Abortion

i found 20?*
my bad

 

It it not. Earth's population increases by 1 billion every ten years. Have you been to northern India? The average woman has 8 kids. Due to modern medicine, almost all survive. Earth's population is screwed. If we all lived in horrible poverty, Earth can support 47 billion people. If we want the internet, and all modern things, Earth can support 2 billion people. (O snap we are 5 billion over that)

Please cite how overpopulation is a scare tactic? We are way overpopulated.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 23, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 22, 2017 ---

And we need more than food to live. We are fine for food. But water, steel, concrete, rare earth metals, space, grasslands, OIL (45 years until oil depositories run dry) forests, etc, are also needed.

 

Fetuses Feel Pain at 20 Weeks, and 4 Other Anti-Abortion Myths

 

Whether or not abortion is the act of murdering a child depends on how we define the term "alive." The fetus is technically alive in that it is made up of living cells, but I don't think that it being made up of living cells is a sufficient reason to give it rights. A human appendix is made up of cells, but that doesn't mean that it's immoral to have it removed. The value of life arises through sentience/consciousness, not through living cells. Until the fetus is sentient, I don't think that it should be regarded as murder (unless we decide to view killing any and all living cells as murder).

If we were to say that abortion is wrong because it prevents a potential child from existing, we would be hypocritical not to say that it's also immoral for people to not have as many children as possible. Think of all of the children that could be created but never will because people are never going to create them in the first place.

The heart beat seems a bit arbitrary; basing the significance of a human life on the heart is a bit of an outdated stance. Might I suggest focusing on the brain instead? I agree with you that abortion is not killing a living being at the beginning and that it does become murder at some point, but I think that this point is when the brain develops to the point of creating sentience. I don't see why a heartbeat really changes anything. If we had a functioning, living heart in a box, would this heart be deserving of any rights? I don't see why it would, as it would just be a mass of cells. If, however, we could remove the brain from the body and keep it functioning and thinking, would it not still be deserving of a right to life? It would still be a conscious being.

I agree, but if a woman has a living child inside of her, it's not only her body. I don't really ever see anybody that thinks that women shouldn't have a right to their own body; the people who are completely against abortion are not claiming that a woman's body shouldn't be controlled by her, but that the fetus is not part of her body.

I think that abortion should be legal up until the point of sentience arising in the fetus, which allows women to have time to get one, but if we were to assume that the fetus was a sentient being at the moment of conception, would giving birth to the baby and giving him/her up for adoption not be the best choice? Sure, a huge amount of kids that are put up for adoption sit in foster care and don't have very good lives growing up, but a life like that is still better than dying, is it not?

True, but making drugs like cocaine and heroine illegal does not stop cocaine and heroine use.
Making drugs like cocaine and heroine illegal means that people buy these drugs from shady dealers and makers, which means that the drugs are not monitored and can contain things outside of the drug itself, which can cause using them to be even more dangerous.
So, should all drugs be legal?

Not being very happy is better than being killed.

 

I think the line of distinction I draw is that when a women is pregnant, at least in most developed nations, the natural course of action and result is another human being. The same cannot be said for your example because if nothing is created then it's natural course of action / result is to be non-existent.

 

tbh if we made drugs legal it would cause less issues with the whole dealio, I've always thought that if drugs were legal and actively regulated etc it would be a lot better
You either have to stop something at the source or control it, and there's little way to stop this at the source so
def no way to stop getting preggo unwanted at the source lol, not even if you're trying

Thing is the fetus wont even know it exists til over 20 weeks, past that imo yes abortion should be illegal except under life-threatening circumstances, but before that you're restricting the mother's choices and it just seems silly

 

What do you mean by "natural"? Assuming that you are using the word "natural" along the lines of "not changed by humans," which seems to be the case, accepting this as a factor in what's right and wrong would change the ethics of the whole medical field, would it not? If a patient has a deadly disease, the "natural" course of action is for them to die, so why should this be prevented? Furthermore, is procreation not natural in and of itself? I think that if we use the term "unnatural" to refer to that which is changed by humans, then people choosing not to have kids could be regarded as "unnatural" itself, as people are naturally inclined to reproduce.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 23, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 23, 2017 ---

It's hard to say without it actually happening, but I'm not sure that things would be better if drugs were legal; it's possible that legalizing drugs would just make them more widespread and makes things worse. Regardless, my point was that just because something will happen anyway doesn't mean that we should legalize it. I mean, murderers still murder people while murder is illegal, but I certainly don't think that we should legalize that. When it comes to drugs, it might be true that more harm than good comes from keeping them illegal (though I'm very skeptical of this), so maybe I should've used a better example, but I'm just saying that something shouldn't be legal just because it will happen anyway. If something is bad, we should prevent it from happening as much as we can.

We're pretty much in agreement overall then; I'm pro-choice until sentience arises.

 

I see your point for sure. I'm just way on the opinion that if a woman knows she doesnt want a kid she should not be forced to have it. I know if I got pregnant now,. I know I'm not financially able to care for one nor mentally stable to do so, but I also don't wanna stick a kid in the system because that's just kinda rude. Even if I was rich enough to care for it fine, there's also the just, I don't want to, so why should I be forced?
There is more harm in making abortion illegal - We have too many younger people raising stupid kids, we have too many people not wanted or loved cause the parents were forced to have them under whatever circumstances, we have perfectly fine people who took precautions but one still managed to get through and pregnancy happened...

Then there's also the women literally dying to unsafe abortions when.... they could have them done safely. I'm sure if you ask any woman if they had an operation and they could have it safe and easy or extremely painfully and a risk of dying, I'm sure they would go for the first.

I see no benefits in making abortion illegal. We are not underpopulated by any means. As long as you do that before the baby can think and feel I have no problem with the idea.

This also goes back to my previous point. We have 100% rights over our own bodies even after we die. If I'm allowed to say no to something that will only hurt me for 10 minutes but could save someone's life, I should be able to say no to a life changing event, regardless of if I kept the child or put the child up for adoption.

+1, When they can feel pain and think and are able to live outside the womb, that's where I have an issue with things because at that point it really for sure is a person. but 20 + week is a long time, plenty enough to make a decision and get an appointment for an abortion setup before that were to happen.

 

I suggest not using facts when they are against you. The number you listed is not even 1% of kids that are under the age of 18 in the entire U.S. (as of 2014).

Again, as I've said: You need to ask yourself why the kid is so immensly unhappy as you are insisting (be it with his foster home or with his parents): Is it because he should have been eliminated, and ignored from the the very beginning (abortion), or should mommy and daddy have taken the measures needed to raise a happy kid to the best of their abilities?

So you're essentially saying:

A tadpole is just a small black head with a tail that it uses to swim. It is not a frog in it's earliest stage what-so-ever.

A caterpillar is nothing other than a green, worm-like creature with mandibles to chew on leaves. It is not a butterfly in it's earliest stage what-so-ever.

 

um -- try frog eggs -- those more directly compare..?
tadpoles are aware they exist and move around their habitat...

a tadpole only has a mouth, gills, and tail basically so thats more like a fetus in a stage where it's aware it's a thing. Once it's developed to the point to understand it's exists.
Frog eggs are essentially a cluster of cells (as Ellie was saying) forming into the tadpole soo

 

The entire world can fit in Texas alone. Today. Everyone. Nice and comfy.

We make advances all the time. Who's not to say that eventually we will have the means to to be much more efficent, create less carbon emmisions, and resources in while being able to support a larger population for a longer amount of time? Is part of life (here) not to make the world a better place for everyone? Do people who are yet to be born not count?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 23, 2017 ---

You're wasting your time critizing my comparison, because you got my point and you're still unhappy. I wasn't talking about the frog's literal developmental point compared to a human's. I was talking about someone deciding that something isn't something because it is totally different at one point than the other.

The earliest stage of a human is a cluster of cells. This is how pregnancy (obviously) works. You can't disclude it, because part of pregnancy is those cells doing what they need to do in order for a fetus to develop.

If those cells are just a cluster of cells, how come we don't have fetuses that pop up instantly in a mothers' womb? After all its just a cluster of cells, right? It's nothing!

 

I agree that more harm than good would come from making all abortions illegal, but only because I don't think that a fetus should have rights until sentience develops. I was just saying that pointing out how women will continue to get abortions regardless of the law is not a sufficient way to make a pro-choice argument, because if all abortions are murder like "pro-life" people claim, more good than harm would come from making them illegal. Sure, women would still get hurt from unsafe and illegal abortions, but these women would be murderers, and we shouldn't legalize murder to protect murderers from getting hurt.

I disagree with this outside of just its relationship to the topic of abortion. I don't think that we have 100% rights over our own bodies and a lot of governments do not grant people legal rights like this. We don't have the legal right to choke someone out and murder them, nor I do think that we have the moral right to do so. We don't have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies.

While you or anyone might say that we can do whatever we want with our bodies as long as we don't harm someone else, I disagree with this as well. If someone is lying on the floor in front of us weeping in agony from poison and we're holding the antidote, we don't have the right to just stand there and do nothing. There are certain things that we are obligated to do or not do with our bodies in order to increase the general well-being. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about spending 10 minutes to save someone's life, but I do think that there are certain situations where we are obligated to use our own bodies to help save others (if I did believe that all abortion is murder, I would argue that abortion is one of these situations).

Also, I don't think that we have any rights over our bodies after we die. It might be nice if our loved ones respect our wishes and treat our body how we wanted it to be treated, but I don't think that this is a right (no harm comes from it if they decide to do otherwise). Also, couldn't giving our dead bodies rights poke holes in arguments for not giving rights to non-sentient fetuses? If sentience/consciousness is what's required for rights, then how can a dead body have rights?

I disagree with it being relevant for them to be able to live outside the womb. I think that they have a right to life as long as they're sentient, regardless of whether or not they can live on their own.

Yeah, though, I agree with what you said here otherwise. The time that it takes for sentience to develop is plenty of time to get things done if someone wants to have an abortion.

 

You're reading too much into it. I'll use an analogy.

You have a piece of plastic race track for a matchbox car. You incline one end of it. You put the car on the high end of the track and let go. The car generally rolls down and completes the track.

That is pregnancy

During the experiment, instead of letting go of the car and then doing nothing, allowing the car to complete the track; you put your finger in the way 1/4 of the way down the track, stopping the car. This is stopping the car, while doing nothing would have allowed it to complete the track, as usual.

That is abortion.

So what happens if you never put the car on the track? Then that car will never complete the course, nor will it even begin to complete it, or even move forward at all, because it doesn't exist on the track. Your finger 1/4 down doesn't stop jack, because there is no car on the track. There is no end result in this action, just a state that never changes, the car never goes down the track.

 

But is there enough water for everyone in the world in Texas? Enough fuel? Enougn power? Enough space for BUILDINGS. You could pack everyone into roughly Rhode Island, but there'd be no space for anything else.

Maybe one day we'll be efficient. But that isn't now, or force able in the next hundred years. If the birth rate doesn't come down to two births a woman by the mid 30's, we're doomed.

 

Alright, Texas. Everyone could fit in Texas with about 2 acres per person. This means there are no grocery stores, no hospitals, no nothing but plots and people. Good thing we do not have to have everyone in just Texas so it's completely unreasonable. Good thing we have all of Earth (excluding deserts, oceans and some places that humans simply can not live). However, over population is not an issue (unless you want all of the Earth to live a happy American life with a white picket fence and a beautiful home, then we are over populated) but some people live in apartments and enjoy the city life, not everyone needs their own mini farm and the perfect "American" life style. Anyway, that being said. I still think abortion is wrong and think only women who are going to die or were raped should be allowed to have an abortion. That's my opinion and we're all entitled to one. Trump defunding planned parenthood has made me happy, if it makes you mad then suck it up butter cup it's happening.

 

Yknow planned parenthood does a lot more than abortions, right?
They provide birth control, breast cancer exams and treatment, HIV and other STD testing and treatment, and they even assist with adoption.
I"m not sure how defunding planned parenthood is the solution to your "problem"


In reality wouldn't you want more people going to them for birth control so abortions wouldnt happen as often?

 

They do over 300,000 abortions each year. They as a semi-private institution decide what services they provide, they would get there funding if they didn't do abortions, they have refused to stop performing abortions.

You can buy condoms at cvs for like, 3$.

 

You can get birth control pills for like $50 a month which many people can't afford but yknow

Aw so they want women to have control over their own bodies how absolutely horrible

 

I mean, the body inside the woman's body isn't technically their body, it's the child's body. You can do whatever you want to YOUR body but when it comes to effect another persons (including that fetus inside you) then you are doing something to someone else.