I personally find this debate to be one of the worst in the history of the world, mostly because it ends up with two sides pissed off at each other and nothing of value being gained, though I believe that unless I'm a father it's an issue best left for the women.
Wow is it too much to ask for you children to stop breaking up what people say and simply respond to their argument on a whole? This whole I'm going to take every sentence you say individually to make me look smarter thing is childish and stupid. As for abortion it's not for us to decide and it's arrogant for anyone to force their position onto other couples. If there's a doctor who's willing to do it and they will pay for it themselves I see no problem with abortions. Oh and don't give me any of this human life bullshit. Before we develop self awareness we're just a ball of flesh that never knew it existed and is none the worse for it.
There are many handicapped, injured, or otherwise "unfit" persons in the World who could not possibly survive without proper medical care. By this logic they are not people. As Kali said, being able to survive on you're own is a stupid line to draw as to what is and isn't human. No, it's yours because you pretend to see what isn't there. They're entirely different situations and you're comparing them simply in the hopes of discrediting my argument with irrelevant slander. I've already said legitimate reasons like it killing you are reasonable grounds for abortion. Even more so because that usually ends in the death of the child as well. I am fine with putting the child up for adoption. And I've already stated in previous threads my support for a single payer system in healthcare. It would be of little cost to the parents and it's a small price to save a life. No I'm not. I'm justifying it with "they cause/will cause suffering to and society should not be forced to suffer unnecessarily". You don't say? I can't be bothered with responding to everything. I do my best but I wont dig through old pages to respond to old arguments. Especially since the arguments stay roughly the same throughout the thread. What are you talking about? I've stated my argument quite clearly. Everything after contraception is to be considered human life. As it is human life and abortion kills it, abortion is hence comparable to murder. Well if I've held a belief for 14 years one would have to assume that I would continue to hold the belief. There was no reason to assume such invalid statements as, "You'll probably change it in 15 minutes anyway". Stop trying to cover up your mistake. He's kind of right though. There WILL always be problems. But they're improve in time as the global economic situation stabilizes. You mean like artificial crops? Of course. But as time passes it will be ushered in. As will even more developed methods that can cope with the increased population. This is a philosophical debate, or at the least we're debating it philosophically. Biologists may be a nice reference point but Science cannot be the end all in the discussion of what is and isn't human life. Then you're right in doing so. No it's not. Though I don't really know what we're talking about here. I'll just assume I was right. I agree, my post is probably littered with errors too. I guess being on a forum at like 11 PM isn't a good idea.
Last i checked medical care isn't a womb. We are talking about abortion, so my answer was aimed at that.
Simply because it does not resemble a womb does not mean it is without the same general functions as the womb like aiding in respiration and providing nutrients. In many cases they are comparable. It would be nice if you had the decency to start off your post without an obvious insult like that. At least be coy about it. Like I've said before, many people cannot survive on their own without proper medical care and attention. By saying that one can only be human by being able to survive on their own you also intake the opinion that those handicapped and injured persons are not human. Yes, human life. Who are you to define life? After conception it is an organism and it can die, as is seen in miscarriages. If it were not alive then it could not possibly die. At the very least, you must give way that it is alive. It is the definition of what is human life that can be debated. Did you read anything about what I wrote? By saying this, people with IVs are not human, people with respirators are not human, people with severe mental disorders are not human, eunuchs are not human, and the severely physically challenged are not human. You need a legacy to exist? That's nonsense. How does that contradict saying that life begins at conception? Are you trying to argue that life begins with the idea of having a child? That seems a little far-fetched for me. Perhaps if you developed the argument more it could be considered a proper theory one day. No, I never have argued that and I probably never will unless someone makes a very, very compelling argument in the contrary. Well at least Kali is sometimes polite about it(unless it's about Communists). You're just popping off "shit" and "bullshit" like it's no one's business. That's cool. I like Franky, it's a nice name. Possible future life? Franky is alive. As in, his most definite future life unless he is killed, or in soft language, aborted. Odds are he wasn't going to be a super genius anyway. What? You just dropped your entire train of thought. This is a completely different argument. Anyway, I have no problem with a mother doing with her own body as she sees fit. However once she has taken on another life (most likely through her own recklessness) it's her responsibility to see it through. As a human life, killing another human being is illegal and immoral. And what about the human inside of her? He/she has rights too. Rights like, not getting murdered and shit. In no way is it possibly moral to kill another human being unless a human life is at risk. By banning abortion a woman's rights are only curbed in such a way that protects another human being. You wouldn't say that preventing people from drowning each other was "telling them what they can do with their bodies". You'd say it was preventing murder. The same case applies here if you take for a given that the fetus is human. I don't say that, at all. Perhaps I was a bit glib on my position: I am very sorry for the rape victim. You have had a terrible atrocity committed against you and it is horrible that you must endure this. However now that you are pregnant there is another human life inside you. While it may be unfavorable, you must see through the birth till the end. Then you are free to do with the baby as you like. Then I'd throw in some form of government program to ensure that all expenses were paid for. It's nonsense for a rape victim to have to pay for her raped baby. But it's also nonsense for a human being to die simply for being a product of rape, a crime he had no relation to and probably would not even support. Ya, or a person who can't read an argument properly. Ya, why are they having children? So you ballsed up and you want to kill a human to correct your mistake? That's crazy. In fact I say that in the post you quoted, you just never made a rebuttal. Instead you ignored the argument. You didn't take the precautions and were irresponsible with a very real life issue. I'm sorry but I don't see why a human being should have to die for your recklessness. That's simply illogical and immoral. What? I never said that. I said that it is silly to say abortion should be legalized because people infect themselves while breaking the law. And it's not like an infection is the end of the world anymore, this isn't the 1600s. Again, this isn't the 1600s. People who aren't adopted tend to lead good and healthy lives these days. At the least it's better than no life at all. I personally would rather live in an orphanage than die. That's not so bad compared to never seeing the light of day. As in, you didn't feel like/couldn't responding to it. Like when I said I it was wrong to commit abortion because you didn't want to be bothered to have to give birth. Or because it would be awkward 20 years later.
I already wrote this so i have no idea why I need to repeat myself. A fetus becomes and individual when it can survive outside of its mothers womb. A handicapped person is already an individual, the fact that he needs medical care to survive is irrelevant.
Dude you should read my posts ,i wasnt acting childish or insulting anybody i stated my position with facts and for that they ignored me.
@JosipBrozTito So, you honestly believe that a foetus becomes a person when it can survive outside it's mothers womb? What about this?
You do realize that they are placed in the womb after fertilization? They cannot survive on their own.
They are surviving outside the mothers womb when they are fertilised though. Realise also that a new born could not survive oustide a mother's womb on it's own.
Oh, and then kara goes on to make a git out of himself by breaking up everyone's post to make him feel smarter. Detracting from other peoples opinions by breaking it down like that is stupid. Parts of peoples statements obviously are going to compliment each other you just do it because you think you'll have a greater chance of sounding cool if you respond like this.
They are alive outside of the womb, but they are literally dying. But it can without using someones body against their will. While we are on the subject of In vitro fertilization. Do you approve of it?
Really? I'm glad you mentioned it, because I'm sure most of us couldn't have figured that out with one glance.
Bleh, I now see that it's not that I'm seeing things that aren't there, but rather I forgot to read something in the first post I referred to. Fuck, I should start getting a more normal sleep schedule, or at least don't get into serious discussions at ridiculous times. As Chelsea already said, the pregnancy and birth are downright torturous, and a lot more than just a nine month inconvenience for something you're never going to see again in your life. Right, and completely silencing the entire populace and turning them into some kind of sickening collective hive mind won't be causing any suffering whatsoever. No, it's even more disgusting, indoctrinating people into slaves until their minds are so broken they can't fight back. I just figured I'd throw it out there, just in case someone draws a baseless, irrelevant, ignorant and/or wrong conclusion. Dig through old pages? It's quite easy to find the posts of people that have responded to you. ...Let me get back to you on that, I'm trying to decipher whatever the hell it was I posted there. That would be a ridiculous and simply wrong assumption to make, though. My mistake? It is you who apparently misread what I said there. We need a function where we can like parts of posts as well. That, and general genetic modification. I love me some genetic modification. I fully expect a biologist to know significantly more about a growing foetus than the two of us combined, and therefore I will trust the word of a biologist over yours in a debate like this. Then again, I doubt all biologists agree on the subject anyway. Right...so, we can leave these parts out now, I guess. And that's where pressing the arrow in the quote thingy comes in very handy. Right now, I have fives tabs open with posts from this topic. The good thing about that is that I can easily find what the hell we were talking about. The downside is that I get to reread my own posts and witness the train wreck that is my mind. Imagine that, but then at 2:30AM.
If you don't quote your opposition, then the argument just turns into a bunch of loosely connected essays, and in turn those essays become egoistic shouting matches. Both you and your opponent benefit greatly from responding directly to specific parts of each others' posts. The only downside is the formatting mess that it creates, but that's due to the way the site handles quotes.