What are your viewpoints on abortion?

Okay, so it's a difference of opinion then. You think, "it has a brain and therefore should not be killed" where I think, "it is human and therefore should not be killed." I say, whether or not it has a brain, as long as it is human, it is wrong to kill it. You, on the other hand, say that as long as t has a brain, it is wrong to kill it. Therefore, in your opinion, it is wrong to kill chickens, cows, pigs, snakes, spiders, flies, and many others because they all have brains.

And on the rape baby, you seem to ignore one glaring reality:
ADOPTION!!!!!!!
[insert confetti and loud carnival music]

And as long as the sperm does not come into contact with the egg and is not prevented from coming into contact with the egg by artificial means, it is fine for the woman not to have a baby. It is only in the case of condoms, contraception, and abortion in cases where the mother will not die in childbirth where I don't approve. By the way, choosing not to have sex or to only have sex when the woman is not ovulating is perfectly acceptable.

@Twilight Knight:
In the case of being born like that, we assume that the same thing as a person with total amnesia being locked in a room with no lights, sounds, or smells and all food is tasteless will happen. Eventually he will begin to think something because that is simply the nature of the brain. It's like how, in theory, if you leave a monkey in a room with a computer and nothing else to do, it will figure out how to do something with the computer assuming it hasn't broken it first.

In the case of having lost them over time, he isn't in any pain because he can't feel anything physical. He is still (theoretically) able walk and move around, but he doesn't because he's restrained. There's also no way to know if he is suffering because he isn't saying anything. For all we know, this could be an absolute paradise for him. To think with interruption and to be perfectly and absolutely at peace. We also assume that he became like this all at once or lost those senses over time at the same time.

 

Yeah, because, y'know, the whole "being pregnant" thing isn't painful beyond imagination and in general a huge inconvenience. Best nine months ever.

 

I take you back to the airplane example. Whether or not the person wants to be on the airplane or have the job that forces him to be on it, he has to go through the security checks. In the same way, the woman has to go through the pregnancy whether or not she wants the pregnancy OR the sex that caused it in the first place provided it doesn't significantly endanger her own life. And I'm not trying to be sexist or anything here. Hell, I'd like to go through all the pain a woman goes through during pregnancy just so I can sympathize. But a human is a human is a human. What Benjamin Franklin said doesn't apply here because it was directed toward people giving up their own liberty for their own safety. If it applied here, then it could also be said that soldiers who die in war don't deserve liberty or safety because they gave up their liberty to life for the safety of the people they're fighting for.

 

If you have sex and you know that you can get pregnant, you should live with the consequences if you do.

 

I am fairly sure that Advent was referencing pregnancy in the case of rape; that if a rape victim was faced with pregnancy, abortion is justifiable. I could be wrong here - I have only recently started following this thread, and haven't seen all of the posts.

You may have misinterpreted.

 

Easy answer: security checks should not be required by law. If I want to fly without security checks, I should be able to go to an airport that does not have them. Being forced to both go to the airport and go through security checks is clearly immoral. And, what with the recent security measures, it is not a huge stretch to compare compulsory checks to variations of rape. Problem solved, as far as I can tell. Choose a more morally justified argument next time.

 

The government is governed by the people, and is the will of the majority of them. The majority of people have ruled that incest is unwanted, bringing about the current law. This law tends to be universal throughout cultures, with a few exceptions, mostly among the upper classes. I'm speaking purely about an incest-child here, not about children in general. If the woman does not want the child, then naturally, she is welcome to put it up for adoption, if she so wishes. However there is no obligation to do so.

Human sperm
Human egg
Human foetus

See the common factor? No one cares about sperm or eggs, even though they're also human. Why should a foetus be any different?

I believe evolution is real, yes. However natural selection is a result of events that occur. There's nothing that makes it particularly desirable in of itself. In other words, if natural selection fails to occur, then so be it. It doesn't matter to me.

I also contest that abortion goes against natural selection, but that'll come up later.

In many cases, the mother didn't ask for the foetus. The foetus is another human being, and it is leeching off of her without her permission. Why should she be responsible for what the foetus steals from her?

Gun laws say hi.

Wait, what? I give up my right to privacy, when I get on the plane, regardless of whether I want to go on the plane in the first place? So I get forced onto the plane, and am submitted to security checks while I'm bundled on the plane against my will? I thought America was supposed to be the land of the free. Your hypothetical air services are both illegal and unconstitutional.

That's where we disagree. She doesn't have to give up any rights for the well being of the baby. She's not expected to. She didn't ask for it, and she has no duty to keep it alive. (Although drinking/smoking if you intend to have the child is socially unacceptable, but that's a topic for another time.)

Why should the woman have a moral duty to support another human who is leeching off of her without permission? While I'll agree that intentionally crippling, but still birthing the child is both socially unacceptable, and an immensely stupid move, I don't think she has any moral obligation not to ingest something that proves fatal to the baby.

Whether or not embryonic research yields results, I'm questioning the moral difference to you between embryonic stem cell research, and IVF destruction.

Why have you constructed such a strange scenario? What point are you trying to prove?

Being human is not enough to give a right to life. Brain dead people, or people with little chance of recovery can be taken off of life support. They often have the same or more brain activity as a foetus. Get where I'm going with this?

You place too much importance on humanity, when really, it's brain activity that should be the judgement standard.

I'm trying to see this guy as a metaphor for a foetus, but it's just not working for me, I'm sorry. Foetuses don't have any untold wisdoms, or any conscious thoughts what-so-ever.

Nice catch.

CTRL-F 'brain'

Replace All with 'human brain'.

Let's use both of our criterion together. You demand humanity, while we demand brain activity. Let's make it human brain activity. That works, doesn't it?

If the woman is willing to go through the nine months of bearing a child that she never wanted, then certainly, it's an option. That doesn't make it mandatory.

How about Coitus Interruptus? The pill doesn't prevent the sperm from coming into contact with the egg: does this make it acceptable? Vasectomies?

What's the difference between the sperm ending up in a condom, and the sperm ending up in a non-ovulating woman? The results are the same.

Arguing about contraception is fairly dull for me, as it's not something I can ever see myself changing my stance on. Abortion, on the other hand, has enough strong points in its favour to make me appreciate the possibility of the immorality of destroying foetuses.

I disagree with this idea of consequence. I'm aware the situation isn't entirely the same, but this analogy proves to serve my point about consequences: "If you have sex and you know that you can get AIDS, you should live with the consequences if you do." I am attempting to illustrate that being aware of the risks, and taking them anyway does not make you exempt from searching for a solution.

Pregnancy isn't the same as an STD, but in some aspects, it behaves like one. Depending on where you place the marker for the foetus having the right not to be killed, it can be perfectly reasonable to treat it as such.

 

HOLY CRAP WHAT IS THIS? IT'S SO GODDAMN CUTE I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO TELL YOU.a

 

Because she GAVE it permission the moment she had sex, knowing full well that she could get pregnant. And yes, people find it generally unacceptable for a pregnant woman to drink.

Pregnancy isn't the same as an STD, but in some aspects, it behaves like one. Depending on where you place the marker for the foetus having the right not to be killed, it can be perfectly reasonable to treat it as such.
If you have sex knowing that you can get AIDS, you DO have to live with the consequences. And whether that's dying or paying for expensive treatment, you do have to live with it. Murder isn't involved in this case. It DOES make you exempt from searching for a solution if the only solution is murder.
The reason I have a problem with stem cell research is that it encourages abortions.

 

I'm just gonna end this stupid debate here. I've been a-stalkin' this thread, and I swear to God P i'm gonna beat you over the head with a platapus. You wanted our viewpoint/opinion on abortion, We gave it to you. Now please tell me why you are questioning why we don't think like you every time someone posts? It's not law to get an abortion, but it's a law that the choice is there. It's all if the mother finds it moraly acceptable. I hate it, and don't support it, but appearently it's not our choice. The gift of life is a miracle, I don't believe we should be able to cut it off before it gets a fighting chance. The fetus is alive, it's a human, and killing it is murder. Now let me be Mr. Knowitall and say that next, you're going to question my OPINION THAT SHOULD MEAN NOTHING TO YOU and drag this on longer then it needs to go.

This is all toward P.

 

Guys, what the hell are you talking about? This thread is about puppies.

 

You just answered your own question before asking it. It's a debate so he's trying to prove himself right and his opponents wrong.

Not for long. There's a wave of anti-abortion bills being proposed. Some to cut all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, stop insurance agencies from covering abortion (even if the woman pays for it out of her own pocket), to redefine "justifiable homicide" to include the defense of an unborn child/fetus (in other words, make it legal to kill abortion doctors), etc. All of these are people who agree with you: abortion is murder. So they're trying to make it illegal.

Human or not, it's a parasite leeching off a woman. You call it murder, I call it curing.
Having sex knowing you can get pregnant is not the same as giving it permission to live inside a womb. Having sex with the point of procreation is giving it permission.

 

That's like purposefully eating a five year old fish isn't an attempt at getting food poisoning. If you have sex, you can get pregnant. If you don't want to get pregnant, you don't have sex.

 

But getting food poisoning isn't the wanted response and we're going to take medicine in order to attempt get rid of any sickness.

 

Or you could just not eat the fish if you know it's going to give you food poisoning

 

Why the **** is this section more serious than the Discussion section?