How to shut up people who are against abortion

[catfish]

I don't know how many times I have to tell you it's not a human or a person. It's a fucking ELEPHANT!

Didn't some guys around here say that it was a fish?

Catfish, it's your queue!! come on!

Dude, they don't need my help.
I'm still amazed at how some people still deny basic biological facts.

[NoraBrimstone]

So you think the pic I posted looks like a person, too, Catfish? Lol

[catfish]

So you think the pic I posted looks like a person, too, Catfish? Lol

Aren't you the one who stated that it isn't a human? 'nuff said....

Just say fish.

[pocaracas]

So you think the pic I posted looks like a person, too, Catfish? Lol

Come on, nora... genetically, it is a person. Just hasn't developed yet.
It may not, legally, be a person, given it doesn't have a social security number, but genetically, it is. A human being, different from the mother... sharing about half the genetic make up of the mother, but that's beside the point.
It's an individual...

Is it ok to kill it? not really.... I think everyone who does it feels a bit queasy about it.
But is it ok to criminalize someone who actually aborts, when that woman engaged in sex and got unintentionally pregnant? I think not. If the same sexual relation hadn't yielded a foetus, a few weeks later, the woman would just have her period.
Abortion is just giving the woman the option of going on with her life without such a life-altering surprise. And she can still have a wanted pregnancy some time in the future... one that provides a much better environment for that child.
That is... if she's not in jail for the first termination...

[NoraBrimstone]

Why would I call an elephant foetus a fish?

[pocaracas]

Why would I call an elephant foetus a fish?

You sly girl, you....


https://www.google.com/search?q=elephant...08&bih=652

[catfish]

Why would I call an elephant foetus a fish?

Why would you ask me if an elephant fetus is a person? I don't know.
What I do know is you caught me off-gaurd...

---

Soooo, is a human fetus an individual human lifeform or not?
.

[Sal]

The best examination of the subject of abortion I've ever read is chapter 15 of Carl Sagan's last book, "Billions & Billions." It's called "Abortion: Is It Possible to be Both 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice?'" I highly recommend it, and there's no point in me trying to re-phrase what was already said so well: http://2think.org/abortion.shtml

My own thoughts on the matter, that it should be permitted to a point and restricted after said point---and that when it's a medical issue moral issues take a back seat---are not groundbreaking or radical. As a personal matter, though, I do find casual abortion distasteful as a birth control method, and don't associate in an intimate way with women who are likely to use it as such. I take my stand on the morality of legal abortion, to whatever degree I take one, in this manner.

This conjures up the specter of predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor women they must bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up; forcing teenagers to bear children they are not emotionally prepared to deal with; saying to women who wish for a career that they must give up their dreams, stay home, and bring up babies; and, worst of all, condemning victims of rape and incest to carry and nurture the offspring of their assailants. Legislative prohibitions on abortion arouse the suspicion that their real intent is to control the independence and sexuality of women…

This is the view I most align with on part 1.

Sam Harris has the best position though, which I align also with:

Indeed, religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral - that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings. This explains why Christians like yourself expend more "moral" energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide. It explains why you are more concerned about human embryos than about the lifesaving promise of stem-cell research. And it explains why you can preach against condom use in sub-Saharan Africa while millions die from AIDS there each year.

We so callously defend a fetus, when our environment is literally burning up - shouldn't we, instead, simply have Family Planning and make sure this planet continues to be hospitable for humans? Just saying.

This isn't some Red Herring, if you're thinking that. We're 7 billion people, and if we don't weigh in what room there is for additional human beings and teach the gospel of Family Planning, we're only gonna increase suffering when the agricultural resources become stretched thin.

[CleanShavenJesus]

LOL, nice typo!

Shit!! Thank you for pointing it out, that is a bad, bad typo.

[That guy who asked questions]

I typically disagree with abortion simply because I define person-hood at conception and I usually hold the moral that killing is wrong. I don't see how anyone with a comprehensive knowledge of human prenatal development could support abortion to be honest.

And I fail to see how anyone with a comprehensive knowledge of human prenatal development couldn't support abortion. Based on the fact that you "define person-hood at conception" I think we can safely say you have little to no lnowledge of human prenatal development.

Actually, I think you're pretty uninformed on this. Fortunately, I have a college education in the human anatomy and development field so I really don't give two shits or three fucks as to what you "think" about my knowledge of human prenatal development.

To the argument, "abortion = bad but abandonment = better = hypocrisy." I would ask the question, what if the person that was killed developed a cure for cancer and you developed cancer? What if instead of being aborted, that same person lived but didn't go through life with their biological parents? Which of these is the better alternative for them and you? I think it would be agreed that life is better than death, even a life separated from your mother and/or father.

What of they could cure cancer? I can play that game, what if they could become a murderer? Murderers are far more common, you know.
And no, I don't agree that a life without your biological mother is better than death. Not in the slightest.

You're quite right, it is a game, but the metaphor was potential good vs. potential bad. I think it is pretty clear that the potential for good is much more likely than the potential for bad, maybe not in the sense of curing cancer, but as I said, it was a metaphor.

To the argument, "Pro-life individuals want to make decisions for others." I would say, this isn't true. Not for me at least. I can't represent all pro-life individuals because I am not many. I would ask the question, "What if someone had the power to legally end your life without your consent?" Would you be opposed to the ending of your life or would you simply say it's their choice as to whether they think your life should end? Any rational and sane person would respectfully tell them to put the fucking knife away because you have the right to your life.

Wtf is this here? Why would someone legally hold the power to end my life without my consent? Are we talking about if I lived in some backward country that still has the death penalty? That's an entirely different situation, because you're talking about an actual person with thoughts and feelings, not an unconscious bunch of cells. Pro-lifers are trying to make decisions for millions of pregnant women to ruin their vaginas as well as their lives.

No, I am not referring to the death penalty. I would explain the metaphor to you but I don't think it'd do much good for an intelligent respectful discussion, not debate because I am neither for nor against abortion. If you're concerned with your vagina, then get a c-section, which is actually worse seeing as how your vagina would return to normal condition after child birth.

The voice of the prenatal human is unheard and therefore we cannot ask them if they would like to live, but the question that must be asked is, "If you were in the position of the soon to be aborted child, would you want to live or die?"

If I was in yhe position of a soon to be aborted child I wouldn't want anything because I wouldn't have any ability to bloody think or feel. That's the point. A house fly is more "alive" than a foetus.

Abortion is better for a kid then adoption? Sorry but that makes no sense.

The "kid" doesn't get to exist if it's aborted, so yeah. Not existing is better than the mental fucked-upness of knowing your mother didn't love or want you. Also, keeping a baby just to give it away keeps children who already exist stuck in foster care for far longer, waiting for a family to adopt them.

To my quote, You consider a house fly more "alive" than a baby? Why do you consider a more complete and organized set of cells more alive than a fewer number of cells that are less organized? Would the cells of the fetus not become more complete and organized? Would those cells not become a conscious sentient being? You're saying that the fewer cells shouldn't be considered alive because they aren't a complete group of cells, but would you be alive without the cells that make you? You can't say that something isn't alive just because it's just masses of developing cells because you, in your current state, are nothing more than masses of developing cells. Secondly, you say I don't have the knowledge of human prenatal development but you seem to not realize that a fetus is more than a cluster of cells! A fetus is essentially a complete human body and isn't considered a fetus until then. Also all of the following are developed during the embryonic stage: eyes, ears, brain, circulatory system, complete cartilaginous skeleton, mouth, kidneys, liver, brain waves, reaction to stimuli and movement, a face, and hands and feet all of which is done within 8 weeks of pregnancy!

To the other quote, 1. A fully developed neonate-adolescent may not "exist" but that doesn't mean the being doesn't exist. 2. You're confusing "existence" and "living" the discussion isn't regarding the existence of an unborn baby. It's regarding to its life, so what you're saying is that not living is better than dealing with emotional distress from not knowing your biological mother, since you obviously don't give a shit as to whether the father is even in the picture. You've made it clear though that any child that is going to be without its biological mother should pretty much die though, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're more biased to death than emotional distress. Might wanna talk to a therapist about that. I hear suicide isn't exactly the best option. 3. I think you're pretty biased. You make a black and white option that if a mother gives her child up for adoption they automatically don't love them. This is nothing more than an assumption, probably based on personal experience, that is not a good argument for every person that considers adoption. It's also an assumption that any child that doesn't know their biological mother will be mentally "fucked-up." This cannot be a representation for anyone because each individual encounters a different life experience. Many people that experience intense emotional distress go on to live normal joyful lives, just as individuals who experience little no emotional distress from their parents go on to be very messed-up individuals. "What if someone had the power to legally end your life without your consent?" I gave this metaphor to give insight to a mind that can't be communicated with from one that can. The old put yourself in their shoes argument. Maybe you can claim that abortion is perfectly fine because of negative experiences from your own life, or someone you may know, but it doesn't make it true for all lives, the problem is that we obviously will never know because the aborted will never develop enough to effectively communicate with us.

To anyone who is pro-life because of delusions of "personhood":
Imagine I have in one hand, a dish containing 100 embryos, and in the other hand, a week old baby. Now imagine I have to drop one, and YOU have to choose which one I drop. Which do you choose? The dish, right? Right?

A "no-win" argument is a bad argument. All you're doing is giving the options of death and death. It's like how the god of the bible says, "do it my way or be tortured!" All you've done is give an extremely biased and disrespectful response based on your own opinionated assumptions.

---

Up to 12~15 weeks gestation, the fetus is noticeably a very underdeveloped or just a bunch of cells and an abortion is just chemically induced and feels much like a standard period.
So, up to this "age", it's not a big deal to abort. The fetus doesn't feel anything

Actually, at about 9 weeks the baby has a sensory system intact and responds to stimuli and is capable of feeling and is about ten times more sensitive to stimuli than an adult. sooooo...