Pro-life or pro-choice?

True, it is living human tissue, but so is sperm or an unfertilised egg. The question isn't really "when is it alive?" but "when does it become a separate life from the mother?"

True, it is living human tissue, but so is sperm or an unfertilised egg. The question isn't really "when is it alive?" but "when does it become a separate life from the mother?"

1. Much of this part is overlapping with taza. But why is "not a living being" scientific? What is scientific about it? Please use these word definitions to help explain.

2. Man vs woman question. You said earlier that if a woman can not abort her pregnancy then the unborn (embryo or fetues) would have rights over the woman. Im trying to find out why by using an analogy where a man takes the life of a woman. The situation is the same. One living creature kills another.

So if person A wants to kill person B, but is not allowed to kill person B. does person B have rights over person A?
(You may disagree with wordage but humour me. Im asking for explaination).

2b. Parasite. So the moms body does not eject the offspring. In some cases the womans body does identify an embroy as foriegn and therefore immune system responds, but this is a rarity and never considered , inmedical field or biology, to be the normal response by womans body. Instead implantation is welcomed.

The implanted embryo does not divert nutrients from the mothers blood supply. Instead the medical science involved with pregnancy has identified that the womans body diverts nutrients to the baby. This is biologically supposed to happen. Womens body are programed for it. Please look into biological aspects to human reproduction.

3. You seem to overlook that I said the care system being terrible is not sufficient enough for abortion. Rather it should identify abortion as symptom to society's and govt.'s lack in efforts to care for our own.

3b. "We could"
Could would should. If we are unable to gaurantee what is being prevented then why act on it?

1. Again I mentioned this earlier about MRS GREN analogy we learned at school, which are the key features to identify if something is a living being. A clump of cells doesn't fit all the criteria. As a result abortion doesnt kill a living being in the first place.
2. I think you misunderstood me, I never claimed it was a parasite rather saying it does have parastic behaviour as Ive mentioned this earlier with some of the examples.
3. The care system being terrible should be sufficient for abortion. Why should a child have to suffer mentally in such bad conditions. There is no way to make a care system perfect and there will always be problems even for the best ones, as I have shown earlier with plenty of children having mental health problems and this is argueably bigger than physical health itself.

I'm pro choice.
Almost ALL pro-life answers here are based on the assumption (which may be true but also may not) that foetuses are lives, and killing them is outright murder. However--
1. Some people may have gotten pregnant just because they aren't that, ah, knowledgeable and messed about, or maybe the protection leaked in some way. If they are forced to bear the child into the world at such a young age, the latter half of their lives will most certainly be ruined. Is this not a crime equivalent to "killing" a foetus? I strongly believe so, as the first one is slow and inescapable torture. Unless that person commited suicide, in which case the banning of abortion indirectly caused the loss of another life.
2. If you're only worried about the foetus I can assure you that restricting or banning abortions does not spare the baby. Many people end up doing backyard homemade abortion recipies (lol) and usually that does NOT end up well, for mother or foetus. I have read about cases where people abandon their newborn children to die. Doesn't seem to be good for the kid's health, I'd say.

So there you go. I hereby draw the conclusion that pro-life don't seem to be that pro-LIFE. If you have objections I'm happy to debate any time

I don’t think a sperm or unfertilised egg is comparable to an embryo that has implanted in the womb.

The difference is that if we leave it alone, a sperm cell or unfertilised egg isn’t going to grow into a baby, it’s just going to die after a few days. Whereas an embryo will; we have to actively intervene if we want to stop it becoming a baby.

So if a sperm cell or unfertilised egg dies, it probably did so on its own. Whereas if an embryo or fetus dies, it’s probably because someone actually decided to kill it. There’s a moral difference between the two; just like the difference between someone dying of starvation in a poor country because you didn’t personally go and feed them, versus a person dying because you actually went over there and stabbed them.

Not entirely true. A fertilised egg needs the mother's body to be in a certain state for the pregnancy to viably develop. It needs her body to produce various hormones, most notable progesterone. Typically, most pregnant women's bodies will naturally produce enough progesterone for a pregnancy to develop and be carried for term - but some women's don't, for a variety of reasons, and they might well have difficulty conceiving or be prone to miscarriage. Various medications related to pregnancy - contraceptive pills, morning-after pills, fertility drugs, and early abortion medications - work by inducing or inhibiting the release of such hormones at particular times to prevent or enable pregnancy.

Firstly, I'd say that while it could be argued that a later-term surgical abortion is analogous to stabbing someone, I'd say an earlier-term medical abortion in which the necessary hormones for pregnancy development are simply inhibited are closer to just not feeding someone.

But secondly and more importantly, regardless of how such a person died, we'd still agree in both cases that they were an independent human life that has now been ended. We likely wouldn't consider the person who starved to death a case of murder or homicide, but we would still likely consider their death a tragedy, something to be mourned and regretted, and that it would have been better if their life had not been cut short. By contrast, even people who oppose abortion generally don't consider dead sperm or unfertilised egg tissue to represent the ends of actual distinct human lives. They don't mourn it as a loss that could have been prevented.

There's intentional blocking of development of a pregnancy at multiple stages. One can take hormonal medication at different points to:
1) Prevent sperm from fertilising an egg
2) Prevent a fertilised egg from implanting
3) Prevent that implanted egg from further developing

I don't really see a difference between the three, why some of these should be regarded as killing a distinct human life as opposed to just bodily tissue?

1 is something that you have to actively cause with your own actions. Sperm don’t just fertilise eggs on their own; you have to do something to make that happen.

Whereas once the egg is fertilised, 2 and 3 would usually happen on their own. You don’t need to particularly do anything else to make them happen; rather you’d need to do something if you wanted to stop them from happening.

In short, 1 is active while 2 and 3 are passive.

One could argue though that contraceptive methods are killing a potential of a human being, and one could consider a sperm as a living thing (containing DNA) so in essence it is still killing. What is the difference between an abortion at fertilisation and contraception which is still killing sperm if both are preventing a life.

You also mentioned that abortion is intentional, however so is the use of contraception.

Well its quite simple really:
- If you have sex with contraception, the sperm fails to reach its target and it dies instead.
- If you do nothing (i.e. don't have sex at all), the sperm also fails to reach its target and it dies.
The result is effectively the same in both scenarios; your actions didn't particularly change the outcome that would have otherwise taken place.

It's only after fertilisation takes place that this stops being true, i.e:
- If you have an abortion, the fetus fails to develop into a baby, and it dies instead.
- If you do nothing (now that fertilisation has already taken place), the fetus does successfully develop into a baby, and it is born into the world.
In this case the result of your actions is very different from the "do nothing" scenario.

In other words, the death of a fertilised embryo is caused actively, whereas the death of a sperm cell would have happened anyway in the absence of human intervention.


Not only only that, but the creation of a fertilised embryo is also the result of active human intervention, whereas the creation of a sperm cell is passive and happens on its own. This is why we are able to assign to parents the responsibility for the upkeep of the former but not the latter.

If you do nothing then it is passive, because it's something that is against your control. However, using contraception by your logic is actively killing a living being because it is intentional. The intentions between using a contraceptive and abortion are the same -Not to develop a baby. There is no difference

I just explained what the difference is. Sex with contraception and “doing nothing” have the same result. Abortion and “doing nothing” do not have the same result.

Using contraception during sex is certainly intentional, but that is not the same thing as active killing of the sperm. “Active killing” is when you cause something to die that would have otherwise stayed alive had you done nothing. An fertilised embryo survives if you do nothing, but a sperm cell doesn’t; it has an extremely short lifespan.

The use of contraception would be more accurately described as an intentional refusal to prevent the sperm’s death, rather than intentional causing of the sperm’s death.

Sex with contraception and “doing nothing” have the same result. This is wrong. Sex with contraception prevents the birth of a child by preventing fertilisation, but the key point is preventing birth of the child. Doing nothing ensures that the egg will fertilise and develop into a foetus and does not prevent the birth of a child.
Abortion is the same and the prevents the birth of a child. The outcomes are the same regardless of the option.

Now suppose we consider your stance on passive and active killing, they are both killing no? Both have the same impact of preventing the birth of a child. I dont get why there is so much controversy with killing a clump of cells (which don't have consiouness or nerves). The arguement that the cells develop into a baby is the main reason, but then by that same logic you should be against contraception as you are preventing the birth of a baby through that way too.

This part in bold is wrong. "Doing nothing" does not cause the egg to fertilise and develop into a foetus etc. Having sex (without contraception) causes that. No child develops from its parents doing nothing - unless you believe in virgin births!



Well as I said earlier on the thread: there is a difference between a starving person in Africa dying because you chose not to fly over there and feed him, and the same person dying because you chose to go there and stab him. They both have the same result (i.e. he dies), but only in the latter situation did you actively kill him. In the former situation he died of starvation, not because you in particular killed him.

Similarly if a sperm dies because you chose not to help it fertilise an egg and extend its lifespan by having unprotected sex, that's a different matter from a fetus dying because you chose to stick a coat hanger through it. Abortion is causing something to die earlier than it otherwise would have; sex with contraception is choosing not to help it live longer than it otherwise would have.