. Naturally, anyway. With modern medicine all sorts of crazy early births can happen.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Aug 31, 2011 11:16:24 GMT
Okay, so the fetus cannot survive outside the body, but a newborn can. A fetus is the developing or developed organism that is still inside the body, and a newborn is an organism just recently expelled from the body. So, if something is a fetus, it cannot survive outside the body, and if something is a newborn, it can survive outside the body. So, if something is a developing or developed organism that is still inside the body, it cannot survive outside the body, and if something is an organism just recently expelled from the body, it can survive outside the body.
Am I to believe that the process of expelling an organism from the body is what turns the organism from a fetus into a newborn, despite that the process can never start because, merely by being inside the body, the fetus can never be ready to go outside the body? If it's inside the body, it can't be ready for life outside the body: being in the body disqualifies it from being ready for going outside the body, thereby never letting it outside the body, thereby never letting it qualify as ready to leave the body, thereby never letting it outside the body, thereby never letting it qualify as ready to leave the body, ad nauseum. Obviously, this is wrong, as the organism still inside the body eventually qualifies as being ready to leave the body and later leaves the body to become a newborn. The argument certainly seems valid but is obviously unsound, so one of the premises must be wrong. Do the definitions of fetus and newborn not rely on whether they can survive outside the body, or is it that the fetus and newborn aren't necessarily defined by whether they are inside the body, or is one of the conditions wrong?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 31, 2011 13:39:26 GMT
Well, obviously a fetus that is a moments away from birth (or as soon as it has proper development of the vital organs and is a growth) CAN live outside the body, but it still doesn't. To be alive something has to be self sustaining, and a fetus isn't such until birth. That's all I was saying. Now I wouldn't say that a fetus that is ready to be born and a newborn have hardly any other distinguishing qualities other than one is born and one isn't. However, most abortions are done before the fetus has the capability to be alive. So pretty much what I'm saying is: A fetus in the first trimester, (when the majority of abortions take place) doesn't have the capabilities to live on its own, at this point it is pretty much just a tapeworm. (Although tapeworms are alive) A fetus in the third trimester is essentially equivalent a newborn in everything but size and will most likely live so long as it was given medical care. According to the Wikipedia article on fetal viability, it isn't until about the 24th week (near the end of the second trimester) that a fetus is likely to survive outside the body, even with medical care.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 31, 2011 14:33:06 GMT
Plus you'd get some seriously messed-up baby in that situation. Essentially at that point you're just saving a fetus. It's later, near when the baby is ready for birth, that it can be supported outside the womb.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 31, 2011 16:08:29 GMT
Plus you'd get some seriously messed-up baby in that situation. Essentially at that point you're just saving a fetus. It's later, near when the baby is ready for birth, that it can be supported outside the womb. What? No. At week 24 the fetus can survive and develop normally, however it requires extensive medical care. You aren't just saving a fetus.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 1, 2011 2:13:36 GMT
With extensive medical care. It can't naturally survive outside the womb: You have to practically create an artificial womb of sorts to finish the pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Sept 1, 2011 2:45:58 GMT
With extensive medical care. It can't naturally survive outside the womb: You have to practically create an artificial womb of sorts to finish the pregnancy. Obviously. Most premature babies wouldn't survive if not for medical care.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 1, 2011 3:09:59 GMT
Hence, you are just saving a fetus.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Sept 1, 2011 5:33:42 GMT
That still doesn't make any sense. Do you actually want to explain it this time?
|
|