The Abortion Issue

[Jack]

Because the law and society make exceptions for medical procedures that we don't allow non-medical personnel to perform. A doctor can cut open my chest in order to save my life. A guy on the street may not cut open my chest.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 I only repeat myself because I do not know how I can be any clearer. The difference is one is developing into a human life and one is not, the latter of which I do not care about. Why don't you explain to me why people who kill pregnant women are convicted of double-homicide such as Scott Petersen and a doctor who performs an abortion is not convicted of any crime.

Why would "developing " be the arbitrary point that you chose? Egg and sperm have the potential to create life waisting them is waisting the potential isn't it?

Why don't you explain to me why people who kill pregnant women are convicted of double-homicide such as Scott Petersen and a doctor who performs an abortion is not convicted of any crime

Can you differentiate between voluntary going for an abortion and having someone choose to kill you without your permission?

[LadiesMan217]

Why would "developing " be the arbitrary point that you chose? Egg and sperm have the potential to create life waisting them is waisting the potential isn't it?

They have zero potential without the other so while they are separate there is a 0% probability that a human life will result from them.

Can you differentiate between voluntary going for an abortion and having someone choose to kill you without your permission?

You are missing the point, in one case the fetus in question is a life and in the other case it is not.

[Sorreltail]

Unless the mothers life is in danger , I think abortion should not be legal.

[SoylentGreen]

LadiesMan217 They have zero potential without the other so while they are separate there is a 0% probability that a human life will result from them.

That's the point isn't it? They have potential to become life , exactly the same as the point on which they meet and become nothing more than a bunch of dividing cells. You arbitrarially choose the point after they meet.

You are missing the point, in one case the fetus in question is a life and in the other case it is not.

No the point is that one is voluntary the other is not.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sorreltail Unless the mothers life is in danger , I think abortion should not be legal.

Because a mothers life is more sacred than an unborns child?

[LadiesMan217]

That's the point isn't it? They have potential to become life , exactly the same as the point on which they meet and become nothing more than a bunch of dividing cells. You arbitrarially choose the point after they meet.

It is not arbitrary because that is the only point that matters, that is the point when life begins at its earliest stage.

No the point is that one is voluntary the other is not.

That makes no sense. So if someone kicks the mother in the stomach then the fetus is alive, but if the mother gets an abortion the fetus is not? It has to be one or the other.

[Sorreltail]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Because a mothers life is more sacred than an unborns child?

No , because the mother should not have to die either , would you let her die for the unborn child?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 I only repeat myself because I do not know how I can be any clearer. The difference is one is developing into a human life and one is not, the latter of which I do not care about. Why don't you explain to me why people who kill pregnant women are convicted of double-homicide such as Scott Petersen and a doctor who performs an abortion is not convicted of any crime.

I fully understand your argument. I have just disagreed with and refuted it. The fact that I disagree does not mean I don't understand. Don't insult my intelligence because you're dissatisfied that people see the world differently than yourself.

@The former:

But it is NOT considered a human life. It could be, potentially a human life given the proper circumstances (adequate nutrition, no complications before or during delivery, etc).

The same can be said for a compatible sperm and ovum.

Both are potential humans. Neither can feel pain, and neither has any brain function.

A compatible sperm and egg WILL develop into a 'living, breathing human' in the absence of contraception, and given the same things needed for a zygote to develop.

What you need to prove is why a fertilized egg's worth is any greater than a sperm and egg seperately, and not because of what it could 'potentially become' because they could BOTH develop into a human.

@The latter:

His wife was 8 months pregnant.

[SoylentGreen]

LadiesMan217It is not arbitrary because that is the only point that matters

I have nothing to add to Kames eloquent reply.

No , because the mother should not have to die either , would you let her die for the unborn child?

Sorreltail
No, thats just a cop out of an example. Lets really tax your morality by suggesting a more difficult scenario. Say, there is a choice either the mother or the child. Who dies , who doesn't?

[Sorreltail]

I couldn't choose either one of them to die.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sorreltail I couldn't choose either one of them to die.

So to get back to your first post

Unless the mothers life is in danger , I think abortion should not be legal.

It appears you have made a choice. If the life of either is in danger the baby dies.
You have stated your opinion that you are against abortion now back it up with a reasonable argument, Or preferably an unreasonable one that I can have fun tearing to shreds.

[Matt]

Aborting a bunch of cells to me isn't so bad...since it can't feel pain or think (if it could, I would have a different opinion). IMO, I don't understand why people are trying to fight for the rights of something who can't think or feel.

[Sorreltail]

Quote by: SoylentGreen So to get back to your first post It appears you have made a choice. If the life of either is in danger the baby dies. You have stated your opinion that you are against abortion now back it up with a reasonable argument, Or preferably an unreasonable one that I can have fun tearing to shreds.

If I ever had to make that choice I would let the woman have an abortion because she is already a living person and she is in control of her own body. In other cases where people use abortion as a contraception I think that should be illegal.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sorreltail If I ever had to make that choice I would let the woman have an abortion because she is already a living person and she is in control of her own body. In other cases where people use abortion as a contraception I think that should be illegal.

And why shouldn't that control of her body extend to what is within it?
What difference do you see with someone using a condom and some one using the morning after pill, Which in affect is an abortion pill.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Kamhameha34 I fully understand your argument. I have just disagreed with and refuted it. The fact that I disagree does not mean I don't understand. Don't insult my intelligence because you're dissatisfied that people see the world differently than yourself. @The former: But it is NOT considered a human life. It could be, potentially a human life given the proper circumstances (adequate nutrition, no complications before or during delivery, etc). The same can be said for a compatible sperm and ovum. Both are potential humans. Neither can feel pain, and neither has any brain function. A compatible sperm and egg WILL develop into a 'living, breathing human' in the absence of contraception, and given the same things needed for a zygote to develop. What you need to prove is why a fertilized egg's worth is any greater than a sperm and egg seperately, and not because of what it could 'potentially become' because they could BOTH develop into a human. @The latter: His wife was 8 months pregnant.

Tell me what potential a single sperm has by itself to ever produce a living person and you will know why my argument is not arbitrary.

And back to the other discussion on murders of pregnant mothers being double homicides. It makes no sense for someone to be charged with a murder if they kill a baby that is inside the mother and the mother is not charged with murder when she gets an abortion. You can't get charged for murder unless you kill something that is alive, but in the case of someone else killing the baby in the womb the baby is alive and the person is charged with murder, but in the other case when the mother gets an abortion the baby is not alive. So when you break it down as SoylentGreen said one is the mother's voluntary decision and the other isn't. Unfortunately, that is an absolute ludicrous argument because want has no effect on whether or not something is in fact alive, so either the criminal needs to be charged with something less severe like voluntary causation of a miscarriage or the mother needs to be charged with murder too, one of the two needs to happen.

[ShadowFox]

Tell me what potential a single sperm has by itself to ever produce a living person and you will know why my argument is not arbitrary.

The problem with the potential argument would mean that vasectomies, masturbation, and getting their tubes tied would all mean they are killing potential life. Each of those billions of sperm in the testes has the potential to become a human being. Each egg can become a human being. There fore, things where the sperm and eggs are killed would have to be considered murder as well.

And back to the other discussion on murders of pregnant mothers being double homicides. It makes no sense for someone to be charged with a murder if they kill a baby that is inside the mother and the mother is not charged with murder when she gets an abortion. You can't get charged for murder unless you kill something that is alive, but in the case of someone else killing the baby in the womb the baby is alive and the person is charged with murder, but in the other case when the mother gets an abortion the baby is not alive. So when you break it down as SoylentGreen said one is the mother's voluntary decision and the other isn't. Unfortunately, that is an absolute ludicrous argument because want has no effect on whether or not something is in fact alive, so either the criminal needs to be charged with something less severe like voluntary causation of a miscarriage or the mother needs to be charged with murder too, one of the two needs to happen.

Well, in my opinion, the law saying that it's double homicide should probably be thrown out. The only real time it could possibly be a double homicide is if the women was on her way to the hospital because she was in labor. Why it's there, i'm not sure.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Tell me what potential a single sperm has by itself to ever produce a living person and you will know why my argument is not arbitrary. And back to the other discussion on murders of pregnant mothers being double homicides. It makes no sense for someone to be charged with a murder if they kill a baby that is inside the mother and the mother is not charged with murder when she gets an abortion. You can't get charged for murder unless you kill something that is alive, but in the case of someone else killing the baby in the womb the baby is alive and the person is charged with murder, but in the other case when the mother gets an abortion the baby is not alive. So when you break it down as SoylentGreen said one is the mother's voluntary decision and the other isn't. Unfortunately, that is an absolute ludicrous argument because want has no effect on whether or not something is in fact alive, so either the criminal needs to be charged with something less severe like voluntary causation of a miscarriage or the mother needs to be charged with murder too, one of the two needs to happen.

Or you need to be consistent with your argument as you have been constantly advised to do so. The example you pointed out was an 8 month old pregnancy not the beginning of conception, two different things.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Halofan48 The problem with the potential argument would mean that vasectomies, masturbation, and getting their tubes tied would all mean they are killing potential life. Each of those billions of sperm in the testes has the potential to become a human being. Each egg can become a human being. There fore, things where the sperm and eggs are killed would have to be considered murder as well.

That is why I am not arguing this position, I am trying to say that trying to protect "potential" life is ridiculous, I am saying protect actual human life at its earliest stages after contraception.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Or you need to be consistent with your argument as you have been constantly advised to do so. The example you pointed out was an 8 month old pregnancy not the beginning of conception, two different things.

There are no inconsistencies in my argument, I simply brought up the glaring hypocrisy in the law regarding abortion and the cases such as the Scott Petersen trial as a separate argument.