How to shut up people who are against abortion

[KichigaiNeko]

I would still say "It's none of your fucking business"

[That guy who asked questions]

This argument is one of the stupidest things ever conceived. The fucking 'What if?' Argument. Have you heard the one about Beethoven:

Doctor 1: "I want your opinion about terminating a pregnancy. The father was syphilitic, the mother had tuberculosis. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth also had tuberculosis. What would you have done?"
Doctor 2: "I would have terminated the pregnancy."
Doctor 1: "Then you would have murdered Beethoven."

Hopefully any person in their right mind can see how absolutely ridiculous this argument is. Whats worse is the facts about this argument aren't even true. Beethoven was not a 4th child at all.
[/quote]

You're sort of behind on my arguments. I explained the reasoning behind my "what if" premise, and detailed the question I am asking.

---

A fetus is distinctly different from a full-term newborn. I don't deny that a fetus is human, of course it is. A woman does not become pregnant with a cat or a salamander, but a human.
However, a fetus is incapable of sustaining its own life, in terms of having its own blood supply (meaning enough blood), getting nourishment, getting oxygen, etc., in terms of possessing the basic life systems enabling it to support and keep itself alive. This is deficient in comparison to a newborn that can breathe on its own, suckle and get food without inhaling and taking the food into its lungs. Hell, newborns even demonstrate they can move to reach a food source. Go to YouTube and search for "breast crawl." You'll find videos of newborns laid on their mother's stomachs crawling up her chest to her breasts and latching on to eat. In this sense, providing food for a newborn (breast or bottle) is very different than providing food for a severely premature infant, which requires medical intervention.
The earliest a fetus can be born and have even a 50/50 chance of survival is about 24 weeks gestation. Up to that point, there's nothing anyone can do, even the best neonatal doctors and hospitals in the world. In my view, up to this point the fetus is solely the mother's responsibility and burden. It is her decision to allow this life to grow and develop inside of her body, or not.
I'm all for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy. I say unwanted instead of unplanned, because an unplanned pregnancy isn't necessarily an unwanted one. I am not in favor of women using abortion as a form of birth control. This is almost impossible to police, though. Women who have multiple abortions thinking there are no consequences are mistaken, a woman's future fertility and ability to carry a pregnancy to term is effected by receiving multiple abortions. However, all forms of contraception have some percentage of failure. This means, even in cases where a woman has had a tubal ligation, there are some women who will still be able to get pregnant. Women get pregnant on every form of birth control, including IUD's (which often leads to miscarriage). We need better contraception. I think a very promising form is currently being developed. It's a shot for men that causes their testes to stop making sperm. It's still in development though.

Then why are we arguing? lol my only objection to abortion is in the circumstance where it is an escape route of responsibility as a result of irresponsible actions. I find abortion shouldn't be used in the case where a woman has willing unprotected sex, gets pregnant, and then aborts on the only premise of "I don't want a kid right now." I just asked the question, "Is it moral to terminate another human's life regardless of stage of development?" to provoke some thought.

---

Don't want to be called a killer? Don't kill another human...

I don't care if I'm called a killer by anti-abortion bro's.

But yeah, abortion is the one thing in that list that is out of place because abortion effects the fetus/human/whatever you want to call it without its consent.

Which I think is the biggest reason it is of such great debate, but it's mostly caused from the massive consensus that we all have a soul. but if we are all nothing more than a collection of cells that for some reason has a the ability to think and feel consciously and unconsciously, at the developmental stage of an embryo/fetus has no detection of pain then it shouldn't be determined an immoral action if we are all judging morality on the striving to human flourishing and avoiding negative human emotions, such as pain and sadness.

[rexbeccarox]

Question guy:

1. It's not about what makes us humans or people or whatever semantic label you would like to press. It's about whether a woman has control over her own body and whether or not, because of a natural human function, she should be saddled with the potential parasite, if you will, resulting from said function (which, incidentally takes two to participate). Please keep in mind, I'm only using feminine pronouns because men are unable to get pregnant, therefore, unable to have abortions (in case gil is watching).

2. Do you really think that being held accountable is the best way to raise a kid? Do you think that people should be punished for having recreational sex? Do you think that raising a child is an appropriate punishment?

3. See my first answer, but in addition to that.... do you realize women have miscarriages all the time? Like, we could have no idea we were even pregnant, have a heavy period, which unbeknownst to us, included (or was) a miscarriage, and we didn't even know we were pregnant? A large percentage of pregnancies don't make it to term.

I have nothing to say about #4. That's gil's.

Abortion has been given too large a platform, IMO. It's no one's business except for the people considering it.

Part 1 you are partially right and partially wrong, the abortion debate actually is still being debated based on semantics because pro-life individuals claim that the fetus is not part of the woman's body and is an entirely different "person." but the topic i'm debating is the premise, "Is it ok to kill another human willingly?" because regardless of whether you want to say it's part of the woman's body it is still a separate under-developed human.

To you're questions. Accountability is important but i'm not implying that the person must raise the child as a punishment for the sex. I'm simply saying that they're are many ways to prevent pregnancy, why should we add the issue of such controversy as well? I'm not referring to all women and saying that they are all irresponsible. I'm specifying a group of women who willingly have unprotected sex, get pregnant, and then get an abortion. That seems like a dodge to accountability to me, which I realize when it comes to legality, is almost a useless concept. Should people be punished for recreational sex? No, i'd be severely pissed off if so. I feel that you can be smart about it though and that if abortion were an option to the individual it should be more about morality and overall good for each human life, not an excuse. Does that mean accidents don't happen and condoms don't fuck up every now and then, of course not, in those instances I understand the viewpoint and I have no outcry against such choice.

Once again, my question is, "Is it moral to willingly kill/terminate another human being regardless of development status?" Miscarriages have zero relevance to my question because there is no willingness in the act. My own personal objections to abortion are only in the instances where a woman willingly has unprotected sex, expects to not get pregnant and then when she does, has an abortion for the simple reason of "I don't want a kid at the moment."

1. No, it's not separate.

2. You obviously missed my point about how women don't want abortions. They don't. Abortion is the least attractive form of birth control. It hurts emotionally, and physically. You're way off on this.

3. What gives you the right to have any personal opinions on abortion until you have to deal with one? That was my original point.

---

Oh, and in case anyone is gonna give me shit about my statement about dealing with abortions: I don't mean getting one, I mean coming to the decision. I talked extensively with the boyfriend that I got pregnant with, even after the baby was dead, about what we were going to do. He had a say. No one else does.

[That guy who asked questions]

[quote='rexbeccarox' pid='450472' dateline='1369625795']

[quote]


1. No, it's not separate.

2. You obviously missed my point about how women don't want abortions. They don't. Abortion is the least attractive form of birth control. It hurts emotionally, and physically. You're way off on this.

3. What gives you the right to have any personal opinions on abortion until you have to deal with one? That was my original point.

---

Oh, and in case anyone is gonna give me shit about my statement about dealing with abortions: I don't mean getting one, I mean coming to the decision. I talked extensively with the boyfriend that I got pregnant with, even after the baby was dead, about what we were going to do. He had a say. No one else does.[/quote]


When I say separate i'm referring to it being a completely different being in regards to DNA. You can't speak for all women and i'm not assuming that all women want abortion. I've done my research on abortions and the psychological and physical abnormalities considering one and getting one can have, so I know good and well the reasons to not get one. Do I have a right to have a personal opinion on murder even though I have never dealt with murder? Whether I have dealt with one, in which case I have dealt with one seeing as how i'm the type of guy that is there for my potential children and the mother of them as well, is completely irrelevant to my question. I think I've made it pretty clear on my view on abortion as a whole. I'm just simply wanting a response to the question, "Is it moral to willingly terminate another human's life regardless of the stage of development?" Why is it so hard to get a response? I don't even care what the answer is, it's a food for thought question. Nothing more.

[rexbeccarox]

Screw it. I'm done.

[Big Blue Sky]

1. No, it's not separate.

2. You obviously missed my point about how women don't want abortions. They don't. Abortion is the least attractive form of birth control. It hurts emotionally, and physically. You're way off on this.

3. What gives you the right to have any personal opinions on abortion until you have to deal with one? That was my original point.

---

Oh, and in case anyone is gonna give me shit about my statement about dealing with abortions: I don't mean getting one, I mean coming to the decision. I talked extensively with the boyfriend that I got pregnant with, even after the baby was dead, about what we were going to do. He had a say. No one else does.

If women don't want abortions why do we even have abortion clinics then ?

[That guy who asked questions]

Please quote me where I have said that I do not hold an opinion... because I have not made that claim. I have even detailed what my opinion is if you would read my previous posts. I have an opinion. I don't give a shit whether abortion is legal or not because it will not prevent abortions if I were even an adversary to it.

[Gilgamesh]

4. Gilgamesh, i'm sorry but that just seems fucked up to me. As I've implied, our DNA is what makes us human. It's the only thing that if changed would render us not human. That's why I think it's a human at conception. You're pretty much saying in your argument that it's ok to kill inferior types of humans. Ok, that's not cool, because that gives justification for racism. The racist believes that they are superior because they are a different type of human. I don't think racism is a moral action at all. Also, your argument gives justification for killing born children and babies and pretty much anyone just because they are on a different period of development (or are a different "type"). A human is a human, regardless of developmental stage. The question is "is it moral to kill another human?" I can agree with the conclusion of dependent circumstances but not on the premise that the killed is a different "type" of human.

It is okay to kill inferior humans that would only weigh on society and cannot express a desire to live. That does not give justification for racism, unless you think any given race is inferior. I don't.

---

1. It's not about what makes us humans or people or whatever semantic label you would like to press. It's about whether a woman has control over her own body and whether or not, because of a natural human function, she should be saddled with the potential parasite, if you will, resulting from said function (which, incidentally takes two to participate). Please keep in mind, I'm only using feminine pronouns because men are unable to get pregnant, therefore, unable to have abortions (in case gil is watching).

Why are you mentioning a specific sex? Why can't it just be "humans should have control over their own body."

By the way, it's that parasite inside of the woman that anti-abortion people are worried about; not the woman.

[Esquilax]

If women don't want abortions why do we even have abortion clinics then ?

For the same reasons we have chemotherapy treatments. Unless you're under the impression that people want poison pumped into their body?

[catfish]

I think I've made it pretty clear on my view on abortion as a whole. I'm just simply wanting a response to the question, "Is it moral to willingly terminate another human's life regardless of the stage of development?" Why is it so hard to get a response? I don't even care what the answer is, it's a food for thought question. Nothing more.

Cognitive dissonance is most likely the reason you won't get a response. Call a fetus or zygote a parasite or a clump of cells and everyone says how it's morally OK to terminate it, but call a zygote/fetus an individual human and they run...