Abortion: let's get a real debate going

southernchick · Oct 31st 2009, 1:32am

I just quit..I stated my opinions. noone can say they are wrong becasue they also have opinions..I don't appreciate being bashed for where I am from or how I have no brain.that shows the lack of maturity. And without maturity there is no point of debating it jus sounds like two five year olds fighting..so what's the point.

have a good day =]

Goddess of Judecca · Oct 31st 2009, 1:33am

southernchick wrote:

Um and I didn't say you did it..I said I came to the wrong conclusion..not you did it.that just shows your lack of analyzing things.and I don't care who neg rep me cuz it
doesn't mean the same anymore sense you can now buy rep points.so wow..one neg.woohoo! haha.I finally have a red dot!

~Maggot

Heather · Oct 31st 2009, 1:36am

southernchick wrote:

I just quit..I stated my opinions. noone can say they are wrong becasue they also have opinions..I don't appreciate being bashed for where I am from or how I have no brain.that shows the lack of maturity. And without maturity there is no point of debating it jus sounds like two five year olds fighting..so what's the point.

have a good day =]

I don't understand where you're coming from saying that people aren't being mature, when you're spewing off all kinds of swear words, as if that's going to make your opinions stronger. It's not, it's just going to make you look like an idiot, and nobody is going to take you seriously.

As for the debate, Laura is right in what she's saying. Hands down.

southernchick · Oct 31st 2009, 1:38am

Opinions are Opinions

LuklaAdvocate · Oct 31st 2009, 1:38am

If people are going to advocate a women's right to abortion, do it through political means. In other words, arguments such as: if it's illegal, more women will die through back ally abortions; if it's illegal, a new mother will be forced to care for an unwanted baby. Similarly, not all families can afford a new baby, and the current adoption system is crap; furthermore, a baby can be emotionally/physically hard on the mother, as can a pregnancy. Can we try using using those augments for once? The one's that are...oh what's the word... logical?

The most I'm seeing here is human intellect being slapped in the face with arguments consisting of: abortion is justified because the fetus isn't "human" or it isn't "living." Get real. All of this "to be considered alive, it must meet six qualifications" crap is moronic. A fetus is a growing, living organism; anybody who says otherwise are kidding themselves. The same goes for the fetus being human. All living things are made of up cells; the fetus is made up of living, eukaryotic cells that maintain homeostasis. It's living. Plain and simple.

So can we all cut the whole "the fetus is living/the fetus is not living" bs? It seems like this issue gets so heated the people ignore basic common sense regarding what's alive and what's not.

dandaitalianman · Oct 31st 2009, 1:40am

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

~Maggot

Heather · Oct 31st 2009, 1:41am

southernchick wrote:

Opinions are Opinions

True, but can't you be mature when you state yours, before you go off and complain that others aren't being mature?

Just saying.

Goddess of Judecca · Oct 31st 2009, 1:42am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

If people are going to advocate a women's right to abortion, do it through political means. In other words, arguments such as: if it's illegal, more women will die through back ally abortions; if it's illegal, a new mother will be forced to care for an unwanted baby. Similarly, not all families can afford a new baby, and the current adoption system is crap; furthermore, a baby can be emotionally/physically hard on the mother, as can a pregnancy. Can we try using using those augments for once? The one's that are...oh what's the word... logical?

The most I'm seeing here is human intellect being slapped in the face with arguments consisting of: abortion is justified because the fetus isn't "human" or it isn't "living." Get real. All of this "to be considered alive, it must meet six qualifications" crap is moronic. A fetus is a growing, living organism; anybody who says otherwise are kidding themselves. The same goes for the fetus being human. All living things are made of up cells; the fetus is made up of living, eukaryotic cells that maintain homeostasis. It's living. Plain and simple.

So can we all cut the whole "the fetus is living/the fetus is not living" bs? It seems like this issue gets so heated the people ignore basic common sense regarding what's alive and what's not.

The issue originally brought up was whether it was living or not, and I think it's an interesting topic to discuss. And seeing as a debate on a random forum isn't going to change the law, why does it matter from what angel we approach it?

I'm sorry if you're just too good for this discussion, but if that's the case, then feel free to ride your high horse back to the nunnery. I, personally, like to look at things from every angle, not just a political one. CRAZINESS, I KNOW.

~Maggot

southernchick · Oct 31st 2009, 1:53am

no, but I don't want to argue about who's opinions are right or wrong..because everyone's opinions are right..

nah.my horse is short

lol

Goddess of Judecca · Oct 31st 2009, 2:01am

southernchick wrote:

no, but I don't want to argue about who's opinions are right or wrong..because everyone's opinions are right..

nah.my horse is short lol

...Not talking to you. Like, at all.

~Maggot

Heather · Oct 31st 2009, 2:07am

LuklaAdvocate · Oct 31st 2009, 2:08am

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

The issue originally brought up was whether it was living or not, and I think it's an interesting topic to discuss. And seeing as a debate on a random forum isn't going to change the law, why does it matter from what angel we approach it?

I'm sorry if you're just too good for this discussion, but if that's the case, then feel free to ride your high horse back to the nunnery. I, personally, like to look at things from every angle, not just a political one. CRAZINESS, I KNOW.

~Maggot

One of the initial responses brought up was the implication that the abortion of a fetus has no moral dilemma. In fact, the term "living" and "human" weren't even mentioned when the issue was raised by the OP (in this thread, out of the thousands before it).

The problem with the whole "angle" that's been brought up is the fact that because people get so caught up in this debate, common sense get's thrown out the window. Of course the fetus is living; of course the fetus is more significant than a brain cell (why anybody would compare killing a fetus to killing a brain cell is beyond me).

Most people I know of feel anguish when they hear about the murder of a pregnant mother and her fetus, and they feel anguish for the unborn child. But when it's time for an abortion debate, suddenly, the fetus is just another "blob of cells." There are an excessive amount of people that get so heated in this debate that they disregard common sense simply so they can justify their belief.

southernchick · Oct 31st 2009, 2:10am

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

...Not talking to you. Like, at all.

~Maggot

thank you!!!!!!! thts all I ask!!!!!!!!!!!

Goddess of Judecca · Oct 31st 2009, 2:14am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

One of the initial responses brought up was the implication that the abortion of a fetus has no moral dilemma. In fact, the term "living" and "human" weren't even mentioned when the issue was raised by the OP (in this thread, out of the thousands before it).

The problem with the whole "angle" that's been brought up is the fact that because people get so caught up in this debate, common sense get's thrown out the window. Of course the fetus is living; of course the fetus is more significant than a brain cell (why anybody would compare killing a fetus to killing a brain cell is beyond me).

Most people I know of feel anguish when they hear about the murder of a pregnant mother and her fetus, and they feel anguish for the unborn child. But when it's time for an abortion debate, suddenly, the fetus is just another "blob of cells." There are an excessive amount of people that get so heated in this debate that they disregard common sense simply so they can justify their belief.

Dude, I can tell you're the TH version of Kizz, so I'm going to just stay far, far away from you. I suffer from migraines enough as it is. I don't need to aggravate the problem.

~Maggot

LuklaAdvocate · Oct 31st 2009, 2:22am

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

Dude, I can tell you're the TH version of Kizz, so I'm going to just stay far, far away from you. I suffer from migraines enough as it is. I don't need to aggravate the problem.

~Maggot

You have fun with that. I noticed that this is the second time you've scrambled yourself out of a little debate with me. Is that because you're having trouble coming up with a prevarication that covers this particular conversation?

P.S. You don't need to answer; it was a rhetorical question.

Goddess of Judecca · Oct 31st 2009, 2:25am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

You have fun with that. I noticed that this is the second time you've scrambled yourself out of a little debate with me. Is that because you're having trouble coming up with a prevarication that covers this particular conversation?

P.S. You don't need to answer; it was a rhetorical question.

Actually, I didn't even read your post. But I know your type well enough to stay away from them.

And that's alright, I'll reply anyway. I'm a generous person, ya know.

~Maggot

LuklaAdvocate · Oct 31st 2009, 2:36am

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

Actually, I didn't even read your post. But I know your type well enough to stay away from them.

Wow, that's original. If you're going to lie to cover yourself, at least try to think of a new theme to deviate from the topic. Preferably something other than "I know your type."
Muchas gracias.

Goddess of Judecca · Oct 31st 2009, 2:47am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Wow, that's original. If you're going to lie to cover yourself, at least try to think of a new theme to deviate from the topic. Preferably something other than "I know your type."
Muchas gracias.

Haha. You're great. X)

~Maggot

LuklaAdvocate · Oct 31st 2009, 4:37am

I do what I can.

LOLFag · Oct 31st 2009, 5:40am

southernchick wrote:

I have not seen where fag has said that a fetus doesn't posses homeostasis.. it does.. a fetus adjust to it's surroundings(womb)..which IS homeostasis..hmm..a fetus absorbs food and nutrients from the mother which is also a characteristic of life.the ability to gather food(heterotrophic).

then why would you insult me if noone will care.just to show your a bitch? well, you succeeded.congrats!

to be alive:

Living things are made up of cells.

Human homeostasis refers to the body's ability to regulate physiologically its inner environment to ensure its stability in response to fluctuations in the outside environment and the weather.

I wonder, when has it been shown that fetuses can survive outside the mother's womb? Oh wait, it can't. It can't regulate itself to survive anywhere but the mother's womb. It can't ensure stability in changing environments. It is limited to and only to the mother's womb.

A fetus is most definitely alive. Never did I say it wasn't. But is it an individual organism? Can it survive by itself? Can it last even a few moments outside of the mother? No.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

southernchick wrote:

Living things reproduce.
Living things are based on a universal genetic code
Living things obtain and use materials and energy.
Living things grow and develop
Living things maintain a stable internal environment
Living things respond to their environment

Guess what? A fetus can't.

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

southernchick wrote:

haha.and how old are you? I don't think you can say for a fact that it is not a human being if you are not a doctor.

Yes, I can. I'm 17, I've taken AP Biology, scored an easy 5, got 800 on my SAT II Biology, read the entire Campbell textbook, and I can very well guarantee that a fetus is not a human being. Why do I have to be a doctor to prove this? Do I need to be a mathematician to prove that 1+1=2?

How old are you? What do you know about biology?

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------

southernchick wrote:

yes.the fetus in the mother's body is a human being..A fetus is a mulitcellular organism.which is alive. Even unicellular organisms are alive..It consists of human DNA.which is of a human nature.The nature is what makes a human not because it has hands,feet,eyes,or legs.Although it is not fully developed, it is human by nature..

As I have heard before, "Its the mother's property; she can do whatever she likes with it,she owns it.". But if it has human DNA/nature then it is a person and can NOT be owned.

I found this question researching on the Internet for all of you who believe in abortion..

Is it okay, to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?

Mitochondria within cells have a set of different genes, separate from the rest of the cell. They divide and grow independently from the cell. Are they now a cell by themselves? Please correct me if I'm wrong, and that your implication that mitochondria are no longer organelles within cells, that they are no longer part of the cell.

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

southernchick wrote:

Yes they have homeostasis.They adjust to the temperature of the mother's body.If they dont they can either freeze or burn up.No they can't reproduce until they have reproductive organs.Can't evolve? hmm..well they get bigger and get new organs everyday..Your definition must be completely different than mine. haha..wow.insulting me? ha..yeah and why would I give a fuck wat you think about me since you don't even know me.

You just said that the dog will be carrying something way bigger then it should..so you say it is a growing it..because it will grow into a human..

HAHAHAHA no.

The mother's internal environment does not change. Are you telling me that humans are now exothermic beings? That our bodies have fluctuating pH levels? I'm sorry, please take a biology class before telling me this bullshit.

You do realize the definition of evolve, right? Growth =! evolve. Yes, my definition, and the definition accepted by the scientific community, is completely different from yours.

---------- Post added at 10:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

southernchick wrote:

and also, I don't see how your 6 characteristic make an organism alive is correct. Are you a science teacher? no. There is many different things to make something alive..

Are you a science teacher? No. Do you have to be a teacher to tell that a fetus is not human? No. Do you have to have a brain? Yes.

---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 AM ----------

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

If people are going to advocate a women's right to abortion, do it through political means. In other words, arguments such as: if it's illegal, more women will die through back ally abortions; if it's illegal, a new mother will be forced to care for an unwanted baby. Similarly, not all families can afford a new baby, and the current adoption system is crap; furthermore, a baby can be emotionally/physically hard on the mother, as can a pregnancy. Can we try using using those augments for once? The one's that are...oh what's the word... logical?

The most I'm seeing here is human intellect being slapped in the face with arguments consisting of: abortion is justified because the fetus isn't "human" or it isn't "living." Get real. All of this "to be considered alive, it must meet six qualifications" crap is moronic. A fetus is a growing, living organism; anybody who says otherwise are kidding themselves. The same goes for the fetus being human. All living things are made of up cells; the fetus is made up of living, eukaryotic cells that maintain homeostasis. It's living. Plain and simple.

So can we all cut the whole "the fetus is living/the fetus is not living" bs? It seems like this issue gets so heated the people ignore basic common sense regarding what's alive and what's not.

I see that you're advocating for pathos and ethos arguments. I'm sorry, but I'm the logos type of guy. Does it make my argument any weaker? On the contrary, I believe providing facts to be a stronger basis in an argument than using ethics and morals.

A fetus is alive. Just as a cell is alive. Is it a human being? No. Does it regulate its internal surroundings to compensate for fluctuations in the external environment? By all means, give me evidence that it can. As far as I know, it can't. At all. Take it out of the mother's womb, and let's see it live on. Oh, what do you know? It died. Abortion works on this principle. Ever thought of that?

Common sense does not hold any ground in the scientific community. You have to have proof to back your claims.

---------- Post added at 11:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

One of the initial responses brought up was the implication that the abortion of a fetus has no moral dilemma. In fact, the term "living" and "human" weren't even mentioned when the issue was raised by the OP (in this thread, out of the thousands before it).

The problem with the whole "angle" that's been brought up is the fact that because people get so caught up in this debate, common sense get's thrown out the window. Of course the fetus is living; of course the fetus is more significant than a brain cell (why anybody would compare killing a fetus to killing a brain cell is beyond me).

Most people I know of feel anguish when they hear about the murder of a pregnant mother and her fetus, and they feel anguish for the unborn child. But when it's time for an abortion debate, suddenly, the fetus is just another "blob of cells." There are an excessive amount of people that get so heated in this debate that they disregard common sense simply so they can justify their belief.

The OP merely asked for people's opinions on abortion, whether they believe it is right or wrong. Does it limit us to using only "common sense" to structure our arguments? Are we restricted from providing scientific facts and extrapolation? If we are, then by all means continue the debate through your methods.

Again, common sense doesn't do you any good in a debate. You need facts. It was common sense back in the days that the world was flat. It was common sense back in the Greeks that gods regularly intervened in daily affairs. It was common sense that evil deeds were the works of witches in the old days, and it was common sense that, well, I wouldn't want to go on and on about how common sense is erroneous without factual evidence to back it up. Killing a fetus is analogous with killing a brain cell simply because, while the fetus is more physiologically developed, both are essentially cells that lack independent life or a conscience. Unless you're trying to tell me that fetuses have a conscience, that is.

I do not feel anguish over the unborn child. Why? Because while it is unborn, it is not human. If you're building a computer and finished it halfway, is it a computer? It has the potential to become a computer, but why isn't it a computer? Because it's not the finished product. It doesn't have the same properties of a computer. It cannot function. The same applied here.

If justifying one's belief through factual evidence and not common sense is wrong here, by all means I'll be wrong.

Share

Tags