<p>I don't know.. I kinda liked the tapeworm analogy :P</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I did was say that a life is a life, and if a fetus can be considered one, then any arguments discussing the benefits of abortion are irrelevant.
[/quote]
It's not that it's a life that matters. If it were, then killing a tapeworm that has infested your body should be illegal too. But nobody's arguing for that, because it's not a human life. And the point I'm trying to make is that a fetus isn't a human life; it's only a potential human life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's only a potential human life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So if there's a child born immobile and unable to take in his/her surroundings and lives his/her entire life that way, then why can't we just kill them? I mean they are only potential human lives...</p>
<p>No, because at that point the child IS a human life, a seperate person, regardless of whether or not they can take care of themselves...</p>
<p>(It's no longer living in and feeding off someone else's body to stay alive.)</p>
<p>And I will never, ever understand how anyone can say that a woman who has been raped or who's life is in danger due to the pregnancy shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion. How could anyone say an unborn fetuses life is more important than the woman's?</p>
<p>Also, if you only believe in abortion under these circumstances, you're STILL killing a "potential human life" regardless of the reasons.</p>
<p>Pro choice all the way...</p>
<p>I think srunni makes a good point. Like i personally think that abortion is wrong but i do believe the person should be able to choose</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, because at that point the child IS a human life, a seperate person, regardless of whether or not they can take care of themselves...</p>
<p>(It's no longer living in and feeding off someone else's body to stay alive.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't quite understand the importance of that distinction. The fetus eventually has a brain, a heart, lungs, and the bone structure of a human being. How is it that that distinction is so important as to supersede all those characteristics? If the distinction is valid, why isn't any other distinction just as valid like those characteristics made by cbpeanut. Or any faulty condition of a human being? Your distinction could just as easily be described as part of human development just like before and after puberty. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And I will never, ever understand how anyone can say that a woman who has been raped or who's life is in danger due to the pregnancy shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion. How could anyone say an unborn fetuses life is more important than the woman's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A human life is a human life. If fetus is indeed a human life, then you would be relying on a type of utilitarian mindset that is ok with sacrificing an innocent human being, no matter how negligible for a "greater good" (which does not appeal to me). Of course where we draw the line of where life starts is the trouble. Very early on I find it more debatable but very late into gestation period however, to me it's clear that there is a life. In the case of a women whose life is in danger, yes we do have to let one party die and we value the women more but I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. I mean just because in life and death situations women and children are usually saved first, does that make men not human? Same thing with protecting "important" people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, if you only believe in abortion under these circumstances, you're STILL killing a "potential human life" regardless of the reasons.</p>
<p>Pro choice all the way...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes there are certain aspects that are hard to reconcile but just because we can't formulate a perfect system of laws doesn't mean we should just give up and not strive for one.</p>
<p>Choice sounds good and all but it's a pretty dubious euphemism when you consider that it's a choice between life and death. This argument shouldn't focus on the benefits of abortion or the possible negative consequences that could result from not having one. The focus should be on defining human life and where it begins.</p>
<p>The point is where we draw the line as to where a human becomes a human. I don't see how a fetus is not a human BECAUSE it is feeding off of its mother... Does that mean that babies who are breast-fed are not human yet either? I mean we could draw the line anywhere, the safest point is at conception because it leaves no room for doubt. We can't really draw the line as to where late gestation begins... nor can we say that before the designated 9 months it is not a human life because that means that all prematurely birthed children are in fact not humans yet..
And since, this is always going to be under dispute.. isn't it better just to be safe and not kill fetuses in any case?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And since, this is always going to be under dispute.. isn't it better just to be safe and not kill fetuses in any case?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some people feel killing a human is wrong no matter what the circumstances are. Does this mean we should never go to war?</p>
<p>ALL abortion is used as a form of birth-control - that is the entire reason for its existence, duh. Can people once and for all stop saying that "abortion should not be used as a form of birth control"? Perhaps you mean it should not be used in lieu of contraceptives. I can respect that opinion, but I don't give a damn why a woman wants an abortion - whether she was raped or whatever, I couldn't care less, I still unabashedly support her right to choose. I think it is silly when people say that abortion is wrong, then continue to qualify that statement ("except in the case of rape or incest or birth defects...") if I had moral qualms with abortion, I would stick to them. What purpose could those qualifiers possibly serve except to punish a woman for purposefully having and enjoying sex? Could someone explain to me how saying "if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex" makes any more sense than saying "if you don't want to get in a car accident, don't drive. If you chose to drive, then got in an accident, even if you took all the necessary safety precautions, you're on your own, kiddo." I just can't fathom that line of reasoning.</p>
<p>"I don't quite understand the importance of that distinction. The fetus eventually has a brain, a heart, lungs, and the bone structure of a human being. How is it that that distinction is so important as to supersede all those characteristics? If the distinction is valid, why isn't any other distinction just as valid like those characteristics made by cbpeanut. Or any faulty condition of a human being? Your distinction could just as easily be described as part of human development just like before and after puberty. "</p>
<p>Yes, but before the fetus is born, he/she is sharing the same blood and food as the mother, the womb of the mother, in other words the fetus is still very much a part of the mother rather than a seperate organism. </p>
<p>"A human life is a human life. If fetus is indeed a human life, then you would be relying on a type of utilitarian mindset that is ok with sacrificing an innocent human being, no matter how negligible for a "greater good" (which does not appeal to me). Of course where we draw the line of where life starts is the trouble. Very early on I find it more debatable but very late into gestation period however, to me it's clear that there is a life. "</p>
<p>I still don't see why any rape victim should be forced to give birth. Regardless of whether or not the fetus is a real human or not, rape is an incredibly traumatizing experience in itself without a woman being forced to go through the birthing process and the emotional pain of adoption (if she chooses that route) or keeping the kid which could lead to further emotional and financial issues. What if you had a 12 year old daughter who was raped and then became pregnant? Would you force her to go through something like that? That's pretty much punishing the mother for going through an already horrific experience.</p>
<p>"Choice sounds good and all but it's a pretty dubious euphemism when you consider that it's a choice between life and death. This argument shouldn't focus on the benefits of abortion or the possible negative consequences that could result from not having one. The focus should be on defining human life and where it begins."</p>
<p>But even if it was finally agreed upon that unborn fetuses WERE complete human lives, it doesn't mean laws would change. The benefits of abortion and consequences of not having one are so great - and there's many, many people out there who are pro choice and who's opinions will likely not change - that it's unlikely there would be a huge movement to end abortions.</p>
<p>"Could someone explain to me how saying "if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex" makes any more sense than saying "if you don't want to get in a car accident, don't drive. If you chose to drive, then got in an accident, even if you took all the necessary safety precautions, you're on your own, kiddo." I just can't fathom that line of reasoning."</p>
<p>Thank you! My thoughts exactly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is where we draw the line as to where a human becomes a human. I don't see how a fetus is not a human BECAUSE it is feeding off of its mother... Does that mean that babies who are breast-fed are not human yet either? I mean we could draw the line anywhere, the safest point is at conception because it leaves no room for doubt. We can't really draw the line as to where late gestation begins... nor can we say that before the designated 9 months it is not a human life because that means that all prematurely birthed children are in fact not humans yet..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A fetus is different from a baby being breast-fed- you can't make a fetus drink from a bottle when it's still in the woman's uterus, but babies can be put on the bottle whenever the mother needs or wants to stop breastfeeding. Not to mention that a fetus is dependent on its mother for more functions than just feeding- it's not particularly easy to breathe, for instance, inside a uterus unless the fetus receives oxygen from the mother.</p>
<p>I would argue that the fetus should be considered a life at the age of viability: the point, between 22 and 26 weeks after conception, where the fetus can survive outside the womb. Not necessarily when it does, just when it can. Admittedly, there's a bit of uncertainty here, but we can draw the line at the earliest point possible (22 weeks) if need be. After that, the only way to end a pregnancy should be delivery. Before, it should be the mother's choice whether to keep it or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And since, this is always going to be under dispute.. isn't it better just to be safe and not kill fetuses in any case?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If it's always going to be under dispute, why can't we just let people decide for themselves whether they should get an abortion or not, and let doctors decide whether or not they want to perform the procedure?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If it's always going to be under dispute, why can't we just let people decide for themselves whether they should get an abortion or not, and let doctors decide whether or not they want to perform the procedure?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Are you saying that having options is more desirable than not having options?! You baby-killer!!!"</p>
<p>I don't get this whole hangup on a "potential human life".
When I fap, am I killing millions and millions of "potential human lives"?
Or when a girl has her period, is she killing a "potential human life"?</p>
<p>^Yes, you are, you baby-killer. Burn in hell along with all those period-having women.</p>
<p>(Actually, I assume that the standard defense is "Oh, but THOSE don't count, it's only when a sperm and egg meet that it's a potential life." But you never know.)</p>
<p>Also, I don't think I've ever heard "fap" as a euphemism for "masturbate" before. That's kind of a cool term. I like it.</p>
<p>And Shakespeare apparently used it as a synonym</a> for drunk.</p>
<p>unregistered:
[quote]
Could someone explain to me how saying "if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex" makes any more sense than saying "if you don't want to get in a car accident, don't drive. If you chose to drive, then got in an accident, even if you took all the necessary safety precautions, you're on your own, kiddo." I just can't fathom that line of reasoning.
[/quote]
I agree that that first statement is ridiculous but in your comparison you left out that people should own up to any possible negative consequences that can result from their actions. When a person crashes into another person's car, it isn't ethical to just hit and run. Same could be said about sex and pregnancy.</p>
<p>bunny27:
[quote]
Yes, but before the fetus is born, he/she is sharing the same blood and food as the mother, the womb of the mother, in other words the fetus is still very much a part of the mother rather than a seperate organism.
[/quote]
Your argument seems tautological but you're probably just trying to clarify something that I might have missed. I already understand that you're likening the fetus to a parasite like someone did earlier. I still just find it a convenient distinction. Like I said, late in gestation, the fetus resembles us so much. By that point every other characteristic of human life is already there and I find that hard to ignore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still don't see why any rape victim should be forced to give birth. Regardless of whether or not the fetus is a real human or not, rape is an incredibly traumatizing experience in itself without a woman being forced to go through the birthing process and the emotional pain of adoption (if she chooses that route) or keeping the kid which could lead to further emotional and financial issues. What if you had a 12 year old daughter who was raped and then became pregnant? Would you force her to go through something like that? That's pretty much punishing the mother for going through an already horrific experience.
[/quote]
The rape situation is something hard to reconcile but like I said just because we can't create a perfect system of laws doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for one. However, I still am not sure whether or not early on there exists a person. Regarding your lack of care as to whether or not the fetus is human life or not, I already said that I disapprove any utilitarian mindset that uses a cost/benefit analysis that deals with innocent human lives no matter how insignificant. Kind of like how people justify the bombings of Hiroshima and the killing of innocent people because it would have saved more lives overall in the end but that's a whole nother issue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But even if it was finally agreed upon that unborn fetuses WERE complete human lives, it doesn't mean laws would change. The benefits of abortion and consequences of not having one are so great - and there's many, many people out there who are pro choice and who's opinions will likely not change - that it's unlikely there would be a huge movement to end abortions.
[/quote]
Well that's encouraging a fatalistic attitude. And if people finally did agree that fetuses were complete human lives and still proceeded, that shows a complete disrespect toward life in general. At that point they'd be completely in the wrong as the Constitution recognizes the right to life as a natural right.
Edit: Alright just to save a little face if someone corrects me but I'm not sure if the Constitution mentions the right to life anywhere but I do know it's in the Declaration of Independence. But the U.S. is founded on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the Constitution is an extension and protection of just that.</p>
<p>salamander:
[quote]
I would argue that the fetus should be considered a life at the age of viability: the point, between 22 and 26 weeks after conception, where the fetus can survive outside the womb. Not necessarily when it does, just when it can. Admittedly, there's a bit of uncertainty here, but we can draw the line at the earliest point possible (22 weeks) if need be. After that, the only way to end a pregnancy should be delivery. Before, it should be the mother's choice whether to keep it or not.
[/quote]
That sounds reasonable to me but I still have to determine if it remains consistent with what I consider human life.</p>
<p>Pistolen08:
[quote]
I don't get this whole hangup on a "potential human life".
When I fap, am I killing millions and millions of "potential human lives"?
Or when a girl has her period, is she killing a "potential human life"?
[/quote]
I only have problems with commiting a wrongful killing of a human life that is already there. If a fetus was just a potential human life then I wouldn't be in this thread.</p>
<p>To the OP: I think anyone can deal with a pregnancy in college with a good support system. This includes grandparents of the baby, professors, and a nice frat brother to watch the baby at frat parties.</p>
<p>A fine sentiment, Infusion, but not at all relevant to the point I was making. My point was directly referring to the people who say that abortion is acceptable only in certain cases (such as rape or incest). I was pointing out that this is a silly contradiction (if I thought that abortion were immoral, I would not make exceptions in the case of rape, nor do I see the relevance between the circumstances of the actual sex act and the morality of having an abortion.) I can't see any logical reason for allowing abortion only in the case of rape, except to punish a woman for willingly engaging in sex and enjoying it. And you know what? I think the anti-choicers themselves realize the absurd contradiction, but most people also understand how callous and alienating it seems to outright oppose abortion even when the pregnancy resulted from a rape.</p>
<p>I'm in favor of baby-killing but against women's choice. Where does this place me on the political map?</p>