should abortion be legal?

[Sophian]

A woman can give premature birth to a baby after a 23 week pregnancy, and that baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. In California you can get an abortion while you're 23 weeks pregnant. Would someone like to explain to me how a baby is not human ('its just a parasite") 23 weeks into the pregnancy, yet its capable of surviving outside the womb in the event of a premature birth?

[Tubbsalot]

A woman can give premature birth to a baby after a 23 week pregnancy, and that baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. In California you can get an abortion while you're 23 weeks pregnant. Would someone like to explain to me how a baby is not human ('its just a parasite") 23 weeks into the pregnancy, yet its capable of surviving outside the womb in the event of a premature birth?

um you know caterpillars can survive outside the womb and they're not human, so maybe you should reformulate that argument slightly

i mean you're on the cusp of making a sane argument here (not a valid one but one where i can at least see the tracks your train of thought is running on)

[Perlia]

I think everyone should have the right to do what they want with their body. I go to school with a lot of catholics that say the people that have had one or want one are "moral less". And "ungodly". But I'm atheist and I just don't see a problem with it like if your just to young and not ready for it. And of course life is an amazing one time thing. But once again, it's your body, you should do what you want with it.

Ofcourse it should.

[Condunum]

A woman can give premature birth to a baby after a 23 week pregnancy, and that baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. In California you can get an abortion while you're 23 weeks pregnant. Would someone like to explain to me how a baby is not human ('its just a parasite") 23 weeks into the pregnancy, yet its capable of surviving outside the womb in the event of a premature birth?

Unless you can get a 23 week birth to survive without machines, it's not surviving in a situation all that different from being in the womb.

[ALMF]

Incorrect, he jest PROVED (and I use that in the tecnical sense) your pregudise in favor "something unique to humans" disqualify you as a reasonable person on this subject, witch explains the irrational arguments you have made.

I feel like I'll regret asking, but what is the "technical sense" here?

Deduction, mostly from philosophy or Mathematics (uperdivition in the latter case). So Anslem is a proof (although defective) andAquinous But almost all of empirism is not.

[Condunum]

I feel like I'll regret asking, but what is the "technical sense" here?

Deduction, mostly from philosophy or Mathematics (uperdivition in the latter case). So [url+http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/]Anslem[/url] is a proof (although defective) and[quote=http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm]Aquinous

But almost all of empirism is not.[/quote]
I was right, I regret asking.

[Transmaris]

A woman can give premature birth to a baby after a 23 week pregnancy, and that baby is capable of surviving outside the womb.

Source?
And how much life support was needed, because if it was essentially placed in an artificial womb, that rather hollows out your argument, neh?

[ALMF]

Deduction, mostly from philosophy or Mathematics (uperdivition in the latter case). So [url+http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/]Anslem[/url] is a proof (although defective) and[quote=http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm]Aquinous

But almost all of empirism is not.

I was right, I regret asking.[/quote]
Sorry, you asked a mathamatiction and phlosefer what he ment by Prove

[Sophian]

A woman can give premature birth to a baby after a 23 week pregnancy, and that baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. In California you can get an abortion while you're 23 weeks pregnant. Would someone like to explain to me how a baby is not human ('its just a parasite") 23 weeks into the pregnancy, yet its capable of surviving outside the womb in the event of a premature birth?

um you know caterpillars can survive outside the womb and they're not human, so maybe you should reformulate that argument slightly

i mean you're on the cusp of making a sane argument here (not a valid one but one where i can at least see the tracks your train of thought is running on)

You didn't even answer my question, or dispute my point. You stated vague & irrelevant information about caterpillars. Because you couldn't find reasonable words to refute what I said, and you didn't like what I said, you tried to discredit me, and dismiss my point & question as it was borderline line insane and invalid.

[Condunum]

I was right, I regret asking.

Sorry, you asked a mathamatiction and phlosefer what he ment by Prove

...yeah, that's totally why I regret it. Mathematician*, meant* and philosopher*, by the way. If you're going to try to act smart, spelling is helpful.

[Tubbsalot]

um you know caterpillars can survive outside the womb and they're not human, so maybe you should reformulate that argument slightly

i mean you're on the cusp of making a sane argument here (not a valid one but one where i can at least see the tracks your train of thought is running on)

You didn't even answer my question, or dispute my point. You stated vague & irrelevant information about caterpillars. Because you couldn't find reasonable words to refute what I said, and you didn't like what I said, you tried to discredit me, and dismiss my point & question as it was borderline line insane and invalid.

did you actually bother reading before you started vomiting out a bunch of words in an arbitrary order to lay the smackdown on me? here let me help

you: "a baby can continue living outside a womb, therefore it's human"
me: "a caterpillar can continue living outside a womb, therefore it's human"

does that make it clearer

[Sophian]

A woman can give premature birth to a baby after a 23 week pregnancy, and that baby is capable of surviving outside the womb.

Source?
And how much life support was needed, because if it was essentially placed in an artificial womb, that rather hollows out your argument, neh?

People love putting videos about their premature babies on youtube. Also, my friend's sister just had a seizure and had to give birth prematurely as a result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q1YVFHIA8E

[Araceli]

Ohh man. I tend to just creep on the forums but this is quite the debate!

Personal opinion? It should be illegal in all cases with the exception of rape or harm to the mother.
The morning-after pill should be considered an abortifacient until scientific observation has proven otherwise.
Why should it be illegal? Because I believe that regardless of where it is located in relation to the mother or how dependent the child is on the parent, the baby is a life immediately after conception. To me, the fetus is a life at this point because it is a collection of active cells that will grow, unlike any other organism, into a human creature that is capable of sentient thought. It is alive becuase the systems which will sustain the body, eg respiratory, cardiovascular, etc, are already in the process of development! There is nothing stopping this baby from one day being a full grown -adult! The same as any child outside the womb: they are still growing, and will also one day be an adult. Therefore, I think it would be both morally and biologically inhumane to halt such a development process of the child, because it is alive, and therefore as the same rights as any post-birth human being.
The argument that it is not a human person because it is dependent or because it cannot think for itself yet obviously does not hold water (think: euthanizing senile elders with dementia/Alzheimer's and young children below the "age of reason" would be justified with this counter-argument).
Having the courts decide when exactly life starts, however, is a slippery slope, because they would have to set certain parameters which decides when someone is "living", effectively giving them power to give life, and also, take it away...Do you think they really have that right?

Another argument against abortion is the reasons why people use it! I'm not sure about other developed nations, but in America, as a safe estimate, mind you, rape only accounts for 1% of ALL abortions. The vast majority of abortions are for late birth control, for ridding of unwanted children. We know exactly what the fetus will become, we don't want it in our lives, so we kill it? Sounds a LOT like what really happened to Casey Anthony's daughter... And she was already born. Sure someone could counter with "oh, but wouldn't it be better if she just had an abortion instead, to save the child eventual pain and death?" To which I would counter that don't we all eventually die, and isn't a short life lived better than not have lived at all? And wouldn't the best option be adoption? After all, she was willing to give birth to Caleigh, and she was certainly willing to part with her!
Just food for thought...
So, even if I'm wrong or someone of the opposite viewpoint is wrong as to when exactly life starts, why not err on the side of caution and pick the earliest possible date for life to start-conception (fertilization)? That way there is no chance of us accidentally destroying any more living human beings...
Sorry for the wall of text, I'm very passionate about this subject..

[Tubbsalot]

Source?
And how much life support was needed, because if it was essentially placed in an artificial womb, that rather hollows out your argument, neh?

People love putting videos about their premature babies on youtube. Also, my friend's sister just had a seizure and had to give birth prematurely as a result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q1YVFHIA8E

well that answered precisely fuck all

should i restate his question as well i think i should i'm gonna do it:

"how much life support was needed, because if it was essentially placed in an artificial womb, that rather hollows out your argument, neh?"

there it is that's the question he asked

[Condunum]

Source?
And how much life support was needed, because if it was essentially placed in an artificial womb, that rather hollows out your argument, neh?

People love putting videos about their premature babies on youtube. Also, my friend's sister just had a seizure and had to give birth prematurely as a result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q1YVFHIA8E

And no doubt, the baby is in what amounts to an artificial womb in the hospital. That alone defeats your argument.

[Cromarty]

Put it up for adoption.

If you can't provide, put it up for adoption

And wouldn't the best option be adoption?

My fucking god people need to stop this inherently retarded repetition of this completely wrong idea that adoption is an alternative to abortion.

Adoption is no alternative to abortion.

In 1992, the last time comprehensive statistics on the number of adoptions per year was compiled, "the National Center for State Courts gathered adoption totals from a variety of sources, and estimated that 126,951 children were adopted through international, foster care, private agency, independent and step-parent adoptions." - Source. The NCSC also "estimated that stepparent adoptions accounted for 42% of all adoptions and foster care adoptions 15%." From the same source. So, that's 57% of 126,951 adoptions that weren't pertaining to orphans/unwanted children.

So, in reality, perhaps 50-55,000 unwanted/uncared for children were adopted in 1992. How many abortions happened in 1992? Well, thanks to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance of legal induced abortions, it was found that 1,359,145 abortions took place in that year (the 5th highest since the land mark Roe v Wade Case and indeed in US history). - Direct Link to CDC Survey. Wiki page that you might actually understand

And, even with the passage of Acts of Congress that made it easier to adopt, there were still 115,000 children awaiting adoption in the US care system in 2009. The system would have to expand tenfold if it were have any lasting effect, assuming, of course, that all abortions undertaken in the US in 2009 were changed to adoptions, both exceedingly unlikely and unquantifiable as 2009 figures haven't yet been released by the CDC, but a fair estimate would be between the 2005 figure of 820,000 or so (a record low since 1977), and the 2006 figure of 846,000 meaning that the system would have had to expand, and fast.

And an expansion of the adoption system leads to further problems, both in the regulation of it, and the providing of willing temporary accommodation for children awaiting adoption. Not to mention the inevitable private v public sector arguments, etc.

[Sophian]

You didn't even answer my question, or dispute my point. You stated vague & irrelevant information about caterpillars. Because you couldn't find reasonable words to refute what I said, and you didn't like what I said, you tried to discredit me, and dismiss my point & question as it was borderline line insane and invalid.

did you actually bother reading before you started vomiting out a bunch of words in an arbitrary order to lay the smackdown on me? here let me help

you: "a baby can continue living outside a womb, therefore it's human"
me: "a caterpillar can continue living outside a womb, therefore it's human"

does that make it clearer

Which one of these most resembles a human?

(A) Human baby born prematurely 23 weeks into pregnancy
or
(B) Caterpillar

[Wizlandia]

I agree that abortion should be illegal unless the woman's life is threatened. After all, you are stopping an unborn child from living, which should be conceived as murder.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

did you actually bother reading before you started vomiting out a bunch of words in an arbitrary order to lay the smackdown on me? here let me help

you: "a baby can continue living outside a womb, therefore it's human"
me: "a caterpillar can continue living outside a womb, therefore it's human"

does that make it clearer

Which one of these most resembles a human?

(A) Human baby born prematurely 23 weeks into pregnancy
or
(B) Caterpillar

I'm thinking b.
She's got a cute face :3

[Tubbsalot]

The morning-after pill should be considered an abortifacient until scientific observation has proven otherwise.

Well, I mean, it kind of has. I'm assuming you don't think a sperm+egg immediately becomes a human with all the rights of a fully-grown adult; the morning-after pill prevents implantation of the zygote (the sperm+egg) into the uterine wall, forbidding further development. This happens naturally, without any intervention, a lot of the time. I think it's about a 33% rate of naturally failed implantation (don't quote me on that exact number, though).

Why should it be illegal? Because I believe that regardless of where it is located in relation to the mother or how dependent the child is on the parent, the baby is a life immediately after conception.

Well, yes, but a sperm or an egg cell are also "life." And flies are unquestionably alive. Bacteria are unquestionably alive. That something is alive is not actually a good argument against killing it.

To me, the fetus is a life at this point because it is a collection of active cells that will grow, unlike any other organism, into a human creature that is capable of sentient thought.

Actually, all life is sentient. You're thinking of sapience. However, at that point, you start needing to justify the selection of that particular level of intelligence. Why is it a tragedy when a human foetus is aborted, but not when - for example - a chicken egg is harvested? What if a veterinarian performs an abortion on a dog? Is that a tragedy? Why are humans so special?

It is alive becuase the systems which will sustain the body, eg respiratory, cardiovascular, etc, are already in the process of development! There is nothing stopping this baby from one day being a full grown -adult! The same as any child outside the womb: they are still growing, and will also one day be an adult. Therefore, I think it would be both morally and biologically inhumane to halt such a development process of the child, because it is alive, and therefore as the same rights as any post-birth human being.

...but that doesn't matter. It's not what's happening. It's what could happen. What harm is actually being done? That foetus didn't exist for billions of years before fertilisation, and once it dies it'll continue to not exist for the rest of time. Why is it so vital that it be brought into existence? What about all the other infinity foetuses who will never have a chance to exist? Surely that's just as tragic. Surely the only moral option is to spend our entire lives making babies.

Having the courts decide when exactly life starts, however, is a slippery slope, because they would have to set certain parameters which decides when someone is "living", effectively giving them power to give life, and also, take it away...Do you think they really have that right?

Yes. And so do you. Unless you're opposed to laws against murder.

So, even if I'm wrong or someone of the opposite viewpoint is wrong as to when exactly life starts, why not err on the side of caution and pick the earliest possible date for life to start-conception (fertilization)?

Because that would cause massive damage to all the people who are saddled with a child they don't want and/or can't support, essentially screwing them in perpetuity?

[Norcroft]

imhpov, Abortion is a necessary evil.

On one hand, we have an unborn child dying before he or she is born. Sort of like that filipino delicacy where they boil a chicken egg with an unborn chick in it except with babies.
On the other, there are a plethora of circumstances where the mother should have the power to make the decision to end her unborn child's life. And do we really need another person growing up in a world where he or she is unloved and unwanted? Then again that should be a question to ask the child but he or she doesnt have a say in the matter so its the mom's choice.

[Tubbsalot]

Which one of these most resembles a human?

good question which one of these looks more like a human: (?????????)

this happy dude who i found on google image search
or this burn victim who i also found on google image search (don't look if you're squeamish)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb1a0fTXIt1qh9t3xo1_500.jpg

that's right one looks "less human" than the other in my opinion so only one of them can possibly be human!

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE:

i think the caterpillar looks more like a human.

a perfectly valid response; whether something "looks like" another thing is an entirely subjective argument, you can't just assume that the humanness of your person there is some universal law

[Threlizdun]

Which one of these most resembles a human?

(A) Human baby born prematurely 23 weeks into pregnancy (Image)
or
(B) Caterpillar (Image)

How is this relevant to your absurd notion that you own women's bodies?

[Sophian]

Which one of these most resembles a human?

(A) Human baby born prematurely 23 weeks into pregnancy (Image)
or
(B) Caterpillar (Image)

How is this relevant to your absurd notion that you own women's bodies?

Could you please provide me a link to the page of the thread where I claimed "I own women's bodies"? I do not remember ever saying this, or implying this.

[Norcroft]

I wonder..To the more philosophical readers of the thread, what happens to an unborn baby's soul? Will it even have a soul?