[Alevelsareboring]

I really don't see how people believe they have a leg to stand on in this debate. Yes i know i am a guy and do not know what it's like to bear a child and i do not know what it's like raise a child etc, and i fully accept and comprehend your argument but what does that mean? There are obvious hardships one will face in raising a child etc so i can understand someone backing out and taking the easy option but what that person cannot deny is that it is murder...plain and simple.

A baby of 1 week old has the potential to grow into a conscious adult, the same way "a clump of cells" as stupid girls like to call it, has the potential to grow into a little child and then adult. In my opinion getting an abortion is the same as walking up to someone and killing them, the only difference is, is that you can hear their screams. While a person can reason with you and make you feel guilt the baby cannot.

Whether a women is 1 week into her pregnancy or 4 months it makes no difference, i hear people spouting this like it makes a difference "ahh i had an abortion at 1 week so no biggie" there is no difference it is still murder. This is a debate so i appreciate your arguments against this, however wrong they will be, i will appreciate them.

[Gews]

It's honestly not the same. It depends on the stage of the fetus' development. That's why they don't allow abortions after a certain period.



By your logic, I'm killing babies every time I jack off.

[Alevelsareboring]

(Original post by Gews)
It's honestly not the same. It depends on the stage of the fetus' development. That's why they don't allow abortions after a certain period.



By your logic, I'm killing babies every time I jack off.

Not really, when a female is pregnant a baby is in the beginning stages of its formation. When you jack off which as a guy i do obviously you are not killing because your sperm is not a child. Your sperm joined with the female egg is a child which will develop into a conscious being like you and me.

[jerseymackem]

I agree, life is life is life.

[dan673]

Killing a foetus (that has yet to develop proper sensory/brain systems etc) causes less suffering than killing a human. You could argue that it's murder, but you would lower the significance of the term and therefore have to justify it better than that and give more weight to the argument. I could say that taking antibiotics is technically murder (as you're saying it is for abortion), but it wouldn't stop you from taking them. Spouting "but it's murder!" on its own doesn't mean anything, and there's nothing else to your argument besides saying what we already know.

[Pwhiskers]

One argument is that it is not murder until the fetus is viable. That is, if you take a one week pregnancy ("clump of cells") out of the womb, it's not going to live, therefore it is argued it is not properly "alive" yet.

[PinkMobilePhone]

In other words :



I agree with you, but on TSR you won't get many who share your sentiment. Some will, but only the very small minority. TSR is largely full of pro-choicers.

[KillForOreos]

It isn't in any way, murder.

[jerseymackem]

(Original post by whitestgirlalive)
It isn't in any way, murder.

How? You're ending the life of a human. Would you end a new born baby's life? It's probably not sentient, can't walk, can't talk, it can't even feed itself without help. It is, essentially, little more than an animal.

[For The Love Of Giraffe]

I think the main difference is that an adult can survive on their own and are self-reliant, whereas a baby NEEDS the mother to survive and cannot without it, so it is effectively reliant on her so people believe she should have a choice with what she does to her body. If she doesn't want a baby in her body, aborting it is kind of different to killing someone who is not attached to her and is completely independent to her.

That's the best argument I can think of against your one. I don't fully agree with it, but yeah, only thing I can think of to oppose it.

[DontBeJelBeReem]

This is too normative to have a useful discussion, even if we do have a useful discussion, what the **** does it achieve? Nothing.
/thread

[Cmmah]

The only time abortion should be legal should be pregnancy from rape, or if carrying or giving birth to the child poses a serious health risk to the mother.
It's TSR though, OP. You probably won't get many people who agree with you.

[blueray]

If they want to kill their future kids, I say they would be **** parents in the first place, let them. World will be over populated in the future anyway so this helps.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by whitestgirlalive)
It isn't in any way, murder.

Correct. However, if you can provide a clear definition of murder without looking up, you'll struggle. I could have a toddler always crying his/her eyes out, and launch him/her against the wall, suffer horrific injuries and dies. My intention would be to shut the baby up and I'll only be prosecuted for manslaughter but that's English law for you.

(Original post by For The Love Of Giraffe)
I think the main difference is that an adult can survive on their own and are self-reliant, whereas a baby NEEDS the mother to survive and cannot without it, so it is effectively reliant on her so people believe she should have a choice with what she does to her body. If she doesn't want a baby in her body, aborting it is kind of different to killing someone who is not attached to her and is completely independent to her.

That's the best argument I can think of against your one. I don't fully agree with it, but yeah, only thing I can think of to oppose it.

A newborn child cannot survive on its own anyway. A newborn may be physically independent of its mother, but independence ends there. The sovereignty of the body is a joke argument because often I've seen pro-abortion advocates suddenly abandon the idea when the drugs debate comes up, as I saw one person suffering a moral panic over the mephedrone fiasco. I couldn't even get a tattoo done when I was 16 but the opposite sex could seek an abortion. Where's the bodily sovereignty there then? To make it worse it's legally permissible for a male minor to undergo circumcision for non-medical reasons.

(Original post by jerseymackem)
How? You're ending the life of a human. Would you end a new born baby's life? It's probably not sentient, can't walk, can't talk, it can't even feed itself without help. It is, essentially, little more than an animal.

Agreed. However, there are other instances of killing that's not considered in the same light, perhaps even trivially, such as vehicular homicide and corporal manslaughter (e.g. Zebrugge catastrophe).

[Darkphilosopher]

If it's living off the mother then the mother has every right to terminate it. (Within limits)

[madders94]

(Original post by Alevelsareboring)
I really don't see how people believe they have a leg to stand on in this debate. Yes i know i am a guy and do not know what it's like to bear a child and i do not know what it's like raise a child etc, and i fully accept and comprehend your argument but what does that mean? There are obvious hardships one will face in raising a child etc so i can understand someone backing out and taking the easy option but what that person cannot deny is that it is murder...plain and simple.

A baby of 1 week old has the potential to grow into a conscious adult, the same way "a clump of cells" as stupid girls like to call it, has the potential to grow into a little child and then adult. In my opinion getting an abortion is the same as walking up to someone and killing them, the only difference is, is that you can hear their screams. While a person can reason with you and make you feel guilt the baby cannot.

Whether a women is 1 week into her pregnancy or 4 months it makes no difference, i hear people spouting this like it makes a difference "ahh i had an abortion at 1 week so no biggie" there is no difference it is still murder. This is a debate so i appreciate your arguments against this, however wrong they will be, i will appreciate them.

A week-old fetus has the POTENTIAL to grow into a conscious adult; a conscious adult IS a conscious adult - the clue is in the difference between those two, you can't compare killing someone alive to killing something that has the potential to be alive but, for now, aborting is just the equivalent of taking antibiotics to get rid of an infection.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Alevelsareboring)
I really don't see how people believe they have a leg to stand on in this debate. Yes i know i am a guy and do not know what it's like to bear a child and i do not know what it's like raise a child etc, and i fully accept and comprehend your argument but what does that mean? There are obvious hardships one will face in raising a child etc so i can understand someone backing out and taking the easy option but what that person cannot deny is that it is murder...plain and simple.

A baby of 1 week old has the potential to grow into a conscious adult, the same way "a clump of cells" as stupid girls like to call it, has the potential to grow into a little child and then adult. In my opinion getting an abortion is the same as walking up to someone and killing them, the only difference is, is that you can hear their screams. While a person can reason with you and make you feel guilt the baby cannot.

Whether a women is 1 week into her pregnancy or 4 months it makes no difference, i hear people spouting this like it makes a difference "ahh i had an abortion at 1 week so no biggie" there is no difference it is still murder. This is a debate so i appreciate your arguments against this, however wrong they will be, i will appreciate them.

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~melissa3/.../postnatal.htm
this should appeal to you

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by madders94)
A week-old fetus has the POTENTIAL to grow into a conscious adult; a conscious adult IS a conscious adult - the clue is in the difference between those two, you can't compare killing someone alive to killing something that has the potential to be alive but, for now, aborting is just the equivalent of taking antibiotics to get rid of an infection.

So are you suggesting that people born who are not fully conscious are also not in the same light? What about humans who have not fully developed sentience, such as the mentally disabled then? I had no idea a non-living entity could grow though.

[madders94]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
So are you suggesting that people born who are not fully conscious are also not in the same light? What about humans who have not fully developed sentience, such as the mentally disabled then? I had no idea a non-living entity could grow though.

No, it's the potential to become a life that is the most important thing, the consciousness was referring to the OP who seemed to consider it important that consciousness was mentioned.

I don't believe that life begins at conception, I believe that it begins once the fetus is capable of surviving outside the body - that is, beyond the legal limit for abortions (potentially not including for medical reasons because apparently that's 24 weeks but some survive at 23 weeks and whatever). "Grow" was used metaphorically, I'll use "become" a life if you want to be pedantic.

[Annoying-Mouse]

I am of the opinion that life starts at fertilization based on the fact that it's a commonly accepted biological definition of human life. I believe it's arbitrary to dictate at which stage of human development (which by the way doesn't suddenly stop post-birth and goes beyond teenage years although to death) is worthy of moral consideration. Fetal viability is a subjective definition and dependent on medical technology.

However, I do think a exception can be made for rape victims after reading about the violin experiment.