Thread: Abortion, should it be legal

I believe a life is a life as soon as the egg is fertilized.

I also like to point out some medical problems abortions have on the mother. Abortions have been proven to decrease fertility then on after.

This "second trimester" you talk of. I'm unaware of it and would like some more information before I challenge it, so please reference me to a source.

Thanks.

I would have to say that I am against abortion.....period.

Man would be hubristic in the extreme to claim that he knows when life begins and with that clearly in mind the safest case would be just not to involve oneself in such activities.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

Excuse my lack of vocabulary and professional wording. I just woke up and am quite tired from being sick.

@Life,
This will probably go nowhere in terms of convincing you - and I wouldn't expect it to - but I'm just explaining the justification for the sentience viewpoint.
Is a dog alive? Should people be allowed to kill dogs at will? Is it moral to kill dogs at will? Is a cat alive? Should people be allowed to kill cats at will? Is it moral to kill cats at will? Is a spider alive? Should people be allowed to kill spiders at will? Is it moral to kill spiders at will? Is a tree alive? Should people be allowed to kill trees at will? Is it moral to kill trees at will?
The law, along with most people's opinions, say that the first two (cats and dogs, among many other animals) are not allowed to be murdered. The last two are allowed to be killed at will, even though they are "living cells." The difference is that the first two are sentient. They know they are alive and want to be alive. The last two wouldn't even notice if they died, so there is no loss. Through this, life and rights to life can morally be defined as sentience (or self-awareness). If you aren't aware of your existence, you aren't losing anything by not having it anymore. If you were to kill an adult or child, there would be a loss - they are alive, they know they are alive, and they want to be alive. You are thus taking something from them that they own and want. However, like a tree, insect, or other non-sentient living thing, a fetus does not know it's alive, thus does not want to live, thus you can't "take" its life because it does not "want" it.
Whether you agree or not is just opinion, and I wouldn't expect someone to change their already-held viewpoint. That is just the idea behind second-trimester abortion limits.

How can you compare a fetus to a tree? A tree is a plant? It doesn't resemble a fetas at all. A fetus has the potential to be a person, thats all that matters.

Also, Does a newly born know of its existence? Oh course not, so we kill it then?.

How about a mentally retarded person? Some of them don't know of their own existence. Lets kill them also.

Sick... Killing a baby because you were too irresponsible to use contraception should be a punishable offence.

Google "fetus" and look at the images, that's what your killing. That's what an irresponsible person has the "right" to do. It makes me sick.

Originally Posted by BoogyMan

Man would be hubristic in the extreme to claim that he knows when life begins and with that clearly in mind the safest case would be just not to involve oneself in such activities.

I assume by "when life begins," you mean "when sentience begins." Because we know for fact that sentience can't begin prior to the development of the brain, and after the beginning of the development of the brain, we admittedly don't know.

Originally Posted by Benjamin

How can you compare a fetus to a tree? A tree is a plant? It doesn't resemble a fetas at all. A fetus has the potential to be a person, thats all that matters.

They're still living cells. You conveniently didn't compare insects, rodents, chickens, cows, and other animals that we kill daily.

Also, Does a newly born know of its existence? Oh course not, so we kill it then?.

We don't know if a newborn knows of its existence. It's impossible to say it doesn't. A newborn can respond to positive and negative stimuli, so it very well may know of its existence.

How about a mentally retarded person? Some of them don't know of their own existence. Lets kill them also.

Firstly, I'd love to know of a single mentally retarded person that isn't self-aware, and evidence that they're not. There's a difference between mentally disabled and brain dead. A huge difference.
Secondly, this is a major argument for people in a persistent vegetative state, and a lot of people think it's perfectly fine to stop the lives of these people.
It's nice to take extreme positions to prove a point, but newborns and the mentally handicapped are 100% not things that are provably not sentient, so you'll need to find another analogy.

Google "fetus" and look at the images, that's what your killing. That's what an irresponsible person has the "right" to do. It makes me sick.

I think maybe we should be more careful about what we're calling it. It's actually an embryo, not a fetus.

Here is a group of different animal embryos. One is human. Tell me which is the human, why it's "sickening" to kill it, and why it's morally acceptable to kill the others.


This may be easier. This is the same group, later in development:


And here's the answer.

The embryo isn't a fetus until the second trimester. Abortion in the first trimester is not killing the fetus and thus not killing those cute little babies you're seeing on Google Images.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

They're still living cells. You conveniently didn't compare insects, rodents, chickens, cows, and other animals that we kill daily .

Again, stop comparing a baby to an insect, rodent, chicken or cow.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

We don't know if a newborn knows of its existence. It's impossible to say it doesn't. A newborn can respond to positive and negative stimuli, so it very well may know of its existence.

"We don't know" would be enough to have the right to kill it in your case. As you have proven in this conversation.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

Firstly, I'd love to know of a single mentally retarded person that isn't self-aware, and evidence that they're not. There's a difference between mentally disabled and brain dead. A huge difference.
Secondly, this is a major argument for people in a persistent vegetative state, and a lot of people think it's perfectly fine to stop the lives of these people.
It's nice to take extreme positions to prove a point, but newborns and the mentally handicapped are 100% not things that are provably not sentient, so you'll need to find another analogy.

My analogy is fine as I think taking the life of any human being (regardless of its state) is wrong. But thanks for giving me more bullets to shoot you with.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

I think maybe we should be more careful about what we're calling it. It's actually an embryo, not a fetus.

Sorry, I'm still taking my biology course at college. However I would like to point out theses are all scientific names. At the end of the day it all means one thing, human, and that scientific word only describes what stage that human is at during development.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

The embryo isn't a fetus until the second trimester. Abortion in the first trimester is not killing the fetus and thus not killing those cute little babies you're seeing on Google Images.

Same response to above comment. Scientific words are all broken down detailed meanings of the same thing.

Your argument about "Why do you think killing an animal embryo over a human embryo is ok?". I don't. But I do know we shouldn't compare ourselves to animals. Very dangerous game.

You should learn a lesson from my signature.