The Devastatingly Controversial Abortion Thread

[Rozzy]

You "explained" what I had already mentioned before. And that is that a zygote has 2 sets of chromosomes while a gamete has 1 set, so fuckin what? Don't pretend to be teaching anything. What you should have explained is how having 2 sets of chromosomes gives the zygote human rights. Because in fact, skin cells, like pretty much all the cells in the human body, have 2 sets of chromosomes too. According to your "logic" then, that means if you happen to scrape your knee, or tear some skin from your lips for example, you have just committed mass murder. uummm... don't be f-ing rude. no need for it. okay so your whole speil on the 46 chromosones on the skin cells watever dealio, basically, there is a huge difference, once again. yeah skin cells may have 46 chromosones, but they only develop to be let me guess... skin cells. a zygote is more than that. as i have explained. i am not on here to pretend to teach any one so don't be a fucking asshole ,(excuse my language but well...) i am only explaining what i feel and what i believe. if you don't like it that is fine, but well learn to fuckin take in both sides... i have. i understand that pro-choice people believe that it is perfectly fine for the woman to decide what to do with her body. i myself just dont think it is right, but this is a moral debate. and as you should know, those are rarely won by either side. so you can decide what is moral by your standards, as shall i by my own. i feel abortion is wrong (unless the mother is in danger) and no one will change my mind although i do listen and take in people's opinions.

[Sandform]

but this is a moral debate. It is only a moral debate to pro lifers, most pro choice people don't have to worry about morals because we know it is just a lump of cells. Tomorrow lets have a moral debate about whether or not to pop a pimple.

[Schmaven]

I think that because there are certain situations where abortions are necessary, when the mother is in danger, when it's a rape-baby, or if there just isn't the means to take care of it at all; that abortions should be allowed. While there are other cases, where abortions aren't necessary, those do not account for all the scenarios. Generalizing something like that is just wrong, and is unfair to those who need one. Although you can argue that no one technically "needs" to have an abortion, as the worst that can happen is the baby and the mother both die. But death is inevitable, and we'll all die at some point in our lives, during birth is no exception. It should be on a case by case basis if anything.

[Scatterbrain]

uummm... don't be f-ing rude. no need for it. okay so your whole speil on the 46 chromosones on the skin cells watever dealio, basically, there is a huge difference, once again. yeah skin cells may have 46 chromosones, but they only develop to be let me guess... skin cells. a zygote is more than that. as i have explained. i am not on here to pretend to teach any one so don't be a fucking asshole ,(excuse my language but well...) i am only explaining what i feel and what i believe. if you don't like it that is fine, but well learn to fuckin take in both sides... i have. i understand that pro-choice people believe that it is perfectly fine for the woman to decide what to do with her body. i myself just dont think it is right, but this is a moral debate. and as you should know, those are rarely won by either side. so you can decide what is moral by your standards, as shall i by my own. i feel abortion is wrong (unless the mother is in danger) and no one will change my mind although i do listen and take in people's opinions. You failed to explain why not being a specialized cell gives the zygote human rights. Learn to take critical thinking.

[spockman]

The point is that it is in itself an independant life. That life is defined as being a species, therefore it is classified as human life.

[Sandform]

The point is that it is in itself an independant life. That life is defined as being a species, therefore it is classified as human life. Is an arm human if it has been cut off? (I'm not asking if it is a human arm, I'm asking if the arm itself is a human being.) If your answer is no... Then I suspect there is a portion of a human being that you consider to be what defines them as the human being. I'll go ahead and assume that portion is the mind. Until the fetus has a mind, it isn't human.

[spockman]

I would say once it's an independant organism, it is a sole person. So the humanity is itself, the part that is alive as a human. Not neccasserily it's essence, which I agree is in the mind.

[Scatterbrain]

The point is that it is in itself an independant life. That life is defined as being a species, therefore it is classified as human life. Prove it is "independent", and then prove being "independent" makes it have human rights.

[spockman]

Prove it is "independent", and then prove being "independent" makes it have human rights. Independant as it is an organism on its own made by reporduction that is classified as a certain species.. humanity. To proove that it has human rights is implying that you can even proove human rights exist viably.

[Schmaven]

I would see it as being dependent on the mother while it is in the womb, as it is still attached to her body by the umbilical cord, which supplies it with everything it needs for life. In a sense, it is more a part of the mother, than its own entity.

[Scatterbrain]

Independant as it is an organism on its own made by reporduction that is classified as a certain species.. humanity. To proove that it has human rights is implying that you can even proove human rights exist viably. You defined "independent", and according to that definition, a zygote or embryo is "independent". However, you skipped proving being "independent" makes it have human rights. Also, if I take a cell from someone and inject it into my skin then it's also "independent". I suppose every individual cell then has human rights, uh?

[spockman]

It is not in itself the base of the lifeform, a given cell that is. As far as it being it's own organism giving it human rights? If it is it's own life and a part of a species, then the only species it is is human. Doesn't a human being have said rights because it is human? And I also understand that alot comes down to my definition. I am pro-life by the basis of how I, myself, define a human or an independant organism within a species. Until I can be shown that my definition is wrong, I must be pro-life by my moral standards.

[Scatterbrain]

Wait a sec, who said anything about the zygote or embryo being human? It has no brain, the basis of our consciousness, how can you possibly equate it to a human? Also, you can take the nucleus of a cell and insert it into an ovulum, and it will develop. So any cell is a "base" of the lifeform.

[GestaltAlteration]

Wait a sec, who said anything about the zygote or embryo being human? It has no brain, the basis of our consciousness, how can you possibly equate it to a human? Also, you can take the nucleus of a cell and insert it into an ovulum, and it will develop. So any cell is a "base" of the lifeform. The difference between a zygote and other parasites without the basis of consciousness is that it will be a fully functional human being in a very short amount of time. To destroy a zygote or fetus is essentially altering an entire new consciousness from existing in the future. I am not against some forms of stem-cell research, which use zygotes that would otherwise be thrown away. I am not against abortions that save the mother's health or life in any way or rape cases. What I am against is abortions of convenience. The "oh, I fucked around too much now I'm going to go butcher [insert excuse for what's in womb] here." This "progressive" mindset that we can rationalize so easily what a fetus actually is. Women who have abortions will feel terrible, and there's a reason for that. I remain pro-life because I refuse to rationalize what the clump of cells actually are.

[Scatterbrain]

The difference between a zygote and other parasites without the basis of consciousness is that it will be a fully functional human being in a very short amount of time. To destroy a zygote or fetus is essentially altering an entire new consciousness from existing in the future. And that's what you do every time you masturbate or have sex with protection. In fact, even when conception occurs, millions of spermatozoon are still wasted. Same thing if you cut some skin and let it die. Those cells could be used for cloning, each one could become a living individual being. What I am against is abortions of convenience. The "oh, I fucked around too much now I'm going to go butcher [insert excuse for what's in womb] here." This "progressive" mindset that we can rationalize so easily what a fetus actually is. Women who have abortions will feel terrible, and there's a reason for that. That doesn't justify imposing your belief onto others. Some women feel terrible for having an abortion most likely because of all the pro-life misinformation that's injected into their heads. Also this: In a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[34] The APA revised and updated its findings in August 2008 to account for the accumulation of new evidence, and again concluded that induced abortion did not lead to increased mental health problems.[35][36] As of August 2008, the United Kingdom Royal College of Psychiatrists is also performing a systematic review of the medical literature to update their position statement on the subject. I remain pro-life because I refuse to rationalize what the clump of cells actually are. I don't need to rationalize anything to support choice, it's just a lump of cells until it's proved otherwise. If you are maintaining the position, for no reason, that those cells deserve human rights, then you really should start rationalizing and reviewing your beliefs.

[GestaltAlteration]

And that's what you do every time you masturbate or have sex with protection. In fact, even when conception occurs, millions of spermatozoon are still wasted. Same thing if you cut some skin and let it die. Those cells could be used for cloning, each one could become a living individual being. Sperms are haploid cells with half the normal chromosomes. Sperm is not developing into a human being. I was talking about zygotes after fertilization. Read what I said. The difference between a zygote and other parasites without the basis of consciousness is that it will be a fully functional human being in a very short amount of time. To destroy a zygote or fetus is essentially altering an entire new consciousness from existing in the future. Will, meaning it's actually developing at that time, not that it has the potential to develop. That doesn't justify imposing your belief onto others. This is a thread meant for argument, is it not? :/ Some women feel terrible for having an abortion most likely because of all the pro-life misinformation that's injected into their heads. Also this: So you deny that the aborted fetus would have been a child? I think that's why the mother feels terrible. In ten years they could have a nine-ten year old boy. Instead they don't. I don't claim that they develop mental health problems, either. It doesn't have to be that serious. Regardless passing these feelings off as misinformation is folly. I don't need to rationalize anything to support choice, it's just a lump of cells until it's proved otherwise. Biogenesis. Lifeforms give birth to like lifeforms. How do you prove it's not a developing human being? That's the challenge. If you are maintaining the position, for no reason, that those cells deserve human rights, then you really should start rationalizing and reviewing your beliefs. Honestly I didn't understand a word of this. I'm assuming your accusing me of having no reason for believing what I do. Over 50,000,000 infanticides and the resulting lack of those individuals to benefit society is one reason. The fact that a very, very low percent use abortions for practical medical reasons yet it passes off as an essential practice is another. Partial birth abortions a third, for obvious reasons. Fourth is the mentality it's seeding into this country, one where we can simply correct our mistakes by walking into a clinic and ripping out a "clump of cells".

[Scatterbrain]

Sperms are haploid cells with half the normal chromosomes. Sperm is not developing into a human being. I was talking about zygotes after fertilization. Read what I said. Will, meaning it's actually developing at that time, not that it has the potential to develop. Biogenesis. Lifeforms give birth to like lifeforms. How do you prove it's not a developing human being? That's the challenge. You're just defining "development" to conveniently fit your position. What's developing? Does it matter? A zygote is developing, if it's in the right circumstances. A spermatozoon will merge with a ovule and develop if it's in the right circumstances. You say the gamete isn't developing, I say the trip for the merge is part of the development. But developing or not, or what they will become, it doesn't matter, what matters is what they are in a given instant, and they're basically the same thing. The difference in DNA doesn't matter and I already explained that a thousand times in this thread. You can't decide the rights of a life form based on the number of chromosomes, having 2n doesn't make the zygote any more alive than a spermatozoon or an ovule, most every cell in my body have 2n too and I don't see anyone complaining whenever I "murder" some of them. This is a thread meant for argument, is it not? :/ I didn't say anything about this thread. I was talking about the pro-life position that no one should be allowed to have an abortion (with the exception of X special cases). So you deny that the aborted fetus would have been a child? I think that's why the mother feels terrible. In ten years they could have a nine-ten year old boy. Instead they don't. I don't claim that they develop mental health problems, either. It doesn't have to be that serious. Regardless passing these feelings off as misinformation is folly. When did I "deny" that? By the way, do you deny that if you hadn't used a condom last time you had sex, maybe one, or more, of those spermatozoon would have been a child? The mother feels terrible, because she's brainwashed to equate a bunch of cells to a functioning and conscious human being. Honestly I didn't understand a word of this. I'm assuming your accusing me of having no reason for believing what I do. That's correct. At least you haven't given a valid reason yet. Over 50,000,000 infanticides and the resulting lack of those individuals to benefit society is one reason. Abortion deals with embryos and fetus though, not infants. Also, there's plenty of orphans in need of a home so, it's not like we're missing out on anything by avoiding all those "potential lives". Reason invalid. The fact that a very, very low percent use abortions for practical medical reasons yet it passes off as an essential practice is another. I didn't understand, what are the practical medical reasons? But if the woman is consenting and the fetus has no functioning brain, there shouldn't be any problem. Partial birth abortions a third, for obvious reasons. The term "partial-birth abortion" is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The definition looks ambiguous and doesn't seem to have been decided based on medical science. Again, unless the fetus has a functioning brain at the stage of a "partial-birth abortion", this reason is invalid too. Fourth is the mentality it's seeding into this country, one where we can simply correct our mistakes by walking into a clinic and ripping out a "clump of cells". Their loss for wasting money and time on a procedure that could have been avoided. However, it doesn't justify banning abortions. One could use the same argument to ban many medical procedures/surgeries that people may use as cheap shortcuts and remedies in their lives

[GestaltAlteration]

You're just defining "development" to conveniently fit your position. What's developing? Does it matter? A zygote is developing, if it's in the right circumstances. A spermatozoon will merge with a ovule and develop if it's in the right circumstances. You say the gamete isn't developing, I say the trip for the merge is part of the development. But developing or not, or what they will become, it doesn't matter, what matters is what they are in a given instant, and they're basically the same thing. The difference in DNA doesn't matter and I already explained that a thousand times in this thread. You can't decide the rights of a life form based on the number of chromosomes, having 2n doesn't make the zygote any more alive than a spermatozoon or an ovule, most every cell in my body have 2n too and I don't see anyone complaining whenever I "murder" some of them. Development, or start of the process to creating an infant human person, starts either at conception or (as per the medical definition) ten days later at implantation. No development goes on in a gamete. You can dispute this with a biology teacher if you want. The idea that a zygote is no different than a skin cell, for example, is absurd. Correct, they both have 46 chromosomes. The skin cell, however, is simply performing a function for a larger organism. Only the DNA in performing the cells function is active. It cannot do anything other than be a skin cell. In a zygote the DNA is working for creating all human systems. It is the difference between a single-functioned part of a larger organism and an independent organism. Zygotes split to become part of a bigger whole rather than merely making two identical cells. By making the comparison between zygote and other cells I believe you're attempting to compare abortions with scratching your arm. I'm sure you agree the zygote is alive, but perhaps not that it is an independent human life. Regardless the zygote is a Homo sapien genus and species, and will not become anything different simply because it grows. I've already mentioned Biogenesis. When did I "deny" that? By the way, do you deny that if you hadn't used a condom last time you had sex, maybe one, or more, of those spermatozoon would have been a child? The mother feels terrible, because she's brainwashed to equate a bunch of cells to a functioning and conscious human being. Again, spermatozoon is like my explanation of skin cell to zygote comparison. It has a specific function. It doesn't even have both set of chromosomes to determine what the newly born child's features and tenancies are. It won't become anything in nine month's time. I don't know how else to put this. I don't deny it, no. I realize where you're coming from as prevention has the same end result as abortions. Ultimately prevention is the desired goal to reduce abortions. The difference is if there was or was not not a real, developing human involved. The mother feels terrible because of reasons I outlined in my last post. Abortion deals with embryos and fetus though, not infants. Also, there's plenty of orphans in need of a home so, it's not like we're missing out on anything by avoiding all those "potential lives". Reason invalid. You haven't made any concrete steps to prove embryos/fetuses aren't up and coming humans. So, likewise, reason invalid. I didn't understand, what are the practical medical reasons? Practical medial reasons: Danger to mother, anomily in fetus(such that the child would not live anyway). Other good reasons: Rape victim Most common reasons: Too young, don't want parents to find out, have too many children, financially insecure, blatant diswant of child. The term "partial-birth abortion" is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The definition looks ambiguous and doesn't seem to have been decided based on medical science. The term being clearly defined is missing the point. What I mean is taking half the infant out of the vagina and killing it, sucking out a fully or mostly developed infant through a vacuum and even leaving infant out to die. Some pro-choice people are against this. Their loss for wasting money and time on a procedure that could have been avoided. However, it doesn't justify banning abortions. One could use the same argument to ban many medical procedures/surgeries that people may use as cheap shortcuts and remedies in their lives I'm more of the viewpoint of making large restrictions on abortions over outright ban.

[Scatterbrain]

Development, or start of the process to creating an infant human person, starts either at conception or (as per the medical definition) ten days later at implantation. No development goes on in a gamete. You can dispute this with a biology teacher if you want. The idea that a zygote is no different than a skin cell, for example, is absurd. Correct, they both have 46 chromosomes. The skin cell, however, is simply performing a function for a larger organism. Only the DNA in performing the cells function is active. It cannot do anything other than be a skin cell. In a zygote the DNA is working for creating all human systems. It is the difference between a single-functioned part of a larger organism and an independent organism. Zygotes split to become part of a bigger whole rather than merely making two identical cells. By making the comparison between zygote and other cells I believe you're attempting to compare abortions with scratching your arm. I'm sure you agree the zygote is alive, but perhaps not that it is an independent human life. Regardless the zygote is a Homo sapien genus and species, and will not become anything different simply because it grows. I've already mentioned Biogenesis. I was talking about development has far as "potential" life goes. In any case, if you're going to use "development" in your argument, you must first explain why being in development gives it extra rights. As I repeated again and again, the zygote doesn't have a brain, it doesn't feel anything. It deserves as much rights as a zygote from some other animal species, or any other cell. Again, spermatozoon is like my explanation of skin cell to zygote comparison. It has a specific function. It doesn't even have both set of chromosomes to determine what the newly born child's features and tenancies are. It won't become anything in nine month's time. I don't know how else to put this. The mother feels terrible because of reasons I outlined in my last post. How does that make the zygote have any more humanity than the spermatozoon? They're both cells, they both don't have a brain, they both don't feel or experience anything at all. The mother feels terrible for reasons that are invalid, like I said, misinformation. Of course the mother may feel a bit bad because of attachments to the pregnancy for example. You haven't made any concrete steps to prove embryos/fetuses aren't up and coming humans. So, likewise, reason invalid. What? I'll put it in bold so you don't miss it: I never said that an embryo or fetus doesn't have the ability to become a human. That doesn't mean they are already like developed humans. Every second I age, I'm "developing" towards death, by your logic that means I have the rights of a dead human. An infant may have inferior intelligence to a grown human, but it still thinks, and most importantly, it feels. An embryo, and a fetus for some time in the pregnancy, doesn't have a brain or a functioning one. Therefore, it's existence is like that of a cell, or a can of coke, just cold action/reaction. So it's completely incorrect to refer to abortions as "infanticide". Practical medial reasons: Danger to mother, anomily in fetus(such that the child would not live anyway). Other good reasons: Rape victim Most common reasons: Too young, don't want parents to find out, have too many children, financially insecure, blatant diswant of child. And that's a reason against abortion because?... Excepting the one in italic, they're all good reasons to have an abortion. The term being clearly defined is missing the point. What I mean is taking half the infant out of the vagina and killing it, sucking out a fully or mostly developed infant through a vacuum and even leaving infant out to die. Some pro-choice people are against this. I am against that only if it's at a point where there's the possibility the fetus is conscious. Anyway those kind of abortions seem to be very rare, it's not very smart to wait until so late to get an abortion. I'm more of the viewpoint of making large restrictions on abortions over outright ban. Any restriction before consciousness arises in the fetus is unjustified. I only think an abortion is wrong if the fetus already feels, but I don't really care if people do it anyway. There are much much worse things happening all over the world. I'm done with tangents, from now on I'll just directly address the points relevant to the discussion.

[Carôusoul]

What's so great about life.

[hungrymanz]

What's so great about life. I refuse to acknowledge that your posts are normal again. Someone once said to me "if your parents believed in abortion, you wouldn't be here today." So I said "just one more reason abortion should be legal: I'm suicidal." and I took out a gun and pointed it at my head and he wet his pants.

[GestaltAlteration]

To review: Your argument is now based on the premise that the fetus doesn't feel or think and therefore there is nothing wrong ethically with abortion. Essentially based on the present. Am I right? My argument is that a zygote/fetus is unique from other cells (for reasons I've already pointed out) and the end result is an infant. Therefore killing the fetus is ethically wrong. Based on the future. I was talking about development has far as "potential" life goes. In any case, if you're going to use "development" in your argument, you must first explain why being in development gives it extra rights. As I repeated again and again, the zygote doesn't have a brain, it doesn't feel anything. It deserves as much rights as a zygote from some other animal species, or any other cell. I realize the zygote has no brain and does not feel. This is very true. But focusing solely on this denies how a zygote is unique. As stated DNA in a zygote is working to create human systems. Once this process continues long enough it will become an infant. The foreknowledge of what a zygote becomes, as opposed to a skin cell which becomes nothing but more skin cells, is sufficient to call a zygote unique. Essentially I believe it has rights because of this. Sadly it boils down to perspective at this point. If you have an outlook only in present than the reasoning will be a load of horse turd. Likewise, I who see down the line to the end result of a zygote will be appalled that you can't see why it deserves rights. How does that make the zygote have any more humanity than the spermatozoon? They're both cells, they both don't have a brain, they both don't feel or experience anything at all. I thought I explained quite well why a zygote is different from a sperm and I think even you now see how the difference in DNA separates them (or if you don't you never made any attempts at all against my explanation). Just because neither feels anything does not make them equal. That's only one of many, many factors. Such as one becoming a human being and one not. This reason seems overtly clear... Also the word "will" is appropriate here. It will feel, It will think. An infant may have inferior intelligence to a grown human, but it still thinks, and most importantly, it feels. An embryo, and a fetus for some time in the pregnancy, doesn't have a brain or a functioning one. Therefore, it's existence is like that of a cell, or a can of coke, just cold action/reaction. Again with your feeling point. Yeah, I get it. But that isn't a good enough proof of why zygotes are no better than clumps of cells. I really feel you skimmed over a lot of my points in my last post... specifically the first couple of paragraphs. which is why I don't really have much of substance to add... Frankly I need to go to bed. Got up too early. Will continue later.

[Jorge]

I think it's amazing how life forms...think about it. From 1 cell into billions to form a human being. That's just amazing. No one really stops to think about how that actually works. From 1 cell...into a whole human being. That's fascinating. Why throw away something that is beautiful in it's creation? Something that life intended us to reproduce..Life. A new life that's forming...

[hungrymanz]

I think it's amazing how life forms...think about it. From 1 cell into billions to form a human being. That's just amazing. No one really stops to think about how that actually works. From 1 cell...into a whole human being. That's fascinating. Why throw away something that is beautiful in it's creation? Something that life intended us to reproduce..Life. A new life that's forming... Will you think differently with 100 billion life forms crowding this planet? Something that life intended us to reproduce..Life. Quoted for incomprehensibility.

[Schmaven]

It definitely seems like it comes down to how you look at time. For me, I see time as a measurement of change. The future is an abstract idea, and does not exist. You will never be in the future, you will only be in the present. Because of this, the zygote/fetus only exists in the present. If it existed in the future, you wouldn't be able to abort it. Without sperm, there would be no possibility for even the zygote to exist. Same deal with the embryo. All living cells are alive. I believe it is consciousness that makes us human. And without it, we are just a bunch of cells. My entire body is just a bunch of cells without my consciousness. And I would have no objection to being killed if I had no consciousness, there would be no me to do any objecting. To say that a zygote has human rights, because it will become conscious in the future is treating it as something it's not. I see your point that it will develop consciousness if not aborted, but until that point, it is not conscious, and thus, not yet a person, who would deserves rights. I guess where we disagree is where the distinction between possible life can be drawn. You say it's at the formation of the zygote. I say you can't say it starts there, as so much must happen before that for a zygote to even have a possible existence. As stated DNA in a zygote is working to create human systems. Once this process continues long enough it will become an infant. The foreknowledge of what a zygote becomes, as opposed to a skin cell which becomes nothing but more skin cells, is sufficient to call a zygote unique. Essentially I believe it has rights because of this. A skin cell eventually dies, falls off, and is eaten by dust mites or something of the like. Which in turn are eaten by bigger and bigger creatures, all the way up the food chain. You cannot destroy or create matter. Everything was once something else, and is constantly in the process of changing into yet another something else. A zygote is just another stage in the infinite process of change. Because it will be human doesn't mean much to me, as everything that is something, was once something very different. The present is where we exist, and where we define things. Although looking to the future definitely has some benefits for anticipating outcomes of certain scenarios, it is purely an abstract idea, based off of our present experiences. Sadly it boils down to perspective at this point. If you have an outlook only in present than the reasoning will be a load of horse turd. Likewise, I who see down the line to the end result of a zygote will be appalled that you can't see why it deserves rights. Also the word "will" is appropriate here. It will feel, It will think. And I believe that similarly, it will have rights. But presently, it does not.