This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why abortion should be illegal

Scroll to see replies

1.Only parasites have parasitic characteristics (that's biology).

All persons within the womb is of the human species. to say all fetuses have parasitic character, then all humans pertain that characteristic.

However, no human shares characteristics to that of a parasite. As posted earlier, there are several benefits for the mother during pregnancy. where as a parasite provides no benefit to the host.

Like wise, an embryo does not come from a foreign egg, but from the mother's egg. A key distinction or characteristic for any animal that is a parasite (as only parasites are the only ones who have parasitic characteristics).

2. Not all humans are people. correct, when we stand alone we are a person.

By definition, only humans can be a person or considered people. if you think otherwise then your use of the term is incorrect. please consider a dictionary.

3. there is no logical reason for any one of us to no be considered human nor a person .

4. self-concious ? are you speaking of a fetus at this point ? A person is a fetus until birth, by definition. there is not a single scientific, biological, or philosophical change that occurs at birth. If you so think so - please suggest evidence or support for this claim.

4b. you follow zodiac signs, I'm guessing?

5. what is rational: the simple ability to think or to use critical thinking skills to comprehend reality around us? even amongst adults the range of person's ability to comprehend is diverse - an individual in a coma can have less brain activity then a healthy fetus.

A fetus that has ability to hear voices from within the womb and recognize his or her own mother's voice.

5b. A blind or def or mentally challenged person does not comprehend reality as you or I. unless you fit into one of those categories (no disrespect). this adds more conflict to your claim and suggests out own abilities or inabilities do not determine if we are a person.

6. If we consider your statement, at its core...at its root you are saying that because this human is different ( looks & acts different) they should be treated differently and have no rights. that's a prejudice. Prejudices are illogical as they are an injustice.

7. I do not recall a post in which I indicate my self as being fine with killing animals. there are many people who respect all life forms. Regardless. a bear, dear, or other non-human life form is not a human ( which I guess your point in that question was in regards to eating other animals) . Since we are talking about humans - there is as there has been a difference between humans and other animals. we have always considered ourselves as different - then we should maintain out focus on Humans.

Parasitic as a descriptor does not literally mean that what you are describing is biologically a parasite. If someone is scrounging money from you, they are described as parasitic. They are not literally a parasite. They are analogous to one though.

Only humans can be considered as people, but what makes a human a person is not simply the fact that they are human. Human != Person. A person is capable of rational thought, as in can think, and are self-conscious, as in they know they exist. Fetus' are human but not people. People have rights, humans do not. There is no difference between killing an animal and killing a fetus, they have the same amount of rights.

I believe that if a fetus can survive without being in the womb, as in it can survive if it was to be born, it should be classed as a person. Which it does. At 24 weeks, which is the usual time they start to survive premature births, they don't allow abortions.

I don't follow zodiac signs? I'm sure many animals have more brain activity than a coma patient, but if the coma patient is on life support and cannot survive by themselves, it's up to the family to decide to pull the plug.

Blind, deaf or mentally challenged people know they exist, and are capable of thought. Rational does not mean they are smart. It means they can think about things, and think of reasons for them.

Forcing a person who does not want children into giving birth is very stupid, given that a majority of abortions happen extremely early in the pregnancy. I can understand why people would disagree with later abortions, but early term abortion is killing as much of a life as jacking off does. Also, I would think forcing a woman to give birth to a child they don't want is an injustice?

Reply 261

immigrant #963

Y'all want fetuses so much yet refuse to adopt kids.

What do you think happens to the baby if the woman is forced to carry it to term? The parent(s) can't or won't look after it. What happens then? You swoop in with your bible/Quran and rescue it? (But seriously, the Muslims on here are a disgrace, I'm actually cringing as I read through the messages. Abortion is 100% LEGAL under so many circumstances. Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. No one everyone thinks we're backwards smh).

So yeah stop shoving your disgrace opinion of forcing unwilling people to pop out babies and start adopting refugee kids since you want to do the world oh so much good.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 262

da_nolo

Original post by airportsh8me

1. who refuses to adopt? for myself you don't know if I am, have, etc.

Terrible assumption. especially when there are numerous agencies that not just help with adoptions, but families in general to make it easier to have a family.

2. if all women carry to term there is greater need to think and perhaps will be a greater thought in society about pregnancy and sex. To which a woman who carries to term may have a child up for adoption - however, since a child is most life changing event there is a chance for any couple to raise a child proper.

3. in cases in which a parent is unable to pursue parenthood, then there are ways to maintain the best interest of the child. As she/he would after birth and before.
There is always a way.

Reply 263

da_nolo

Original post by Shipreck

Parasitic as a descriptor does not literally mean that what you are describing is biologically a parasite. If someone is scrounging money from you, they are described as parasitic. They are not literally a parasite. They are analogous to one though.

Only humans can be considered as people, but what makes a human a person is not simply the fact that they are human. Human = Person. A person is capable of rational thought, as in can think, and are self-conscious, as in they know they exist. Fetus' are human but not people. People have rights, humans do not. There is no difference between killing an animal and killing a fetus, they have the same amount of rights.

I believe that if a fetus can survive without being in the womb, as in it can survive if it was to be born, it should be classed as a person. Which it does. At 24 weeks, which is the usual time they start to survive premature births, they don't allow abortions.

I don't follow zodiac signs? I'm sure many animals have more brain activity than a coma patient, but if the coma patient is on life support and cannot survive by themselves, it's up to the family to decide to pull the plug.

Blind, deaf or mentally challenged people know they exist, and are capable of thought. Rational does not mean they are smart. It means they can think about things, and think of reasons for them.

Forcing a person who does not want children into giving birth is very stupid, given that a majority of abortions happen extremely early in the pregnancy. I can understand why people would disagree with later abortions, but early term abortion is killing as much of a life as jacking off does. Also, I would think forcing a woman to give birth to a child they don't want is an injustice?

1. if you use analogy then USE/SAY something IS LIKE another thing. NOT a is b. grammatical it is different.

STILL my child is not a parasite. not in the womb nor out. living comfortable or homeless and needing help. A person calling anyone a parasite due to baseless opinion is not becoming.

2. does an infant know it exists? again there is no great mental difference between an infant a few days old vs. a fetus still in the womb a few days from birth. Though the science behind it is limited there is much we are learning about babies in the womb and so much more to learn.

3. self awareness is shared among many animals besides humans. how can a characteristic shared across species identify a person only at as specific time, especially when it can be taken away while a person is alive?

4. Many mentally challenged cant think of reasons for themselves. your frontal lobe (the decision part of the brain) doesn't fully develop until 20's which is why teens do the earnest things. still that part of your brain can be damaged (along with others) in which a person is incapable critical thoughts. Studies are ongoing to understand more.

5. Since there is no distinction that gives actual premise or cause for a person to being human then there is not a logical conclusion to say not all humans are a person. especially since the definition of person does not pertain a premise for your description.

6. " but early term abortion is killing as much of a life as jacking off does" this just expresses how much information you are lacking. a sperm is half chromosome than regular cell. Both reproduction cells and normal cells (such as skin cells) stay those type of cells. they don't change and the the new cells stay those type of cells. An embryo is the only time when unique cells not just grow but change into the cells that occupy your body. your cells today are the way they are because of how you developed as an embryo. only environment changes how those cells continue.

this is a beautiful and precious time in a human's life. our most vulnerable in life. to snuff it out is an injustice.

Reply 264

Horsedobbin

Original post by da_nolo

your sentence formation was confusing to me. your explaining didn't help. lol. sorry

Yes, unborns have relatives, such as uncles, aunts and grandparents.

Reply 265

Fenneko

There has been this frightening theme throughout history of humans defining a life based on their own convenience. It happened in the 18th century in regards to slavery. It happened in the 1940's in regards to the holocaust. I would even argue that it's happening now in regards to animal welfare. But the topic that gets dismissed most of all is abortion. It's put forward by many people (particularly the left) as the liberation of women; on the contrary, it has been, especially since the '67 act, the liberation of irresponsible parents who are not prepared to do their job.

I'd just like to respond to the first reply in this thread (the one that states it's the woman's body and her right). The problem with the autonomy movement is that it puts the woman's rights first. It seems to me that if you're going to insist so furiously that the woman has rights, then you cannot conceivably simply brush aside or sweep away the rights to life of the child.

And then it comes to the fundamental basis of whether the unborn child is a human life or not. Already people are triggered because I said "unborn child". They would rather use dehumanizing terms like 'fetus' or 'embryo', and that's what killers do, they dehumanize before killing their victim. The objective standpoint is that human life does begin at conception. This is widely regarded as scientific fact and it seems so plainly obvious to me that life cannot start at any other time. It doesn't start at 8 weeks, 24 weeks, or 32 weeks. To state otherwise is a subjective opinion, a.k.a. defining a life based on your own convenience.

Reply 266

tazarooni89

It's not just "the woman's body". It's also the child's body.

Yes, the child may just be a "clump of cells", but so are each and every one of us.
The child may not be conscious (for now), but if any of us fell temporarily unconscious we would hope nobody would kill us in that time.
Regarding the "right to choose", the parents already chose to copulate in the first place, knowing that pregnancy was a risk.

It's only in exceptional circumstances where the above wouldn't apply.

Reply 267

tazarooni89

I agree it's the best way to die, but for most people it would be preferable to actually stay alive.*I presume you wouldn't advocate making it legal to kill an unconscious person whenever one feels like it.*

Reply 268

Fenneko

Original post by tazarooni89

This is what they do, they speak from personal convenience. They couldn't care less about anybody else and retain the notion that only they matter. This progressive rejection that our actions have no immediate moral consequence is what's wrong with this country. We do things for pleasure and we do things because they suit us, and then we subsequently complain about it when it backfires. Irresponsible would be an understatement; there is an immense hatred among today's generation.
They will not talk about it.

Reply 269

da_nolo

Original post by Twinpeaks

The term "fully developed" is actually pretty self-explanatory for anyone with the vaguest education in science (probably pre-GCSE level) or a little common sense. Actually.

Common sense and vaguest education in science indicates that a embryo is fully developed as an embryo - not dependent on functioning as an adult.

Such a comparison is similar to suggesting that a lion cub should be able to hunt and act like a full grown lion. Scientifically/biologically we know this would not be possible.

Reply 270

Louise12307

In my opinion, abortion should be illegal. The fetus is NOT part of the woman's body it is IN the woman's body - that is not the same thing. Not a popular view amongst the radical feminists of today I am aware.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 271

username471863

"Pro-life" people are actually just pro-birth, and they are pro-birth because they like to control women's bodies. They couldn't care less what happens to babies after they are born. They are not offering to adopt unwanted babies and many of them are opposed to systems designed to improve the quality of life of the poor (many women who have abortions cannot afford to raise a child). Many also support the death penalty, war and unlimited access to arms. It couldn't be clearer that their stance has nothing to do with valuing human life.

Reply 272

Eboracum7

Too many people seem to think we should populate this world into oblivion..

Reply 273

Fenneko

Original post by WBZ144

The death penalty, war and gun ownership are just false comparisons. We're talking about the murder of an innocent being - THAT cancels out the death penalty for a start. Many critics of the death penalty, particularly those who oppose it on the grounds of innocents being accidentally executed, must subsequently oppose all forms of war, since war invariably ends up with innocents being killed for the sake of nations. I personally do believe it was right to fight in the Second World War. The first? No, but that's a completely different discussion for another day.

WBZ's accusation that the pro-life standpoint has nothing to do with valuing human life couldn't be further from the truth. It's the absolute seabed of the pro-life movement and anyone who's a compassionate individual. You cannot claim to be above those who "do not value human life", when you yourself aren't even getting involved on compassionate grounds. I do not care about your body, I do not care about your heart, I do not care about your liver, I care about what's in your uterus because that is an individual human being in there, and you just decided that you own the baby. This notion of ownership is non-applicable outside of the womb, so it cannot be applicable inside the womb. The only instance of when ownership was applicable was during the 18th century when slavery was prevalent.

If you're willing to argue that the death of a baby is more preferable to the adoption of a baby, then I have no time for you.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 274

Fenneko

Original post by Eboracum7

Too many people seem to think we should populate this world into oblivion..

> Implying that we tackle overpopulation with abortion.

Reply 275

Eboracum7

Original post by Joel 96

> Implying that we tackle overpopulation with abortion.

One of many ways.

Reply 276

Fenneko

Original post by Eboracum7

One of many ways.

You don't tackle overpopulation by terminating already existing lives; you prevent lives from being conceived in the first place.
For example, I think that the British Hong Kong period demonstrated a respectable approach by encouraging a 2 child policy limit - not what the Chinese have done when they made it a law, which resulted in 2nd and 3rd children being terminated. The British Hong Kong campaign worked and the country today has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.04 per woman). All you need to do is encourage a strict moral code, not massacre millions of babies, which really is the stuff of sixth form debate.

Reply 277

Rachel58

Original post by Louise12307

Well, sometimes there are bacteria in your body and you kill them??? That's wrong apparently, according to your opinion.

Reply 278

choleCcarknif3r

I think whether I agreed with it or not, it should be legal. I think I'm pretty happy with the current system in the UK. It's still regulated, and you can't just get one because you don't want a baby, and it can only be done at the beginning of pregnancy unless there's a serious reason as to why it should be done later