Techno Viking wrote:

I'm not pro-abortion. I'm-pro murder.

Subfusc wrote:

That's the spirit! Here's the rule, if you've watched MTV or been to a religious ceremony in the last three month, you die.

Spadey wrote:

Okay. I, unlike everyone else it seems in this debate, am against abortion. I think it's all down to when you think the human life starts, partly. I believe it starts at conception, so effectively it's murdering a child, in my eyes. I can understand why people are for abortion, and I think in extreme circumstances it's okay (as in the mother's life is in severe danger, as it's best to just lose the child than both the child and the mother).

Spadey wrote:

I don't know. It doesn't neccessarily have to be a human being to be human life. It's all about when the 'soul' enters the human body. Which some people think is at conception, some at 13 weeks, some when an unborn baby gets certain features etc.

Everyone's different. I just believe it's at conception

Jenna wrote:

I am totally against abortion.... for myself. I would never get one because I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life wondering what could have been if I had kept the baby. But at the same time, I don't impose that belief on anyone else. I don't think that any person has the right to tell another woman what to do with her body. It's the most life-affecting decision a girl can make, who am I or anyone else to say we can make it for her?

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Another abortion thread? I can hardly imagine how this will end up...

It depends on the situation. If a pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, then yes, abortion should be legal. Similarly, if the fetus has a genetic defect that would make its life agonizing, then it should also be the mothers discretion as to what to do.

ComplicatedMind wrote:

Screw the scientific shitwork, it is her decision.

LOLFag wrote:

Alright. Prepare for some intense typing.

There are 2 stages in baby development: embryo and fetus. The embryo is nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING remotely close to a human being. So let's outline the development of the embryo. We have fertilization. The resulting embryo undergoes intense and rapid division, known as cleavage. This is rapidly creating random cells not different from stem cells. In essence, this is a ball of cells, called a morula. Now, as we continue over time, this morula will begin to indent, forming the blastula, and differentiate into 3 germ layers, the endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm. All this time, it's still a ball of cells. When the three germ layers are developed, this is the gastrula. Then comes organogenesis, when the neural tube is folded from the neural plate and the somites, which will eventually create the spin, and the heart is made.

End of embryonic stage. The fetal stage comes along 11 weeks after fertilization, or roughly 3 months. Even as the baby continues to slowly differentiate into more and more complex body parts and recognizable shapes, it is still not a human being. Why? We classify organisms as as a living organism capable of homeostasis, or independent living. The fetus, on the other hand, requires the mother for survival. It derives its nutrients from the mother. It functions with the mother, and if the fetus is transferred to another mother, it will die. Hence, we can think of the fetus as not an individual organism, but as a parasitic appendage of the mother, like an arm or a leg.

Pro-life activists would then use the argument that the baby has a different genome from the parent, therefore it is an independent organism. WRONG. The mitochondria in cells have a different set of DNA from the rest of the cells, and multiplies and divides independently of the cell. Yet we all know that the mitochondria is part of the cell and not an actual independent living thing.

Pro-life activists would also raise the point that a life is a life, regardless of whether it is independent or not. Then is hitting your head on the wall murder because you kill off thousands of neurons? Is menstruation a genocide because you're disregarding an egg potential of life (activists say since a fetus has the potential to become a human, it should not be aborted)? Of course not. And since the embryo is basically a ball of cells, aborting an embryo is definitely not murder in this scenario. And since a fetus is still not a human being, it is also not a murder.

There you have my stance.

captain_kurenai wrote:

JAW;IELJIOHBVKJLANRG D< Damnit, I wanted to say this!

Assaultrifle wrote:

we should abort abortion