Abortions

abortion is immoral... it is already killing!a fetus IS already a Child... a fertilized egg cell is not...if you dont want to have an unwantd child or early pregnancy... don't commit pre-marital sex!don't treat the gift of God as waste

Edited by oni12, 18 April 2008 - 08:14 AM.

If you were God for a day, and decided to cure cancer by creating a child who would be able to grow up, become a scientist and discover the cure to cancer. Would you create that child inside a body that you knew would destroy it, or would you put the child in a body that you knew would give birth to it and raise it properly so the child would be able to cure cancer?We decide if we are going to have an abortion or not. God already knows what our decision will be and decides to put one of the most important lives ever inside someone who he knows will destroy the new life before it's even born =/.

The lord works in mysterious ways. God might put the child into the body of a young foolish person who thinks that abortions are quick easy procedures with no reprecussions, maybe this is what society needs to understand to stop abortion. You honestly never know.

abortion is immoral... it is already killing!a fetus IS already a Child... a fertilized egg cell is not...if you dont want to have an unwantd child or early pregnancy... don't commit pre-marital sex!don't treat the gift of God as waste

Indeed, the moment that egg is fertilized, it has all that it requires to grow into a full human being.

if you want to say abortions are immoral on religious grounds, fine. but the USA (if youre not from the usa, pretend you are) has no official religion, therefore that cannot apply to any sort of law they make. separation of church and state, plain and simple. people have a right to choose what they want, and others have no right to criticize them as breaking god's laws or w/e. what if they dont follow gods laws?

if you want to say abortions are immoral on religious grounds, fine. but the USA (if youre not from the usa, pretend you are) has no official religion, therefore that cannot apply to any sort of law they make. separation of church and state, plain and simple. people have a right to choose what they want, and others have no right to criticize them as breaking god's laws or w/e. what if they dont follow gods laws?

We are one nation under God, not necessarily the God of the Christians or the Jews or the Muslims, but the founding fathers recognized that belief in the existence of a higher power generally had a stabilizing affect on society, and how right they were. The degredation and collapse of morals (aka a "free and open" society) and the accepting of things such as moral relativism generally sounds the death toll for organized societies. People become more bestial and less human, and thus, the society collapses.

Actually Im against abortions, but sometimes it(abortion) is necessary if the mother-to-be has aids or something like that. Because for me, it is mean to let the child suffer from std

Actually Im against abortions, but sometimes it(abortion) is necessary if the mother-to-be has aids or something like that. Because for me, it is mean to let the child suffer from std

What you're saying is basically infant euthanasia, but what you have to realize is that abortion isn't even 100% effective at killing the child. If that abortion fails, they are horribly burned and disfigured ALONG with the std they were going to be born with.

if you want to say abortions are immoral on religious grounds, fine. but the USA (if youre not from the usa, pretend you are) has no official religion, therefore that cannot apply to any sort of law they make. separation of church and state, plain and simple. people have a right to choose what they want, and others have no right to criticize them as breaking god's laws or w/e. what if they dont follow gods laws?

Ignore the religious bible thumpers here. Granted, they are on my side, but they won't convince the population with arguments that cater toward religion and God.Do you agree that killing someone in cold blood is morally wrong?If yes, then I would argue that you should consider abortions to be morally wrong. That has nothing to do with religion or God. Everybody has some type of moral code, and those who don't are locked up in prison.Now buckle up, 'cause I've got a wall of text coming at you. Ready for the legal state of things? Good.California Penal Code section 187a. reads: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." To cover this, there is an exemption found in section 187b.: "This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: 1. The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. 2. The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. 3. The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." The only other exemptions are given in section 197 and are as follows:"Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace."In the text of the penal code itself there is a hypocrisy. In section 197, every case save one mentions some kind of violence intended by the perpetrator, i.e. murder is justified only when the person who was murdered intended harm upon some person. The fetus clearly does not fit into the categories set by section 197, and section 187 states that the unlawful killing of a fetus "with malice aforethought" is murder. That is, unless the mother says that it is okay to kill it. Applying that logic, it should be legal to kill a human being so long as the mother gives permission to do so, yet that is not the case because it does not fit into the guidelines set in sections 187 and 197. While abortion is not legally murder, it is strange that the killing of the fetus is only murder when the mother does not consent to it.Oh, and by the way, the trimester system was thrown out a long time ago. When the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Roe v. Wade, they set up a trimester system in which the state cannot regulate abortions during the first trimester, which is 12 weeks long; however, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services the Court rejected the trimester system set in Roe v. Wade, ruling that the state can impose laws to protect the unborn. Then, in 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that women have a right to abortion. So now it stands that "restrictions on abortion [are] allowable as long as they [do] not impose a 'substantial obstacle' or 'undue burden' on a woman seeking an abortion."Look back over my arguments. Have I made even one proposition that depended on God or religion? I am arguing on your terms.And I don't think I'm loosing.

Since you can't think, see clearly, etc, until you're out of the womb, you aren't technically a person.

Since you can't think, see clearly, etc, until you're out of the womb, you aren't technically a person.

http://www.dgemu.com...p;#entry4029967Specifically,

Is it morally acceptable to terminate life support on someone who has slipped into a coma when everyone has absolute knowledge that he/she will wake up after nine months?

And what of premature births? A baby who is born 2 months premature is somehow more of a person than a baby who is still in the womb and has 2 months to go before the expected due date? And what of the brain waves that are detectable after 6 weeks? Is sight really necessary? Are those who are born blind or mentally retarded or deaf or dumb less of a person than those who are born normally?A fetus can hear and recognize the mother's voice while it is in the womb, it can kick and swim around by the 6th week, it even knows when the mother is feeling sad or happy. I'm not quite sure what your definitions are regarding 'thinking' or 'seeing clearly.' Even your 'etc' is vague. 'Technically' you haven't really made an argument here at all.

i am pro choice, because a woman has a right to her own body.

I'm definitely pro! I think it's every woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child! It isn't our responsibility nor is it our right to judge them!God knows it's already terrible to go through!

By the atheist thought (the one I believe), a fetus is not alive because it doesn't even think. the fetus has no instinct by the time the abortion is done, so, w/e if the abortion is done or not.By the religious thought, God has a reason for everything, so, if people abort, its for a reason.What I dislike about having to give two explanations on the same post is because it also applyes to the trunk cells discussion, and some people will die from cancer because religion says its wrong to use trunk cells. =/

Against.A fetus has a life. The definition of the word "life" is "condition that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction", and that it "depends on negative entropy". A fetus intakes nutrients from its mother, thus, the condition for metabolism is fulfilled. The reproduction definition is proven, since it is the product of the human reproductive process. Finally, the negative entropy premise is also proven, since a fetus is formed from a chaotic mass of nutrients, water, proteins, nucleic acids and lipids.Since it lives, aborting it is murder.And have you actually watched "The Silent Scream"? The fetus being aborted is visibly distressed as it was being chopped to pieces.

By the atheist thought (the one I believe), a fetus is not alive because it doesn't even think. the fetus has no instinct by the time the abortion is done, so, w/e if the abortion is done or not.By the religious thought, God has a reason for everything, so, if people abort, its for a reason.What I dislike about having to give two explanations on the same post is because it also applyes to the trunk cells discussion, and some people will die from cancer because religion says its wrong to use trunk cells. =/

Incorrect. We oppose EMBRYONIC stem cells which as of yet have had NO EFFECTIVENESS WHATSOEVER. Adult stem cell research we support. Currently the number of diseases being treated by ADULT stem cells is about 67 (last I checked). Embryonic-0 Adult-67... You don't have to be religious to do the math do you?

Against.A fetus has a life. The definition of the word "life" is "condition that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction", and that it "depends on negative entropy". A fetus intakes nutrients from its mother, thus, the condition for metabolism is fulfilled. The reproduction definition is proven, since it is the product of the human reproductive process. Finally, the negative entropy premise is also proven, since a fetus is formed from a chaotic mass of nutrients, water, proteins, nucleic acids and lipids.Since it lives, aborting it is murder.And have you actually watched "The Silent Scream"? The fetus being aborted is visibly distressed as it was being chopped to pieces.

Did you read what you wrote before you posted it?Do you know how many organisms fill your definition of "life"?Technically, you (and most people on the planet) are guilty of billions upon billions upon billions of murders then.I'm not saying abortion is "good", but you can't say abortion is murder - at the very least not by that definition.

Incorrect. We oppose EMBRYONIC stem cells which as of yet have had NO EFFECTIVENESS WHATSOEVER. Adult stem cell research we support. Currently the number of diseases being treated by ADULT stem cells is about 67 (last I checked). Embryonic-0 Adult-67... You don't have to be religious to do the math do you?

wait...*does some more research about it*I guess you are right, but last time I checked, the research on the embryonic cells was forbidden, and it could be very helpful... it makes some time since I did some extra research about it, though, so, sorry for my last post.

Last I checked, the only reason diseases aren't being treated by embryonic cells is that research is too limited (no doubt because of protesters). How do you feel about in vitro fertilization? Usually, several "potential" foetuses are discarded. Why can these not be used? If they're going to be thrown in the trash, wouldn't it be better to make use of them?I agree that "selling eggs" for this research could be considered ethically wrong by some, but if they're going to be thrown in the trash anyway, why not use them for something good instead?In all fairness, scientists do not want "developed" embryos. Scientists only want the stemcells. Last I checked, the stemcells were most useful before the foetus develops at all.

Embryonic-0 Adult-67... You don't have to be religious to do the math do you?

No you don't have to be religious to do math, however it seems like you do need to be religious to ignore common sense. If Embryonic stem cells has not had the chance to treat diseases because of people protesting it's use, then that does not stop it from being useful.This is the same thing as saying the future cure to cancer is useless because it has currently cured 0 people =/.

No you don't have to be religious to do math, however it seems like you do need to be religious to ignore common sense. If Embryonic stem cells has not had the chance to treat diseases because of people protesting it's use, then that does not stop it from being useful.This is the same thing as saying the future cure to cancer is useless because it has currently cured 0 people =/.

I don't think that embryonic stem cell's will ever be useful to us. Common sense tells us: "Hmm, this has had NO results, BILLIONS of dollars are poured into it...WTF? Adult stem cells... you never hear about the benefits that it has ALREADY provided and it definitely isn't getting as much funding as embryonic....wtf again?" I think that embryonic stem cells are being pushed to advance the agenda of secular progressiveness. It's meant to change the mindset of the country... and not in a good way. Also, I believe that when the cells come together, you have something that will grow into a full human being, so it is human from conception.

I'm afraid you don't understand what stem cells are, DeinKonig. They are essentially the same. They are cells that can grow into any other cells (provided they're human stem-cells and human cells). You can't just say (based on absolutely nothing, might I add) that embryonic ones cannot cure anything, because they're exactly the same as those found in adults (except usually, as far as I know, they're in a much earlier state, making them more plentiful and far more useful).Please stop making assumptions about topics you have no comprehension of. It seems to me like you are merely arguing your faith versus science. There is nothing morally objectionable (at least, not in my mind) about using stem cells from embryos that would have been discarded in medical science.You believe a foetus is a human being once it's conceived. That's a choice you make for yourself. Telling other people it's wrong just because you think so isn't a valid argument. There is no evidence of a human being having a soul, and even if humans did have souls, who is to say the souls are given to humans while they are only week-old embryos?I am against "harvesting" eggs for this science, but in the case of in vitro fertilization, the left-over embryos should be used for something proper.

I'm afraid you don't understand what stem cells are, DeinKonig. They are essentially the same. They are cells that can grow into any other cells (provided they're human stem-cells and human cells). You can't just say (based on absolutely nothing, might I add) that embryonic ones cannot cure anything, because they're exactly the same as those found in adults (except usually, as far as I know, they're in a much earlier state, making them more plentiful and far more useful).Please stop making assumptions about topics you have no comprehension of. It seems to me like you are merely arguing your faith versus science. There is nothing morally objectionable (at least, not in my mind) about using stem cells from embryos that would have been discarded in medical science.You believe a foetus is a human being once it's conceived. That's a choice you make for yourself. Telling other people it's wrong just because you think so isn't a valid argument. There is no evidence of a human being having a soul, and even if humans did have souls, who is to say the souls are given to humans while they are only week-old embryos?I am against "harvesting" eggs for this science, but in the case of in vitro fertilization, the left-over embryos should be used for something proper.

Actually I do have some good knowledge of this subject. The reason adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells are both called stem cells is because they're the SAME THING. They're just at different points of development. I'm merely saying, if we've already had successes with adult stem cells (which can be harvested without killing, or eliminating fetuses or w/e you want to call it) why don't we focus on that? Also, you can get stem cells from umbilical cord blood, which is another way you rarely hear about. I'm not saying that embryonic stem cells can't do anything, I'm just saying I don't THINK that they will. In general, TONS of research, BILLIONS of dollars, and a plan usually = success. If there's no success (and I mean NO success aside from killing their test patients), but the research increases and funding keeps increasing, something odd is happening wouldn't you say? The reason that cancer hasn't been "cured" yet (there's many different kinds of cancers, there probably won't be one "cure all") is because they haven't found the right IDEA yet. They follow an idea, get funding, and if it doesn't work, they let go. So why haven't they let go on the embryonic stem cell idea yet?The reason that they have had successes in adult stem cells is because they can figure out what it's going to grow into. The reason they haven't in embryonic is because they can't control or figure out what they're going to grow into (it's too early to tell).

for me, im in the anti-choice. maybe because im from a catholic and conservative country, you have no right to take anyones life even if u say that your the one who made it, every living things in this world have a right to live (except if euthanasia is the best action/decision to a close relative) but that's a different story. in short, abortion sucks, life is great, why would you impregnate a woman even if your not ready, and if u say that its an accident, its your problem.

Last I checked, the only reason diseases aren't being treated by embryonic cells is that research is too limited (no doubt because of protesters). How do you feel about in vitro fertilization? Usually, several "potential" foetuses are discarded. Why can these not be used? If they're going to be thrown in the trash, wouldn't it be better to make use of them?

like, wtf?! dude. what kind of sick hospital/medical reasearch center throws baby in the trash?! they might as well feed them to the dogs, WTF?! (makes me sick to my stomach )

like, wtf?! dude. what kind of sick hospital/medical reasearch center throws baby in the trash?! they might as well feed them to the dogs, WTF?! (makes me sick to my stomach )

Aborted fetuses are thrown away in the (bio-hazard) trash, so this is a lot more common than you think.While the debate on stem cells is an interesting one (slightly relevant, as well), I think we are getting side-tracked from the purpose of this thread. Once we establish what a fetus is, then we can start to argue if the reaping of stem cells is worth the destruction and/or farming of potential fetuses.

Aborted fetuses are thrown away in the (bio-hazard) trash, so this is a lot more common than you think.While the debate on stem cells is an interesting one (slightly relevant, as well), I think we are getting side-tracked from the purpose of this thread. Once we establish what a fetus is, then we can start to argue if the reaping of stem cells is worth the destruction and/or farming of potential fetuses.

Then a pro-embryonic stem cell person would say "aborted fetuses are DEAD so they're useless" wait a sec... did he just say they're DEAD? If a fetus' "deadness" makes it unusable for embryonic stem cell research, wouldn't that mean it was alive to begin with?

im agansit because its taking a human life so you dont have the responsabilty of taking care of a baby