It isn't just like any random bodily cell though, because a bodily cell isn't going to become a human being. A fetus dying is not the same thing as lets say, skin cells dying. Same thing with sperm and eggs. Obviously sperm is not going to form a human being on it's own, and neither is an egg. It's not the same thing as a developing human fetus.
It has everything to do with it. Because once you understoond the process, you will know that that tiny fetus here is no different on his ea… morerly stage from a bunch of your other cells and there's nothing special about it (truth be told, there's nothing special about human life either - if there was, there would be no wars). It can potentially become a human, but so do billions others spermatozoa and eggs. It can "die" and dissolve on it's own due to stress and other circumstances, and that often happens when a couple is trying to make a baby. Quite a number of them reduce to nothing before you know. And you won't even know you were pregnant and won't cry a river about it - as you don't cry every month or every time you masturbate (depending on your gender).
That is your opinion.
But the truth is, it is morally wrong to kill a baby, under any circumstances.
Especially if the woman in question just doesn't wanna be "bothered" with the responsibility of taking care of kid.
"Does population count justify killing human beings?"
No, it certainly does not!
Children are precious.
And they have the right to life.
So many people abort babies because the do not want the responsibility of having a child.
If someone does not want a pregnancy on their hands, or are just to damned lazy to take on the resposibilty of a taking care of a child, they should do one of two things.
Either use protection, or DO NOT have sex.
PERIOD!
If we don't let them live we know exactly what will become of them, nothing.
EDIT: On a side note: Thomas Edison was a prick and should have been aborted, same with JFK.
I don't agree with abortion. you're simply killing one human-being in his/her most helpless form. however, I think there are some exceptions in which it could be applied. a pregnancy resulted from rape would be one.
That is your opinion.
But the truth is, it is morally wrong to kill a baby, under any circumstances.
Especially if the woman in question just doesn't wanna be "bothered" with the responsibility of taking care of kid.
This subject is one of those, I feel, that isn't strictly right or strictly wrong. Like many other issues, it is very gray and instances can change depending on the situation. People like to put the labels "right" or "wrong", "moral" or "immoral", on things they don't understand. Psychopaths are labeled as "evil" by people who don't understand mental illness and its effects. Animals are "vicious" when they attack out of fear or defense. We shouldn't be so quick to attach labels or make something illegal without first understanding the cause for it.
I am pro-choice, solely because I believe that the decisions a woman makes regarding her body and baby belong ONLY to the woman herself. No one else should be able to decide what she can and can't do, and no one should shame her for making the choice to abort her child. The decision to have an abortion is a difficult and heartbreaking one for most women to make, and it has the ability to leave scars and guilt that last a lifetime. Shaming them won't help the situation.
I also believe that every woman, regardless of age, funds or circumstance, should have the right to an abortion in a safe, legal environment. In some countries in Africa and Asia where abortion is illegal even for victims of rape, women are seeking unhygienic, dangerous and life-threatening ways of terminating their pregnancy. It is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality, causing over 68,000 deaths annually - around 13% of 20 million illegal and unsafe abortions worldwide. Post-abortion, 5 million women who managed to survive the procedure experience complications that last the rest of their lives. Making abortions illegal won't stop women from having them, but it will instead force them to look elsewhere for a procedure that could kill or seriously harm them.
However, that being said, I personally don't believe a woman should abort her baby simply because she finds keeping it inconvenient. This is not by any means saying she is not allowed and, of course, it depends on circumstance, be it she was raped, is very young, or is unable to keep the child because she is emotionally and/or financially unprepared. The decision doesn't just boil down to whether or not to abort the baby, but whether there are other ways to handle the situation. Adoption should always be a choice for any unwilling mother. Note that this does not bear in mind other reasons for abortion, such as if the baby would be born with a debilitating birth defect, disease or deformity, or if the mother's health is at risk during delivery.
The PPFA (the organization as a whole) is a very important federation in society. Aside from abortion it assists in screenings for HIV and cancer, as well as counseling new mothers-to-be - something not enough people care about doing. Needless to say, you won't see me standing outside a Planned Parenthood building with a giant "You're Going To Hell" sign in the air.
They aren't people. They are not sentient. Abortion is not killing a "human being" it's disposing of a mass of non-sentient cells. It IS in my power to get rid of them, it's not my right because I'm not female.
"Innocence" is a term that belongs only to people. They aren't people. It is impossible for a mass of cells to be innocent (or evil.)
That is your opinion.
But the truth is, it is morally wrong to kill a baby, under any circumstances.
Especially if the woman in question just doesn't wanna be "bothered" with the responsibility of taking care of kid.
It isn't just like any random bodily cell though, because a bodily cell isn't going to become a human being. A fetus dying is not the same t… morehing as lets say, skin cells dying. Same thing with sperm and eggs. Obviously sperm is not going to form a human being on it's own, and neither is an egg. It's not the same thing as a developing human fetus.
To those who don't "believe" a human fetus is human by definition, I'd like to know when exactly you pinpoint the label "human" on a living thing.
By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling. Does that make him estimable? Four or five weeks after fertilization, pain receptors appear around the mouth, followed by nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. By 18 weeks, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body. Around week 6, the fetus first responds to touch. Is he human now?
By the 20th week, all parts are in place and everything is as it should be. Human, or not human?
Here's a question: if the doctor delivers your baby, and then smashes its' head against a wall, how would you react? Is there some kind of magical change that happens when the head pops out of the vagina that makes the baby human, estimable to your judgment?
When a woman wants to give birth, society suddenly grants it value to the point that if someone kills the fetus, they could be prosecuted for homicide. But when a woman doesn't want to give birth, the fetus suddenly has no intrinsic value or human rights. On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a fetus' worth? It is neither the mother nor the father's job to decide whether a fetus has the right to live.
A woman has a right to control her body, I agree completely. The problem is that the fetus is not her body, it is a separate being. It is in her body. Here's another deal; if a person wants to abort their baby for selfish reasons, such as prosperity or the sex of the child, people suddenly start an outrage. Why? If it's not human, why does it matter? It has no value or rights, or did you forget?
Even if you believe that a fetus is not human, that does not mean that the fetus does not have any intrinsic values or rights. There are many living beings that are not human, yet we still don't murder them. How would you feel about killing a stray cat? Or someone's dog? Does he not have any rights because he's not human?
Morally it's definitely bad, I personally think it's bad but I'm not the person getting pregnant, I can't be sure what kind of life the parent who wants an abortion lives, who am I to judge the actions of people I know nothing about? The act of abortion is a choice pregnant people are allowed to make, they choose the fate of their baby and live the rest of their lives with the consequences.
who am I to judge the actions of people I know nothing about?
Well, here's the thing. When someone murders, no one says "who am I to judge their decision?" Right? So... if this is murder, there's no real reason to say that you can't judge their decision to take the life of something that is in fact human, right?
I mean, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear why you think a person is allowed to decide another person's fate because that person is currently dependent on his care. Is it because you sympathize with mothers who got pregnant by unfortunate circumstances? If so, why are the circumstances, as unfortunate and undeserving as they may seem, directly affect the life of the human who was conceived?
Morally it's definitely bad, I personally think it's bad but I'm not the person getting pregnant, I can't be sure what kind of life the pare… morent who wants an abortion lives, who am I to judge the actions of people I know nothing about? The act of abortion is a choice pregnant people are allowed to make, they choose the fate of their baby and live the rest of their lives with the consequences.
To those who don't "believe" a human fetus is human by definition, I'd like to know when exactly you pinpoint the label "human" on a living … morething.
By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling. Does that make him estimable? Four or five weeks after fertilization, pain receptors appear around the mouth, followed by nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. By 18 weeks, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body. Around week 6, the fetus first responds to touch. Is he human now?
By the 20th week, all parts are in place and everything is as it should be. Human, or not human?
Here's a question: if the doctor delivers your baby, and then smashes its' head against a wall, how would you react? Is there some kind of magical change that happens when the head pops out of t… [view original content]
Allot of abortions happen when the baby hasn't even fully developed a brain, in all technicality, any form of sexual intercourse is practically a mass murder since only a single sperm cell of millions survive. An undeveloped Baby or embryo is still a human, but so is a sperm cell - it's the first life stage. There's a difference between murdering a person outside of your belly and murdering one inside of your belly. It's morally ill and I agree that it's horrible, however, the mother has the right to, especially if she was raped - does she deserve to possibly die by giving birth, does she deserve to be insulted by people for being pregnant when it wasn't her choice? Does the mother have no right over what happens to her child? Does the mother have to live to with all the consequences of owning a child, especially if the mother is only a teenager or child when she gave no consent?
A woman could be impregnated due to rape, intoxicated into performing sexual intercourse, or doing so without full awareness of the situation etc. The circumstances in my opinion don't justify the right to kill another individual. But in retrospect - as humans, we rant and rave about a mother choosing the fate of her unborn child while we kill living organisms daily.
who am I to judge the actions of people I know nothing about?
Well, here's the thing. When someone murders, no one says "who am I to… more judge their decision?" Right? So... if this is murder, there's no real reason to say that you can't judge their decision to take the life of something that is in fact human, right?
I mean, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear why you think a person is allowed to decide another person's fate because that person is currently dependent on his care. Is it because you sympathize with mothers who got pregnant by unfortunate circumstances? If so, why are the circumstances, as unfortunate and undeserving as they may seem, directly affect the life of the human who was conceived?
During your life you destroy millions of microrganisms.
And, you know, pro choice means that I can decide if I want one. And yes if the reason is "just becuse" others might think that I'm stupid, but that is not the point. I have the freedom of choosing if I want an offspring. If I don't=abortion If I want=I keep it. That is win-win.
And becuse it is your baby, you are the best man/woman to decide if you want it or not. Being pro-choice means that you have options, you have freedom.
How can you just say that though? What is it about their stage of development that justifies removing their right to live? Just because? Obv… moreiously we all had to start somewhere, it doesn't make any sense at all to use stage of development to magically wave away someone's right to be born; they're still a developing human being. Why is it that people insist on using stage of development as a crutch for defending pro choice? It doesn't even really matter if you want to downplay the actual physical being that you are dealing with, you are still taking away someone's life by having an abortion, as the aborted baby would have otherwise been born and been free to live out their life. That life has as much value as any person that is already born.
That is your opinion.
But the truth is, it is morally wrong to kill a baby, under any circumstances.
Especially if the woman in question just doesn't wanna be "bothered" with the responsibility of taking care of kid.
Allot of abortions happen when the baby hasn't even fully developed a brain, in all technicality, any form of sexual intercourse is practically a mass murder since only a single sperm cell of millions survive.
While it's true that a lot of abortions happen during the first weeks, that: a. does not justify the ones that happen after the first 3-4 months b. does not matter, because the ability to feel pain is not the standard upon which we decide what is human and what deserves to live. Even though the fact that they feel pain pretty much shows why we shouldn't hurt them.
To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.
There's a difference between murdering a person outside of your belly and murdering one inside of your belly.
That is only if the entity not the same once it comes out of the belly. If it's human inside and outside, which it biologically is, there's no difference.
the mother has the right to, especially if she was raped - does she deserve to possibly die by giving birth, does she deserve to be insulted by people for being pregnant when it wasn't her choice? Does the mother have no right over what happens to her child?
The mother has the right to her own body, the fetus is a human being growing inside of her, but not a part of her that she can extract like you're extracting a tooth. When someone asks a pregnant woman, "How's your baby?" They're not asking, "How's your body?" It's silly to think that just because the human is within her, that means she has the right to decide its' value. Again, the circumstances don't justify the act itself. Why does that mean she gets a free pass at murder? No, it's still murder.
If you're talking about the rare instance when the mother's life is in danger, then of course, it is legitimate to terminate the baby in order to save her, but that doesn't mean you're not killing a baby. In the US as of 2013, there were 18.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Does this small risk mean that you have to murder the baby? That seems highly unfair for the baby. That's like saying that because someone has a 1% chance of dying of brain cancer unless we chop off their hand (weird, but whatever), we should just get it over with and chop his hand off, because that small chance exists.
Does the mother have to live to with all the consequences of owning a child, especially if the mother is only a teenager or child when she gave no consent?
No, she can give it up for adoption, to a couple who wasn't so lucky. And again, there's that or the murder of a baby. Which one is better?
But in retrospect - as humans, we rant and rave about a mother choosing the fate of her unborn child while we kill living organisms daily.
That is true, but it does not mean that we can keep killing more babies just because we're hypocritical. If we learned anything from the human species, it only cares about members of its' own species, and unborn babies are human.
Allot of abortions happen when the baby hasn't even fully developed a brain, in all technicality, any form of sexual intercourse is practica… morelly a mass murder since only a single sperm cell of millions survive. An undeveloped Baby or embryo is still a human, but so is a sperm cell - it's the first life stage. There's a difference between murdering a person outside of your belly and murdering one inside of your belly. It's morally ill and I agree that it's horrible, however, the mother has the right to, especially if she was raped - does she deserve to possibly die by giving birth, does she deserve to be insulted by people for being pregnant when it wasn't her choice? Does the mother have no right over what happens to her child? Does the mother have to live to with all the consequences of owning a child, especially if the mother is only a teenager or child when she gave no consent?
A woman could be impregnated due to rape, intoxicated into p… [view original content]
Can someone explain to me what planned Parenthood is and why it's controversial? I tried looking them up but they just seem like a pretty normal organisation.
Well.. from the fourth/fifth week a human fetus already has a central nervous system and a brain formed. of course, during pregnancy they will grow and develop to the final stage. ( a body without a brain could never be considered a person. but this is definitely not the case.) which is why I think that's already more than enough for them to be considered: a person.
Me, you and all living things on this planet also are nothing but a mass of cells. if you look from that perspective then why the ethics should be different between you and a fetus?
In my opnion, abortion would only be a viable method when the pregnancy is life-threatening for the women or extremely undesirable and traumatic. for example: in a rape. in these cases abortion could be considered justifiable because it was something imposed on women and not something she planned.
They aren't people. They are not sentient. Abortion is not killing a "human being" it's disposing of a mass of non-sentient cells. It IS in … moremy power to get rid of them, it's not my right because I'm not female.
"Innocence" is a term that belongs only to people. They aren't people. It is impossible for a mass of cells to be innocent (or evil.)
They're a nonprofit organization that does research into and gives advice on contraception, family planning, and reproductive problems. Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider, roughly one out of every four abortions in America is carried out in a Planned Parenthood facility, which is reprehensible if you acknowledge the biological fact that a fetus is human, and if you think that murdering human beings is wrong.
Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding, which basically means that taxpayers provide murder. You, by working and paying your taxes, donate to the prevention of human life.
Planned Parenthood’s business model is centered on abortion. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has written that she was given an abortion quota, and was even told by her superiors to “double the number of abortions” in order to bring in more revenue. You can read about it here:
Can someone explain to me what planned Parenthood is and why it's controversial? I tried looking them up but they just seem like a pretty normal organisation.
I have my logic and reasoning skills as you have yours. They may have their brain but they have yet to develop any sort of understanding of sentience or life. The ethics should be different between me and a fetus because of brain capacity. For example, animals. We kill them en masse but for the most part it isn't wrong (our methods could be more humane) because their brain power only allows for them to operate with base instinct (or, non-sentience) same as a fetus. A fetus may be life, but it isn't sentient life it's non-sentient like the cells that it's composed of (and the ones we're composed of).
Back to animals, I oppose killing things like apes, whales, and elephants due to their sentience. I feel that may be relevant in some way.
Well.. from the fourth/fifth week a human fetus already has a central nervous system and a brain formed. of course, during pregnancy they wi… morell grow and develop to the final stage. ( a body without a brain could never be considered a person. but this is definitely not the case.) which is why I think that's already more than enough for them to be considered: a person.
Me, you and all living things on this planet also are nothing but a mass of cells. if you look from that perspective then why the ethics should be different between you and a fetus?
In my opnion, abortion would only be a viable method when the pregnancy is life-threatening for the women or extremely undesirable and traumatic. for example: in a rape. in these cases abortion could be considered justifiable because it was something imposed on women and not something she planned.
"Does population count justify killing human beings?"
No, it certainly does not!
Children are precious.
And they have the right to life.
… more
So many people abort babies because the do not want the responsibility of having a child.
If someone does not want a pregnancy on their hands, or are just to damned lazy to take on the resposibilty of a taking care of a child, they should do one of two things.
Either use protection, or DO NOT have sex.
PERIOD!
To those who don't "believe" a human fetus is human by definition, I'd like to know when exactly you pinpoint the label "human" on a living … morething.
By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling. Does that make him estimable? Four or five weeks after fertilization, pain receptors appear around the mouth, followed by nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. By 18 weeks, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body. Around week 6, the fetus first responds to touch. Is he human now?
By the 20th week, all parts are in place and everything is as it should be. Human, or not human?
Here's a question: if the doctor delivers your baby, and then smashes its' head against a wall, how would you react? Is there some kind of magical change that happens when the head pops out of t… [view original content]
if the doctor delivers your baby, and then smashes its' head against a wall, how would you react?
I would shout to the doctor someth… moreing like: - YOU RAPED HER! YOU MURDERED HER! YOU KILLED HER CHILDREEEN!!
sorry... the association was inevitable!
What about the 10 year old girl in Paraguay who was raped by her stepfather and because of the government's laws, she could not get an abortion. Do you agree with that?
Allot of abortions happen when the baby hasn't even fully developed a brain, in all technicality, any form of sexual intercourse is practica… morelly a mass murder since only a single sperm cell of millions survive.
While it's true that a lot of abortions happen during the first weeks, that: a. does not justify the ones that happen after the first 3-4 months b. does not matter, because the ability to feel pain is not the standard upon which we decide what is human and what deserves to live. Even though the fact that they feel pain pretty much shows why we shouldn't hurt them.
To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gameto… [view original content]
People with down syndrome have lower intellect compared to normal brain patterns. even so, we don't go around killing these people indiscriminately just because of their brain power. the same could be said of animals. they all have the right to live.
Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future. and unless there's a significant enough justification ( like the rape example). I don't think we have the power and/or the right to interfere in this process.
no offense to you. but I think this logic is just cold.. I believe that life should be respected above all. ethics should persist. otherwise we'll not be different from a machine.
I have my logic and reasoning skills as you have yours. They may have their brain but they have yet to develop any sort of understanding of … moresentience or life. The ethics should be different between me and a fetus because of brain capacity. For example, animals. We kill them en masse but for the most part it isn't wrong (our methods could be more humane) because their brain power only allows for them to operate with base instinct (or, non-sentience) same as a fetus. A fetus may be life, but it isn't sentient life it's non-sentient like the cells that it's composed of (and the ones we're composed of).
Back to animals, I oppose killing things like apes, whales, and elephants due to their sentience. I feel that may be relevant in some way.
It's not the baby's fault that it was conceived in rape. Once the baby is conceived and human, it deserves to live. If the mother is a teenager, it's tragic, but it doesn't mean she can kill the baby. How is killing the baby a better option than letting it live, if killing the baby does more harm than delivering it? If you keep it, the mother will have to give birth, if you kill it, the baby dies and will never get to live.
Think for yourself what's better. In my judgment, letting the baby live for the cost of the teenager giving birth to it does more good than harm.
What about the 10 year old girl in Paraguay who was raped by her stepfather and because of the government's laws, she could not get an abortion. Do you agree with that?
Can someone explain to me what planned Parenthood is and why it's controversial? I tried looking them up but they just seem like a pretty normal organisation.
She's 10. Human bodies aren't made for the strain of child birth at that age (not to mention the emotional strain of giving birth at an age before most schools even teach sex education programs). She could have died giving birth. She shouldn't have been forced to go through with it.
It's not the baby's fault that it was conceived in rape. Once the baby is conceived and human, it deserves to live. If the mother is a teena… moreger, it's tragic, but it doesn't mean she can kill the baby. How is killing the baby a better option than letting it live, if killing the baby does more harm than delivering it? If you keep it, the mother will have to give birth, if you kill it, the baby dies and will never get to live.
Think for yourself what's better. In my judgment, letting the baby live for the cost of the teenager giving birth to it does more good than harm.
If there's a serious risk for maternal death for the mother, there's no problem with aborting the baby. But when the life of the mother is not in question, the life of the baby shouldn't be, either.
She's 10. Human bodies aren't made for the strain of child birth at that age (not to mention the emotional strain of giving birth at an age… more before most schools even teach sex education programs). She could have died giving birth. She shouldn't have been forced to go through with it.
You have the freedom to choose whether you want to make an offspring, but if that offspring is now alive and a being on its' own, it's not your right to choose their fate. It's a win-win for you, the baby dies. They don't get to live and voice their opinion. I'm pretty sure that every child ever terminated in abortion would be against the procedure.
Just because it is your baby doesn't mean you can decide whether you want it or not, it's easy to understand that because you wouldn't agree to a woman murdering her baby in the crib just because she doesn't want it anymore. A fetus is just the same as that. Being pro-choice means that the mother has a choice, but the baby has none. That's not pro-choice, even if it's called as such.
During your life you destroy millions of microrganisms.
And, you know, pro choice means that I can decide if I want one. And yes if the r… moreeason is "just becuse" others might think that I'm stupid, but that is not the point. I have the freedom of choosing if I want an offspring. If I don't=abortion If I want=I keep it. That is win-win.
And becuse it is your baby, you are the best man/woman to decide if you want it or not. Being pro-choice means that you have options, you have freedom.
There's a difference between a sperm and a fetus.
You have the freedom to choose whether you want to make an offspring, but if that offsp… morering is now alive and a being on its' own, it's not your right to choose their fate. It's a win-win for you, the baby dies. They don't get to live and voice their opinion. I'm pretty sure that every child ever terminated in abortion would be against the procedure.
Just because it is your baby doesn't mean you can decide whether you want it or not, it's easy to understand that because you wouldn't agree to a woman murdering her baby in the crib just because she doesn't want it anymore. A fetus is just the same as that. Being pro-choice means that the mother has a choice, but the baby has none. That's not pro-choice, even if it's called as such.
Comments
Indeed, my entire worldview just shattered in front of my eyes.
It isn't just like any random bodily cell though, because a bodily cell isn't going to become a human being. A fetus dying is not the same thing as lets say, skin cells dying. Same thing with sperm and eggs. Obviously sperm is not going to form a human being on it's own, and neither is an egg. It's not the same thing as a developing human fetus.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them into dead soldiers" -George Carlin
That is your opinion.
But the truth is, it is morally wrong to kill a baby, under any circumstances.
Especially if the woman in question just doesn't wanna be "bothered" with the responsibility of taking care of kid.
"Does population count justify killing human beings?"
No, it certainly does not!
Children are precious.
And they have the right to life.
So many people abort babies because the do not want the responsibility of having a child.
If someone does not want a pregnancy on their hands, or are just to damned lazy to take on the resposibilty of a taking care of a child, they should do one of two things.
Either use protection, or DO NOT have sex.
PERIOD!
Not true.
It is not in your power or right, to take the life of an innocent human being.
wow i had no idea
I don't agree with abortion. you're simply killing one human-being in his/her most helpless form. however, I think there are some exceptions in which it could be applied. a pregnancy resulted from rape would be one.
Your argument failed before it started.
That is absolute Bull!
Life begins at conception.
This subject is one of those, I feel, that isn't strictly right or strictly wrong. Like many other issues, it is very gray and instances can change depending on the situation. People like to put the labels "right" or "wrong", "moral" or "immoral", on things they don't understand. Psychopaths are labeled as "evil" by people who don't understand mental illness and its effects. Animals are "vicious" when they attack out of fear or defense. We shouldn't be so quick to attach labels or make something illegal without first understanding the cause for it.
I am pro-choice, solely because I believe that the decisions a woman makes regarding her body and baby belong ONLY to the woman herself. No one else should be able to decide what she can and can't do, and no one should shame her for making the choice to abort her child. The decision to have an abortion is a difficult and heartbreaking one for most women to make, and it has the ability to leave scars and guilt that last a lifetime. Shaming them won't help the situation.
I also believe that every woman, regardless of age, funds or circumstance, should have the right to an abortion in a safe, legal environment. In some countries in Africa and Asia where abortion is illegal even for victims of rape, women are seeking unhygienic, dangerous and life-threatening ways of terminating their pregnancy. It is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality, causing over 68,000 deaths annually - around 13% of 20 million illegal and unsafe abortions worldwide. Post-abortion, 5 million women who managed to survive the procedure experience complications that last the rest of their lives. Making abortions illegal won't stop women from having them, but it will instead force them to look elsewhere for a procedure that could kill or seriously harm them.
However, that being said, I personally don't believe a woman should abort her baby simply because she finds keeping it inconvenient. This is not by any means saying she is not allowed and, of course, it depends on circumstance, be it she was raped, is very young, or is unable to keep the child because she is emotionally and/or financially unprepared. The decision doesn't just boil down to whether or not to abort the baby, but whether there are other ways to handle the situation. Adoption should always be a choice for any unwilling mother. Note that this does not bear in mind other reasons for abortion, such as if the baby would be born with a debilitating birth defect, disease or deformity, or if the mother's health is at risk during delivery.
The PPFA (the organization as a whole) is a very important federation in society. Aside from abortion it assists in screenings for HIV and cancer, as well as counseling new mothers-to-be - something not enough people care about doing. Needless to say, you won't see me standing outside a Planned Parenthood building with a giant "You're Going To Hell" sign in the air.
They aren't people. They are not sentient. Abortion is not killing a "human being" it's disposing of a mass of non-sentient cells. It IS in my power to get rid of them, it's not my right because I'm not female.
"Innocence" is a term that belongs only to people. They aren't people. It is impossible for a mass of cells to be innocent (or evil.)
Killing babies is always wrong, yes. Fortunately, abortion isn't done to babies. You should educate yourself on the procedure before forming opinions.
Actually, it's exactly like that. It's nothing but a mass of non-sentient cells.
To those who don't "believe" a human fetus is human by definition, I'd like to know when exactly you pinpoint the label "human" on a living thing.
By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling. Does that make him estimable? Four or five weeks after fertilization, pain receptors appear around the mouth, followed by nerve fibers, which carry stimuli to the brain. By 18 weeks, pain receptors have appeared throughout the body. Around week 6, the fetus first responds to touch. Is he human now?
By the 20th week, all parts are in place and everything is as it should be. Human, or not human?
Here's a question: if the doctor delivers your baby, and then smashes its' head against a wall, how would you react? Is there some kind of magical change that happens when the head pops out of the vagina that makes the baby human, estimable to your judgment?
When a woman wants to give birth, society suddenly grants it value to the point that if someone kills the fetus, they could be prosecuted for homicide. But when a woman doesn't want to give birth, the fetus suddenly has no intrinsic value or human rights. On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a fetus' worth? It is neither the mother nor the father's job to decide whether a fetus has the right to live.
A woman has a right to control her body, I agree completely. The problem is that the fetus is not her body, it is a separate being. It is in her body. Here's another deal; if a person wants to abort their baby for selfish reasons, such as prosperity or the sex of the child, people suddenly start an outrage. Why? If it's not human, why does it matter? It has no value or rights, or did you forget?
Even if you believe that a fetus is not human, that does not mean that the fetus does not have any intrinsic values or rights. There are many living beings that are not human, yet we still don't murder them. How would you feel about killing a stray cat? Or someone's dog? Does he not have any rights because he's not human?
That's my piece.
Morally it's definitely bad, I personally think it's bad but I'm not the person getting pregnant, I can't be sure what kind of life the parent who wants an abortion lives, who am I to judge the actions of people I know nothing about? The act of abortion is a choice pregnant people are allowed to make, they choose the fate of their baby and live the rest of their lives with the consequences.
Well, here's the thing. When someone murders, no one says "who am I to judge their decision?" Right? So... if this is murder, there's no real reason to say that you can't judge their decision to take the life of something that is in fact human, right?
I mean, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear why you think a person is allowed to decide another person's fate because that person is currently dependent on his care. Is it because you sympathize with mothers who got pregnant by unfortunate circumstances? If so, why are the circumstances, as unfortunate and undeserving as they may seem, directly affect the life of the human who was conceived?
Good.
I completely agree.
Allot of abortions happen when the baby hasn't even fully developed a brain, in all technicality, any form of sexual intercourse is practically a mass murder since only a single sperm cell of millions survive. An undeveloped Baby or embryo is still a human, but so is a sperm cell - it's the first life stage. There's a difference between murdering a person outside of your belly and murdering one inside of your belly. It's morally ill and I agree that it's horrible, however, the mother has the right to, especially if she was raped - does she deserve to possibly die by giving birth, does she deserve to be insulted by people for being pregnant when it wasn't her choice? Does the mother have no right over what happens to her child? Does the mother have to live to with all the consequences of owning a child, especially if the mother is only a teenager or child when she gave no consent?
A woman could be impregnated due to rape, intoxicated into performing sexual intercourse, or doing so without full awareness of the situation etc. The circumstances in my opinion don't justify the right to kill another individual. But in retrospect - as humans, we rant and rave about a mother choosing the fate of her unborn child while we kill living organisms daily.
During your life you destroy millions of microrganisms.
And, you know, pro choice means that I can decide if I want one. And yes if the reason is "just becuse" others might think that I'm stupid, but that is not the point. I have the freedom of choosing if I want an offspring. If I don't=abortion If I want=I keep it. That is win-win.
And becuse it is your baby, you are the best man/woman to decide if you want it or not. Being pro-choice means that you have options, you have freedom.
I never meant the contrary, that's my opinion, and you have an opinion too, which is not necessarily the truth.
While it's true that a lot of abortions happen during the first weeks, that: a. does not justify the ones that happen after the first 3-4 months b. does not matter, because the ability to feel pain is not the standard upon which we decide what is human and what deserves to live. Even though the fact that they feel pain pretty much shows why we shouldn't hurt them.
To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.
That is only if the entity not the same once it comes out of the belly. If it's human inside and outside, which it biologically is, there's no difference.
The mother has the right to her own body, the fetus is a human being growing inside of her, but not a part of her that she can extract like you're extracting a tooth. When someone asks a pregnant woman, "How's your baby?" They're not asking, "How's your body?" It's silly to think that just because the human is within her, that means she has the right to decide its' value. Again, the circumstances don't justify the act itself. Why does that mean she gets a free pass at murder? No, it's still murder.
If you're talking about the rare instance when the mother's life is in danger, then of course, it is legitimate to terminate the baby in order to save her, but that doesn't mean you're not killing a baby. In the US as of 2013, there were 18.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Does this small risk mean that you have to murder the baby? That seems highly unfair for the baby. That's like saying that because someone has a 1% chance of dying of brain cancer unless we chop off their hand (weird, but whatever), we should just get it over with and chop his hand off, because that small chance exists.
No, she can give it up for adoption, to a couple who wasn't so lucky. And again, there's that or the murder of a baby. Which one is better?
That is true, but it does not mean that we can keep killing more babies just because we're hypocritical. If we learned anything from the human species, it only cares about members of its' own species, and unborn babies are human.
Can someone explain to me what planned Parenthood is and why it's controversial? I tried looking them up but they just seem like a pretty normal organisation.
Well.. from the fourth/fifth week a human fetus already has a central nervous system and a brain formed. of course, during pregnancy they will grow and develop to the final stage. ( a body without a brain could never be considered a person. but this is definitely not the case.) which is why I think that's already more than enough for them to be considered: a person.
Me, you and all living things on this planet also are nothing but a mass of cells. if you look from that perspective then why the ethics should be different between you and a fetus?
In my opnion, abortion would only be a viable method when the pregnancy is life-threatening for the women or extremely undesirable and traumatic. for example: in a rape. in these cases abortion could be considered justifiable because it was something imposed on women and not something she planned.
This is what I know:
They're a nonprofit organization that does research into and gives advice on contraception, family planning, and reproductive problems. Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider, roughly one out of every four abortions in America is carried out in a Planned Parenthood facility, which is reprehensible if you acknowledge the biological fact that a fetus is human, and if you think that murdering human beings is wrong.
Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding, which basically means that taxpayers provide murder. You, by working and paying your taxes, donate to the prevention of human life.
Planned Parenthood’s business model is centered on abortion. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has written that she was given an abortion quota, and was even told by her superiors to “double the number of abortions” in order to bring in more revenue. You can read about it here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/153699-exposing-the-planned-parenthood-business-model
They're implementing an abortion mandate.
I have my logic and reasoning skills as you have yours. They may have their brain but they have yet to develop any sort of understanding of sentience or life. The ethics should be different between me and a fetus because of brain capacity. For example, animals. We kill them en masse but for the most part it isn't wrong (our methods could be more humane) because their brain power only allows for them to operate with base instinct (or, non-sentience) same as a fetus. A fetus may be life, but it isn't sentient life it's non-sentient like the cells that it's composed of (and the ones we're composed of).
Back to animals, I oppose killing things like apes, whales, and elephants due to their sentience. I feel that may be relevant in some way.
Indeed.
"Or do not have sex."
Yeah, just don't participate in one of the most biologically ingrained actions of humans. It's that simple. Stay abstinent kids!
We've seen how well this works, right?
I would shout to the doctor something like: - YOU RAPED HER! YOU MURDERED HER! YOU KILLED HER CHILDREEEN!!
sorry... the association was inevitable!
What about the 10 year old girl in Paraguay who was raped by her stepfather and because of the government's laws, she could not get an abortion. Do you agree with that?
People with down syndrome have lower intellect compared to normal brain patterns. even so, we don't go around killing these people indiscriminately just because of their brain power. the same could be said of animals. they all have the right to live.
Even if a fetus isn't a sentient life, it is bound to be one in the future. and unless there's a significant enough justification ( like the rape example). I don't think we have the power and/or the right to interfere in this process.
no offense to you. but I think this logic is just cold.. I believe that life should be respected above all. ethics should persist. otherwise we'll not be different from a machine.
It's not the baby's fault that it was conceived in rape. Once the baby is conceived and human, it deserves to live. If the mother is a teenager, it's tragic, but it doesn't mean she can kill the baby. How is killing the baby a better option than letting it live, if killing the baby does more harm than delivering it? If you keep it, the mother will have to give birth, if you kill it, the baby dies and will never get to live.
Think for yourself what's better. In my judgment, letting the baby live for the cost of the teenager giving birth to it does more good than harm.
because they are government funded., and people get upset if they're tax dollars goes to public services.
She's 10. Human bodies aren't made for the strain of child birth at that age (not to mention the emotional strain of giving birth at an age before most schools even teach sex education programs). She could have died giving birth. She shouldn't have been forced to go through with it.
If there's a serious risk for maternal death for the mother, there's no problem with aborting the baby. But when the life of the mother is not in question, the life of the baby shouldn't be, either.
There's a difference between a sperm and a fetus.
You have the freedom to choose whether you want to make an offspring, but if that offspring is now alive and a being on its' own, it's not your right to choose their fate. It's a win-win for you, the baby dies. They don't get to live and voice their opinion. I'm pretty sure that every child ever terminated in abortion would be against the procedure.
Just because it is your baby doesn't mean you can decide whether you want it or not, it's easy to understand that because you wouldn't agree to a woman murdering her baby in the crib just because she doesn't want it anymore. A fetus is just the same as that. Being pro-choice means that the mother has a choice, but the baby has none. That's not pro-choice, even if it's called as such.
Before you are born, you do not count as human being lawwise. Ergo: You have no rights. Sounds cruel, but this is the trurth.
Murder is killing an other human being. So if you terminate a festus, it is not a murder. (First point)
As festuses are not human beings they have no choice, and acutally are unable to choose. (First point)
So it is pro-choice. The human being can choose.