What are your viewpoints on abortion?

Ever heard of adoption?

At P, okay then, my definition of human includes any fertilized egg with the potential to successfully survive in a female's womb by reasonable means.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

What moral justifications are you using to define a human at that point? After all, a fertilised egg is significantly less complex than a pig, or a cow, but we happily slaughter them by the billions.

Are you averse to the morning-after pill? How about other forms of contraception?

 

Complexity != moral value. You could argue that computers are more complex than human beings in some ways, that doesn't make them of higher moral value than us.

I am not okay with the morning after pills that destroy embryos. The ones that attempt to stop them from forming but won't stop existing pregnancies I'm fine with. Contraception (Like condoms, birth control, etc.) are also fine.

 

I can't wait either. I'm getting excited just thinking about it.

 

So why have you put the definition at being a fetilised egg? Why not, for example, a sperm and an egg?

 

As in, completely separate? Because that would be a stupid and self contradictory definition. The male genitals are obviously designed to in one way or another be wasting millions of sperm every once in a while, as is the female body with eggs.An egg being fertilized, however, is much more rare and at that moment immediately becomes loads more valuable than just a sperm and an egg.

 

So a couple is supposed to spend 9 months carrying a child they don't want (spending loads of money in the process) only to dump it in an adoption home where the child will never know of it's parents, possibly developing some deep psychological issues because of this, and could be adopted (if at all) by new parents who may or may not treat the child right? It's also a big 'if' the child gets adopted since once they hit adult-hood they're tossed to the streets.

You cannot compare computers to us because those aren't living creatures. It's like comparing us to a toaster. Just from your second point I now know there's no point in continuing this discussion with you since there's no way in hell I'll be able to change your view on what is and what isn't a human being. Personally I don't consider any human 'alive' unless they can think for themselves, it's just my opinion on the subject.

 

you should re-read the post. i have not said that its unjustified if the woman is raped.

A fetus is still a living human being in the womb, its alive. If you kill it, it's murder.

Because killing it is wrong unless someone unnecessary will die. I.e. the mother.

Using a condom prevents the fertilization, so no living fetus will ever be created. Abortion kills the baby that actually was living. Big difference.

I'd like to say that not once have I said it wasn't murder. And we do not have an "overpopulation problem". If we never aborted any children, we would have a good 50-85 million more people in the US alone. The US is under-populated.

Because even though illeagal, an incest baby (unless from rape) goes under the category of a male and female engaging in sexual intercourse to create a human life. If the situation came up that she would die, by all means save her and kill the child instead of losing both of them.

I don't have a great argument for this one, but if they did this sick, illeagal thing, and she got pregnant from it (in the event that she will not die, and it wasn't rape), then she should be forced to have the baby. It would be just like if it wasn't incest, without leagal problems.

 

I was dead for thousands of years before I was born. I didn't really suffer because of it. In fact, I didn't know, seeing as I was dead. I have no recollection of being a fetus, so, again, no real hinderance on my life there. Abortion is frowned upon because the fetus is considered "alive". Personally, I think that if someone wants to have an abortion they sould be allowed and not have to worry about people making a big scene about it. We were given the right to freedom for a reason.

 

I agree 100 procent with this.
Where I live it's been legal for a long time now, and I actually see countries with the no-abortion law as underdeveloped and very old fashioned.

It's YOUR choice to get a baby. Even though adoption is an option, people who are underaged, people who don't want the hassle of 9 months of pregnancy and then just give it up and people who got pregnant by accident, should just be able to abort the child.
The child isn't even capable of thinking yet, what is so wrong with aborting something that you can't even call human?

 

Okay, then take this example. A brother and sister sleep together, the sister gives birth to a healthy baby boy. It isn't discovered that he's an incest baby until ten years later. Is it still illegal for him to be alive? Should he be killed simply because of his parents' mistake?

And the hospital analogy does still apply. The legal limits are in place to keep me from driving with too high of a BAC and having to go to the hospital because I got into a an accident as a result of my drunkenness.

 

itt: "Leave my analogies alone!"
"No, you leave MY analogies alone!"

 

Geez, it's not that hard. It should be up to each person whether they want an abortion or not. If they can live with it, then they should be allowed.

 

Does it have to be in the womb?

What justification is there for killing it in this situation? Self defence?

If so, I present the argument that the child is leeching off of the mother without permission, and is still providing a degree of danger to the mother at birth. Therefore the mother is justified in killing it.

What's the difference between chucking a bunch of semen in a condom into the toilet, and removing an embryo or foetus? The basic parts of the child are still killed.

I'm arguing in the case of it not being murder. Anyway, the world definitely does have an overpopulation problem. It's plain to see. But even if we assume it doesn't, then we're now getting an influx of millions of children, few of which are actually wanted. Due to being born into an unprepared family, their standards of living are probably poorer, and if they're put up for adoption, then the entire system will get overloaded. Furthermore, the adoptive process isn't a particularly pleasant one. More often than not, it won't turn out well for the kid.

I was talking about fatal childbirth here, not incest.

Why should she be forced to have the child? She doesn't want it, and society doesn't accept it. It's completely rejected, by its mother and the world.

In that case, it's a tad too late to do anything about the problem. However at the point where it is still a foetus, it is not ridiculous to consider aborting it, especially when the woman who has to carry it to labour doesn't want it, and the world doesn't want it.

 

Not taking sides in this but iirc a fetus isn't considered "alive" until three weeks into pregnancy.
Just throwing that out there.

 

Uh, yeah. If you have sex, you know there is a chance you may get pregnant and YOU have to deal with those consequences. Also, I have a friend who was adopted and he's seriously the happiest person I know. Sometimes adopted children get stuck with crappy parents. Sometimes children are BORN to the wrong parents. It happens. Murder is not an acceptable answer to it.

 

Killing the fetus is WRONG. We have monasteries that accept children, we have orphanages to put the kid up for adoption in a home that will accept him, and I'm pretty sure there are other alternatives that my oblivious and naive brain is unaware of.
Once you have something like an unborn child to care for, you have a duty as a parent to keep it safe, whether you're the one raising it or not. It's nature. It's common sense. It's the right ****in' thing to do.

I'd like to point out that I hate children, yet even I have the common sense to see the wrong in all this.

 

Killing the foetus is a perfectly acceptable answer to an unwanted pregnancy, if you don't define it as human, which I don't. I'm trying to figure out what part of it you think is human.

What trait of an embryo makes it a 'human being' in your eyes?

 

How do you know the world doesn't want it? Last I checked, the government isn't the entire world. You also aren't the entire world. So you're basically saying that if it's illegal, it's immoral and the result is also illegal and immoral. I agree that incest is wrong, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for the child to be alive. Additionally, you seem to think that if the mother doesn't want the child, she HAS to get an abortion if she doesn't want to have the child adopted. And that means that I shouldn't be alive right now.

And on the embryo being a human, it is a human because a human sperm cell came (no pun intended) into contact with a human egg cell. Human sperm+Human egg=Human fetus. It's simple biology.

Also, do you believe in evolution? Because abortion also goes against natural selection.