Abortion page 2

3076 posts

Flag Post

Same old, same old. You know that most of your fallacious arguments have already been shot down, right?

why is a fetus not legitimately considered a life?

Why is a fly not? Why are fish not? We kill animals, insects, plants and even bacteria on a daily basis. Hourly or even by the second, perhaps. What makes human life special? So why should a fetus get advantages over a fly?

Secondly, if a woman didn’t want to have a baby, why was she having unprotected sex?

For fun. Sex is not only used to make babies, regardless of what you may think.

(Yes, I realize the circumstances of rape can go against this but that doesn’t make it untrue. Because not all abortions are rape abortions. Most aren’t I would assume)

So you agree that abortions in the case of rape are acceptable?

Do any of you SD’ers have a child? You probably don’t, but do you know someone with a small child? When you look at your child, or your friend’s child, would you find it easy to tell a doctor to kill it?

1. Emotional appeal.
2. A fetus is not a baby.
3. If the child is in constant pain, with a deadly disease, and cannot be helped, then yes, I would. Would you not?

And, while it is always a choice in abortion does the baby have no say in it? Who knows who he could grow up to be!

Yes, it might become a mass murderer. Or the next Hitler. Or perhaps your lazy neighbour who feeds off the social system. Also, a fetus is not a baby.

Also, it isn’t like you have to keep the child if you legitimately aren’t ready to be a parent, there are adoption options.

Which happens after 9 months of carriage and being forced to go through birthing it.

 
Flag Post
Why is a fly not? Why are fish not? We kill animals, insects, plants and even bacteria on a daily basis. Hourly or even by the second, perhaps. What makes human life special? So why should a fetus get advantages over a fly?

Objectively wrong. The lifespan of flies order on days, and their population sizes are incomparable to that of mammals. Flies are life, as are fish. But there are reasons underlying why we don’t consider them as intelligent life.

For fun. Sex is not only used to make babies, regardless of what you may think.

Fun without considering risks? Sounds irresponsible, to me.

So you agree that abortions in the case of rape are acceptable?

Rape accounts for about 1% of abortions.

Which happens after 9 months of carriage and being forced to go through birthing it.

Not even just that — there is the economic side of things too. A child unprepared in this world will develop some nasty behavioral issues if not tended to, and a pregnant mother unable to care for said child should get an abortion. This is taking into account the population strain, too, by just giving it up for adoption.

 
Flag Post

The question is whether or not a fetus is a person and if it deserves the full rights of a person.

I would contend that this is an irrelevant sideline. Even if we assume that it is and does deserve those rights, we cannot conclude that this includes to right to live in a woman’s uterus for 9 months and then be shoved out of her vagina. Or did I miss that section of the human rights laws?
The “right to life” does not permit dwelling off someone’s body like a parasite.

Fun without considering risks? Sounds irresponsible, to me.

Often yes. Irrelevant though, what matters is consent to pregnancy.

 
Flag Post

It’s very relevant. rather than being responsible and getting an abortion, you can be responsible and use a condom. Some people try the ‘pulling out’ method, which actually has better success rates than condoms when used properly. However, this depends on the individual, and having unprotected sex, and waiting to pull out, is very, very irresponsible — an irresponsibility whose consequences are directly related to pregnancies.

 
Flag Post

Objectively wrong.

You’re hilarious.

The lifespan of flies order on days, and their population sizes are incomparable to that of mammals.

So we can kill stuff if their lifespan is arbitrarily short? And if their population size is arbitrarily high?

But there are reasons underlying why we don’t consider them as intelligent life.

He mentioned life. If he wants to preserve all life, it includes flies and fish. If he wants to preserve all intelligent life, it could be argued if this is only human life. If he wants to preserve all human life, he’d have to do a bit better than starting with abortion.

Fun without considering risks? Sounds irresponsible, to me.

I never said fun is without risks, or having fun is without considering the risks. Pregnancy is a chance. It could have a high chance, a low chance, or a practically non-existent chance, but throwing all of them on a pile pretending they’re equal is ignorant. Regardless, irresponsibility is something you can generally try to remove from society through education.

Rape accounts for about 1% of abortions.

That does not answer the question. Should abortion be allowed in cases of rape or not?

you can be responsible and use a condom.

Condoms break. Abortion allowed? How do you know if they didn’t use a condom any way?

 
Flag Post

That deflects the issue. 99 out of 100 abortions are performed on women are were not raped. Only 1 out of 100 abortions are the cause of rape — and admitting you agree to allowing abortions in the case of rape, you still have 99 other cases to explain. I got 99 problems but a rape isn’t one!

I’m going to guess this isn’t clear to you — I advocate abortion in very special cases. In the United states, there are about 1.5 million abortions per year. Now, let’s say there are 300 million people in the United States — and on average, 150 million are female. Let us also use the statistic that 93% of all abortions in the United States are due to social reasons, e.g., not wanting it because it is inconvenient.

Let us exclude females over the age of 65, and under the age of 16 (the hell is a 15 yr old doing getting an abortion, anyway?) 13% of people in the US are over 65, and an additional 20% are under 15. This means we are considering only 2/3 of our collective sample, which is 100 million. Not bad.

This means that on average, 1-2 females out of every 100 are having an abortion, every year. This does not seem so bad at first glance, but consider now, that extrapolating this data over 50 years:

Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.

And of these girls, each one got an abortion because it was inconvenient to have a child. Every single one. Yes, this is a decent reason and I commend them for it. But to have multiple abortions?

One out of four abortions are had by someone who has already had an abortion (let me connect the dots and tell you that every 3 years, an abortion is performed on a girl who has already had an abortion), and half of all females will have had an abortion in their lifetime. Does this seem a last ditch resort, to you? This is pretty common practice. Why? And how exactly does your little tidbit about condoms breaking account for 25% of all abortions being performed being performed on females who have already had an abortion? (The chances of a condom breaking twice on the same girl, when used properly, is roughly one in a million).

 
Flag Post
I would contend that this is an irrelevant sideline. Even if we assume that it is and does deserve those rights, we cannot conclude that this includes to right to live in a woman’s uterus for 9 months and then be shoved out of her vagina. Or did I miss that section of the human rights laws?
The “right to life” does not permit dwelling off someone’s body like a parasite.

An uncontested right to life would trump a woman’s right to discomfort, unless it could be proven she was in serious danger from the presence of the fetus.

 
Flag Post

Allow abortions. Disregard moralists.

 
Flag Post

That deflects the issue. 99 out of 100 abortions are performed on women are were not raped. Only 1 out of 100 abortions are the cause of rape — and admitting you agree to allowing abortions in the case of rape, you still have 99 other cases to explain. I got 99 problems but a rape isn’t one!

No, it doesn’t deflect the issue. It focuses on a particular part of the issue to understand the person’s viewpoints. If one disagrees with any type of abortions at all, the discussion is very different from when one at least agrees upon abortions in cases of rape.

Baron, all of your information does not really disagree with the viewpoint that abortion should remain being allowed. For example, women having multiple abortions during their life most likely are not using any condoms. What does this mean? That abortions should be banned? No, it means that education should be better. You would be ignoring the true issue behind the problem and try to cut off the growing branches instead of handling the roots. You can reduce the number of unnecessary abortions while keeping the number of abortions you do not disagree with through better sex education. This does not need an entire ban on abortions.

On the other hand, I do not think it is clear for you I don’t want an over-the-counter abortion specialist at every corner.

An uncontested right to life would trump a woman’s right to discomfort

It would, which is why a fetus does not have that right in order to allow abortions (it should have that right in order to disallow it).

 
Flag Post
Baron, all of your information does not really disagree with the viewpoint that abortion should remain being allowed.

Damndest thing, because that just happens to be the fucking thing I was arguing. … Sometimes I wonder if you people can read.

 
Flag Post

Perhaps you should start.

I argued that many people use statistics like the ones you posted to claim abortion should therefore not be allowed. None of your information is relevant otherwise. I did not claim you argued that it shouldn’t remain allowed.

 
Flag Post

“I don’t like your information so it’s impertinent.”

I mean, really? Reading comprehension is dead these days. I swear. Just how polar do you have to be to read “Abortions should be used in special mediated circumstances” and infer “ALL ABORTIONS ARE BAD OMG!”

 
Flag Post

If you wanted to troll me, you could have shouted me instead. Quit it with getting personal. The irony is also staggering, but okay.

Once again, I am not saying any of that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:
Baron, all of your information does not really disagree with the viewpoint that abortion should remain being allowed.

Damndest thing, because that just happens to be the fucking thing I was arguing. … Sometimes I wonder if you people can read.

He wasn’t the only one who was fooled. You sound pretty anti-abortion to me. It also doesn’t help that you’re advocating the ‘withdrawal’ movement that is taught in catholic schools as an ‘alternative’ to condoms. And yet I’ve seen no evidence that it’s effective, regardless of ‘if you do it properly’ or not.

Originally posted by iMachine:

Allow abortions. Disregard moralists.

Agreed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dartjat:

Then, by that logic, no one would have sex.

…false. it feels good. our species actively seeks out pleasure and sometimes we feel as though the benefit outweighs the risk…or we just make foolish decisions. also, not everyone DOESN’T want to have kids. Some ppl actually want to grow up to be parents…but as far as abortion goes, if the woman was not a rape victim, an abortion should never be an option.

 
Flag Post

Why never?

 
Flag Post

but as far as abortion goes, if the woman was not a rape victim, an abortion should never be an option.

Why is that?

He wasn’t the only one who was fooled. You sound pretty anti-abortion to me.

I remember him being pretty anti-abortion in that other abortion thread.

 
Flag Post
He wasn’t the only one who was fooled. You sound pretty anti-abortion to me. It also doesn’t help that you’re advocating the ‘withdrawal’ movement that is taught in catholic schools as an ‘alternative’ to condoms. And yet I’ve seen no evidence that it’s effective, regardless of ‘if you do it properly’ or not.

Hey, another one who can’t read an argument without polarizing it as agree/disagree.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Why never?

…because you’re killing an innocent being with infinite potential.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Why never?

…because you’re killing an innocent being with infinite potential.

And why is this immoral?

Also, just because it has infinite potential does not mean that it is an infinite potential for ‘good’. Hitler was also a fetus once.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Why never?

…because you’re killing an innocent being with infinite potential.

It doesn’t know it even exists, if the pregnancy is terminated early enough.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:
He wasn’t the only one who was fooled. You sound pretty anti-abortion to me. It also doesn’t help that you’re advocating the ‘withdrawal’ movement that is taught in catholic schools as an ‘alternative’ to condoms. And yet I’ve seen no evidence that it’s effective, regardless of ‘if you do it properly’ or not.

Hey, another one who can’t read an argument without polarizing it as agree/disagree.

Yeah, I’m afraid I agree with darkruler: the sheer irony of you complaining about other people polarizing the debate or not appreciating the subtlety of an argument is just too much for me.

Originally posted by scoopolard:
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Why never?

…because you’re killing an innocent being with infinite potential.

By that logic women who’ve been raped should also bear their fetuses to term.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by iMachine:
Originally posted by scoopolard:
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Why never?

…because you’re killing an innocent being with infinite potential.

And why is this immoral?

Also, just because it has infinite potential does not mean that it is infinite potential for ‘good’. Hitler was also a fetus once.

How can you kill someone without giving someone else the moral right to, in the same circunstances, kill you? I assume you do not desire to be killed…
Also, I would rather assume that any randon person in the street wont be the next Hitler until proved otherwise. I know this is a pathethically optimist stance, but hey, it is just me…

 
Flag Post

Hmmm… I would say there are a few cases where abortion is valid.

First off… if the mother is going to die.
Second off… if the child is going to die.
Third… rape and incest cases, where depression is a problem
And an iffy fourth… where there is no chance at all that the mother will be able to take care of the child

With the third and the fourth though… I would hope they would go through, and at least give it a try. Or have the child be adopted over being aborted. Unlikely though, to happen.

I think the only thing you could do government wise to prevent this is… making them fill out TONS of paperwork. But eh, that isn’t exactly fair for some cases.

 
Flag Post

How can you kill someone without giving someone else the moral right to, in the same circunstances, kill you?

First of all, does morality exist? And if so, why?

I assume you do not desire to be killed…

Depends on how I am killed.