Why abortion is wrong.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 260

da_nolo

Original post by Donald Duck

And we have beaten, murdered and fought since we existed. During most of which we kept slaves. Perfectly natural.

what ever

your point?

At the age of 34, Marcus got cancer. Life is a natural cycle, and it was his turn to die.
Instead, he broke that cycle, by going to the doctor. He defeated the cancer, and lived to 92 years of age.

lets go over this statement. the natural cycle is not interrupted. that's my entire point. cancer and any disease is natural. that's why if you die from it, a doctor/coroner will state that you died from natural causes. if you interrupt that process - you are not preventing the natural cycle, since you will still die. the body tries to defeat all illnesses. humans have always wanted to defeat illnesses or what ails them. natural desire to live. therefore the act to cure an illness - what ever that illness may be - is natural.

the only thing that interrupts a natural cycle of anything is outside influence. for the life cycle, this is known as homicide. that's why doctors/corners do not/can not say you died from natural causes when you are killed. that's not natural.

I disagree with the o.p. and stated so. A patient defeating cancer is an example of breaking a natural cycle.

all the bad things that happen is not an excuse/reason to allow them to happen - nor abortion.

Hype en Ecosse

it is not logical to say that an attempt to heal the sick early in our evolutionary lineage means that our current methods of treating cancer are natural.

it appears you are still having issues with this part. I said act not method. using electricity or what ever magic to consume food does not matter, the act of consuming food does. the method of leeches or what ever magic to heal one self does not matter, the act of trying to heal does.

I may try a different word than "act". replace it with "effort".

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 261

FiniteMr

Original post by da_nolo

what ever

your point?

lets go over this statement. the natural cycle is not interrupted. that's my entire point. cancer and any disease is natural. that's why if you die from it, a doctor/coroner will state that you died from natural causes. if you interrupt that process - you are not preventing a natural cycle. the body is tries to defeat all illnesses. humans have always wanted to defeat illnesses or what ails them. natural desire to live.

the only thing that interrupts the natural cycle of anything is outside influence. for the life cycle, this is known as homicide. that's why doctors/corners legally can not say you died from natural causes when you are murdered. that's not natural.

I disagree with the o.p. and stated so. I do not think that a patient defeating cancer is an example of breaking a natural cycle. all the bad things that happen is not an excuse/reason to allow them to happen - nor abortion.

Animals evolve to control their population. Too many individuals and resources fail to be sufficient and they start to die out. Too few and there isn't enough genetic diversity or it is too uncommon to find a mate, and they start to die out. Abortion is part of the natural cycle, because it's the way humans naturally evolved to control population.

See? If you can bull**** medicine into "natural", I can bull**** abortion into "natural".

Reply 262

da_nolo

Original post by Hypocrism

except I did not b.s. medicine. and you did not b.s. abortion into "natural" .

the extinction of a species is normal/natural, but this is not because the species tries to control their own population. nor does a species evolve to purposely limit its own population. it only continues to grow until it can no longer grow.

once again, I am talking about the act or effort (which may better describe it) in making one self feel better (heal).

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 263

DCFCfan4eva

Original post by Robbie242

**** off this isn't North Dakota, or republican america for that matter.

Having an abortion is better than bringing at child into life without loving parents or care, or nurturing or good living conditions etc

what's worse

giving the child a potentially bad situation (disability, poverty etc) or absolutely no chance of life at all ...

It is possible for people to overcome bad situations, not quite so sure about death

Reply 264

StudentHLe

OMG the title is exactly like one of the 8 mark questions I had in my R.E mock exam :0

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 265

da_nolo

Original post by Hype en Ecosse

You think this is a child?

IF you presented a picture of a human being, I know that person is a child.
may not be a kid, an infant, a toddler, a teen, an adult, but a child and a human person.

I suspect you're purposefully taking my usage of "life" out of context and just using a definition that suits your argument

I am not. I placed the correct context as the word means: to live. to fit under being - something that is living, something that exists.

def. of life

The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional...

there is also the description of being that is an entity, which would better describe an individual. at the time I only read being as the definition I provided - existing. this is the essence to life and what most speak about when saying "right to life" since this is the context described by John Locke.

2 def. of life

Living things and their activity (bio def. of life fits perfectly)

If you do not mean the simple fact of existing but the 'experiences within life', then you go into the issue of the "quality of life". as in, what is living? what qualifies as 'experiences within life'. as I have explained already, this concept of quality is not practical and does not justify homicide.

So do bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants, spermatocytes, oocytes and cancer cells

these are cells that are a live. they follow the characteristics of life. the only characteristics that may describe (all) life.

you know well enough that this isn't the definition of "life" that is relevant to the abortion debate: unless you want to go ahead and argue that we shouldn't kill any of these either.

I have come across abortionists that claim that the child is not living. that the child is a "non-living thing". it has come up in the abortion discussion. there is also the issue in "quality of life" or "what is life" which makes it very relevant, as it should be considered. therefore I will press it. why? that's how you determine who is a person. you follow the steps.
is the pre-born:
1. living (life)= yes
2. human = yes
3. individual = yes
4. person = yes
(5. person-hood = yes)
should be protected under unalienable right to life = yes

as for the other creatures, there is a difference between human organism/entity (being) and fungi, bacteria, spermatozoa and what ever other sort of creature or cell exists. we treat all differently. we should treat all humans the same. if you disagree with that statement, there is an issue. please clarify if you disagree that all human beings (of whom are persons) should be the same?

And if you're going to argue that this IS the definition of life used in the abortion debate, I'll go ahead and give you a statement used by the pro-lifers:
"Life begins at conception"

I am not a "pro-lifer". however, the concept that "life begins at conception" is mean to as "(A new) life begins at conception".
the sentence is describing a new person develops at conception, not - as abortionists have claimed - any time after (such as birth, week 20, week 10, etc.). if you do not trust me, ask them yourself.

There's a big difference between biological life and the more philosophical idea of 'human life'.

there is? since when? may you provide some sort of evidence or justification?

if there is a difference (which I am not admitting/accepting) philosophical "human life" must follow biological life description. since you can not have what ever concept "human life" may be if you are not alive.

still, if your concept is accepted, you get into the issue of what is "human life" similar to "what is quality of life". the biological definitions to life is an absolute. it applies to the abortion debate.

I don't think you've justified your premise at all. You've simply stated that a Homo sapiens gives birth to another Homo sapiens, you haven't justified that a zygote containing the genetic make-up of a Homo sapiens is a person.

yes I have.

you have to follow the definitions.
in order to be a person you must be 1.human 2. individual
the child is human and an individual.
therefore the child is a person. that is all the child can be. if you say the child is not, then you are saying the child is neither human, an individual, or alive/a life (existing).

If we decide that a zygote is a person because it contains the DNA of a Homo sapiens, then what's to stop us classifying stem cells as people? What about liver cells? Or skin cells?

da_nolo

chromosome count may help in determining "being" rather a part of or not a "being".

the difference between a zygote and a liver cell is being or entity may describe the difference better.

the use of chromosome is to counter the thought that an egg or sperm cell may be a person or considered the same as a zygote.

but so does the liver cell, yes. but the liver cell is the portion that creates or makes up the entity and is not, of itself, an individual human being/entity.

the zygote is.

perhaps this describes it better

I went to the effort of giving you a link to the definition of "quality" being used in that context...
Quality - an attribute, a characteristic.
Hence, human being - the quality (attribute) of being a person.

It has nothing to do with quality of life; quality of life has never entered the abortion debate.

yes it has.
http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=402

from web site

some human lives are worth less than others

in order for a human life to worth less - there must be quality. a sense of worth. that is only possible if the word "quality" is used in the context I used. it is an unfortunate sad thing that certain people think they are worth more than others. as described earlier, "no person can determine another person's quality or what lack there may be." we are merely, different.

this link is not just some guy either. I have had many discussions in which an individual spewed that same idiocy. some on here. not to say you have or are.

In regards to "an attribute, a characteristic"...which would you prescribe? what do you think is "human"?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 266

FiniteMr

Original post by da_nolo

Untrue, cases of species evolving to control their populations are well documented in the literature.

Reply 267

da_nolo

Original post by Hypocrism

Untrue, cases of species evolving to control their populations are well documented in the literature.

what literature? fiction?

please, do share.

also note how the person who stated that, admitting that the statement is b.s. As in false, a lie.

within nature there is a natural balance to limit a population: disease, food chain, lack of food, etc. this is a balance that fixes itself, a cycle that operates in a balance. humans are the only species in history to act outside this cycle.

remember what is being suggested:
that "species" (more than one) adapted in order to act to prevent another organism of the same species to live w/ pure cause to limit their own population.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 268

FiniteMr

Original post by da_nolo

http://mrlife.org/life-history-reproductive-rate-i.htm

Among other factors, animals evolve to reproduce at a rate dependent on the population density of their species. Mice living in populated cultures, with adequate nutrition, have a lower birth rate.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2406424?uid=3738032&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21101893094533

One good example is birds. As suggested in the above link, you should read Lack's "The Regulation of Animal Numbers"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025556485900252

You might or might not have access to this paper, but it is a model of how animal reproductive rates evolve.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 269

jcarz

This is what abortion demand culture leads to:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100211959/dr-kermit-gosnell-truly-horrifying-allegations-of-the-murder-of-babies-that-the-us-media-are-playing-down/

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Reply 270

Messalina

Original post by jcarz

Please explain the link between "abortion demand" and what that man did. His actions were illegal and he was killing viable babies whilst endangering the mother's lives in the process. None of what he did has anything to do with legal and safely procured abortions, it's just the horrible actions of a psychopath.

Reply 271

da_nolo

Original post by Hypocrism

still reading provided link...

though I still don't see how a change in reproductive rates equates to killing a human is okay.

Reply 272

FiniteMr

Original post by da_nolo

still reading provided link...

though I still don't see how a change in reproductive rates equates to killing a human is okay.

You have lost track of the discussion. A summary:

1) You argued that abortion is wrong because it disrupts the natural order.
2) Another member pointed out that so does chemotherapy
3) Through warped logic you claimed that chemotherapy is natural
4) As a counterargument I demonstrated that population control evolves naturally in animals and that abortion is therefore natural.

In short, "abortion is not natural" is not a good argument.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 273

Ghostly.

Original post by ruby321

I agree. If you don't want a baby, don't ****ing have sex.

What about rape?

Are you a woman or a man?

Plus it's completely unacceptable for you to think you have control over somebody elses body, just saying.
If I were holding a new born baby in one hand and a fetus in a petri dish in the other, and threatened to drop both but you could only save one, and you genuinely can't decide which live is more sacred? Bullcrap, you'd save the baby. Therefore you can't really believe they are equal.

Reply 274

Ghostly.

Original post by DCFCfan4eva

A disabled, drug addicted woman is raped by a psychopath, who then runs and is never found again by the woman. She, being alone and confused, has the baby, but doesn't know how to look after him/her. The baby is beaten and sexually abused and is often starved.

Now yeah, there is a chance some bad situations can be overcome, but would you rather take that gamble?

Reply 275

valori

Original post by Gray Wolf

I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end, you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person.

Now let me give you some statistics:

196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.

7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?

Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!

(the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)

Thank you for reading,

Gray Wolf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf

There are many arguments in opposition to abortion. Some of these arguments are convincing. Some of them make sense. Your arguments fall into neither of these categories.

Reply 276

FiniteMr

Original post by Ghostly.

This is almost certainly the best argument I have read on TSR that I haven't come across outside TSR debate. Serious, serious props.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 277

Ghostly.

Original post by Hypocrism

This is almost certainly the best argument I have read on TSR that I haven't come across outside TSR debate. Serious, serious props.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thanks

I'd like to see an argument against that haha

Reply 278

skumgummi

Original post by Spontogical

they're completely irrelevant.

The main function of sex is pregnancy.

The main reason people buy a car is to get to places.

:/

Then we've also got a large part of the driving population who drive for pleasure. And an even larger part of the population who have sex for pleasure.

Reply 279

da_nolo

Original post by Ghostly.

What about rape?

In cases of rape, there are ways to prevent conception which is viewed as moral and is accepted practice in many hospitals which have a Christian moral.

otherwise, it is more promising to keep the child alive then to have the woman talked into having an abortion which is only another act of violence against her body.

Are you a woman or a man?

this does not matter . you don't have to be a crack addict to know it is bad, and you don't need to be a woman to know rape is bad.

Plus it's completely unacceptable for you to think you have control over somebody elses body

exactly! the child, whether an infant or fetus or single cell - is somebody else. they may not have the same body form as you, but they are 100% human and an individual. a child is not a part or portion from or of the mother, but a new developing person. somebody else. you have no merit to kill another human, especially one that is the most innocent among us.

If I were holding a new born baby in one hand and a fetus in a petri dish in the other, and threatened to drop both but you could only save one, and you genuinely can't decide which live is more sacred? Bullcrap, you'd save the baby. Therefore you can't really believe they are equal.

they are equal and deserve equal respect.
in regards to 'saving', it does not change whether or not they are equal.

similar to saving 1 person or 5 people in a dire situation. whom would you chose? lets change the situation. 5 handicap males or 1 little girl. who would you save? do the lives of the males decrease in comparison to the girl? NO. they are all equal. they are all sacred.

every single person is equal in their own right, just different.

in terms to the petri dish, in all likelihood that child is already not living. only reason he/she would not be still in the womb. so I would go for the baby, of whom may still be alive. . .dur :rolleyes:

here's one for you.
a woman holding a baby, or a woman who is pregnant...a gun man is ramped in the streets and shoots the woman that is pregnant
and only her. how many did he kill?

let's check with the law...
2!