This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Abortion

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1180

yawn

Tufts

That's a horrible story. But to use one of an anti-choicers favourite phrases: "adoption is always an option".

Who decided to call pro-lifers 'anti-choicers'? :biggrin:

Was it the 'anti-lifers'?

That use of semantics to instill a negative image of a group of people who consider all human life sacrosanct never ceases to amuse me.

Another section of society formerly known as 'Voluntary Euthanasia Society' have changed their corporate identity to 'Dying with Dignity Society' to create a different image to that assumed formerly.

Reply 1181

yawn

The_Myth Leader

I would if I could find it. Why, oh why, did you extend the debate to over 50 pages?!

Use some pertinent words in the search facility. It will produce options that will contain your item. :smile:

Reply 1182

yawn

Tufts

It's a mass of cells. Didn;t they teach you basic biology at school?

See my post #1184 for expert scientific refutation of your misunderstanding of biology.

Reply 1183

yawn

OK.

Now we have debunked 'pro-abortionists' claims that foetal tissue is no more a human being than a single-celled amoeba, any more solid arguments for abortion?

Reply 1184

Anthonyjm71

Seoid

The old saying that a society should be judged based on how it treats its weakest members may be cliche but I think it's very true. I do not want to live in a society where a life is ended because that person cannot speak for themselves or "doesn't know it exists" - this is true of many people who are severely disabled so is killing them ok? Sorry to bring in the disabled thing again but I work with disabled people and I have so often seem them denied their rights because they haven't been able to argue for themselves. I am not in favour of a society where the more powerful people have control over life and death for the less powerful, especially when their excuse for that power revolves around a desire to have a better career or more money.

spot on Seold you've hit the nail right on the head here.. seriously agree with everything you have said here totally..

Reply 1185

Seoid

yawn

It also has a more compassionate and supportive society...borne out by the fact that it is ranked 4th in the world for 'quality of life' by the OECD.

Being Irish, I would have to agree with this. Of course I can be accused of being biased but it's just my opinion. When I moved over here to England last year I assumed there would be very little difference between England and Ireland society-wise, but I don't think that's the case. I work with children over here and there seems to be a very hard-nosed attitude to life. Everything is about getting ahead.

And that's what I've said time and again, that I think abortion is being presented to young girls as a way to protect their future ambitions and I think there is definitely a danger in this society of feeling pressured to abort the baby, or of not even considering keeping it in the first place. In Ireland if someone finds out you're pregnant they will assume you're going to keep it and it's a happy event no matter what the circumstances. In other words people make the best of it, which when you think about it is very good - a new life to love and care for. Over here I think even I would feel bad for not considering abortion because everyone is so careful about doing things "at the right time" and chasing their tails in order to achieve mythical perfection. Getting pregnant at 16 is not the ideal outcome but I know people who have been in that situation and who now say they couldn't imagine life without their children and it's the best thing that's happened to them.

Of course of course there are situations where children are brought into a violent unloving home and they have a horrible life. But I don't think this is an excuse for allowing abortion - rather it shows that society as a whole needs to improve to ensure all children are protected. It makes me sad to live in a society where people honestly value career and money over the creation of a human life, it just shows me where all the priorities have gone wrong.

Reply 1186

Johnny C.

yawn

A split second after conception, this one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human being possess everything it needs to grow into an adult human except time. It is not a blueprint of a human being. It is not a part of a human being. It is a human being.

On the whole, I am anti-abortion and not on religious grounds at all but I have to take issue with the above:

You've made a series of mistakes in the statement. Firstly, there is no split-second after conception. Fertilisation is a process that takes several hourse and implantation in the womb takes several days. It's very difficult to define a point where you can say "conception has occurred".

Secondly, once implantation has occurred, it can be up to two weeks before the embryo splits to form identical twins. Therefore, I don't understand how you can call an early embryo a person when it still has the potential to split into two different organisms i.e. this isn't a characteristic of a human-being.

While I have less objection to aborting within the first two weeks of pregnancy, I feel it still needs very sound justification i.e. not simply that it is inconvenient for the mother at this time in her life.

In any case, I don't believe that a person is created at the point of fertilisation (even if you could exactly define that moment), nonetheless, the potential for a human-life, possibly even two or three, is created and that needs to be respected.

Reply 1187

PinkMobilePhone

Chat Forum Helper, Life & Style Forum Helper

slightly Going off topic here (but still somewhat relevant) - I'm going for my 20 week ultrasound scan on Tuesday! I'm very excited. I shall post pics afterwards of my mere collection of cells :wink:

Reply 1188

Melancholy

The point Tufts is making is that embryos in development are simply a mass of unspecified cells, which have yet to develop and become defined as tissue cells, blood cells etc. They are literally a mass of shapeless, undefined cells.

In a way we are simply a mass of cells (for the unreligious amongst us - for the religious we could go into all sorts of anti-abortion topics). The fact that they have the potential to become humans without an human interference is a key issue.

While we are also a mass of cells, our cells are obviously defined as skin cells, cheek cells, hair cells etc.

By scientists. science is always re-ajusting it's words and terms; look at the term planet for instance. Pluto is now not a 'planet', however I doubt anyone would argue it has changed its physical appearance or abstract associations.

This is perhaps why embryos are not legally defined as humans as we are.

Again, laws are constantly changed and adjusted; it's the foundations of a moral and improving society.

Of course, I have the feeling you already know this and are just arguing with Tufts for the sake of being picky and stubborn.

I thought he was raising a valid point.

There's the difference though. You believe an embryo is a form of human life, and you're entitled to that.

The opposite applies to you.

But Tufts clearly doesn't believe an embryo is a form of human life, and s/he's entitled to that too.

I agree so far (so long as s/he justifies); this is not where the problem lies. However...

So while for you the embryo/disabled person analogy is a fair one, for Tufts it isn't, so you can't expect Tufts to answer it if s/he feels the two aren't connected.

Of course it's a fair analogy! She could at least explain why she feels the two aren't connect. Explain why embryo's and disabled people are dissimilar. You can't just say I don't think the two are connect because I don't think embryos are the same as elderly people; that's just circular reason. I am aware that Tufts has implicitly answered most of the points raised with regards to this issue. However your justification for why s/he doesn't have to answer is feeble.

As far as you're concerned, you're comparing two forms of human life. However, as far as Tufts is concerned, you're comparing a human with a non-human organism.[/

But he has stated why they are similar. You can't just say, well I don't believe they are so I won't answer! It was a fair analogy, a fair point raised.

What about the children who are a result of an unwanted pregnancy. They are resented and neglected and so turn to crime.

You generalise too much. Many from adoption centres come out with a loving family. I'm sure they're thankful they weren't exterminated. Besides this is a separate issue for the authority to tackle. They need to tackle the causes of crime.

Reply 1189

ForumFreak

What have I missed? Have we started recycling arguments yet?

Reply 1190

PinkMobilePhone

Chat Forum Helper, Life & Style Forum Helper

Of course - did you doubt it?

Reply 1191

Seoid

XenaGlamRocker

Of course - did you doubt it?

A lot of the recycling is probably my fault - I joined the debate late and I didn't read all 50 pages!

Reply 1192

ForumFreak

Lol! I suppose recycling is better than all those weird irrelevant arguments that crop up out of nowhere.

Reply 1193

IAmFaye

I haven't particularly read this thread, because no doubt I'll become annoyed, but I am totally FOR abortion. If I was ever in a situation and got pregnant now, I'd totally have one. Yeah, you can say "But how do you know?", well I just know. People can use 'emotive' words like "You're killing a baby though." Fantastic, ok, I'll be killing a baby.

I actually can't stand anti-abortionists. :mad:

I think abortion is a wonderful privilege, if shouldn't even be a privilege though, it should be available for all women of all countries, of all situations. No doubt someone will throw back that and say "Well what about people who don't use contraception, that's not a reason for an abortion like rape! It's a total waste." Well, if people are that stupid to not use contraception and get pregnant accidentally, they're hardly fit to become a responsible parent. I hate ignorant stuff like, "They can give up the child for adoption." Oh yes, because, emotionally, giving up a kid, after being inside of you for 9 months, is such an easy task to go through...

Phew, I'm done. As you can see I have very strong views on the subject. :P

Reply 1194

Seoid

ForumFreak

Lol! I suppose recycling is better than all those weird irrelevant arguments that crop up out of nowhere.

It's hard to avoid as well because I keep having to restate my position - at one point I said that abortion was justifiable in cases of rape and in a later post I said that I think that because sex is a choice then people should live with the consequences of that choice.
One of the pro-abortionists came back with "well rape isn't a choice" - GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Of course it's bloody well not, any idiot can see that! It really annoys me when people resort to this sort of underhanded selective attention to prove an untenable point. I'm always willing to concede that the other side has made a good point so it really annoys me when people in a debate will go to silly lengths (ref: all of Tufts' posts) to avoid answering relevant questions. That's why I keep on and on, in the hopes that they will run out of pedantic timewasting and actually broach the real issue.

Reply 1195

Seoid

IAmFaye

I actually can't stand anti-abortionists. :mad:

If you can't separate a person from their views then you obviously are immature. I'm anti abortion but I am mature enough not to be intolerant of people who hold different views than me.

Reply 1196

PinkMobilePhone

Chat Forum Helper, Life & Style Forum Helper

IAmFaye

I hate ignorant stuff like, "They can give up the child for adoption." Oh yes, because, emotionally, giving up a kid, after being inside of you for 9 months, is such an easy task to go through...

You're right, of course....it's much easier knowing you killed your child than it is knowing they are alive and have a chance of a happy life :rolleyes: