Abortion

[Syberia]

The mother is maintaining pH levels, water levels, blood flow, oxygen flow, in addition to providing shelter, her immune system, food and the first cell to multiply (all of which a fetus can not do). Without a host, a fetus is literally incapable of developing.

You quoted me then you blatantly ignored the most important part of the quote: "incapable of maintaining homeostasis". A fetus can not do that, so even though it resembles life, it is not actually life. You are STILL confusing what something *can be* with what it *is*

So it's ok to kill a fetus because it can't support its own life on its own? I'm forced to gather from this that you have no problem with throwing away newborns in trash cans, after all they're "not life" because they can't survive without constant assistance from someone else.

All you've done in this thread is argue for infanticide from post 1.

I genuinely don't have that massive a problem with it since I think a person is defined by conciousness; hence I also have no problem with nonvoluntary euthanasia.

I would love to fly over there and kill you in your sleep. And come to think of it, you wouldn't have a problem with that.

Also, what about someone who is unconscious, but will recover? Better not hit your head, or Akuchi will kill you. Even better, by your logic, it's perfectly fine to medically induce a coma, and then kill the poor individual who consented to it against his will.

I don't have a massive problem with infanticide.

So let me get this straight. You oppose the killing of convicted murderers, but you have no problem with throwing away the life of an innocent baby? That's just a bit of a double standard.

 

[Wishy]

From a religious point of view, I really find people wanting to ban abortion because it doesn't follow their 'Bible' to be pretty backwards thinking. The government shouldn't be run by religion, and by looking back at history it was never a good idea.

I really have no problem with abortion either. The fetus isn't conscious, nor does it have a heartbeat... At that point in time it is a cluster of cells forming a living being, that isn't quite alive yet. Sure, it could (well is) going to form a human life in the right conditions... But can't I say the same for sperm? Having an abortion past the point where the fetus' heart has begun beating is wrong though, there needs to be a line as to when the fetus can be aborted.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

So it's ok to kill a fetus because it can't support its own life on its own? I'm forced to gather from this that you have no problem with throwing away newborns in trash cans, after all they're "not life" because they can't survive without constant assistance from someone else.

All you've done in this thread is argue for infanticide from post 1.

No, I argued that a fetus is not a living being because it can't maintain homeostasis. Children can. Women evolved to have a natural desire to want to support their children, which is key in helping them maintain balance. If a child is abandoned for some reason, it will die because it can't maintain its own homeostasis. I thought that part was fairly obvious but let me make it clearer: an infant is alive, until it dehydrates and is unable to maintain homeostasis...and at that point, it is no longer alive. Starving, dehydrating infants are still alive until their bodies can no longer produce the energy to maintain homeostasis. Fetuses do not have any option in the matter, because their homeostasis is out of their control. Is that not obvious? I don't know why you even made this post, we aren't even talking about living children. This is an abortion thread.

You keep using the word "kill" as if something living is dying. Stopping the development of a potential-birthee is not the same as killing a living person.

I would love to fly over there and kill you in your sleep. And come to think of it, you wouldn't have a problem with that.

Being asleep doesnt mean that you are brain-dead, but wow. Just...wow

 

[TAY]

Alright I'm rewinding this thread a bit. Let's try to stick to argument and discussion rather than blatant flaming.

 

[akuchi]

I'd quite like someone to reply to some of my actual points.

 

[Alex Practice]

Syberia is opposed to aborting ("Killing") an unborn fetus, yet he would love to murder Akuchi if he got the chance? Isn't that a bit of a double standard?

 

[Altmer]

I'd quite like someone to reply to some of my actual points.

Akuchi, the problem is people aren't educated about this stuff. They don't know what homeostasis means, because the US system doesn't teach them that, especially if they grow up in conservative Christian circles that indoctrinate. There is no point in an argument unless all sides are capable of actually understanding what is going on. I am not abortion's biggest fanboy, but from firsthand experience I have seen that it is very, very beneficial in some cases, because I know what happens when it doesn't. And that was pretty terrible.

This isn't an abortion debate. This is just highlighting the US' lack of decent sex ed, decent biology ed, decent schooling. There are going to be no valid points in this thread until Deck Knight and co. learn some actual biology instead of forcefed Christian propaganda.

 

[Objection]

No shit, sherlock. Hey, I've got an idea - let's totally ban all non-essential cases from being seen!
Your example is just.. weird. Really, really weird. Your use of the word 'child' is pretty telling though. Emergency admissions work on a triage basis. Unless there is immediate threat to the pregnant woman's life, that isn't the case. You're like.. suggesting the banning of all specialist departments as far as I could tell. Should I stop going and being treated for my back pain because there's car accident victims who need to learn to walk again..?

My point was

unhealthy people should take priority over healthy people.

so your example is too different to mine to be compared. And don't say that pregnancy is a disease or some stupid shit like that.

 

[akuchi]

Your example fucking sucked. Pregnancy isn't a disease - it IS a serious risk to the health (including mental) of the woman, even and especially if she wants the pregnancy. A birth is a lot more of a medical issue than an abortion (the earlier the abortion, the lesser the problem - I happen to think abortions under 9 weeks should be performed at home since it is a simple procedure involving a couple of pills.

 

[Objection]

Your example fucking sucked. Pregnancy isn't a disease - it IS a serious risk to the health (including mental) of the woman, even and especially if she wants the pregnancy. A birth is a lot more of a medical issue than an abortion (the earlier the abortion, the lesser the problem - I happen to think abortions under 9 weeks should be performed at home since it is a simple procedure involving a couple of pills.

So why should hospitals prioritise pregnant women who want an abortion above victims of car accidents, cancer or even back pains?

 

[akuchi]

..Did you even read what I wrote? A pregnant woman is going to require far more medical attention if she wants to take the pregnancy to full term (including the care the baby will need when born) than a woman having an abortion.

P.S. your comment is slut-shaming in the extreme. those victims of car accidents should never have been driving cars in the first place, they were asking for it! if they didn't want to be injured, they should never have got in the car! Irresponsible bastards!

 

[Veedrock]

those victims of car accidents should never have been driving cars in the first place, they were asking for it! if they didn't want to be injured, they should never have got in the car! Irresponsible bastards!

I've been trying to stay out of this, but that's bullshit. If you don't wanna get pregnant, don't have sex! Irresponsible bastards!

EDIT: Oho, sarcasm on the internet. That's a first. I missed Objection's moral parade.

 

[Objection]

The ones who require the most medical attention should be the ones that get it first (therefore a woman giving birth should come before a woman having an abortion). True or false?

your comment is slut-shaming in the extreme.

Sluts deserve to be shamed. True or false?

 

[akuchi]

Veedrock: I strongly suggest you look up 'sarcasm'. Google it. Go on, it'll enrich your life.

No, objection, YOU ARE NOT MAKING SENSE. If a woman wants an abortion, give her an abortion to save her having to suffer the trauma of not only an unwanted pregnancy but an unwanted birth and an unwanted child.

'Sluts deserve to be shamed'? How fucking misogynistic are you? Go on, define slut from your position of privilege, go on, I fucking dare you.

 

[Objection]

'Sluts deserve to be shamed'? How fucking misogynistic are you? Go on, define slut from your position of privilege, go on, I fucking dare you.

A girl whose usual appearance and/or behaviour indicates that they are primarily looking for sex and that they would go to extreme lengths to get it, including abandonment of moral values.

That's my definition. If you don't like it, tough.

EDIT: To compare, here is Wikipedia's definition, which I looked up after giving my own:

Slut or slattern is a pejorative term for a person who is deemed sexually promiscuous. The term is generally applied to women and used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning "dirty or slovenly." It may also be used as an expression of pride in one's status, or to express envy at the sexual successes of others.

 

[akuchi]

And there is a problem with women actively seeking out and enjoying sex how? Female sexuality is not the passive, reactive thing you evidently think it is. Women are perfectly capable of being the proactive, instigating party in a sexual encounter/relationship.. I really don't see why a female should be 'shamed' for enjoying sex and being comfortable in her own sexuality when a male shouldn't.

 

[Objection]

I really don't see why a female should be 'shamed' for enjoying sex and being comfortable in her own sexuality when a male shouldn't.

Firstly, notice in my definition I said about going to extreme lengths to get it.

Secondly, I know I'm probably going to get flamed by absolutely everybody when I say this, but notice I didn't say that a male shouldn't be shamed for such behaviour.

 

[akuchi]

You exclusively defined a 'slut' as a 'girl' (worrying in itself, seeing as the term girl implies youth and therefore under the age of consent, at which point it becomes rape.)

 

[Objection]

You exclusively defined a 'slut' as a 'girl' (worrying in itself, seeing as the term girl implies youth and therefore under the age of consent, at which point it becomes rape.)

And maybe there's another word for a boy who demonstrates this same behaviour. I believe that the word I'm looking for is 'player'?

 

[Stallion]

If a woman wants an abortion, give her an abortion to save her having to suffer the trauma of not only an unwanted pregnancy but an unwanted birth and an unwanted child.

I've been staying out of this thread for awhile, but I've seen some pretty terrible arguments here. I'm quoting akuchi here because I believe that this quote is the most accurate in the thread (at least in the recent pages).

I've had a few female friends with high school boyfriends decide to have sex for the very first time, and stuff like condom's breaking has happened to them. Now in one case, my friend was 15 years old when it happened. Think about this for all you people who call abortion "murder" (the whole homeostasis point by jr7 is pretty accurate too). She had her entire life in front of her, to party and have fun, finish school and go on to have a successful career and then settle down and have kids when she's older. Think about what a kid would do to her life. She would no longer have the social life she once enjoyed, and fuck thinking about any career whilst being a teenage mum (A teenage single mum since the father pretty much ditched her). She would be stressed, not enjoy her life and not only that she'd ruin her kids life too. She'd have struggled to support him or her, wouldn't have had the patience and the emotional strength to nurture him like she potentially would when she was in her 30's or something. Yeah adoption is an option, but there is also an emotional attachment and an overridden sense of guilt for mothers who take that route.

I know some of you will say "But what about the guilt of killing an unborn child"? Well this goes back to jr7's point, they can not achieve homeostasis which means that they are technically not living creatures. It's pretty much like calling a chicken's egg a living creature. It doesn't breathe, it can't regulate bodily functions so therefore it should not be considered morally wrong, especially if the mother is a teenager like my friend was. You could pretty much say the same for sperm, as it has the potential to be alive. Saying that abortions are wrong because you're destroying a potential life is the same as saying wacking off is wrong cause sperm can become people.

Bottom line - People should have the right to choose whether to keep a fetus or not, especially as if they are a potential teenage mother it can potentially destroy their lives.

PS - Objection - Please stop with your double standards mate.

 

[akuchi]

And maybe there's another word for a boy who demonstrates this same behaviour. I believe that the word I'm looking for is 'player'?

Which has nowhere near the same negative connotations and is probably the most often cited example of the double standard 'girls are sluts, boys are studs'. A man having fucked a large number of women is a stud, a player, etc etc. A woman having fucked a lot of men is a slut, whore, etc etc.

 

[Objection]

Which has nowhere near the same negative connotations and is probably the most often cited example of the double standard 'girls are sluts, boys are studs'. A man having fucked a large number of women is a stud, a player, etc etc. A woman having fucked a lot of men is a slut, whore, etc etc.

It's society in general that made it that way, not me. Perhaps you could find a word that does have more negative connotations than stud and player then? To be honest though, both of those words will have negative connotations in my eyes anyway.

 

[akuchi]

You are fucking ridiculous. 'Society does it, so it's okay'! I'm out; be glad you've won the 'most logically inconsistent misogynist of the week' title.

 

[Objection]

You are fucking ridiculous. 'Society does it, so it's okay'! I'm out; be glad you've won the 'most logically inconsistent misogynist of the week' title.

I just used the terms that society as a whole uses because nobody has come up with better ones, although now I do recall someone at school coming up with "man-whore" as an alternative to stud or player. Maybe that would work better.

Also, "society does it" does NOT mean "society does it so it's OK". In fact, if you're saying that the word for a man who has had sex with loads of women needs the same negative connotations as the word for a woman who has had sex with loads of men, I absolutely 100% agree.

 

[akuchi]

You never actually said what's so bad about the enjoyment of sex, leaving me to believe it's some creepy puritanical THE HUMAN BODY IS DISGUSTING thing.