A big flaw with anti-abortion logic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

Franklinstein

I'm not arguing that the best form of birth control is abstinence. Because I know that is true. However, most teenagers in the world are stupid and do not realize this. Abstinence is not a viable solution to this problem.

In other words, I'm trying to deal with the situation after pregnancy is already established, not before intercourse.

You can't stop people from having intercourse, it will happen. I don't plan on having any abortions, because I can control myself, but most young people in the world(and especially America) just can't.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

Franklinstein

I'm not arguing that the best form of birth control is abstinence. Because I know that is true. However, most teenagers in the world are stupid and do not realize this. Abstinence is not a viable solution to this problem.

In other words, I'm trying to deal with the situation after pregnancy is already established, not before intercourse.

You can't stop people from having intercourse, it will happen. I don't plan on having any abortions, because I can control myself, but most young people in the world(and especially America) just can't.

Again. Instead of killing the fetus. Why not give the child up for adoption??

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Now, I know you're not suggesting all poor families would be better off dead, right?

LJS9502_basic

Yes, we are, but the difference is that we already possess the things that make us human, such as intellect and complex cognitive thought. Most of us also have strong relationships with other human beings. And, if we were to die, most of us would have people that would grieve over our dead bodies. I think that there are complex emotions and thoughts that seperate any of us, to any fetus.

I respect human life, I really do, I just see this as the lesser of two evils. There are bigger problems in the world, in my opinion, than the killing of a potential intellegent being. Like, for example, the exploitation and servitude of actual intellegent beings. And I think that by getting an abortion, for some, it can help prevent them from falling into a poverty stricken situation.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Franklinstein"] No, but I do believe that if a family would like to avoid that kind of life for themselves, and their future child, they should have the right to destroy a mass of cells that is only the potential for human life.Franklinstein

Yes, we are, but the difference is that we already possess the things that make us human, such as intellect and complex cognitive thought. Most of us also have strong relationships with other human beings. And, if we were to die, most of us would have people that would grieve over our dead bodies. I think that there are complex emotions and thoughts that seperate any of us, to any fetus.

I respect human life, I really do, I just see this as the lesser of two evils. There are bigger problems in the world, in my opinion, than the killing of a potential intellegent being. Like, for example, the exploitation and servitude of actual intellegent beings. And I think that by getting an abortion, for some, it can help prevent them from falling into a poverty stricken situation.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The mass of cells is human life in the first stage of development. I realize it makes it easier to call it a lump of cells....but in reality...that is still what we are.LJS9502_basic

Yes, we are, but the difference is that we already possess the things that make us human, such as intellect and complex cognitive thought. Most of us also have strong relationships with other human beings. And, if we were to die, most of us would have people that would grieve over our dead bodies. I think that there are complex emotions and thoughts that seperate any of us, to any fetus.

I respect human life, I really do, I just see this as the lesser of two evils. There are bigger problems in the world, in my opinion, than the killing of a potential intellegent being. Like, for example, the exploitation and servitude of actual intellegent beings. And I think that by getting an abortion, for some, it can help prevent them from falling into a poverty stricken situation.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

Yes, we are, but the difference is that we already possess the things that make us human, such as intellect and complex cognitive thought. Most of us also have strong relationships with other human beings. And, if we were to die, most of us would have people that would grieve over our dead bodies. I think that there are complex emotions and thoughts that seperate any of us, to any fetus.

I respect human life, I really do, I just see this as the lesser of two evils. There are bigger problems in the world, in my opinion, than the killing of a potential intellegent being. Like, for example, the exploitation and servitude of actual intellegent beings. And I think that by getting an abortion, for some, it can help prevent them from falling into a poverty stricken situation.

Franklinstein

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

Franklinstein

If it needs a cord to its mother to stay alive, then i don't really consider it "alive". X360PS3AMD05

Babies, until they're at least three or four, cannot fend for themselves and wouldn't survive without their mothers. As such they are helpless, and do not contribute to society and thus are useless. Following this logic, the abortion age should be moved to the time in which a fetus actually survive on it's own. Also, mentally handicapped that need constant attention from others in order to survive, kill them too.

If it has a heartbeat, is it alive? Yes. Therefor abortion is murder.00-Riddick-00

So can it live without the help of the mother? I mean, it has a heartbeat, why not let it live on its own.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What does marriage have to do with conception. Anyway that was obviously a joke....he didn't mean it seriously. Nonetheless....and I'm not saying anything about Obama's birthplace here...this is general. The requirement for president is that he is born in the US or US held property. Ie military installation. Not that he is conceived in the US. So it's not a good argument TBH.....LJS9502_basic

It is if your against abortion and think live starts at conception.. Meaning they are a citizen and it is seen as murder.. Either they are citizen and aboriton is a murder.. Or it isn't.

He pointed out the hypocrisy of birthers.. In which the vaste majority of which are pro lifers.. He pointed out that Obama was at very least concieved (ignoring the whole birth certificate already being shown thing) on US soil.. And if abortion is murder, and a fetus has rights.. It most certainly is a American citizen.. So either two things occur.. Either the fetus is not a human citizen and does not get the rights allotted for being a citizen.. Or Obama is a citizen of the United States... That was his point.. If you watched the video it was clear she concieved in the United States.. So yet again.. Either life doesn't start at conception, or Obama is a citizen of the United States.. If we are going to compromise from that, than life does not start at conception.. And is not allotted the rights that pro lifers are pushing for as murder.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

It is if your against abortion and think live starts at conception.. Meaning they are a citizen and it is seen as murder.. Either they are citizen and aboriton is a murder.. Or it isn't.

sSubZerOo

He pointed out the hypocrisy of birthers.. In which the vaste majority of which are pro lifers.. He pointed out that Obama was at very least concieved (ignoring the whole birth certificate already being shown thing) on US soil.. And if abortion is murder, and a fetus has rights.. It most certainly is a American citizen.. So either two things occur.. Either the fetus is not a human citizen and does not get the rights allotted for being a citizen.. Or Obama is a citizen of the United States... That was his point.. If you watched the video it was clear she concieved in the United States.. So yet again.. Either life doesn't start at conception, or Obama is a citizen of the United States.. If we are going to compromise from that, than life does not start at conception.. And is not allotted the rights that pro lifers are pushing for as murder.

i don't care about how people defines "life" a fetus develops its neurological basic system at the first month and a half, meaning it can feel after that time, the methods of abortion are terrible at best and make the poor future kid suffer a great pain, usually women don't even realize they are pregnant after its too late and the fetus is already growing so yes i am against an abortion past 2 months of pregnancy, the kid shouldn't suffer because some retarded kid that didn't plan before sex

i don't care about how people defines "life" a fetus develops its neurological basic system at the first month and a half, meaning it can feel after that time, the methods of abortion are terrible at best and make the poor future kid suffer a great pain, usually women don't even realize they are pregnant after its too late and the fetus is already growing so yes i am against an abortion past 2 months of pregnancy, the kid shouldn't suffer because some retarded kid that didn't plan before sex

Krelian-co

So fetuses are kids now? I thought the Supreme Court clarified this.

First off I'm catholic, but I have the right to say what i want here. sorry :)

What I don't get, and is, infact a flaw in your logic, is that textbooks on animals say life begans at conception. That is the moment the sperm reaches the egg.

How are humans any different??? The fetus is, infact, alive. It requires nutrients, it expels waste, gives off energy, and is growing.

Fundai

do you not see the fault of your own logic? we kill animals all the time, pregnant or not because they have only rudimentary thinking, self-awarenes and emotions. or not even rudimentary. What you are saying is that a fetus is at the same level as animals which we indiscriminately slaughter. I am saying it is even less than that due to its replaceability and due to the fact that it essentially is just a fluke of an egg and sperm meeting together most of the time.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

First off I'm catholic, but I have the right to say what i want here. sorry :)

What I don't get, and is, infact a flaw in your logic, is that textbooks on animals say life begans at conception. That is the moment the sperm reaches the egg.

How are humans any different??? The fetus is, infact, alive. It requires nutrients, it expels waste, gives off energy, and is growing.

lyeti

do you not see the fault of your own logic? we kill animals all the time, pregnant or not because they have only rudimentary thinking, self-awarenes and emotions. or not even rudimentary. What you are saying is that a fetus is at the same level as animals which we indiscriminately slaughter. I am saying it is even less than that due to its replaceability and due to the fact that it essentially is just a fluke of an egg and sperm meeting together most of the time.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

First off I'm catholic, but I have the right to say what i want here. sorry :)

What I don't get, and is, infact a flaw in your logic, is that textbooks on animals say life begans at conception. That is the moment the sperm reaches the egg.

How are humans any different??? The fetus is, infact, alive. It requires nutrients, it expels waste, gives off energy, and is growing.

lyeti

do you not see the fault of your own logic? we kill animals all the time, pregnant or not because they have only rudimentary thinking, self-awarenes and emotions. or not even rudimentary. What you are saying is that a fetus is at the same level as animals which we indiscriminately slaughter. I am saying it is even less than that due to its replaceability and due to the fact that it essentially is just a fluke of an egg and sperm meeting together most of the time.

scince humans are more than other animals that means our fetuses are more than that of animals, so your argument makes little sense. Which means that if we can say that an animals fetus is a alive at conception how does it make sense to say something different about human fetuses? And if your killing a living human it is bassicly murder.

I always get amused at these arguments. I'm actually for abortion being legal. I strongly dislike it, and would never want my partner to have one, but I understand the issue of women's rights.

However, my justification is a woman's right to her body. Plain and simple, you can't force someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

But I dislike the tact that many others take - to devalue life and pretend as if a pregnancy is nothing more than a clump of cells. You guys act like having an abortion should be no more concerning than having a wart removed. I disagree. I've had plenty of women in my office who have been or are pregnant. They always want you to feel their belly to feel THEIR BABY kick. To feel their child move. They are excited. Many of them have picked out names and none of themsay, "I can't wait for my fetus to become a person becuase right now it is nothing".

Women who have had miscarriages are devastated to the point of depression. Why, if it was just a fetus and not a person? They can have more children, but they get depressed because they feel they lost their child. One of my coworkers is still devastated that she had a miscarriage, despite having 3 other kids later on. Should I comfort her by saying, "Hey, you just lost a fetus, nothing important."

I have a friend who had an abortion. It was incredibly difficult on her. She's a good person who was just in a bad situation. She made her choice and has lived with it. But it certainly wasn't an easy choice. I think she still has issues with guilt and regret over it, but it was the right decision for her. Point being, if it was just a worthless fetus, I doubt she would be as upset over it. It'smassive decision. Don't devalue it.

I always get amused at these arguments. I'm actually for abortion being legal. I strongly dislike it, and would never want my partner to have one, but I understand the issue of women's rights.

However, my justification is a woman's right to her body. Plain and simple, you can't force someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

But I dislike the tact that many others take - to devalue life and pretend as if a pregnancy is nothing more than a clump of cells. You guys act like having an abortion should be no more concerning than having a wart removed. I disagree. I've had plenty of women in my office who have been or are pregnant. They always want you to feel their belly to feel THEIR BABY kick. To feel their child move. They are excited. Many of them have picked out names and none of themsay, "I can't wait for my fetus to become a person becuase right now it is nothing".

Women who have had miscarriages are devastated to the point of depression. Why, if it was just a fetus and not a person? They can have more children, but they get depressed because they feel they lost their child. One of my coworkers is still devastated that she had a miscarriage, despite having 3 other kids later on. Should I comfort her by saying, "Hey, you just lost a fetus, nothing important."

I have a friend who had an abortion. It was incredibly difficult on her. She's a good person who was just in a bad situation. She made her choice and has lived with it. But it certainly wasn't an easy choice. I think she still has issues with guilt and regret over it, but it was the right decision for her. Point being, if it was just a worthless fetus, I doubt she would be as upset over it. It'smassive decision. Don't devalue it.

sonicare

I agree TC. Any pro-lifer that masturbates is a hypocrite.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Life is not an affiliation with birthplace. It doesn't work that way. It's not logical. Stewart didn't mean it to be taken that way either.LJS9502_basic

He pointed out the hypocrisy of birthers.. In which the vaste majority of which are pro lifers.. He pointed out that Obama was at very least concieved (ignoring the whole birth certificate already being shown thing) on US soil.. And if abortion is murder, and a fetus has rights.. It most certainly is a American citizen.. So either two things occur.. Either the fetus is not a human citizen and does not get the rights allotted for being a citizen.. Or Obama is a citizen of the United States... That was his point.. If you watched the video it was clear she concieved in the United States.. So yet again.. Either life doesn't start at conception, or Obama is a citizen of the United States.. If we are going to compromise from that, than life does not start at conception.. And is not allotted the rights that pro lifers are pushing for as murder.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

He pointed out the hypocrisy of birthers.. In which the vaste majority of which are pro lifers.. He pointed out that Obama was at very least concieved (ignoring the whole birth certificate already being shown thing) on US soil.. And if abortion is murder, and a fetus has rights.. It most certainly is a American citizen.. So either two things occur.. Either the fetus is not a human citizen and does not get the rights allotted for being a citizen.. Or Obama is a citizen of the United States... That was his point.. If you watched the video it was clear she concieved in the United States.. So yet again.. Either life doesn't start at conception, or Obama is a citizen of the United States.. If we are going to compromise from that, than life does not start at conception.. And is not allotted the rights that pro lifers are pushing for as murder.

EntropyWins

I always get amused at these arguments. I'm actually for abortion being legal. I strongly dislike it, and would never want my partner to have one, but I understand the issue of women's rights.

However, my justification is a woman's right to her body. Plain and simple, you can't force someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

But I dislike the tact that many others take - to devalue life and pretend as if a pregnancy is nothing more than a clump of cells. You guys act like having an abortion should be no more concerning than having a wart removed. I disagree. I've had plenty of women in my office who have been or are pregnant. They always want you to feel their belly to feel THEIR BABY kick. To feel their child move. They are excited. Many of them have picked out names and none of themsay, "I can't wait for my fetus to become a person becuase right now it is nothing".

Women who have had miscarriages are devastated to the point of depression. Why, if it was just a fetus and not a person? They can have more children, but they get depressed because they feel they lost their child. One of my coworkers is still devastated that she had a miscarriage, despite having 3 other kids later on. Should I comfort her by saying, "Hey, you just lost a fetus, nothing important."

I have a friend who had an abortion. It was incredibly difficult on her. She's a good person who was just in a bad situation. She made her choice and has lived with it. But it certainly wasn't an easy choice. I think she still has issues with guilt and regret over it, but it was the right decision for her. Point being, if it was just a worthless fetus, I doubt she would be as upset over it. It'smassive decision. Don't devalue it.

sonicare

I understand some points, but wouldn't it not be murder if it didn't had a heart beat? Because it does take about 3 weeks for the fetus's heart to start pumping, so would that be considered murder or what?[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I always get amused at these arguments. I'm actually for abortion being legal. I strongly dislike it, and would never want my partner to have one, but I understand the issue of women's rights.

However, my justification is a woman's right to her body. Plain and simple, you can't force someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

But I dislike the tact that many others take - to devalue life and pretend as if a pregnancy is nothing more than a clump of cells. You guys act like having an abortion should be no more concerning than having a wart removed. I disagree. I've had plenty of women in my office who have been or are pregnant. They always want you to feel their belly to feel THEIR BABY kick. To feel their child move. They are excited. Many of them have picked out names and none of themsay, "I can't wait for my fetus to become a person becuase right now it is nothing".

Women who have had miscarriages are devastated to the point of depression. Why, if it was just a fetus and not a person? They can have more children, but they get depressed because they feel they lost their child. One of my coworkers is still devastated that she had a miscarriage, despite having 3 other kids later on. Should I comfort her by saying, "Hey, you just lost a fetus, nothing important."

I have a friend who had an abortion. It was incredibly difficult on her. She's a good person who was just in a bad situation. She made her choice and has lived with it. But it certainly wasn't an easy choice. I think she still has issues with guilt and regret over it, but it was the right decision for her. Point being, if it was just a worthless fetus, I doubt she would be as upset over it. It'smassive decision. Don't devalue it.

Dgalmun

even if the fetus has a heart beat it doesn't have a consciousness. In its state, a fetus is just a clump of cells. the closer it gets to birth, the more it becomes a person, both in reality and in the future mother's mind which is why miscarriage after spending so much time essentially creating a new life is so devastating. I just argue that just because a fetus is a closer form to humanity than a sperm and egg are, doesn't make it immediately worth an infinite times more. a week old fetus is barely out of its sperm+egg= zygote stage; why is it that people consider it worth so much more?

that is what is illogical in my perspective and that is what I argued for. But i constantly get people in here who believe this is some kind of emotional debate. This is purely a debate of logic, which is why i named it "big flaw with anti-abortion logic". Simply restating your beliefs and opinions doesn't work here, because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I am making simply a comment on the hypocrisy in people defining the line between life and death subjectively or according to their religious belief and then calling abortionists monsters and immoral because they did the exact same thing. It might be hard for one woman to have an abortion, such as the examples you gave. But some women do see the fetus as a clump of cells and I argue for their right to have a choice. Morality is inherent in this debate because morality is what often stops people from making this decision because others force about their own subjective views of the morality; such as the queensland couple in australia who were charged with unlawful abortion because they didn't follow the rules of a law from England that was made in 1861.

Your discrimination is obvious sonicare; why is it that a "good" woman would have problems with abortion. I know "good" women who don't have a problem with abortion. This is a typical case of judgement that the women who have abortions have to endure because people don't think logically but emotionally.

[QUOTE="Dgalmun"]I understand some points, but wouldn't it not be murder if it didn't had a heart beat? Because it does take about 3 weeks for the fetus's heart to start pumping, so would that be considered murder or what?[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I always get amused at these arguments. I'm actually for abortion being legal. I strongly dislike it, and would never want my partner to have one, but I understand the issue of women's rights.

However, my justification is a woman's right to her body. Plain and simple, you can't force someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

But I dislike the tact that many others take - to devalue life and pretend as if a pregnancy is nothing more than a clump of cells. You guys act like having an abortion should be no more concerning than having a wart removed. I disagree. I've had plenty of women in my office who have been or are pregnant. They always want you to feel their belly to feel THEIR BABY kick. To feel their child move. They are excited. Many of them have picked out names and none of themsay, "I can't wait for my fetus to become a person becuase right now it is nothing".

Women who have had miscarriages are devastated to the point of depression. Why, if it was just a fetus and not a person? They can have more children, but they get depressed because they feel they lost their child. One of my coworkers is still devastated that she had a miscarriage, despite having 3 other kids later on. Should I comfort her by saying, "Hey, you just lost a fetus, nothing important."

I have a friend who had an abortion. It was incredibly difficult on her. She's a good person who was just in a bad situation. She made her choice and has lived with it. But it certainly wasn't an easy choice. I think she still has issues with guilt and regret over it, but it was the right decision for her. Point being, if it was just a worthless fetus, I doubt she would be as upset over it. It'smassive decision. Don't devalue it.

lyeti

even if the fetus has a heart beat it doesn't have a consciousness. In its state, a fetus is just a clump of cells. the closer it gets to birth, the more it becomes a person, both in reality and in the future mother's mind which is why miscarriage after spending so much time essentially creating a new life is so devastating. I just argue that just because a fetus is a closer form to humanity than a sperm and egg are, doesn't make it immediately worth an infinite times more. a week old fetus is barely out of its sperm+egg= zygote stage; why is it that people consider it worth so much more?

that is what is illogical in my perspective and that is what I argued for. But i constantly get people in here who believe this is some kind of emotional debate. This is purely a debate of logic, which is why i named it "big flaw with ani-abortion logic". Simply restating your beliefs and opinions doesn't work here, because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I am making simply a comment on the hypocrisy in people defining the line between life and death subjectively or according to their religious belief and then calling abortionists monsters and immoral because they did the exact same thing. It might be hard for one woman to have an abortion, such as the examples you gave. But some women do see the fetus as a clump of cells and I argue for their right to have a choice. Morality is inherent in this debate because morality is what often stops people from making this decision because others force about their own subjective views of the morality; such as the queensland couple in australia who were charged with unlawful abortion because they didn't follow the rules of a law from England that was made in 1861.

Your discrimination is obvious sonicare; why is it that a "good" woman would have problems with abortion. I know "good" women who don't have a problem with abortion. This is a typical case of judgement that the women who have abortions have to endure because people don't think logically but emotionally. For example lsj, your arguments reiterated your point, regardless of what I said. You merely made the judgement that life begins at conception and are absolutely not budging from it, you are not using logic here in this debate which is supposed to be about the logic of morality, you are using your emotions. I am not here to argue emotions, because I simply cannot prove anything if we were to argue using emotions.

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

[QUOTE="Dgalmun"] Probably because of people saying you could potentially be killing the person who would cure cancer or some sort. LJS9502_basic

even if the fetus has a heart beat it doesn't have a consciousness. In its state, a fetus is just a clump of cells. the closer it gets to birth, the more it becomes a person, both in reality and in the future mother's mind which is why miscarriage after spending so much time essentially creating a new life is so devastating. I just argue that just because a fetus is a closer form to humanity than a sperm and egg are, doesn't make it immediately worth an infinite times more. a week old fetus is barely out of its sperm+egg= zygote stage; why is it that people consider it worth so much more?

that is what is illogical in my perspective and that is what I argued for. But i constantly get people in here who believe this is some kind of emotional debate. This is purely a debate of logic, which is why i named it "big flaw with ani-abortion logic". Simply restating your beliefs and opinions doesn't work here, because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I am making simply a comment on the hypocrisy in people defining the line between life and death subjectively or according to their religious belief and then calling abortionists monsters and immoral because they did the exact same thing. It might be hard for one woman to have an abortion, such as the examples you gave. But some women do see the fetus as a clump of cells and I argue for their right to have a choice. Morality is inherent in this debate because morality is what often stops people from making this decision because others force about their own subjective views of the morality; such as the queensland couple in australia who were charged with unlawful abortion because they didn't follow the rules of a law from England that was made in 1861.

Your discrimination is obvious sonicare; why is it that a "good" woman would have problems with abortion. I know "good" women who don't have a problem with abortion. This is a typical case of judgement that the women who have abortions have to endure because people don't think logically but emotionally. For example lsj, your arguments reiterated your point, regardless of what I said. You merely made the judgement that life begins at conception and are absolutely not budging from it, you are not using logic here in this debate which is supposed to be about the logic of morality, you are using your emotions. I am not here to argue emotions, because I simply cannot prove anything if we were to argue using emotions.

@ljs

there is a difference between a barely started clump of cells and a finished one with mental capabilities.

and no it isn't a slippery slope to use brain function as criteria because the only brain function fetus have is in the usually far off future in their development. many months after the allowed abortion period ended; when they are born and recognised as being alive mentally and physically.

a person with impaired brain functions still does have some brain functions. a person in a long term comatose state might not have brain functions working presently or even the future, but (s)he already had brain functions work in the past which mean that since he was once recognised as a person, (s)he is still a person. (s)he just might be a kind of dead person.

these points are pointless though because I am not arguing here that a fetus is alive; it isn't from any kind of criteria apart from the "future" criteria. I am arguing about its future value as a life which is the only way I consider a fetus to have value.

my argument is that a fetus's value as a future human life is devalued when looking at the whole reproduction process as sperm and eggs are the exact same thing except a slight bit of time and circumstance away from that state than a fetus is yet a fetus is valued so highly whilst eggs and sperm are not. eggs and sperm are just as important, except that there are a lot more of them than fetuses, but the thing is that fetuses, sperm and eggs shouldn't be measured quantitatively when talking about moral valuebut it is a habit which people aren't even aware of in this situation. you only need one healthy sperm and one healthy egg in modern times to make a baby (IVF) yet this is something people don't take into account in their perspective.

@ above post:my bit on masturbation is semi-serious. I do not consider masturbation wrong because I do not intend to use those sperm for reproduction just as women don't want to use the fetus they abort for reproduction purposes. I am not saying masturbation is wrong, I am saying that you could easily extend the logic of future human life value which people use against abortion to extend to masturbation it is natural for not every sperm to be a life in the future and it is also natural for not every fetus to be a human life in the future. miscarriages/deaths at birth used to be far, far more common in the past when women in bad conditions simply couldn't feasibly have high chances of a healthy birth. Abortion is the answer to what happens when society takes out the "bad conditions for mothers causes hard births" part of the natural process.abortion is an artificial process created by humanity to depending on how you see it, either fix a problem made by humanity's artificial health affluence or to recreate the problem.some see abortion as a recreation of the original problem, but the thing is that it isnt a problem anymore because its voluntary, nature isn't stepping in here and killing fetuses or unhealthy newborns in bad conditions, its people voluntarily stopping the future problems.

@ljs

there is a difference between a barely started clump of cells and a finished one with mental capabilities. and no it isn't a slippery slope to use brain function as criteria because the only brain function fetus have is in the usually far off future in their development. many months after the allowed abortion period ended; when they are born and recognised as being alive mentally and physically. a person with impaired brain functions still does have some brain functions. a person in a long term comatose state might not have brain functions working presently or even the future, but (s)he already had brain functions work in the past which mean that since he was once recognised as a person, he is still a person. he just might be a kind of dead person. these points are pointless though because I am not arguing here that a fetus is alive; it isn't from any kind of criteria apart from the "future" criteria. I am arguing about its future value as a life which is the only way I consider a fetus to have value. however my argument is that a fetus value as a future human life is devalued as sperm and eggs are the exact same thing except a slight bit of time and circumstance away from that state than a fetus is yet a fetus is valued so highly whilst eggs and sperm are not. eggs and sperm are just as important, except that there are a lot more of them than fetuses, but the thing is that fetuses, sperm and eggs shouldn't be measured quantitatively but it is a habit which people aren't even aware of in this situation.

lyeti

why do we need abortion when we have booze and cigs, also punches to the gut, it just seems we are getting a little redundant these days

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

@ljs

there is a difference between a barely started clump of cells and a finished one with mental capabilities. and no it isn't a slippery slope to use brain function as criteria because the only brain function fetus have is in the usually far off future in their development. many months after the allowed abortion period ended; when they are born and recognised as being alive mentally and physically. a person with impaired brain functions still does have some brain functions. a person in a long term comatose state might not have brain functions working presently or even the future, but (s)he already had brain functions work in the past which mean that since he was once recognised as a person, he is still a person. he just might be a kind of dead person. these points are pointless though because I am not arguing here that a fetus is alive; it isn't from any kind of criteria apart from the "future" criteria. I am arguing about its future value as a life which is the only way I consider a fetus to have value. however my argument is that a fetus value as a future human life is devalued as sperm and eggs are the exact same thing except a slight bit of time and circumstance away from that state than a fetus is yet a fetus is valued so highly whilst eggs and sperm are not. eggs and sperm are just as important, except that there are a lot more of them than fetuses, but the thing is that fetuses, sperm and eggs shouldn't be measured quantitatively but it is a habit which people aren't even aware of in this situation.

Nibroc420

here is my edit of that post which explains your question of why/to what extent I am using the masturbation egation

"my bit on masturbation is semi-serious. I do not consider masturbation wrong because I do not intend to use those sperm for reproduction just as women don't want to use the fetus they abort for reproduction purposes. I am not saying masturbation is wrong, I am saying that you could easily extend the logic of future human life value which people use against abortion to extend to masturbation it is natural for not every sperm to be a life in the future and it is also natural for not every fetus to be a human life in the future.

miscarriages/deaths at birth used to be far, far more common in the past when women in bad conditions simply couldn't feasibly have high chances of a healthy birth.Abortion is the answer to what happens when society takes out the "bad conditions for mothers causes hard births" part of the natural process. abortion is an artificial process created by humanity to depending on how you see it, either fix a natural imbalance problem made by humanity's artificial health affluence or to recreate the problem.some see abortion as a recreation of the original problem, but the thing is that it isnt that much of a problem anymore because its voluntary, nature isn't stepping in here and killing fetuses or unhealthy newborns in bad conditions, its people voluntarily stopping the future problems."

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="lyeti"]

@ljs

there is a difference between a barely started clump of cells and a finished one with mental capabilities. and no it isn't a slippery slope to use brain function as criteria because the only brain function fetus have is in the usually far off future in their development. many months after the allowed abortion period ended; when they are born and recognised as being alive mentally and physically. a person with impaired brain functions still does have some brain functions. a person in a long term comatose state might not have brain functions working presently or even the future, but (s)he already had brain functions work in the past which mean that since he was once recognised as a person, he is still a person. he just might be a kind of dead person. these points are pointless though because I am not arguing here that a fetus is alive; it isn't from any kind of criteria apart from the "future" criteria. I am arguing about its future value as a life which is the only way I consider a fetus to have value. however my argument is that a fetus value as a future human life is devalued as sperm and eggs are the exact same thing except a slight bit of time and circumstance away from that state than a fetus is yet a fetus is valued so highly whilst eggs and sperm are not. eggs and sperm are just as important, except that there are a lot more of them than fetuses, but the thing is that fetuses, sperm and eggs shouldn't be measured quantitatively but it is a habit which people aren't even aware of in this situation.

lyeti

here is my edit of that post which explains your question of why/to what extent I am using the masturbation egation

"my bit on masturbation is semi-serious. I do not consider masturbation wrong because I do not intend to use those sperm for reproduction just as women don't want to use the fetus they abort for reproduction purposes. I am not saying masturbation is wrong, I am saying that you could easily extend the logic of future human life value which people use against abortion to extend to masturbation it is natural for not every sperm to be a life in the future and it is also natural for not every fetus to be a human life in the future.miscarriages/deaths at birth used to be far, far more common in the past when women in bad conditions simply couldn't feasibly have high chances of a healthy birth.Abortion is the answer to what happens when society takes out the "bad conditions for mothers causes hard births" part of the natural process. abortion is an artificial process created by humanity to depending on how you see it, either fix a natural imbalance problem made by humanity's artificial health affluence or to recreate the problem.some see abortion as a recreation of the original problem, but the thing is that it isnt that much of a problem anymore because its voluntary, nature isn't stepping in here and killing fetuses or unhealthy newborns in bad conditions, its people voluntarily stopping the future problems."

this isn't a traditional abortion debate. I am focusing on one aspect of anti-abortion arguments. I could use a million other things but as the title of this thread says its about a flaw in one of the most used anti-abortion points. This isn't me doing anything other than that. That is why I focus on one aspect; because that aspect is the one that invalidates the argument of a fetus's worth as a future human life. I don't care about the other points pro-abortionists use such as women's rights or the typical argument: "the baby will not have a good life" which even I think is kind of a weak argument. I mean who are you to judge or know that. Sure its statistically true but there are always exceptions and how would you know if the fetus is or isn't going to be one? How would you know if being poor is so bad or not; Bhutan is the happiest country in the world but also one of the poorest.

There are huge problems with that kind of thinking which are disrespectful to a future life if you though a fetus=future life. What I did was i focused on what was it that made the fetus equal a future live in value and realised the same could be said of the abundant sperm+eggs which somewhat devaluated a fetus in my perspective. I am not doing the usual pro abortion balancing morality of future and present lives of the mother and fetus. I am looking at this from another perspective which focuses on other points so please stop bringing in the usual arguments for I know them all already.

All I need to know to support abortion is

- Overpopulation (going to be a major concern in the next 50 years)

- Rape isn't consensual thus the baby was created without consent. It's not up to us as a people to decide what one person should be allowed to do with the inside of their body (at least in my opinion) thus I fully support abortion even in non rape cases.

- The use of condoms and birth control pills have prevented millions of pregnancy's, the only difference with abortions is it's stopping an already existing process from forming. I believe it would be a crime if the baby was self aware at the time but before then it's honestly no different regardless until it's formed.

We don't need anymore babies populating this planet. Were on the verge of a 7 billion population (close to 4x what it was in 1927) we have people dying of starvation every single minute. How long can developed countries continue to supply resources to the large majority of their people? We are going to need a population cap eventually. Maybe we haven't gotten to that point yet but abortions will help, even if slightly. If people don't want a baby they shouldn't be forced to have one because people think it's "morally right" sometimes what's right isn't always what's the most beneficial and needed.

well i guess you can just make it traditional abortion debate thread after all. whatever, do what you will :=/lyeti

This is kind of fun to watch. Both sides supposedly using logic to try to persuade other, and neither side actually listening. Mindless arguments are so amusing.

When I look at how our society is evolving (based on personal experience alone of course) abortions, at one point, "became a realistic option" and further diminishes what we can define as "proper morality". New options pose new outcomes which lead to new consequences right? If abortions are allowed to be done at your local ER, is it wrong to claim the party involved "low-life's", scum", "murderers", or "lesser beings"? I feel that if people are content living in their current society they must accept what is legal/illegal in said society. Adapting to consequences accordingly. These debates pose no solution and merely show how far one cannot except responsibility's for ones actions.

If you had any understanding of life you would know a cell is also living...

I'm for abortion.

A if one dosn't want it then the child isn't going in the best place and just going become a problem.

B some people isn't ready for a child

C unable to take care of a child

D the mother life may be at harm

Shoot look at Utah and Georgia They are making a freaken miscarriage illegal. Why the hell can control a miscarriage? Then they making it even abortion illegal even if the mother life is at harm.

I agree TC. Any pro-lifer that masturbates is a hypocrite.

EntropyWins

I actually laughed a little when I read this. The qualifications/disclaimers circumvent the heart of the entire debate. Then the TC claims to find a major flaw in logic. I found that a little funny.

Oh, and also, a single sperm or egg, unless combined, will NEVER become a human being. A fetus needs between 9 and 10 months (sometimes less).