Stance on Abortion?

[Ashmoria]

.....

does that mean that you think that each woman seeking an abortion has to have her circumstances vetted?

No, but I think that if a woman was raped is different than if she is just a complete slut.

maybe you do but if you would do nothing to figure out who is the virtuous one and who is the naughty one ...does it really matter which is which?

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

My subjective ability to distinguish between two things does not impact the scientific validity of a statement. Further, sapience is not necessary for humanity, as intelligence is not a factor in whether or not something is murder. If I kill an adult chimpanzee, I am ending a life with a greater cognitive capacity than a three month old baby, yet the killing of the latter is considered murder, while the former is not. So either potential is valued, or humanity. In either case, the human embryo or fetus qualifies.

But then by your own notions so do cancerous tumors. Like 6 week old human embryos they too are incapable of sustained existence outside of a human body and both can be recignized at the genetic level as clusters of human cells with substantial differences from the main body.

So are we stopping cancer treatments as well?

The cancer does not have a separate DNA distinct from the mother, and is thus not a human being. An embryo is, scientifically, a genetically distinct offspring that is growing in stages of development towards the eventual goal of adulthood. Potential visual similarities to a tumor are not scientifically significant.

[Raeyh]

I'm sure doctors can tell the diffrence between cancer and a fetus.

They can but the cancer and fetus are quite similar if you didn't ignore all the reasons he just said

One is a human being, one is not.

[Sevco 5508]

Pro-choice, but mostly just to do my bit in getting the Vatican's back up. *Cue Offended People*

I should note that I have nothing against Catholics, just their church as an organisation.

Ah, as can be expected from the fellow using the British flag.

(Not that I'm religious, either, haha.)

Yep, Sevco and the Union Jack that kind of comment was coming.

[Hamste]

They can but the cancer and fetus are quite similar if you didn't ignore all the reasons he just said

One is a human being, one is not.

Cancer is made out human cells, how is that any different from a fetus that is also made up of human cells. They both take rescources, both create more cells quickly, both have obviously different DNA then the host. Just because one has a "chance" of becoming a thinking being doesn't make it all that different, theoretically (in other words incrediably small chance) it is also possible for the cancer to slowly alter itself to be able to think. Is it wrong to kill cancer because it has a "chance" of becoming human.

[Terruana]

But then by your own notions so do cancerous tumors. Like 6 week old human embryos they too are incapable of sustained existence outside of a human body and both can be recignized at the genetic level as clusters of human cells with substantial differences from the main body.

So are we stopping cancer treatments as well?

The cancer does not have a separate DNA distinct from the mother, and is thus not a human being. An embryo is, scientifically, a genetically distinct offspring that is growing in stages of development towards the eventual goal of adulthood. Potential visual similarities to a tumor are not scientifically significant.

Well, that's just not even true. An embryo formed from Parthenogenesis would have identical DNA to the mother. That doesn't mean it's not an embryo.

[Williamson]

how did thid whole thing become about comparing cancer to babies

[Raeyh]

One is a human being, one is not.

Cancer is made out human cells, how is that any different from a fetus that is also made up of human cells. They both take rescources, both create more cells quickly, both have obviously different DNA then the host. Just because one has a "chance" of becoming a thinking being doesn't make it all that different, theoretically (in other words incrediably small chance) it is also possible for the cancer to slowly alter itself to be able to think. Is it wrong to kill cancer because it has a "chance" of becoming human.

If there was a chance it would have happened at least once. Therefore, there must be a difference, even if scientists don't know what it is.

[Nordengrund]

I am a Christian and I believe that abortion is murdering an unborn baby who never had a chance to live. The only exceptions should be if a woman is raped or her life is in danger.

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

The cancer does not have a separate DNA distinct from the mother, and is thus not a human being. An embryo is, scientifically, a genetically distinct offspring that is growing in stages of development towards the eventual goal of adulthood. Potential visual similarities to a tumor are not scientifically significant.

Well, that's just not even true. An embryo formed from Parthenogenesis would have identical DNA to the mother. That doesn't mean it's not an embryo.

True, I wasn't thinking of that process. A human clone is just as human. I suppose the right way to pursue it, then, is completeness. An embryo is a human, whereas a cancer is a part of a human (a dysfunctional part, but a part nonetheless).

One is a human being, one is not.

Cancer is made out human cells, how is that any different from a fetus that is also made up of human cells. They both take rescources, both create more cells quickly, both have obviously different DNA then the host. Just because one has a "chance" of becoming a thinking being doesn't make it all that different, theoretically (in other words incrediably small chance) it is also possible for the cancer to slowly alter itself to be able to think. Is it wrong to kill cancer because it has a "chance" of becoming human.

If humanity is not innate to one's scientific status as a human lifeform, and instead dependent upon level of thought, would you consider an ape more human than a newborn baby? No, that would be scientifically inaccurate. You can not be more or less human, simply human or not. Now, perhaps that ape is more of a person, but that's subjective and hard to measure, and so not suitable for law.

[Terruana]

I am a Christian and I believe that abortion is murdering an unborn baby who never had a chance to live. The only exceptions should be if a woman is raped or her life is in danger.

If you believe that it's murdering a baby, why should rape and life-threatening circumstances be an exception? Come on, stick to your guns, no double standards now!

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

I am a Christian and I believe that abortion is murdering an unborn baby who never had a chance to live. The only exceptions should be if a woman is raped or her life is in danger.

What does Christianity have to do with it? Your holy book doesn't mention abortion at all. The only relevant passage is not killing others, which is a pretty generally accepted human morality. Extrapolation to the unborn requires science, not religion.

[Nordengrund]

I am a Christian and I believe that abortion is murdering an unborn baby who never had a chance to live. The only exceptions should be if a woman is raped or her life is in danger.

If you believe that it's murdering a baby, why should rape and life-threatening circumstances be an exception? Come on, stick to your guns, no double standards now!

Yes, but the woman was raped and did not want the baby to begin with. She had sex against her will, so she should not be told to have the baby because she was raped.

A woman should not be told to have the baby and die, but have a choice. She might have children that she has to take care of.

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

I am a Christian and I believe that abortion is murdering an unborn baby who never had a chance to live. The only exceptions should be if a woman is raped or her life is in danger.

If you believe that it's murdering a baby, why should rape and life-threatening circumstances be an exception? Come on, stick to your guns, no double standards now!

You could say that for rape, but when it comes to the life of the mother, you're killing one or the other. Either you kill the fetus or allow the mother to die from inaction, which is tantamount to killing her. In such a case, both options entail the death of an innocent human being, and thus are equally wrong. If both are equally wrong, neither can be established as the more just option, and thus abortion in this case cannot be established as unjust (or more unjust than the denial of abortion). Since something ought to be shown to be unjust to be made illegal (the natural state of an action is to be right, while proof is required for it to be called wrong), abortion cannot be justly banned in such an instance, since both options are equally just/unjust.

[Isointania]

Oh, it's this old chestnut of a thread again is it? Anywho, Pro Choice. I guess it's there decision

[Terruana]

Well, that's just not even true. An embryo formed from Parthenogenesis would have identical DNA to the mother. That doesn't mean it's not an embryo.

True, I wasn't thinking of that process. A human clone is just as human. I suppose the right way to pursue it, then, is completeness. An embryo is a human, whereas a cancer is a part of a human (a dysfunctional part, but a part nonetheless).

Here's what an Embryo is

Of course, it has nothing to do with the debate at hand, since being a human being is not a requirement to being an embryo. Dogs have pregnancies and embryos too y'know. So do cats. Even snakes!

And a cancer is just a broad group of diseases. You're thinking of a tumour, which is defined as "neoplasm; a new growth of tissue in which cell multiplication is uncontrolled and progressive"

[Des-Bal]

Pro-Choice. The idea that outlawing abortion prevents abortion is fucking absurd.

[Raeyh]

Pro-Choice. The idea that outlawing abortion prevents abortion is fucking absurd.

Outlawing [insert heinous crime here] doesn't prevent [insert same crime here] either. Should we make it legal?

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

Whenever someone says embryo/fetus/baby here, I think we can look at the context and apply the principle of charity to just assume they mean human.

[Samuraikoku]

Pro-Choice. The idea that outlawing abortion prevents abortion is fucking absurd.

Outlawing terrorism doesn't prevent terrorism either. Should we make it legal?

I don't think it's a very nice analogy, Raeyh.

[Terruana]

If you believe that it's murdering a baby, why should rape and life-threatening circumstances be an exception? Come on, stick to your guns, no double standards now!

Yes, but the woman was raped and did not want the baby to begin with. She had sex against her will, so she should not be told to have the baby because she was raped.

A woman should not be told to have the baby and die, but have a choice. She might have children that she has to take care of.

But it's child murder! How can you say such things. You'd rather murder an innocent baby than a slut who sleeps with every man she sees?
Plus, y'know, there are lots of ways to get pregnant and not want a baby to begin with. The first one that springs to my mind would be contraceptive failure, but in a more wacky scenario, what if a man ran up to her in the street with a turkey baster full of sperm, and squirted it all up her dress, and that just happened to get her pregnant? Can she still abort then?

If you believe that it's murdering a baby, why should rape and life-threatening circumstances be an exception? Come on, stick to your guns, no double standards now!

You could say that for rape, but when it comes to the life of the mother, you're killing one or the other. Either you kill the fetus or allow the mother to die from inaction, which is tantamount to killing her. In such a case, both options entail the death of an innocent human being, and thus are equally wrong. If both are equally wrong, neither can be established as the more just option, and thus abortion in this case cannot be established as unjust (or more unjust than the denial of abortion). Since something ought to be shown to be unjust to be made illegal (the natural state of an action is to be right, while proof is required for it to be called wrong), abortion cannot be justly banned in such an instance, since both options are equally just/unjust.

Surely if we're deciding this based on innocence, an unborn baby is much more innocent than the mother. I'd like to see you reach child bearing age without ever putting so much as a toe out of line.

[Novraslavia]

Pro-Choice. The idea that outlawing abortion prevents abortion is fucking absurd.

Outlawing [insert heinous crime here] doesn't prevent [insert same crime here] either. Should we make it legal?

Terrorism? Abortion? I don't see any similarities. They are completely different situations.

[Raeyh]

Outlawing terrorism doesn't prevent terrorism either. Should we make it legal?

I don't think it's a very nice analogy, Raeyh.

That's why I changed it.

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

You could say that for rape, but when it comes to the life of the mother, you're killing one or the other. Either you kill the fetus or allow the mother to die from inaction, which is tantamount to killing her. In such a case, both options entail the death of an innocent human being, and thus are equally wrong. If both are equally wrong, neither can be established as the more just option, and thus abortion in this case cannot be established as unjust (or more unjust than the denial of abortion). Since something ought to be shown to be unjust to be made illegal (the natural state of an action is to be right, while proof is required for it to be called wrong), abortion cannot be justly banned in such an instance, since both options are equally just/unjust.

Surely if we're deciding this based on innocence, an unborn baby is much more innocent than the mother. I'd like to see you reach child bearing age without ever putting so much as a toe out of line.

Not the general concept of "innocence," but rather that neither deserves to be killed. Or do you disagree?

[Des-Bal]

Outlawing [insert heinous crime here] doesn't prevent [insert same crime here] either. Should we make it legal?

IT depends is [insert heinous crime here] bothering anyone? Is it harming anybody or imperilling public safety because if it isn't then yes we definitely should make it legal. Leslie Reagan said more than I could in "When Abortion Was A Crime" (good read, about 230 page). Still, criminalizing abortion just makes a market for illegal and significantly less safe abortions.