Abortion not allowed

[Brakeman]

It's like the tale of two fetuses.

One didn't make it to maturity because the egg didn't get a sperm, or a natural failure to implant or spontaneous abortion occurred.

The other was removed by a doctor and suffered the same fate.

But the first one doesn't give a crazy christian any reason to yell at fragile girls.

Normally, a free woman has the number of children she wants. She stops when she has enough, so any child aborted enables a child of timing and choice later.
................................................................................................

My mother had spontaneous abortions before myself and my younger sister.
If either of those had taken, I and my sister would not be here because there wasn't the prerequisite 10 months between the fetus loss and our conceptions.
So why would it matter which "human possibility" made it and which don't? We have plenty of population, humans are far from the endangered species list.

[Minimalist]

Yes, you are. Why do you think a bunch of cells with no brain is a human being?

Worked for this guy.

[Chas]

Yes, you are. Why do you think a bunch of cells with no brain is a human being?

Worked for this guy.

You make a very direct argument; no beating around the bush.

[Minimalist]

I see what you did there.

[Zidneya]

Yea, but still he has a point 91000 wouldn't be alive anymore because of it. In a small country like Northern Ireland it is a lot

Yeah I mean it's not like we have a serious global problem of overpopulation in this world right?

Oh wait a minute

---

He's a religious fucktard.

Any other questions?

Why is he that

I dunno maybe it has to do with the fact that he:

the new minister faces a number of highly contentious and emotive issues, including whether gay men will be allowed to donate blood

I gotta go with Minimalist on this one. Because let's face it. What kind of stupid moron do you need to be in order to think that there is something wrong with homosexuals dining blood.

[Losty]

It could be put up for adoption, I m sure any person would rather be killed rather than murdered.

Rather be killed than murdered?? Wtf is the difference? I bet a fetus doesn't give a damn either way lol.
And yes it could be put up for adoption. That is if the woman wants to go through a pregnancy and labor. If she doesn't want the kid I doubt she wants the stretch marks and torn va jay jay. Just saying.

[Jenny A]

How many kids have you adopted?

Or, as asked before, are you simply a busy-body?

Actually there is a shortage of babies for western parents, not a shortage of adoptive parents.
Only older orphans are unwanted. But I don't think that answers the moral question one way or the other.

---

Well I think it is the parents' fault if they get pregnant in the first place

I'm always reluctant to get into these threads because I tread the middle line and make no one happy. But if the argument is a baby is a punishment for sex, that is one fucked up world view.

---

I belief as soon as an egg is concieved it is a human being.

Gotta argue with you there too. A fertilized egg is not a thinking feeling being, let alone a human one. At very best it's a potential human.

---

So the really world teaches that murder is acceptable.

If there is no person involved there is no murder. A collection of cells is not a person, even if it might become one given time.

---

That is an opinion not shared by everyone. What makes it a human being?

Science says so

Really? If you mean it has human DNA, it does. Do you really believe that DNA without the physical completion of DNA make a human? That's like saying a blue-print is a house.

---

What I am saying is that by letting abortions happening you are preventing the child from having a say in their murder

Again. What child. A collection of cells without a brain is not a child.

---

Haven't read the entire thread so this has probably been said before but oh well. If you honestly believe that a foetus is a person with all the rights of a person then I fail to see how you have a problem with abortion. We wouldn't allow someone to kidnap someone else, hook themselves up to their kidneys and filter their blood to stay alive. Can you not see that by condemning abortion, you are giving foetuses special rights. You are giving them more rights than an actual person.

Ah, this is the argument where I get off the pro abortion bus. I'm not sure when that collection of cells becomes a person, only that it's pretty late and it has to do with brain development not cute pictures. But we give children special rights. We give them the right to housing, food, and education. We don't offer those as rights to grown-ups. Why? Because they can't be expected to do that for themselves until they reach maturity.

Who do we expect to do that? The parents unless a very good reason can be shown why it should be someone else and the reason usually is supposed to be in the best interests of the child. It is after all the parents who created the child.

So, what about that thinking fetus? Well until it's something much closer to a human than a fertilized egg, there is no moral question. But if the mother not only conceived it (voluntarily or otherwise) but kept it until it became something hard to distinguish from a baby, then yes she has a moral duty to deliver it. Is that a duty even if it risks her health or life? No. She's more viable and cognizant than it and therefore more valuable. But if she can deliver with minimal risk and she let it become human, yes she should deliver it.

[Esquilax]

See, to explain my defination you need to understand we didn't come from a fetus we were a fetus. By destrying a fetus you are stopping someone from living. Due to the fact that we use to be fetuses I belief a thing in any stage of this cycle is a human.

I guess this is the question we should be asking you: by all accounts, you are not a doctor. You are not a scientist. You are not a biologist, nor do you have any training in any relevant field, or even any facts on your side beyond an intuitive argument that doesn't even match up with how we treat human beings in the real world (if a human being finds itself in a situation where it has no brain or nervous system, we consider that person dead ).

Given the above, I'm curious as to why you think your uneducated opinions on this issue should matter at all, and certainly why you feel that they should trump anyone else's opinions, up to and including those of people who have actually studied and educated themselves enough to know what they're talking about?

[Chas]

Ah, this is the argument where I get off the pro abortion bus. I'm not sure when that collection of cells becomes a person, only that it's pretty late and it has to do with brain development not cute pictures. But we give children special rights. We give them the right to housing, food, and education. We don't offer those as rights to grown-ups. Why? Because they can't be expected to do that for themselves until they reach maturity.

Who do we expect to do that? The parents unless a very good reason can be shown why it should be someone else and the reason usually is supposed to be in the best interests of the child. It is after all the parents who created the child.

So, what about that thinking fetus? Well until it's something much closer to a human than a fertilized egg, there is no moral question. But if the mother not only conceived it (voluntarily or otherwise) but kept it until it became something hard to distinguish from a baby, then yes she has a moral duty to deliver it. Is that a duty even if it risks her health or life? No. She's more viable and cognizant than it and therefore more valuable. But if she can deliver with minimal risk and she let it become human, yes she should deliver it.

Very well stated.

[Bad Wolf]

Ah, this is the argument where I get off the pro abortion bus. I'm not sure when that collection of cells becomes a person, only that it's pretty late and it has to do with brain development not cute pictures. But we give children special rights. We give them the right to housing, food, and education. We don't offer those as rights to grown-ups. Why? Because they can't be expected to do that for themselves until they reach maturity.

I wouldn't call these 'special rights', we prevent them from dying by allowing these things. Just like how we look after people when they are sick in hospital, those aren't special rights, they are necessities.
I don't view using someone else's body to survive as a necessity