The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

but it does have a potential for life. albeit aided. much like my life is aided by say, warmth.

And again, by that logic, all women (off or on BC that prevents implantation) should be charged with manslaughter for the natural spontaneous abortions of >50% of fertilised eggs.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Abortion: The only time murder is okay.

 

[KFunk]

And again, by that logic, all women (off or on BC that prevents implantation) should be charged with manslaughter for the natural spontaneous abortions of >50% of fertilised eggs.

Not if it can't be helped. Though the issue does become interesting in light of assistive reproductive technologies. If technology X has a lower rate of spontaneous abortion than natural conception then perhaps a moral imperative then arises to use X instead of natural means.

 

[katie tully]

Firstly, the situation which you speak of is rare. Condoms, for instance, are 90 something % effective- as are most other forms. I do not think we can make exceptions for a rara avis. If multiple forms of contraception are used (quite easy, again) then the likelihood is even less. If someone in this situation is made pregant, i still don't think the foetus should die.

It’s not rare. 90% is rare when you have a group of 10 people. Say we estimate condom usage at 2 million Australians. A 90% success rate still leaves 200,000 with condom failure. And that’s assuming these 2 million people only have sex once a year.

This leads on to my next point. I disagree. A foetus is life - a parasite is in fact alive you know. It is not unviable. It will become life - it has potential. In light of such circumstances, i see taht it has equal rights to the mother, including the right to not be killed. Also, as it is younger (unless it will die in womb or miscarriage - for which i support abortion) it does in fact have more of a live ahead of it (the mother having already has a decent portion of her life - not referring to a death of the mother at all here), hence i feel that preserving and fostering this life to be at least equally as important. Its importance lies in its potential.

Fucking lol. It’s not fucking alive because it requires the well being and the health of the mother to ensure development continues. Did you miss the part about viability. The foetus can’t survive outside the uterus before atleast 22 weeks, and even then the foetus is likely to be developmentally delayed and have serious respiratory problems. It does not have equal rights because IT IS NOT A LIVING ENTITY. IT IS A PARASITE THAT REQUIRES THE WELL BEING OF THE MOTHER TO ENSURE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT, THUS MOTHERS RIGHTS = PARAMOUNT. After a certain amount of weeks, which I’ve specified, yes I think abortion should be illegal. As soon as that foetus is a viable life without a high risk of developmental problems and respiratory problems, I cannot condone abortion.

And I won’t even address the retarded bit about it being younger.

But the mother in this case isn't actually trying to reproduce - she is counteracting the process by having an abortion. This i feel nullifies her biological reproductive value.

It doesn’t nullify her reproductive value. It’s her uterus. Her ovaries. She’ll be the one carrying a parasitic vessel for 9 months.

Are you saying that women who miscarriage nullify their reproductive value?

Actually I cbf addressing any of the other points. If you wanks wish to keep referring to it as murder, (and let’s face it, it’s the crux of your argument which is why it’s so shit), then prepare to be ignored.

 

[dolbinau]

It’s not rare. 90% is rare when you have a group of 10 people. Say we estimate condom usage at 2 million Australians. A 90% success rate still leaves 200,000 with condom failure. And that’s assuming these 2 million people only have sex once a year.

Say once a month .9^12 = 28% chance being effective every time. Doesn't that seem kind of low lol.

 

[katie tully]

Yeah well I fail at maths so I was hoping some kind of genius would be able to show that when you have 2 million people (guestimate) having sex more than once a year, 90% is still leaving a shit load of people with 'accidents'

 

[Darnie]

Say once a month .9^12 = 28% chance being effective every time. Doesn't that seem kind of low lol.

lol
it's 90 percent being effective each separate time you use it. the chance that it will work every time in the 12 months, if you only use it once per month, is 28%.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Not if it can't be helped.

That puts it nice and simple likesay.

 

[Empyrean444]

It’s not rare. 90% is rare when you have a group of 10 people. Say we estimate condom usage at 2 million Australians. A 90% success rate still leaves 200,000 with condom failure. And that’s assuming these 2 million people only have sex once a year.


Fucking lol. It’s not fucking alive because it requires the well being and the health of the mother to ensure development continues. Did you miss the part about viability. The foetus can’t survive outside the uterus before atleast 22 weeks, and even then the foetus is likely to be developmentally delayed and have serious respiratory problems. It does not have equal rights because IT IS NOT A LIVING ENTITY. IT IS A PARASITE THAT REQUIRES THE WELL BEING OF THE MOTHER TO ENSURE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT, THUS MOTHERS RIGHTS = PARAMOUNT. After a certain amount of weeks, which I’ve specified, yes I think abortion should be illegal. As soon as that foetus is a viable life without a high risk of developmental problems and respiratory problems, I cannot condone abortion.

And I won’t even address the retarded bit about it being younger.



It doesn’t nullify her reproductive value. It’s her uterus. Her ovaries. She’ll be the one carrying a parasitic vessel for 9 months.

Are you saying that women who miscarriage nullify their reproductive value?

Actually I cbf addressing any of the other points. If you wanks wish to keep referring to it as murder, (and let’s face it, it’s the crux of your argument which is why it’s so shit), then prepare to be ignored.

Just because something relies upon something else for its continued existence doesn't mean it is not living, it merely means it needs assistance to stay alive, but hence is still living. From its start it is alive - the fact that it is made up of cells denotes it as a living being. You seem to mix up the terms "independently reliant/sustainable" and "living". It is alive, making the killing of it murder. Some old people or disabled people, for instance, need machines to stay alive (because of some condition etc). If disconnected they die - very much like a similar yet age polarity to the foetus. But you don't say these people aren't living - suffice to say, the foetus is a living thing. The only reasons for the difference between the "ball of cells" and the mother are merely due to different phases through the lifecycle.

I'll give another example of early life's importance. Children, in many ways, can be like a parasite to their parents, draining their money, resources and time, being nothing (practically rather than emotionally) but a hindrance. The parents are valuable to biology/society etc, for instance. Why then, would a parent g oto such lengths to save their child and sacrifice themselves for one, if, by your definition of what is "living", they really aren't alive (independently self sustaining). If the child died, the parents could just have another one. Yet killing of children is such a heinous crime. The foetus situation is really quite similar, but you seem to regard it differently.

Prepare to be ignored? Its not shit. I am not alone in regarding it as murder. Your strict use of what is "living" is what is crap.

 

[dolbinau]

lol
it's 90 percent being effective each separate time you use it. the chance that it will work every time in the 12 months, if you only use it once per month, is 28%.

isn't that what I said? lol.

 

[Empyrean444]

And again, by that logic, all women (off or on BC that prevents implantation) should be charged with manslaughter for the natural spontaneous abortions of >50% of fertilised eggs.

No, because sperm and eggs individually are not humans - they are just parts of humans. They need to be joined to create a human. In nature, most {esp. sperm} are required to die any way for reproduction to occur. Contraception, in my view, prevents a human from being created; abortion destroys one that is already may. Differentiating between foetuses and fully grown humans if like differentiating between the caterpillar and the moth/butterfly - both are different stages/forms of the same thing. This is why i see it as murder

 

[katie tully]

Just because something relies upon something else for its continued existence doesn't mean it is not living,

Yes it does you fucking sped. A foetus is not living because if it were to be miscarried at 18 weeks, it's not going to survive. If the mother dies, the foetus will cease to thrive in utero and cannot be saved. It is not a viable life.

From its start it is alive - the fact that it is made up of cells denotes it as a living being.

No it doesn't. The fact that it is made of of cells denotes it as being made up of cells. These cells aren't specialised. What makes a blastocyst any more alive than a boil on the side of your arse?

You seem to mix up the terms "independently reliant/sustainable" and "living". It is alive, making the killing of it murder.

No you seem to misunderstand, because for it to be alive it has to be fucking sustainable and viable. If it's not then it's not fucking alive. It cannot breathe because it does not have functional lungs or even a fully developed brain, it's NOT ALIVE.

Children, in many ways, can be like a parasite to their parents, draining their money, resources and time, being nothing (practically rather than emotionally) but a hindrance.

Fucking shit analogy because a child isn't attached to its mother by a cord receiving nutrients required for its development. If you get sick of a kid you can palm it off, you can't palm off a growing foetus. If you get sick, somebody else can look after the kid. If you get sick, nobody can babysit your foetus for you.

That's the most fucking shit analogy anybody has ever tried to pull on here.

lol second difference is, a child is alive. a foetus is not.

 

[Captain Hero]

No, because sperm and eggs individually are not humans - they are just parts of humans. They need to be joined to create a human. In nature, most {esp. sperm} are required to die any way for reproduction to occur. Contraception, in my view, prevents a human from being created; abortion destroys one that is already may. Differentiating between foetuses and fully grown humans if like differentiating between the caterpillar and the moth/butterfly - both are different stages/forms of the same thing. This is why i see it as murder

Every cell in your body has equally as much potential to become a new human life as a fertilised zygote.

Discuss how you reconcile this.

 

[Empyrean444]

Not going to survive. That is synonomous with "going to die". If something is going to die, it means it must have life in the first place. something can't die if its not alive in the first place.

A blastocyst will become a human; a boil on your arse won't.
keep.

 

[Empyrean444]

Every cell in your body has equally as much potential to become a new human life as a fertilised zygote.

Discuss how you reconcile this.

This can not be done by a truly "natural" means, and they are not intended to grow into another separate living being, whilst a fertilised zygote is. How would this potential be realised in another cell, for instance?

 

[Darnie]

isn't that what I said? lol.

I think so. i kinda got confused so i pretty much put it there again to understand it lol

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yes it does you fucking sped. A foetus is not living because if it were to be miscarried at 18 weeks, it's not going to survive. If the mother dies, the foetus will cease to thrive in utero and cannot be saved. It is not a viable life.

Everything living depends on something else. What are you getting at?

Every cell in your body has equally as much potential to become a new human life as a fertilised zygote.

Discuss how you reconcile this.

wat?

 

[Kwayera]

No, because sperm and eggs individually are not humans - they are just parts of humans. They need to be joined to create a human. In nature, most {esp. sperm} are required to die any way for reproduction to occur. Contraception, in my view, prevents a human from being created; abortion destroys one that is already may. Differentiating between foetuses and fully grown humans if like differentiating between the caterpillar and the moth/butterfly - both are different stages/forms of the same thing. This is why i see it as murder

Read what I said again. Fertilised eggs. Fertilised eggs. Eggs that have been fertilised. Sperm and egg joined together.

Human women routinely and spontaneously abort fertilised eggs.

 

[katie tully]

This entire thread is epic facepalm.

 

[Kwayera]

This can not be done by a truly "natural" means, and they are not intended to grow into another separate living being, whilst a fertilised zygote is. How would this potential be realised in another cell, for instance?

Lol. You do realise that blastocysts are made up mostly of embryonic stem cells? Which can become anything, any tissue, given the correct instructions? They just happen to be "given" the instructions to "form tissue that will eventually form a human foetus.

Biology doesn't have "intentions".