Abortion

[ThetaOrionis01]

Until the fetus is independently viable it's not a baby.

 

I don't think you can even begin to understand just what the maternal instinct is like, and just how devastating it would be to go against it. Read my first post in this thread.

 

 

Selfish? Every existence is selfish - your existence is consuming resources that are then no longer available to anyone else. Your use of electricity to power your computer adds to environmental pollution. The western lifestyle is built upon exploitation of the developing world - so don't give me that holier-than-thou attitude.

[Peregrine]

Sex is part of a loving relationship. Sex is fun. Sex is pleasure.

 

I'm not arguing this point, I know those things are true. But are they important enough to you to be worth the risk? The fact that you want to do something does not give you immunity to any potential consequences.

I will not give it up because of the small chance of contraceptive failure. And I know full well that any consequences are mine to deal with. I accept the responsibility that it may place me into a position where I am forced to make a choice I would rather not make. My decision - my choice.

 

You don't accept any responsibility at all. You demand the "right" to eliminate any consequences to your actions if they become inconvenient, regardless of what they might cost anyone else.

Do you think it is right to impose your moral standard upon others, though - whether by way of legislation or intimidation?

 

In general, no. Except when those moral standards have an unwanted effect on someone else. Until we know exactly when that inanimate blob of cells becomes life, abortion is a potential denial of another person's right to life. The moral standard is imposed not to restrict you, but to protect others from your moral standard.

 

Of course if and/or when we get a definite answer to the question of when life begins, this is no longer true. But we don't have it, so we have to accept a temporary solution until then.

[Zmid]

"Right, so that's ALL humans are? A collection of chromosomes?

 

Does that also mean that people who have certain genetic disorders are not human?

 

I would suggest the answers to the above are no and no."

 

  Genetically speaking, yes. That is basically all we are when you break it down. However, that is just the base of what we are. It is so simple, but develops into a complex system. Sorry if i did not clarify my self.

 

Well, you obviously need to clarify yourself a bit more, because you've just said that anyone with the most common form of Down's Syndrome (which means they have 47 chromosomes) is not human.

 

Secondly, you're now saying that, basically, you were wrong - that all humans have 46 chromosomes, but not everything with 46 chromosomes is human. You were saying that anything with 46 chromosomes is human.

 

And another thing. God set nature into play. He doesn't controll whether a baby dies or not.

 

If you're a Christian, you believe that God is all-powerful and is in charge of everything, including whether a baby dies or not.

 

God views life as precious. If he views life as precious, why would he kill something before it came out of the womb. God even says that they are innocent, so they have not sinned. They know not right from wrong.

 

It is also within God's power to totally eliminate death in all forms. If he 'views life as precious', why does he allow anyone to die at all?

 

If you set blood out by itself in a petri dish will it make it self into a totally different being? No.

 

Conduct the same test on a foetus. You'll get the same result.

 

You're forgetting one important factor. DNA. The DNA tells the body what each cell is. Blood for example cannot all of a sudden turn into muscle tissue cells, and work with the muscles accordingly.

 

And DNA is part of every individual cell in your entire body with the exception of your semen or ova (which usually have 23). If you go back to your original argument ('anything with 46 chromosomes is human'), this would mean a single blood cell, or a single skin cell, etc, etc, etc, is human, and therefore entitled to the same right to life. As Peregrine said, by these standards, if you wipe away a spot of blood from a cut, you are committing mass murder - one murder for every white blood cell or platelet you have killed (red blood cells don't count, as they have no chromosomes).

 

When a baby is first in the womb. it has about 100 stem cells. The DNA tells each cell what to do to develope. A heart is only part of the whole complex system of the human body. Therefore is not human.

 

Even glossing over the fact that when reproduction occurs and the baby (or, to be entirely accurate, fertilised egg) arrives at the womb, it is, in fact, one cell, not 100, there is the point this directly contradicts the argument you orginally put forward - that anything with 46 chromosomes is human. A heart, on it's own, has 46 chromosomes in each of it's cells.

 

Also,*said in a none offensive way* abortion seems very selfish. That baby has rights too. And to say that it is part of MY body (MY is is for emphasis), is not true. There is a totally different entity in that woman.

 

OK, prove conclusively that any foetus is an individual being in it's own right before it's born.

[ThetaOrionis01]

@ Peregrine:

 

Given that you don't have a clue as to my circumstances, coupled with your complete lack of experience of the emotional upheaval of pregnancy, I can see your point of view, even though I consider it to be a wrong point of view.

 

You own a gun, don't you? You would probably claim that you take all necessary precautions so that your gun doesn't injure anyone.

Yet every day, people are injured and killed by guns. To avoid this, all you have to do is ban and destroy all guns.

 

I take precautions that I don't fall pregnant again - the probability of contraceptive failure coupled with the small probability of successful embryo implantation makes the risk of me falling pregnant a minute one... smaller, I would think, then someone getting injured or killed by your gun.

 

Yet you selfishly continue to own a gun - and I selfishly and irresponsibly continue to have sex.

[Peregrine]

Given that you don't have a clue as to my circumstances,

 

Considering the point of your entire post, I think these words are especially ironic...

 

No, I do not own a gun. So the personal attack element of your post fails completely.

 

 

 

And there's a huge difference between the two. Gun ownership is a general risk, not limited to a specific person. Not only that, but you are refering to accidents. Abortion is not an accident, it is a deliberate act.

 

To make an appropriate analogy, you would have to consider a specific person owning a gun and harming someone with it. In that case, yes, they are morally wrong and should be punished appropriately.

 

I take precautions that I don't fall pregnant again - the probability of contraceptive failure coupled with the small probability of successful embryo implantation makes the risk of me falling pregnant a minute one... smaller, I would think, then someone getting injured or killed by your gun.

 

But that chance exists. If you think it is an acceptable risk of getting pregnant, fine, take that risk and don't try to dodge the consequences. If it isn't, then don't have sex.

 

And yes, if I owned a gun, there would be a tiny risk of harm to someone. But unlike you, I would accept the consequences if that risk became reality.

 

 

Yet you selfishly continue to own a gun - and I selfishly and irresponsibly continue to have sex.

 

The sex isn't selfish and irresponsible. What is selfish and irresponsible is putting your comfort above the life of another, just so you can dodge the consequences of actions you willingly chose, with full knowledge of the risks involved.

[ThetaOrionis01]

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. You think I'm morally wrong, and I think that you're unable to make an informed judgement, due to the points I've raised previously, which you consider irrelevant.

 

So I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

Of course, you're in the enviable situation that you will never run the risk of having to make the decision whether to have an abortion or not.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Flat out, If i was a woman, I would choose abstinance just as i am right now a male. Therefore when I would get married I would have a lower chance of thinking about having and abortion. For me that would be the best decision because you dodge all of the controversy.

 

Have a nice day!

[Malchik]

And of course you have the right to choose. Just as everyone else has the right to make their own choices (which are none of your business).

[Indoril Nerevar]

Yes, and I was just giving what these debates are for. Something to think about.

 

 

Have a nice day Malchik!

[Abramul]

Flat out, If i was a woman, I would choose abstinance just as i am right now a male. Therefore when I would get married I would have a lower chance of thinking about having and abortion. For me that would be the best decision because you dodge all of the controversy.

 

Have a nice day!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a suspicion that you may not yet have had the opportunity to do otherwise! (No maliciousness intended, same applies to me)