Abortion

[Desperate Measures]

Would this fetus in fetu have a right to live too?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2 ... 2vgxNUyCSq

The fetus in fetu was killing the host. Not removing it would have killed the host, and thus itself. Removing it saves the life of the host.
Removal of a fetus in fetu is the only acceptable option.

Who should be asked to make a decision like that though? Should it be up for debate? Should we consult various religions? Should we research the answer in ancient books? Or should a decision be reached between a patient and their doctor?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Likewise to you, saying it is not doesnt mean it really is not. Now im going to make productive use of my time and do somthing useful for a while.

I'm not the one who's trying to ban abortion on my own opinion. I'm not the one creating a new law based on my own opinion. Don't turn the tables because it doesn't work like that.

And im not the one trying to legalise it based off of my own opinion.

[Condunum]

So what? My skin cells are human. They each have human DNA. Every time I rub myself, I kill more skin cells than Hitler killed jews. Am I Hitler? No. Why? Because a skin cell, like a fetus, is not a person.

Your argument is not backed up by any understanding of biology. Your argument is based on what other people told you to believe. They believe it because others told them. On down the line, this is being orchestrated by people who hate women and want to subjugate them to their own desires.

This is even a subconscious desire of people in this thread. Look at how they talk about aborting a pregnancy by placing it in the context of "responsibility"? They see women as evil sluts who are off having sex with other man, and for that they must be punished. This isn't normal. It's evil. The evil people are those who hate women enough to force them to suffer and take major risks of losing their own lives.

If risk of death is enough to OK abortion, then every single woman who gets pregnant has an excuse to abort that pregnancy. All pregnancy is dangerous. All pregnancy is a major life decision. That decision is not up to you, or your grandfather, or your pastor, or some crazy person you met on the bus.

Dear god this just keeps going.

You asked for a debate, and you got one. Don't fucking complain.

[Ningjing]

So what? My skin cells are human. They each have human DNA. Every time I rub myself, I kill more skin cells than Hitler killed jews. Am I Hitler? No. Why? Because a skin cell, like a fetus, is not a person.

Your argument is not backed up by any understanding of biology. Your argument is based on what other people told you to believe. They believe it because others told them. On down the line, this is being orchestrated by people who hate women and want to subjugate them to their own desires.

This is even a subconscious desire of people in this thread. Look at how they talk about aborting a pregnancy by placing it in the context of "responsibility"? They see women as evil sluts who are off having sex with other man, and for that they must be punished. This isn't normal. It's evil. The evil people are those who hate women enough to force them to suffer and take major risks of losing their own lives.

If risk of death is enough to OK abortion, then every single woman who gets pregnant has an excuse to abort that pregnancy. All pregnancy is dangerous. All pregnancy is a major life decision. That decision is not up to you, or your grandfather, or your pastor, or some crazy person you met on the bus.

Dear god this just keeps going. I will make a response later. And just for the record i think that if the womans life would be threatened by birth severly abortion should then be allowed, better end one life than allow two to die, and the only other case where abortion should be allowed is if the fetus has severe genetic deformations.

All pregnancy has a chance of killing the mother so really you are pro-choice and you didn't even know it. I am pro-choice but I have 2 kids whom I love very much. Just so you have an idea of who you are arguing with. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a monster like you seem to think.

[Distruzio]

Really? Evictionism = removing the fetus from the mother and NOT killing it. I thought that was obvious.

As a pro-choicer I won't question your position, but it's the first time I hear of it. What consequences would this bring to the fetus?

Chances for survival would be slim without the pregnancy being carried to term. But slim chances are better than no chance. And the chances for survival increase with technological innovation so long as capitalist models of profit seeking remain standard in the medical field.

[IshCong]

I wasn't trying to act like any such thing. That's why those question marks are there, because I was asking a question. It did seem like a rather odd stance to take, but I've seen far more curious stances come up in this thread, so I thought I might as well check.
Although, many comas are rather permanent...

In the case of a permanent coma, it's really up to the family to determine if they will live. In my opinion, a coma with no chance of recovery is not something that is productive to sustain, and in such a case, the person, while still alive, has run their course. Unfortunate, but a sad reality in this world.

Ideally, the person in question will have, if not a formal document on record, at least indicated how they wish to be treated in such a case. Unfortunately, not everyone has, in which case it defaults to the family. My personal opinion, for what it is worth.
Personally, if it looks permanent for me, just cut me loose, save some time and energy, so my family can get to mourning properly.

Called it.

Not everyone really takes the time to word out the argument.

?

[Norstal]

I'm not the one who's trying to ban abortion on my own opinion. I'm not the one creating a new law based on my own opinion. Don't turn the tables because it doesn't work like that.

And im not the one trying to legalise it based off of my own opinion.

Yeah, I used logic. My logic: fuck off my body.

Is it that hard to comprehend this idea of bodily autonomy? Do I need to spoon-feed it to you the concept of not caring what other people do?

[The Pretend Pub]

Why?

because "my condom broke" or "I just fucked some guy without protection" are when you're supposed to go to an adoption center.

No, those are perfectly good reasons to get an abortion.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Dear god this just keeps going.

You asked for a debate, and you got one. Don't fucking complain.

No i meant people saying the same thing over and over. So far lots of pro choice arguments have been based on the same point. Now then im going to take time to enjoy my night, see you in an hour.

[The Pretend Pub]

She doesn't need an excuse. She doesn't need to provide anybody with a reason.

You can't really just say "Here's a condom, now go screw all your friends. If it doesn't work out, theres an abortion clinic right across the street. We'll kill it for you"

Sounds fine to me. After all, we're talking about a parasite here, not an actual person.

Go talk to someone who has actually had an aborted relative. they will tell you that they are pro-life. Why? because their sibling got killed. And that's all abortion is.

Except they don't own the body of the woman who's potentially seeking an abortion, so what they want isn't really relevant.

[Thatchland]

I'm not the one who's trying to ban abortion on my own opinion. I'm not the one creating a new law based on my own opinion. Don't turn the tables because it doesn't work like that.

And im not the one trying to legalise it based off of my own opinion.

Woah... unless you live in:
Chile
El Salvador
Malta
Vatican City

Everywhere else in the world (I THINK) abortion is at least legal to when it comes to the life of the mother. YOU are the one stating you would like it banned and using opinion, not facts.

[Desperate Measures]

You asked for a debate, and you got one. Don't fucking complain.

No i meant people saying the same thing over and over. So far lots of pro choice arguments have been based on the same point. Now then im going to take time to enjoy my night, see you in an hour.

I guess we could make up fake points. Abortions are where rainbows come from.

[The Pretend Pub]

You know what I hate? The phrase "pro-life" It assumes a moral high ground that just doesn't exist.

Furthermore, the only position that's actually pro-life is pro-choice. Anti-choice is very much anti-life.

[IshCong]

No i meant people saying the same thing over and over. So far lots of pro choice arguments have been based on the same point. Now then im going to take time to enjoy my night, see you in an hour.

I guess we could make up fake points. Abortions are where rainbows come from.

Do they also make the pot of gold at the end?

[Condunum]

In the case of a permanent coma, it's really up to the family to determine if they will live. In my opinion, a coma with no chance of recovery is not something that is productive to sustain, and in such a case, the person, while still alive, has run their course. Unfortunate, but a sad reality in this world.

Ideally, the person in question will have, if not a formal document on record, at least indicated how they wish to be treated in such a case. Unfortunately, not everyone has, in which case it defaults to the family. My personal opinion, for what it is worth.
Personally, if it looks permanent for me, just cut me loose, save some time and energy, so my family can get to mourning properly.

Agreed, to that last part.

Not everyone really takes the time to word out the argument.

?

I meant that he didn't make any long argument because he didn't take the time to. Knowing him, it's because he's argued this one far too many times.

[Ningjing]

You know what I hate? The phrase "pro-life" It assumes a moral high ground that just doesn't exist.

Furthermore, the only position that's actually pro-life is pro-choice. Anti-choice is very much anti-life.

I never thought about it that way.

[IshCong]

Ah. I was just saying I had called somebody using that argument. (Made an inb4 post right before he posted that.)
I can understand trying not to say the same thing over and over again.

[The Pretend Pub]

Ok so a woman gets pregnant, and she decides "no no im not ready" or "i dont want this thing" or somthing like that, that gives her the right to have control over another living beings life? Just because a woman doesnt want a son or daughter that does not give them the right to kill their unborn son or daughter.

Except it's not a person yet, it's a parasite.

[Camicon]

The fetus in fetu was killing the host. Not removing it would have killed the host, and thus itself. Removing it saves the life of the host.
Removal of a fetus in fetu is the only acceptable option.

Who should be asked to make a decision like that though? Should it be up for debate? Should we consult various religions? Should we research the answer in ancient books? Or should a decision be reached between a patient and their doctor?

If the FIF is not removed, then both the FIF and the host die. If the FIF is removed, then the host lives and the FIF dies. Those are, quite literally, the only two options available, to people in such a situation. Regardless of what is done, the FIF will die. That is a simple fact.

However, removal of the FIF saves the life of the host. There should be no debate about what is acceptable, and I sincerely doubt any ancient or religious text will have anything regarding 'fetus in fetu'. Yes, the option should be given to the host/patient about whether or not to remove the FIF, and the option to refuse is entirely within the rights of the host/patient. However, in such a situation, the FIF has no inherent right to continue living. It lives by killing the host, plain and simple. Were the FIF a person living outside of their twin, and were they causing the slow death of said twin, then there would be no question about whether or not they should be allowed to continue doing so.

There truly is only one true course of action here. Removal of the FIF.

[The Pretend Pub]

Just because it is human doesn't mean it has the same rights as a person.

Yes yes it does. A human being is a person, a fetus is a genetic human

You know what else has the same genetic material as a human? A tumor.

Does cancer have rights?

[Condunum]

Ok so a woman gets pregnant, and she decides "no no im not ready" or "i dont want this thing" or somthing like that, that gives her the right to have control over another living beings life? Just because a woman doesnt want a son or daughter that does not give them the right to kill their unborn son or daughter.

Except it's not a person yet, it's a parasite.

I was going to rail on about how you should assume its life for the sake of debate, then I realized you specified it's a parasite, instead of not alive.

[The Pretend Pub]

Except it's not a person yet, it's a parasite.

I was going to rail on about how you should assume its life for the sake of debate, then I realized you specified it's a parasite, instead of not alive.

Oh, it's obviously alive. But then, so is a tapeworm.

[Desperate Measures]

Who should be asked to make a decision like that though? Should it be up for debate? Should we consult various religions? Should we research the answer in ancient books? Or should a decision be reached between a patient and their doctor?

If the FIF is not removed, then both the FIF and the host die. If the FIF is removed, then the host lives and the FIF dies. Those are, quite literally, the only two options available, to people in such a situation. Regardless of what is done, the FIF will die. That is a simple fact.

However, removal of the FIF saves the life of the host. There should be no debate about what is acceptable, and I sincerely doubt any ancient or religious text will have anything regarding 'fetus in fetu'. Yes, the option should be given to the host/patient about whether or not to remove the FIF, and the option to refuse is entirely within the rights of the host/patient. However, in such a situation, the FIF has no inherent right to continue living. It lives by killing the host, plain and simple. Were the FIF a person living outside of their twin, and were they causing the slow death of said twin, then there would be no question about whether or not they should be allowed to continue doing so.

There truly is only one true course of action here. Removal of the FIF.

I agree. But some people hold that all life is sacred. Why would one life be held superior to another if that was the belief system?

[Condunum]

I was going to rail on about how you should assume its life for the sake of debate, then I realized you specified it's a parasite, instead of not alive.

Oh, it's obviously alive. But then, so is a tapeworm.

I'd consider something like the Xenomorph to be a better example. Same process, only the Xenomorph is guaranteed to kill the host.

[Saint Jade IV]

Ok so a woman gets pregnant, and she decides "no no im not ready" or "i dont want this thing" or somthing like that, that gives her the right to have control over another living beings life? Just because a woman doesnt want a son or daughter that does not give them the right to kill their unborn son or daughter.

The death of the potential child is an unfortunate side effect of abortion. The act of abortion is simply to rescind consent to the use of someone's organ. In this case, the uterus.

Born children do not have the right to demand the use of their parents' organs or tissues, even when the alternative is death. Why are you so hell-bent on giving unborn children rights that you don't give to born children? Do you think that children who are already born have less right to life?