Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 168 of 168

Thread: Abortions - Pro Choice or Pro Life?

  1. #161
    William's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    20
    Userbars
    0
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    3/3
    DL/UL
    6/0
    Mentioned
    Never
    Time Online
    3h 45m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    If aborting the baby was the ONLY way to save a mother's life, then abortion would be ok, since the death of the baby is an unfortunate side affect to saving the life of the mother. But only if it's an actual life of death situation. I would agree with you there.
    As for "well-being", Im not sure what you mean by that. That could mean many things.
    Anyways, the point of debate is to actually debate. You can't just say that the holocaust is a ridiculous example and not back it up.

  2. #162
    Meagan's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    248
    Userbars
    2
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    111/70
    Mentioned
    54 times
    Time Online
    3d 23h 14m
    Avg. Time Online
    1m
    You can't really pick and choose your terms of "half" legal abortions, if the baby had severe abnormality, trisomy 13 or 18, things to that nature, no baby should have to go through that. By making it illegal unless it's approved to be detrimental to the mother could possibly make her too far along to even have an abortion. In America with the debt incredibly high, making women keep a unwanted baby would put us more in debt. If she's already on welfare, has to go on welfare, putting the baby up for adoption will cost the country more money that we don't have.

    I have put a lot of thought in if I would ever have an abortion, especially now that I have a one year old, and I would. By me even having my daughter put me at risk for kidney failure during the pregnancy or causing my failure to be sooner. I have severe kidney disease and it was my choice to have her even though doctor's advised me not to have children but I like to think of my quality of life. Would I be happier possibly living longer by not having children? For me I wouldn't, I wanted a child very much. Now that I have her I fear of my life being cut shorter because of my kidneys but I want to give her a sibling if I pass sooner, so I know she would never be alone. However I would not put my family through a "burden" of a baby that has a trisomy or something worse, I would not want my daughter to have to care for an adult with high needs, or her to make the decision of turning over her sibling to the state when I'm incapacitated. I'm only going to have two pregnancies, if and when I get pregnant and feel I can risk my life again to have another. Now I wouldn't speak for another woman or take away her choice to do what she decides when I know (and hope) that I never have to make that decision myself but I'm prepared to have an abortion if need be. Who are you to take away my rights? There is no black or white area in abortions and making certain exceptions to a law that should never exist?

    OOOOAAARRGGHH!!

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Meagan For This Useful Post:

    Brittanee (10-24-2012)

  4. #163
    William's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    20
    Userbars
    0
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    3/3
    DL/UL
    6/0
    Mentioned
    Never
    Time Online
    3h 45m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    But didn't you make an exception to the "law that doesn't exist" by saying that you would not put your family through a "burden" of a baby that has a trisomy or something worse. There are always exceptions to laws. For example, we are never supposed to kill right. But in war, and in when our own life is in danger of being taken away, then it would be lawful. Now we see that the law says abortion is legal in all cases no matter what your state in life. Would you say that if a family is wealthy enough to support a child, abortion should still be an option for them? If so, explain to me your reasoning.
    Also, I live in Canada, and here, if you have a child with a disability, you get extra money from the government to care for your child, and people around would help you just because. I know a family of 10 kids whose mother died. When people found about their scenario, they immediately came to their aid. Is it the same where you live, or different. And who are you to take away a child's right to life.
    Last edited by William; 10-24-2012 at 12:53 PM.

  5. #164
    Meagan's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    248
    Userbars
    2
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    111/70
    Mentioned
    54 times
    Time Online
    3d 23h 14m
    Avg. Time Online
    1m
    I'm not sure you understand this, maybe you will one day, but once you have a child for the most part your views on life change. Your decisions change, priorities are different, right now my priority is to make my child happy and for her to be healthy. /My/ body because of "my kidney disease" to have any children puts me at a great risk of kidney failure and doing more damage to them. I will never qualify for a transplant when they fail. I want two children, for them to have eachother when I pass, now for me to sustain a pregnancy is very hard on me, I was on bedrest and a lot of medications. I will not go through another pregnancy if my child has a severe abnormality, trisomy 13 or 18, etc because it's not fair for /myself/ as it is a great toll on my body, or "others" you have said that will help if I pass, it's also not fair for my daughter either, she shouldn't have to have the responsibility to care for a high needs sibling, not to mention the resentment she'll have to it because it might have taken my life. This is my decision and one for my family as it is a great risk to my life. I'm not one to question another woman's choice even if their reasons aren't anything like mine. You also can't say "oh well in cases of rape or incest they could abort", that would also lead to a lot of false accusations of rape. There is no right or wrong answer here, if one day you have a family, or starting one and have to make a decision of something so personal you should not be submitted to laws making it illegal or people picketing outside of the clinic, practically jump through hoops to have a judge grant you permission to one, that's absurd.

    OOOOAAARRGGHH!!

  6. #165
    Chi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    453
    Userbars
    10
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked
    415/109
    DL/UL
    54/0
    Mentioned
    83 times
    Time Online
    13d 20h 9m
    Avg. Time Online
    4m
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    You can't predict the future.
    Why punish the child because of the crime of the father?

    Also, scientists agree that life begins at conception, also referred to as fertilization. Drs. Keith Moore and T. Persaud’s embryology textbook used by medical students at the University of British Columbia confirms this:

    Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original], the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell is the beginning of embryonic development. The zygote, just visible to the unaided eye as a tiny speck, contains chromosomes and genes (units of genetic information) that are derived from the mother and father. The unicellular organism, or zygote, divides many times and becomes progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth, and differentiation.



    What about the holocaust. If it didn't affect us personally, should we have just stood by and let it happen?



    Whether I agree or disagree, that is so? How does that convince me in the slightest?


    If you went into a coma, there's no telling when you would recover. You wouldn't be able to live independently, but that doesn't make them parasites. Also, patients can have a temporarily flat EEG, but shortly after, have a functioning brain again. In that time frame, would that person be not human? Would we be allowed to kill them?
    There is a difference between being in a coma and experiencing 'Brain Death'. Brain dead is dead. My point is that the life of a human or any animal does not begin until that animal has a functioning and 'living' brain. Therefore anything that lacks a brain is simply a shell that is being kept alive by an external incubator whether it be the woman or medical equipment. Therefore its the woman's choice, she is the incubator and if she doesn't want to continue then it is none of your business.

    Secondly that is not science's position it is two individuals perception/hypothesis. Science textbooks are NOT peer reviewed and whilst they are a semi-credible source they are not peer-reviewed pieces.

    (you need an account to see links) for example says that fertilisation is not the beginning of life and makes valid points for saying so....

    Furthermore you are linking that quote directly from a pro-life website....Which makes me believe that you have not considered an unbiased argument to this topic. So I invite you to do so.

    The holocaust is a completely different issue. Those people are living, breathing and experience psychological and physical pain. An embryo before 21 weeks (brain formation) does not experience any of those feelings....It isn't a living being.

    Lastly I stated that "Believe it or not, whether you agree or disagree without a functioning brain you are not living" because even if you disagree with this statement you are inherently wrong and there is no way you can give me evidence to prove otherwise. And to save yourself time don't bother linking Anencephaly patients.....

  7. #166
    William's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    20
    Userbars
    0
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    3/3
    DL/UL
    6/0
    Mentioned
    Never
    Time Online
    3h 45m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by Chi View Post
    Furthermore you are linking that quote directly from a pro-life website....Which makes me believe that you have not considered an unbiased argument to this topic. So I invite you to do so.
    I used that quote because I am from UBC and have seen that website. I can confirm that it is true since I have used the biology book that is being taught there. Did you even look into my source?

    Also, since we see conflicting sources, it is obvious that there is no agreement to when life begins. Your peer reviewed source doesn't make it fact or infallible. Anyways, I'm not sure if you even read your source because although it claims that life does not begin at conception, it says "Biology provides no clear defining event to answer this question." So if we are unsure, should we be killing? If we are hunting and are unsure whether it is a human or a deer in the bush, should we shoot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chi View Post
    Lastly I stated that "Believe it or not, whether you agree or disagree without a functioning brain you are not living" because even if you disagree with this statement you are inherently wrong and there is no way you can give me evidence to prove otherwise.
    I gave you evidence, you just didn't look into it.......still don't understand why you think my source is faulty. Also, may I ask, are you a biology/science student?
    The brain of a fetus starts functioning at about 6-7 weeks, not the 20 something weeks that is legal for abortion. This is taken from mere observation and scientific evidence, and I don't believe scientists dispute about this.

    ---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

    And Meagan, I really admire the sacrifice you made for your child. I wish all the best, as I see you are a very caring and courageous woman. Anyways, I might have said it incorrectly the first time, since I am not against your case. If the woman's life is threatened, then she will have the choice to abort or not. Laws making abortion illegal do not literally wipe abortion off the face of the earth because of cases like yours, which is, again, very admirable. So people who are in similar situations to yours would still have access to abortion. And I agree with you 100% that you can't say "oh well in cases of rape or incest they could abort". I agree very much that it leads to a lot of false accusations of rape.
    Thank you for being very kind in this debate. I appreciate very much, as the other people here seem to be attacking me

    Anyways, I think Ive said a lot about my stance, and I may be either annoying others, or not letting other people join in.
    So my final words:
    Thank you for debating with me about this issue. I respect all your stances, and understand where you coming from.
    But PLEASE do not act like a certain stance on this is set in mud.
    The very person(Roe in Roe vs. Wade) who was instrumental in making abortion illegal, became pro-life.
    Similarly, the person who could make the laws turn around, may become pro-choice.
    This is the debate section, and it would be nice to leave it that way. You need to position your statement so that one can respond to it. Don't tell others what their position MUST be. Tell them what your position is, and why you think it is correct.
    So with that, farewell!

    P.S. Asking questions is a good way to debate(i.e. the socratic method). Then you can more easily understand where the other person is coming from.
    Last edited by William; 10-24-2012 at 11:43 PM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to William For This Useful Post:

    Meagan (10-25-2012)

  9. #167
    Chi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    453
    Userbars
    10
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked
    415/109
    DL/UL
    54/0
    Mentioned
    83 times
    Time Online
    13d 20h 9m
    Avg. Time Online
    4m
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    I gave you evidence, you just didn't look into it.......still don't understand why you think my source is faulty. Also, may I ask, are you a biology/science student?
    The brain of a fetus starts functioning at about 6-7 weeks, not the 20 something weeks that is legal for abortion. This is taken from mere observation and scientific evidence, and I don't believe scientists dispute about this.
    I am not saying your source is faulty but its weak because its not a peer-reviewed article, its a 101 lesson you should learn in any scientific study...Textbooks are poor sources compared to peer-reviewed journal articles and you shouldn't reference them in a thesis however they can be good starting points. I did look into it, I googled the quote and only found the quote on pro-life websites, I found a review of the author T. Persaud in general and how he writes from a Christian Perspective. I also quickly read amazon reviews and one student mentioned that there were a significant amount of errors in the textbook with some others finding it dense. The point I linked the journal article was to show you that just because 'x' textbook says that does not make it scientific theory. It is just an assumption and different people can make different assumptions.

    Secondly the neural tube closes at 6 weeks, and five areas begin to develop by week 7 but the brain is not completely formed. All function before approximately 16 weeks is not voluntary, its more uncontrolled twitches, some neural communication but nothing neurally is ready for the outside world. At 19-21 weeks the foetus is beginning to function beyond just simple uncontrollable movements and this is why I think abortions should be legal up until this stage. There are also some cases of infants surviving at 22 weeks surviving outside the womb (<10%) compared to foetuses at 21 weeks or less (0%). I just also wanted to mention that second trimester abortions (13+) are far less common...

    I'd liken it to a cake....cooking time is one hour and at 20 minutes its still not a cake, the inside is undercooked and it won't retain its shape - inherently its just cake mixture. At 40 minutes its still a bit undercooked but after letting it rest and keeping it in a dry place its still semi-edible.

    Yes - I am a Psychology student majoring in Neuropsychology.

    I'm not saying your position is incorrect but I'm saying your statements are illogical and the links you made between abortion and the holocaust are not at all valid points. My second point, which I've made throughout the whole thread is that having an abortion in itself is a choice to be made by the family but finally by the mother. Going through pregnancy is risky there can be major complications and everything should be considered.

    To be pro-life and to support laws that are pro-life (and ban abortions) is not ethical in the sense that you are putting more people in harms way than helping them. Whilst it hasn't really been brought up at this stage I've mentioned before in the thread that people should be pro-sexual education (contraception) rather than pro-life/pro-choice as more of an education means less abortions. Abortions therefore one day would only be needed in extreme cases (disability that greatly diminishes the quality of life, risk to the mother, in cases of rape, unable to provide the basic environmental needs etc).
    Last edited by Chi; 10-25-2012 at 12:12 AM.

  10. #168
    Sci_Girl's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,206
    Userbars
    14
    Thanks
    982
    Thanked
    1,594/987
    DL/UL
    34/0
    Mentioned
    315 times
    Time Online
    49d 2h 15m
    Avg. Time Online
    16m
    Life right at conception? I think that is a matter of opinion there. Frankly I see the blastocyst/stem cell stage as nothing more than stem cells because thanks to their pluripotent status they are technically nothing but cells at that time.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •