Thread: ABORTION: Where do you stand?

monsters, so far I'm just putting it down to how fast the thread is growing, but could you please answer my question; otherwise I'm going to start thinking you're ignoring it.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

I'm going to say the same things to you as I have to everyone else that shares you opinion in this thread. If you are going to make rules on what qualifies you as a person, such as not "properly experiencing" the world, or having memories, ALOT of living people are not going to qualify. It simply does not hold up.

But with people living independently, the consideration for the mother's right to choose no-longer applies. Thus the scales might shift. So you haven't really presented any arguments against my views.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

Also...it is HIGHLY frowned upon to drink while pregnant. Everyone knows that.

That was included just as a quirk of my views. That it's all right to kill it, but to harm it is near unforgivable.

Originally Posted by Xei

Monster, would appreciate if you could follow up from the first page; I asked why having periods is okay, you said things should just run their natural course, I replied with:

Sorry! I try to get to everyone's responses, but it's hard to keep up sometimes. Ok, here we go...

First, my definition of "natural" seems to perhaps not be everyone's. That's okay, I'd just like you to keep that in mind while we're talking about this.

An unfertilized egg is just another cell in a woman's body. If it dies, it is of no consequence because it hurts no one. A woman's egg is completely a part of her own body and she is absolutely free to do with it what she pleases, which means fertilizing it or letting it die.

That's all I'm going to say in response to that. I don't really think it has much to do with the subject at hand. I don't care what anyone does with their own body cells. I only care about after conception. Once an egg is fertilized, another life has been made that is seperate from the mother, and that's what the debate is about.

It seems like the majority of people here are of the opinion that a fetus is not a "person", and therefore has no rights or value. However, it seems difficult to really pin-point what makes someone a "person", or to determine what really makes them valuable.

Spartiate, from what I can gather, believes that a fetus is not a "person" until it is born and can therefore have interactions and experiences. However, there are people born who will never have any conversation or any real interaction with anyone. Infact, the interaction I had with my daughter before she was born (talking to her, pressing on my stomach and she would press back, feeling her move around) is more than what some people will do in their whole lifetime.

Blueline seems to believe that abortion is okay as long as it is done before a certain gestational age, which is probably what most people feel. However, then we get into the problem of when does life actually begin, and when does it become wrong to destroy that life simply because we want to? We also get into the question of, do we have souls, and when do they begin to inhabit the physical vessel? Blueline doesn't believe we have souls, but if we are going with that theory, what's the difference if we kill a child while still in the womb or at 5? If we are nothing but a slightly more evolved animal, why does anyone's life have value at all, no matter what their age? We are all destined to be worm food anyway, there's no point to any of it and therefore actions are inconsequential.

I don't think any one person has the right to determine what you have to be to qualify as a "person". If any life is to be valued, then ALL life must be valued.

On another note, I think it's interesting that only 50 percent of people who have children are Pro-Choice. I think that having your own children effects your view on the subject greatly. It's too bad there's not more members with children here so that I could get a better idea of it that's true or not.

Originally Posted by Pan

I have memories of being in the womb.

That's so awesome. I wish I could remember stuff like that!

Originally Posted by DangerousDashie

no children. I don't think it possible to say whether or not killing a fetus is murder so I am more on the anti abortion side just to be safe.

I like this. To err on the side of compassion is exactly what more people should be doing.

Originally Posted by Pan

I have memories of being in the womb. Not that I would have cared at that point whether or not I lived (I never wanted to leave the womb)...just saying, that I don't think a baby is any less a baby just because it hasn't been born yet. But only once it grows to a certain point. Where that point is, I don't really know.

False memories.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

That's all I'm going to say in response to that. I don't really think it has much to do with the subject at hand. I don't care what anyone does with their own body cells. I only care about after conception. Once an egg is fertilized, another life has been made that is seperate from the mother, and that's what the debate is about.

How is it a new life, exactly? At the moment of fertilization, the two cells fuse into one with a complete chromosome set. Then this cell begins mitosis, dividing repeatedly and becoming a slightly larger lump of undifferentiated stem cells. It takes a good long while before the fetus begins to resemble anything human, and longer still for it to develop the organ systems needed to keep it alive.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

Blueline seems to believe that abortion is okay as long as it is done before a certain gestational age, which is probably what most people feel. However, then we get into the problem of when does life actually begin, and when does it become wrong to destroy that life simply because we want to? We also get into the question of, do we have souls, and when do they begin to inhabit the physical vessel? Blueline doesn't believe we have souls, but if we are going with that theory, what's the difference if we kill a child while still in the womb or at 5? If we are nothing but a slightly more evolved animal, why does anyone's life have value at all, no matter what their age? We are all destined to be worm food anyway, there's no point to any of it and therefore actions are inconsequential.

If you want to bring up souls, you must first prove they exist. They are the more incredible claim, and the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. If you cannot prove they exist, they have no place in a debate on morality.

Next, you make a logical fallacy, assuming that if there are no souls, all life is pointless and without meaning. This is a tactic often used by believers to put down non-believers and assert their own superiority. What's more, it is entirely false. Humans, for whatever reason, are programmed to survive. At the age of 5, the child is developing well. It understands life and that it would like to remain in that state. It knows joy, happiness, suffering, pain, and occasionally death. It is emotionally attached to the world, and to deprive it of life at this point would be a gross injustice. On the other hand, if the kid was in a PVS and had no mental processes save the most basic ones required to sustain life, I see nothing wrong with pulling the plug.

Human actions being inconsequential, blah blah blah, is fodder for another debate.

I don't think any one person has the right to determine what you have to be to qualify as a "person". If any life is to be valued, then ALL life must be valued.

Including cancer. It is human life with its own unique genetic code. And if we aren't allowed to distinguish who or what is a person, we'll soon have dogs demanding equal rights.

On another note, I think it's interesting that only 50 percent of people who have children are Pro-Choice. I think that having your own children effects your view on the subject greatly. It's too bad there's not more members with children here so that I could get a better idea of it that's true or not.

Sample population: 4
Actual population: around 7,000,000,000

Not the best barometer.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

we get into the problem of when does life actually begin,

I believe that life began thousands of years ago.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

Blueline seems to believe that abortion is okay as long as it is done before a certain gestational age, which is probably what most people feel.

It's a matter of practicality. Why bother carrying a fetus to almost-full-term only to abort it? It's a huge waste of time and bodily resources.

However, then we get into the problem of when does life actually begin, and when does it become wrong to destroy that life simply because we want to? We also get into the question of, do we have souls, and when do they begin to inhabit the physical vessel? Blueline doesn't believe we have souls, but if we are going with that theory, what's the difference if we kill a child while still in the womb or at 5? If we are nothing but a slightly more evolved animal, why does anyone's life have value at all, no matter what their age? We are all destined to be worm food anyway, there's no point to any of it and therefore actions are inconsequential.

Lives have value because people give them value. There's no reason to assume that we have "souls" or whatever fantasy-like crap people want to come up with. To say that there's no point to life and that actions are inconsequential without the existence of a soul is rather amusing (and sad). I live as if souls don't exist, along with millions of other people, and where's the evidence that we're all running around saying "nothing matters! do what thou wilt! we're all worm food anyway! worthless!"

I don't think any one person has the right to determine what you have to be to qualify as a "person". If any life is to be valued, then ALL life must be valued.

So then don't ask us what the qualifications are!

Originally Posted by Mario92

False memories.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

How is it a new life, exactly? At the moment of fertilization, the two cells fuse into one with a complete chromosome set. Then this cell begins mitosis, dividing repeatedly and becoming a slightly larger lump of undifferentiated stem cells. It takes a good long while before the fetus begins to resemble anything human, and longer still for it to develop the organ systems needed to keep it alive.

That's a main part of the debate. When does life begin? In my opinion, because I cannot narrow it down to a specific moment in gestation, I have to err on the side of caution. Hence, my belief that life begins at conception.

Originally Posted by Mario92

If you want to bring up souls, you must first prove they exist. They are the more incredible claim, and the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. If you cannot prove they exist, they have no place in a debate on morality.

Why are they the more incredible claim? I think most people do believe that we have souls, or a "spirit" of some sort.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Next, you make a logical fallacy, assuming that if there are no souls, all life is pointless and without meaning. This is a tactic often used by believers to put down non-believers and assert their own superiority. What's more, it is entirely false. Humans, for whatever reason, are programmed to survive. At the age of 5, the child is developing well. It understands life and that it would like to remain in that state. It knows joy, happiness, suffering, pain, and occasionally death. It is emotionally attached to the world, and to deprive it of life at this point would be a gross injustice. On the other
hand, if the kid was in a PVS and had no mental processes save the most basic ones required to sustain life, I see nothing wrong with pulling the plug.

If you disagree with me, please explain yourself. How exactly does life have meaning if we do not have souls or spirits of some kind? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you explain this, and I think it definitely pertains to this debate in a round-about way.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Human actions being inconsequential, blah blah blah, is fodder for another debate.

Not really. It does not directly involve the subject of abortion, but it all ties in. If you're not up for taking that on though, that's cool.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Including cancer. It is human life with its own unique genetic code. And if we aren't allowed to distinguish who or what is a person, we'll soon have dogs demanding equal rights.

Cancer is part of it's host, and as I said before, do what you wish with your own cells. A tumor is never going to grow up to be a person. There is only one way to make another human being, by fertilizing an egg with sperm. Cancer has nothing to do with this debate.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Sample population: 4
Actual population: around 7,000,000,000

Not the best barometer.

Did you read what I wrote, or did you just shoot off your mouth? I said, "It's too bad there's not more members with children here so that I could get a better idea of it that's true or not. Meaning, this poll is not a great indication if my supposition is true or not.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"souls" or whatever fantasy-like crap

That's just rude.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It's a matter of practicality. Why bother carrying a fetus to almost-full-term only to abort it? It's a huge waste of time and bodily resources.

I agree, it really isn't practical.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Lives have value because people give them value. There's no reason to assume that we have "souls" or whatever fantasy-like crap people want to come up with. To say that there's no point to life and that actions are inconsequential without the existence of a soul is rather amusing (and sad). I live as if souls don't exist, along with millions of other people, and where's the evidence that we're all running around saying "nothing matters! do what thou wilt! we're all worm food anyway! worthless!"

If you do not have a soul, were not created for any purpose, and will simply rot into the ground and cease to exist when you die, then you have no worth. Useless people cannot give other useless people value. Your life has no meaning, no matter how much you wish it did, and if I kill you it doesn't matter. You are of no more worth than an animal, and people have no problem killing them so they can eat. It is sad, but if that's what you believe, then that's your reality.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

I agree, it really isn't practical.



If you do not have a soul, were not created for any purpose, and will simply rot into the ground and cease to exist when you die, then you have no worth. Useless people cannot give other useless people value. Your life has no meaning, no matter how much you wish it did, and if I kill you it doesn't matter. You are of no more worth than an animal, and people have no problem killing them so they can eat. It is sad, but if that's what you believe, then that's your reality.

I believe that would be your reality too, if he is correct.
Believing differently wouldn't change that.
If I believed that I would live in a candy castle and ride magical unicorns made out of opium when I die, would that make it happen?

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

Prove it.

better idea: you prove they were anything else.
False memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Occam's razor. False memories are common and well understood. Having a memory of an event before you have a central nervous system is quite ridiculous. Burden of proof and whatnot.

That's a main part of the debate. When does life begin? In my opinion, because I cannot narrow it down to a specific moment in gestation, I have to err on the side of caution. Hence, my belief that life begins at conception.

And my argument is that a fully grown woman, who understands life and death and all that stuff, takes priority over a lump of developing cells. I won't err on the side of caution when the consequences can quite very well impact her life directly. Conception is such an arbitrary line to draw...why not viability? The point where the fetus can survive outside the womb with a 50% chance of survival? Surely this would make more sense. It would certainly be better than protecting a single cell just because it can kinda sorta maybe be considered the beginning of human life.

Why are they the more incredible claim? I think most people do believe that we have souls, or a "spirit" of some sort.

As religion demonstrates, just because a majority believes it, doesn't mean it's right.

If you disagree with me, please explain yourself. How exactly does life have meaning if we do not have souls or spirits of some kind? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you explain this, and I think it definitely pertains to this debate in a round-about way.

A better question would be, how do souls magically give meaning to life? Why can't humans define their own lives and own terms of existence? I'm with blueline. We give meaning to lives ourselves. By existing and thinking and developing, we define our own meanings and purposes. There doesn't need to be anything mystical or magical about the world to give life value. Isn't a thinking human being enough? Why do we have to so degrade that with notions of wizardry and souls? What does a soul even do, and why can't humans do it?

Cancer is part of it's host, and as I said before, do what you wish with your own cells. A tumor is never going to grow up to be a person. There is only one way to make another human being, by fertilizing an egg with sperm. Cancer has nothing to do with this debate.

Well, a fetus is attached to its mother via placenta. It is essentially part of a host, too. And we're back to the potential-for-life argument, which has already been explained is bullshit. Also, cloning. Taking a complete cell and making a new person out of it. There's also a rare condition when women can fertilize an egg all on their lonesome without sperm.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

If you do not have a soul, were not created for any purpose, and will simply rot into the ground and cease to exist when you die, then you have no worth. Useless people cannot give other useless people value. Your life has no meaning, no matter how much you wish it did, and if I kill you it doesn't matter. You are of no more worth than an animal, and people have no problem killing them so they can eat. It is sad, but if that's what you believe, then that's your reality.

Look, you can test out your argument by assertion skills all you want, but you're really not progressing the conversation. At all. You're just saying things as if they're true without showing any evidence. I mean shit, Mario asked you for evidence of souls and all you came up with was an argument from the majority!

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

If you disagree with me, please explain yourself. How exactly does life have meaning if we do not have souls or spirits of some kind? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you explain this, and I think it definitely pertains to this debate in a round-about way.

Probably just me but i find 'human' life has more meaning in terms of us being souless than with soul. If we have a soul and there's an afterlife then what difference does it make if we live or not? Surely there's less harm done if an afterlife exists? Death wouldnt really mean death.

I think there's lots of meaning in life without a soul. To think that we're a part of this universe, not something foreign, made from elements created in the heart of dying stars, formed from the causality of the universe, and here we are debating and attempting to understand ourselves and the beauty around us... The universe trying to understand itself. I feel there's a huge amount of meaning and importance to life.

Originally Posted by Mario92

better idea: you prove they were anything else.
False memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Occam's razor. False memories are common and well understood. Having a memory of an event before you have a central nervous system is quite ridiculous. Burden of proof and whatnot.

Hahaha, I don't have to prove jack shit. I have no memories before about 3. Ask Pan to prove it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

And my argument is that a fully grown woman, who understands life and death and all that stuff, takes priority over a lump of developing cells. I won't err on the side of caution when the consequences can quite very well impact her life directly. Conception is such an arbitrary line to draw...why not viability? The point where the fetus can survive outside the womb with a 50% chance of survival? Surely this would make more sense. It would certainly be better than protecting a single cell just because it can kinda sorta maybe be considered the beginning of human life.

No one life gets to take priority over another. If life worked that way, then I guess I'm more important than millions of other people, because I'm younger and healthier, and my wants over-shadow theirs.

Originally Posted by Mario92

As religion demonstrates, just because a majority believes it, doesn't mean it's right.

Sure. And just because you believe it doesn't mean it's right either.

Originally Posted by Mario92

A better question would be, how do souls magically give meaning to life? Why can't humans define their own lives and own terms of existence? I'm with blueline. We give meaning to lives ourselves. By existing and thinking and developing, we define our own meanings and purposes. There doesn't need to be anything mystical or magical about the world to give life value. Isn't a thinking human being enough? Why do we have to so degrade that with notions of wizardry and souls? What does a soul even do, and why can't humans do it?

This is really very simple. If you have no soul, you were not created with purpose, and were simply born to die and rot that means you have no value. You are as worthwhile as the chicken I just ate for dinner. Just because you want to have meaning and a purpose, does not mean you have one. You can dellusion yourself all you want, it doesn't make it true. You have no value, and I can do whatever I wish to you, with or without your consent.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Well, a fetus is attached to its mother via placenta. It is essentially part of a host, too. And we're back to the potential-for-life argument, which has already been explained is bullshit. Also, cloning. Taking a complete cell and making a new person out of it. There's also a rare condition when women can fertilize an egg all on their lonesome without sperm.

Yes, it is attatched to it's mother. This does not change the fact that it has it's own seperate DNA and is not actually a part of the mother. A child is attatched via umbilical cord to it's mother even after it's born, but you can't kill a newborn just because someone has not severed the physical attatchment to the mother.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Look, you can test out your argument by assertion skills all you want, but you're really not progressing the conversation. At all. You're just saying things as if they're true without showing any evidence. I mean shit, Mario asked you for evidence of souls and all you came up with was an argument from the majority!

LOL, reality is reality. You don't like to think you have a useless existence because you don't like it. You can't show me any evidence that your life has worth. Guess what, I can give "meaning and purpose" to a pile of cow shit, that doesn't mean it actually has meaning. You don't have a soul? That's cool. You may as well go kill yourself now, because You. Are. Worthless.

Ohh.. and what meaning and purpose does having a soul give that makes life worth keeping out of interest?

Originally Posted by RooJ

Probably just me but i find 'human' life has more meaning in terms of us being souless than with soul. If we have a soul and there's an afterlife then what difference does it make if we live or not? Surely there's less harm done if an afterlife exists? Death wouldnt really mean death.

I think there's lots of meaning in life without a soul. To think that we're a part of this universe, not something foreign, made from elements created in the heart of dying stars, formed from the causality of the universe, and here we are debating and attempting to understand ourselves and the beauty around us... The universe trying to understand itself. I feel there's a huge amount of meaning and importance to life.

That's actually a great point, that because we have souls death doesn't really mean death. Now that's a good argument.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

LOL, reality is reality. You don't like to think you have a useless existence because you don't like it. You can't show me any evidence that your life has worth. Guess what, I can give "meaning and purpose" to a pile of cow shit, that doesn't mean it actually has meaning. You don't have a soul? That's cool. You may as well go kill yourself now, because You. Are. Worthless.

EEEHHH...
*embarrassed for buriedmonsters*
:-\

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

LOL, reality is reality. You don't like to think you have a useless existence because you don't like it. You can't show me any evidence that your life has worth. Guess what, I can give "meaning and purpose" to a pile of cow shit, that doesn't mean it actually has meaning. You don't have a soul? That's cool. You may as well go kill yourself now, because You. Are. Worthless.

Are you going to substantiate your claims? You can't assert your way out of a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by RooJ

Ohh.. and what meaning and purpose does having a soul give that makes life worth keeping out of interest?

Well, different people will give you different answers on that. Personally, I believe my soul was made by the Creator, and my whole purpose is to please Him and bring Him glory. That includes my life here on earth, and I think the only one who should end my earthly life is the Creator. That's what gives me purpose. Other people don't agree with that, and that's cool. I just find it a little silly to say that we are literally just monkeys with better vocabularies.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Are you going to substantiate your claims? You can't assert your way out of a logical fallacy.

Some things cannot be physically proven. Sorry, you will not be able to explain everything in life with the limited intelligence that humans posess. Prove to me that I don't have a soul. You can't. It's a difference of opinion, and it's okay to disagree.

Oh no.