Abortion is Wrong?

[The Adrian Empire]

I don't believe that this has been decided as a right, to be honest, I would like to see an argument over this issue. Since foetuses are the only real observable case of one person requiring the symbiotic use of another person in order to live.

Highlighted for flaw in the argument.

A foetus is in my opinion a person, regardless I would like to see such an argument

But, if you're going to argue that something is the 'only observable case of' something, shouldn't it first be absolutely certain that it IS a case of something?

In this case, you're suggesting we use something as the only observable case of x, where it's just your OPINION that it even counts as x.

That would be bad science.

My opinion is that based on the scientific fact that the meeting of an egg and sperm that creates a zygote is the beginning of an individual human. And therefore human life

Your opinion as I understand is that human life begins at birth or perhaps when brain function begins, based on the scientific fact that pre-brain function the foetus cannot survive outside the womb afterwards it can. Therefore it is in your opinion is start of human life

We both have opinions based on facts. We differ on whose stance is correct.
In my opinion unless every foetus is screened for ability to survive outside the womb before it's abortion begins, rather then a simple cut off point. It cannot be said that the current cut-of date for late-term abortions is based on scientific fact, but rather scientific assumption.
Whereas, the meeting of a sperm and ova that produces a zygote is scientifically found to be the moment in which the DNA for a unique human is created and the formation of a human being begins. Ergo in my opinion my point in which life starts is more scientifically valid then the current cut-off date for late term abortions. Not however more valid then a opinion that human life begins when brain function does, or when the heart begins beating, or when the baby first breathes fresh air in it's own lungs.

[Central Slavia]

I am sorry but killing the foetus is a necessary step in a pregnancy termination.

Congratulations - that's the point I'm making.

Abortion isn't about a foetus, it's about a pregnancy. The foetus that may be involved is not the objective - if you want to use emotive language, it's just a casualty on the road TO the objective.

Murder is not about a killing it is about a goal to be achieved by it. The death of the obstacle is just a casualty on the road to the objective.

Much of the time, this is true.

Which kind of puts a hole in your attempt to use it as an attempt to ridicule the argument.

Exactly. it is true.
Therefore if someone kills his husband to collect life insurance and marry someone else she should according to your logic be prosecuted for fraud, not murder as the death was just a sideways occurence

Why fraud? Did they conceal the manner of death, and pretend it was natural causes? If so - that is both fraud AND murder.

I'm not sure quite what you think you're arguing here.

Are you arguing that women would tend to have foetuses dissected, even if there was non-destructive abortion as an alternative?

Fine then, it would not be prosecuted at all

No, i am arguing that the bottom line is nonsense as it is analogous - the woman in this case would also likely prefer to have husband removed in a nondestructive way, collect the cash and live with someone else.
It is irrelevant if some consequence is the goal or not if it necessary follows under current conditions

[Dempublicents1]

Fair enough, symbiote is apparently the wrong definition, I had previously agreed that they could be considered parasites, benign parasites.

And your definition of "benign" is just "might not actually kill the person"?

Here's a non-exhaustive list of the many risks a woman runs by choosing to continue a pregnancy. Full list taken from http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm.

I'll bold some of the ones that you can't just write off as "discomfort", although I would argue that adding up all of these many "discomforts" takes it well beyond that description:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
* exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
* altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
* nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
* heartburn and indigestion
* constipation
* weight gain
* dizziness and light-headedness
* bloating, swelling, fluid retention
* hemmorhoids
* abdominal cramps
* yeast infections
* congested, bloody nose
* acne and mild skin disorders
* skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
* mild to severe backache and strain
* increased headaches
* difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
* increased urination and incontinence
* bleeding gums
* pica
* breast pain and discharge
* swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
* difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
* inability to take regular medications
* shortness of breath
* higher blood pressure
* hair loss
* tendency to anemia
* curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
* infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
* extreme pain on delivery
* hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
* continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

I'll add here, since they left it out, the risk of gestational diabetes.

And we're not even up to the permanent changes yet! Here are some of those:

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
* stretch marks (worse in younger women)
* loose skin
* permanent weight gain or redistribution
* abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
* pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
* changes to breasts
* varicose veins
* scarring from episiotomy or c-section
* other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
* increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
* loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

I find it odd that this list leaves out the increased risk of type II diabetes, so I'll add it in here.

Occasional complications and side effects (in other words, all women who continue a pregnancy are at some risk of these things):
* spousal/partner abuse
* hyperemesis gravidarum
* temporary and permanent injury to back
* severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
* dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
* pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
* eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
* gestational diabetes
* placenta previa
* anemia (which can be life-threatening)
* thrombocytopenic purpura
* severe cramping
* embolism (blood clots)
* medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
* diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
* mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
* serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
* hormonal imbalance
* ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
* broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
* hemorrhage and
* numerous other complications of delivery
* refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
* aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
* severe post-partum depression and psychosis
* research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
* research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
* research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:
* peripartum cardiomyopathy
* cardiopulmonary arrest
* magnesium toxicity
* severe hypoxemia/acidosis
* massive embolism
* increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
* molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
* malignant arrhythmia
* circulatory collapse
* placental abruption
* obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:
* future infertility
* permanent disability
* death.

[Catsgomoo]

here's the thing, MURDER IS MURDER! ABORTION IS MURDER! Once fertilization occurs, the baby is alive.

[The Adrian Empire]

Fair enough, symbiote is apparently the wrong definition, I had previously agreed that they could be considered parasites, benign parasites.

And your definition of "benign" is just "might not actually kill the person"?

Here's a non-exhaustive list of the many risks a woman runs by choosing to continue a pregnancy. Full list taken from http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm.

>snip<

My gosh, fine it's not really totally benign, it is a parasite but until it threatens your life I do not think you have the right to kill it. As it is a human being

And that is borderline spam, I'd appreciate if you did not just copy pasta the argument to death, I am perfectly capable of reading the link as is everyone else

[Grave_n_idle]

My opinion is that based on the scientific fact that the meeting of an egg and sperm that creates a zygote is the beginning of an individual human. And therefore human life

That's not the scientific fact.

Up until a considerable amount of time after conception (which, as I'm sure you know - is NOT an immediate process - it takes several hours for 'conception' to occur) - the fertilised egg can still become one, two or three separate foetuses. That's a potential three 'individuals' from one fertilisation of one egg.

And, of all those fertilisations - no matter how many 'potential individuals' are formed, fully two-thirds will completely fail to mature, even without artificial intrusion.

So - in 66% of cases, fertilisation results in NO individual humans, and in a small percentage, fertilisation can result in more than one individual humans.

Thus - conception is a VERY poor marker for the beginning of 'human life'.

[Grave_n_idle]

here's the thing, MURDER IS MURDER! ABORTION IS MURDER! Once fertilization occurs, the baby is alive.

Abortion is not murder, by definition - since it is not illegal.

Also, most abortions do not involve babies. Just sayin'.

[Central Slavia]

Fair enough, symbiote is apparently the wrong definition, I had previously agreed that they could be considered parasites, benign parasites.

And your definition of "benign" is just "might not actually kill the person"?

Here's a non-exhaustive list of the many risks a woman runs by choosing to continue a pregnancy. Full list taken from http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm.

I'll bold some of the ones that you can't just write off as "discomfort", although I would argue that adding up all of these many "discomforts" takes it well beyond that description:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
* exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
* altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
* nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
* heartburn and indigestion
* constipation
* weight gain
* dizziness and light-headedness
* bloating, swelling, fluid retention
* hemmorhoids
* abdominal cramps
* yeast infections
* congested, bloody nose
* acne and mild skin disorders
* skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
* mild to severe backache and strain
* increased headaches
* difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
* increased urination and incontinence
* bleeding gums
* pica
* breast pain and discharge
* swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
* difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
* inability to take regular medications
* shortness of breath
* higher blood pressure
* hair loss
* tendency to anemia
* curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
* infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
* extreme pain on delivery
* hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
* continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

I'll add here, since they left it out, the risk of gestational diabetes.

And we're not even up to the permanent changes yet! Here are some of those:

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
* stretch marks (worse in younger women)
* loose skin
* permanent weight gain or redistribution
* abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
* pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
* changes to breasts
* varicose veins
* scarring from episiotomy or c-section
* other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
* increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
* loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

I find it odd that this list leaves out the increased risk of type II diabetes, so I'll add it in here.

Occasional complications and side effects (in other words, all women who continue a pregnancy are at some risk of these things):
* spousal/partner abuse
* hyperemesis gravidarum
* temporary and permanent injury to back
* severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
* dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
* pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
* eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
* gestational diabetes
* placenta previa
* anemia (which can be life-threatening)
* thrombocytopenic purpura
* severe cramping
* embolism (blood clots)
* medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
* diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
* mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
* serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
* hormonal imbalance
* ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
* broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
* hemorrhage and
* numerous other complications of delivery
* refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
* aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
* severe post-partum depression and psychosis
* research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
* research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
* research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:
* peripartum cardiomyopathy
* cardiopulmonary arrest
* magnesium toxicity
* severe hypoxemia/acidosis
* massive embolism
* increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
* molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
* malignant arrhythmia
* circulatory collapse
* placental abruption
* obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:
* future infertility
* permanent disability
* death.

how much permanent injuries happen in developed world due to pregnancy?
And how much due to *gasp* work?
You see, everything carries risk. Besides except for rape which is another case i am all for abortion, nobody forced the woman to fuck

[Dempublicents1]

In the department if i put my hand into the hydraulic sheet-metal cutter despite the guards and explicit discouragement to do so, i am not applicable to collect injury money.
I get healthcare, but that is just because the state believes that although i did an idiotic thing, i still can be useful, and therefore preserving my life has value.

Poor analogy. To even come close, you'd have to stick your hand in the cutter and then have the government hold it there, doing even more damage to your body.

The state did not get you pregnant, it merely forbids you killing a new citizen forming

If the state plans to use my body as an incubator against my will, it may not have gotten me pregnant, but it is keeping me that way. If it is going to do that, I agree that I should get compensated for it. In addition, I should have all related medical costs - including those that may stretch into my geriatric years - covered by the state.

[Grave_n_idle]

Fair enough, symbiote is apparently the wrong definition, I had previously agreed that they could be considered parasites, benign parasites.

And your definition of "benign" is just "might not actually kill the person"?

Here's a non-exhaustive list of the many risks a woman runs by choosing to continue a pregnancy. Full list taken from http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm.

>snip<

My gosh, fine it's not really totally benign, it is a parasite but until it threatens your life I do not think you have the right to kill it. As it is a human being

And that is borderline spam, I'd appreciate if you did not just copy pasta the argument to death, I am perfectly capable of reading the link as is everyone else

And, while it was a mere tiny mention in Dem's list - go take a look at the explanation for 'Episiotomy'. It's worth a little attention on it's own, I think.

[The Adrian Empire]

My opinion is that based on the scientific fact that the meeting of an egg and sperm that creates a zygote is the beginning of an individual human. And therefore human life

That's not the scientific fact.

Up until a considerable amount of time after conception (which, as I'm sure you know - is NOT an immediate process - it takes several hours for 'conception' to occur) - the fertilised egg can still become one, two or three separate foetuses. That's a potential three 'individuals' from one fertilisation of one egg.

And, of all those fertilisations - no matter how many 'potential individuals' are formed, fully two-thirds will completely fail to mature, even without artificial intrusion.

So - in 66% of cases, fertilisation results in NO individual humans, and in a small percentage, fertilisation can result in more than one individual humans.

Thus - conception is a VERY poor marker for the beginning of 'human life'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when an ovum and a sperm cell meet and successfully join together it creates a new unique human DNA pattern, which may later seperate to from twins or die, but should all go well, and the fertilized egg does reach the uterine wall and connects it will always become an unique human with unique DNA, unless killed by unforeseen circumstances or planned parenthood

[Dempublicents1]

My gosh, fine it's not really totally benign, it is a parasite but until it threatens your life I do not think you have the right to kill it.

Pregnancy is life-threatening, as that list demonstrates. Any woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy is putting herself at risk for all of the complications listed. If she wishes to take on those risks, fine. If she doesn't, who are we to force her?

how much permanent injuries happen in developed world due to pregnancy?

Define "injury". Even a perfect pregnancy results in permanent physical changes and increased risk of certain diseases.

And how much due to *gasp* work?

Irrelevant, unless it is your contention that the state can force people to take on the risks associated with a job they do not voluntarily enter into.

You see, everything carries risk. Besides except for rape which is another case i am all for abortion, nobody forced the woman to fuck

That's irrelevant to whether or not she should be forced to take on all of the risks listed.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, i am arguing that the bottom line is nonsense as it is analogous - the woman in this case would also likely prefer to have husband removed in a nondestructive way, collect the cash and live with someone else.

If the wife in your example, wanted the husband removed non-destructively - she'd divorce him.

In your example, she murders him for financial incentive (apparently) which MIGHT relate if you thought women were being paid large cash incentives to abort... but you're not arguing that, are you?

But, to focus on what is important - you said 'no'. So you agree - the purpose of abortion is terminating pregnancy.

[JJ Place]

Having sex is a positive action, one does not have to have sex, while having consensual sex isn't wrong, it shouldn't be taken lightly that a child can result from it. Not using protection on top of this is just plain irresponsible, I see no reason why we as a society should be legitimizing irresponsibility that leads to the death of a human being.

The initial cause is a positive action, as you are not required to ever have sex. The willing consent to sex is in essense the willing consent to the process of reproduction, when one decides not to use contraception that is a negative action on a positive. So indeed, it is willing accepting the dependent since you committed the process of reproduction. The fact that you then choose to not use contraception is just a failure to use a failsafe.
And yes we should require women to give birth to human life they have willingly created, since there is no other law on Earth that says if someone benefits from my mistake I am allowed to kill them.

Sex isn't a positive or negative action; all actions are interpreted differently by all individual beings; there truly is no "Good or Bad Action". We can have our personal thoughts on what a good action is, and there very well might be an action that an overwelming majority of people might agree be Good or Bad; and that very well might be the case; However, the prior point still takes presidence.

I believe you are mistaken here, by positive and negative actions I do not speak of good or bad, as I agree that morality can not be grounded.
I speak of positive & negative actions as similar to positive & negative rights, I have the right to freedom of speech, this is a positive right, as I have the right to perform an action, I also had (thanks GWB) the right to not be detained without charge, as I had the right to be free from being unlawfully detained
I can have sex, if I then decide to have sex I am undertaking a positive action, if I do not I am taking a negative action
I can not use protection, if I decide not to I am undertaking a negative action, if I do use protection then it is a positive action since I have taken the positive response
Essentially, the positive action is yes I will, the negative is no I will not. Morality is not involved

First, Morality is always involved, especially in this case. We're discussing life, and whether it is or is not morally justifiable to destroy a fetus. With Morality, Laws, and such, an action is not good just by being legal; if all drugs are legalized, and you use crack, that doesn't make using crack to be a positive action. Also, it's not a bad thing to not use protection; you might see it as so in your own view, but it doesn't change the good or bad factor of the action, as Good and Bad are chosen by the individual person; sure, another person and perhaps most people might see it this way, yet that does not make it a Good or Bad Action.

I do agree with you on the next point; irresponsibility is a major problem; however, no law is every going to change this. In fact, repealing laws would be alot better for society for improving our responsibility. People should always use contraceptives; it's the most pr thing to do, it just makes sense that we'd use what we had available to us to make our lives better; especially when said product available has no down sides to it, if used correctly.

And as in most cases I agree with you, repealing frivolous and silly laws would make society more responsible, freedom is a very powerful source of responsibility, but laws that protect civil rights, like those against theft enforcing the right to property, and murder enforcing the right to life are certainly not the sort one repeals. The termination of the foetus is in my opinion a violation of that foetus right to life. Were that pregnancy could be terminated without the death of the foetus I would be in support of it, unfortunately it cannot at this time. So I will continue to be against the violation of the foetus's rights (again in my opinion it has rights, I know others like you disagree) until such time that the foetus can still live after the termination of the pregnancy.

The idea is to "Treat others as you would like to be treated."; sentient beings have the right to freedom, enforced by they're property rights over they're tangible property and themselves. The thing is, a fetus is not life; it simply has the potential for life. Until the fetus ceases to be a fetus and instead is born, it does not posses any rights or freedoms.

What I do not agree with is your stance on what is and what is not life. I'll agree with you on one thing; babies and children should not be allowed to be messed with when in life; even by they're parents. The thing is, before born, the fetus is nothing. It's not human life; it's not even life. It's a organism that feeds off of it's host; in other words a parasite. Also, one more thing to ponder: Before born, when a fetus is physically dependent on it's host for support, if, before birth, the fetus is removed, the organism will not survive on it's own. I don't mean as in "It wouldn't be able to find food for itself." I'm meaning, literally, the fetus just will not be able to survive.

Yes, but I still don't believe that it's life is forfeit simply on the terms that it is not capable of self-dependent living as parasites (and those on welfare ) are indeed living creatures, a foetus in my opinion is still human life, on this we do not agree. Which means neither of our arguments will be effective. Since this dividing line covers all battlefields

It's not a baby, It's a fetus. A fetus is part of a womans body, they should get to do what they want with it.

A parasite is not considered a part of your body, similarly a foetus which has unique human DNA is not a part of it's host body merely borrowing nutrients and air from it.

Granted, that you can kill a parasite living in your body, but the point remains that a parasite is not your body. I would argue that despite acting as a parasite, this separate human life should not be legal to kill.
However were there an ability to terminate the pregnancy without ending this individual human life, I would not argue against such a procedure, and would actually like to see it legal, though I would still prefer it not used

Exactly; a fetus is not human life because it's physically independent on it's host for survival; it has not yet lived independently, and therefore is classified as having the potential for life; not being human life. Also, your not terminating human life, as there is no human life within a fetus that can be proved.

Again this is where we disagree, I believe that regardless of not having lived independently, the foetus is still living and therefore has a right to it's life. I believe we will not agree on any point of each others argument if we disagree on this issue.

Poor slackers on welfare . Anyhow, on a serious note, you still can't prove that it's life until birth; until then, the fetus is not truly life at all.

[Grave_n_idle]

My opinion is that based on the scientific fact that the meeting of an egg and sperm that creates a zygote is the beginning of an individual human. And therefore human life

That's not the scientific fact.

Up until a considerable amount of time after conception (which, as I'm sure you know - is NOT an immediate process - it takes several hours for 'conception' to occur) - the fertilised egg can still become one, two or three separate foetuses. That's a potential three 'individuals' from one fertilisation of one egg.

And, of all those fertilisations - no matter how many 'potential individuals' are formed, fully two-thirds will completely fail to mature, even without artificial intrusion.

So - in 66% of cases, fertilisation results in NO individual humans, and in a small percentage, fertilisation can result in more than one individual humans.

Thus - conception is a VERY poor marker for the beginning of 'human life'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when an ovum and a sperm cell meet and successfully join together it creates a new unique human DNA pattern, which may later seperate to from twins or die, but should all go well, and the fertilized egg does reach the uterine wall and connects it will always become an unique human with unique DNA, unless killed by unforeseen circumstances or planned parenthood

You're wrong.

Look up 'chimerism', for example - even 'unique' DNA doesn't equate to an individual.

How can fertilisation form an 'individual' - when fertilisation can form three seperate foetuses from the same egg?

And, I hate to say it, but your last question is a nonsense "it will always become... unless killed by unforeseen circumstances'... is self-defeating. It's saying "It is always this way, except when it isn't". Yes - that's why 'always' is a poor choice of words.

[JJ Place]

here's the thing, MURDER IS MURDER! ABORTION IS MURDER! Once fertilization occurs, the baby is alive.

I'm sorry, but is this a joke, or are you being serious?

[The Adrian Empire]

My gosh, fine it's not really totally benign, it is a parasite but until it threatens your life I do not think you have the right to kill it.

Pregnancy is life-threatening, as that list demonstrates. Any woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy is putting herself at risk for all of the complications listed. If she wishes to take on those risks, fine. If she doesn't, who are we to force her?

No, pregnancy can become life-threatening, in and of itself it is not life threatening. No more then being in a car is life-threatening, If it becomes life threatening, then I can understand the use of abortion, as the dependent will not survive either way. However when the mother and child can survive the pregnancy, there is no reason to kill either.

[The Future Kingdom]

its ok if a woman has been raped and she gets an abortion i mean WHO THE FUCK wants a rapist baby???


that and i also think its the womens choice and everyone i mean EVERYONE Should leave them the fuck alone

[Central Slavia]

No, i am arguing that the bottom line is nonsense as it is analogous - the woman in this case would also likely prefer to have husband removed in a nondestructive way, collect the cash and live with someone else.

If the wife in your example, wanted the husband removed non-destructively - she'd divorce him.

In your example, she murders him for financial incentive (apparently) which MIGHT relate if you thought women were being paid large cash incentives to abort... but you're not arguing that, are you?

But, to focus on what is important - you said 'no'. So you agree - the purpose of abortion is terminating pregnancy.

No , there need not to be a financial incentive for aborrtion for my analogy to work.
The point is as far as murder is not the goal just a necessary consequence in the current state, you argue that the act commited is not really murder.

[Dempublicents1]

My gosh, fine it's not really totally benign, it is a parasite but until it threatens your life I do not think you have the right to kill it.

Pregnancy is life-threatening, as that list demonstrates. Any woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy is putting herself at risk for all of the complications listed. If she wishes to take on those risks, fine. If she doesn't, who are we to force her?

No, pregnancy can become life-threatening, in and of itself it is not life threatening.

A pregnancy carries all of those risks. That makes it life-threatening. I don't have to wait until my parachute doesn't open to know that skydiving is an activity that puts my life at risk and I don't have to wait until I'm in the hospital with pre-eclampsia to know that choosing to be pregnant puts my life at risk.

Your definition of "life-threatening" is apparently, "the woman is currently dying of it". If we wait until that point to let her choose not to put her life at risk, we've likely killed her.

If it becomes life threatening, then I can understand the use of abortion, as the dependent will not survive either way. However when the mother and child can survive the pregnancy, there is no reason to kill either.

There is no way to determine whether or not the mother and child can survive the pregnancy until after it is over. Not to mention the risks of life-threatening diseases later on in life. The idea that a woman must already be basically dying before she can decide not to risk her life for another - another who may or may not even truly be a human person - is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

[The Adrian Empire]

My opinion is that based on the scientific fact that the meeting of an egg and sperm that creates a zygote is the beginning of an individual human. And therefore human life

That's not the scientific fact.

Up until a considerable amount of time after conception (which, as I'm sure you know - is NOT an immediate process - it takes several hours for 'conception' to occur) - the fertilised egg can still become one, two or three separate foetuses. That's a potential three 'individuals' from one fertilisation of one egg.

And, of all those fertilisations - no matter how many 'potential individuals' are formed, fully two-thirds will completely fail to mature, even without artificial intrusion.

So - in 66% of cases, fertilisation results in NO individual humans, and in a small percentage, fertilisation can result in more than one individual humans.

Thus - conception is a VERY poor marker for the beginning of 'human life'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when an ovum and a sperm cell meet and successfully join together it creates a new unique human DNA pattern, which may later seperate to from twins or die, but should all go well, and the fertilized egg does reach the uterine wall and connects it will always become an unique human with unique DNA, unless killed by unforeseen circumstances or planned parenthood

You're wrong.

Look up 'chimerism', for example - even 'unique' DNA doesn't equate to an individual.

How can fertilisation form an 'individual' - when fertilisation can form three seperate foetuses from the same egg?

And, I hate to say it, but your last question is a nonsense "it will always become... unless killed by unforeseen circumstances'... is self-defeating. It's saying "It is always this way, except when it isn't". Yes - that's why 'always' is a poor choice of words.

This is semantics.
When I say barring unforeseen circumstance, I mean it is meant to go this way, if it doesn't something has gone wrong.
Every human child born today will become an adult human unless they are killed by disease, murdered, or suffer some other gruesome death. It can then be said that all children grow into adults or die. There are no children who don't grow up (Peter Pan being the one exception) but are still alive or human children who grow up to be giraffes.
Therefore all adult humans were once children and all human children who grow up will become adult humans


Similarly all human zygotes will eventually become adult humans or they will die. They will never become something else. Therefore they are humans
Or when I say that after the point of conception the zygote either becomes a human (or multiple humans) or dies. It does not ever turn into hat.

[Central Slavia]

how much permanent injuries happen in developed world due to pregnancy?

Define "injury". Even a perfect pregnancy results in permanent physical changes and increased risk of certain diseases.

And how much due to *gasp* work?

Irrelevant, unless it is your contention that the state can force people to take on the risks associated with a job they do not voluntarily enter into.

You see, everything carries risk. Besides except for rape which is another case i am all for abortion, nobody forced the woman to fuck

That's irrelevant to whether or not she should be forced to take on all of the risks listed.

You are ridiculous. Unlike skydiving pregnancy is less risky than many jobs people do (and are economically forced to)
Besides if you are so afraid of the risks do not fuck. I already said it. That is what creates the risk in the first place. But some like to have their cake and eat it as well.

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

[Central Slavia]

My gosh, fine it's not really totally benign, it is a parasite but until it threatens your life I do not think you have the right to kill it.

Pregnancy is life-threatening, as that list demonstrates. Any woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy is putting herself at risk for all of the complications listed. If she wishes to take on those risks, fine. If she doesn't, who are we to force her?

No, pregnancy can become life-threatening, in and of itself it is not life threatening.

A pregnancy carries all of those risks. That makes it life-threatening. I don't have to wait until my parachute doesn't open to know that skydiving is an activity that puts my life at risk and I don't have to wait until I'm in the hospital with pre-eclampsia to know that choosing to be pregnant puts my life at risk.

Your definition of "life-threatening" is apparently, "the woman is currently dying of it". If we wait until that point to let her choose not to put her life at risk, we've likely killed her.

If it becomes life threatening, then I can understand the use of abortion, as the dependent will not survive either way. However when the mother and child can survive the pregnancy, there is no reason to kill either.

There is no way to determine whether or not the mother and child can survive the pregnancy until after it is over. Not to mention the risks of life-threatening diseases later on in life. The idea that a woman must already be basically dying before she can decide not to risk her life for another - another who may or may not even truly be a human person - is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Then , eating is life threatening - there is substantial risk of choking and a nonzero percentage of those results in death.
When i think we had to eat every day in the maternal school (you know where small children are put pre-school) ... Those government workers were putting me at risk of death!

[Dempublicents1]

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

I don't believe I suggested that half of pregnant women die in childbirth. I simply pointed out that all women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term are taking that risk. Women do still die of complications from pregnancy - before, during, and after labor, even in the modern world. And many who do not die suffer from major complications. And those who don't have major complications still have to deal with irreversible physical changes, some of which put them at risk for diseases later in life. Pretending that these risks do not exist so that one can pretend that pregnancy is just a "discomfort" or some other such nonsense is ridiculous.

[Central Slavia]

look above. Eating is life-threatening as well , then
Going to elementary school is life-threatening as well - yet you are obliged to attend by law