Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence does not endanger your own..

Simple biology here.

An unborn child signifigantly raises risk factors for the mother. Fact is, an unborn child is indeed a danger to its mother. Birth was once a pretty common reason for the death of the mother.

You were saying?

reply to post by Maslo


No, it would not be logical. You don't sacrifice people for advancement. This is just basic human rights. And it's frightening that you would say it's "just" immoral. Morality is retarded. It's people trying to say they know what's right. Logical is defined. It's a code. It's law. And logic dictates that you do not kill yourself. Especially not for advancement. That's just retarded.

The fundamental rights of man are not based off some moral code. It's based off logic. The logic that says all should treat all as if all were one. This is basic evolutionary common sense. Go on about your death and suicide and other crap. The species that sticks together, lasts.

Basic logic which you seem to fail at, and for that, really should just leave the discussion.

reply to post by Sinnthia


We're human. We made it safer. Therefore your statement is invalid. Every day you walk out the door a car might hit you, or Nibiru might just turn out to exist and gobble you up. Yet we do not ban you from leaving your house. The fact is that life itself is a risk. That's not sufficient. Unless your potential for death is absolute from that child, you really have no point.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

We're human. We made it safer. Therefore your statement is invalid.

Safer? The unborn child is still a very real danger to the mother, however lessened that danger may be. Your terms were on the basis of being a danger, not the mitigating factors that weigh the risk level of each danger. Pregnant women are at a far greater risk of dying from all manner of issues that non-pregnant mothers are not.

The point is still pretty damn valid.

Every day you walk out the door a car might hit you, or Nibiru might just turn out to exist and gobble you up. Yet we do not ban you from leaving your house. The fact is that life itself is a risk. That's not sufficient. Unless your potential for death is absolute from that child, you really have no point.

You wander off with that tought then. I guess that makes more sense than admitting your initial premise and justification has been debunked. Talk about nibiru.

You said, "so long their existence does not endanger your own" and the baby does soo...sorry. Just admit when you got something wrong once and a while and you will be surprised at how receptive people become.

reply to post by Gorman91

No, it would not be logical. You don't sacrifice people for advancement.

Explain to me using only logic and biology (not any moral statements) why would genociding half of human race in gas chambers in exchange for practical interstellar space travel (thus spreading onto many stars or galaxies and ensuring our species will very probably NEVER become extinct, the ultimate goal of evolution achieved) be illogical (retarded)?

And logic dictates that you do not kill yourself. Especially not for advancement.

Logic dictates that you could do anything if the pros outweight the cons in the long run. So you can kill your species, especially for advancement in the long run (actually doing it for nothing would be illogical).

The fundamental rights of man are not based off some moral code. It's based off logic.

Yet you use moral statements to justify it.

The logic that says all should treat all as if all were one.

Moral statement.
Logic says we are not one, but humanity is composed of diverse individuals and populations, and there is no logical reason to not exterminate some noncritical portion of it, if logic says it would be beneficial for our evolutionary struggle in the long run.

The species that sticks together, lasts.

So why are not these animals extinct then?
wiki.answers.com...
www.time.com...
au.answers.yahoo.com...

This is basic evolutionary common sense.

Common sense is useless in a discussion of scientific topics.. Use scientific logic instead. And it says there are situations where killing own species is beneficial to the species evolution.

Basic logic which you seem to fail at, and for that, really should just leave the discussion.

It is you who failed to justify that species should NEVER kill their own kind with only logic. I dont have that problem, I acknowledge that using only logic and basic biology (without social sciences and morals) it cannot be justified, thats why I use moral arguments to deal with it.

reply to post by Sinnthia


So are smokers, so are factory workers, etc etc. Welcome to humanity. We risk our lives to do things. That's no reason to change. By having sex out of free will you are accepting the risks and dangers. And if those risks and dangers are assured to lead to your death, you have the right to opt out at that moment. You don't have a right to terminate life that comes about as a result of that free will and pursuit of happiness because it's annoying or an inconvenience. We conveniently provided many sources of protection for both you and the man involved. If you chose to ignore them, tough luck. But if you're about to die, we have to act to save A life. You have a right to life liberty and a pursuit of happiness, You have no rights to be happy, you must reach that through your choices and wise decision making.

Ergo, your point is nor valid, as the choice was made to take on that risk a long long time before the child became a risk.

Technically my existence at this very moment is endangering you. At any moment an electrical signal might come off my body, by random chance hit you, and by random chance kill you. This is not warding off topic. it's simple common sense. Risk and danger is not the same as "holy crap I'm going to die if this pregnancy doesn't end today". Please do not twist my words, you should know full well what they mean.

reply to post by Maslo


Because you are exterminating half. Doesn't matter what the goal is.

The pro here is life, the con here is death. You cannot have death for more life and call it a pro. That's not going to work. You either kill or you don't. You don't kill so that someone else doesn't have to. So many deaths have been justified in that fashion when the far more logical solution would be to simply say no and tell others to as well.

What morals are there? Killing your self is retarded. No morals. Just common sense.

Logic states that to kill to benefit the long run is not possible. because the act of killing means future people will think its ok. That's not morals. That's observed actions relating to behavioral after effects. If no one says beating your wife is wrong, no one will speak out against it. yet that wife is just as much human as you. Ergo there is no benefit. Basically, you can't take bricks from the bad house and use it in the good house. The good house will just no longer be good. It's faulty logic.

Those animals are not human. And therefore irrelevant.

Common sense is what drives science. At least up to quantum mechanics. But that's a whole other tale unrelated to abortion or being human.

reply to post by Gorman91

Logic states that to kill to benefit the long run is not possible.

Abortions preventing local overpopulation, thus humanity uses resources more efficiently (taking good care of 3 children which will all go to college and contribute to humanity, instead of having a hard time taking care of 6 children which will live in a povetry, bad conditions and may even be more harmful to humanity than beneficial) which is a benefit from evolutionary standpoint.

Stem cell therapy, killing some portion of future offspring (which would either way not be created and born if there was no stem cell therapy) would provide tremendous benefits to the whole humanity.

My hypothetical example with space travel will clearly greatly benefit humanity from logical evolutionary standpoint, and you still did not justify not accepting it using only logic.

If basic resources and food become constrained, its more logical to kill and eat half of your offspring so that the other half would survive, than all of your offspring and you dying of hunger.

because the act of killing means future people will think its ok. That's not morals. That's observed actions relating to behavioral after effects.

Finally a relevant logical argument, even if only one bordering with slippery slope logical fallacy.

They will probably still think its OK only if it again leads to such beneficial outcome, since that were the circumstances when they witnessed the killing. Your argument might be true, in case of killing already born humans, but one can also argue the opposite - witnessing such killing will make humans radically oppose anything that could lead to the same thing (see what happened after the holocaust).

I case of killing human embryos, it wont lead to people accepting more and more killing - since we live in such a world and no such thing is happening. So this argument maybe could be accepted as valid, but NOT in case of killing unborn humans, we directly see its invalid there, reality proved it wrong. And since thats what the topic is about, this argument does not cut it.

Those animals are not human. And therefore irrelevant.

Humans are just animals more advanced in certain areas (at the expense of the others maybe). Are you saying evolution and population laws do not apply to human species? The logical goal of evolution and biology - survive as a species as long as we can - is the same for ALL life.

reply to post by My_Reality

Biological self-sufficiency.

SELF-SUSTAINING DOES NOT EQUAL OR MEAN SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

You sir, are confused.


Please...educate yourself.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Gorman91
Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence does not endanger your own..

Simple biology here.

An unborn child signifigantly raises risk factors for the mother. Fact is, an unborn child is indeed a danger to its mother. Birth was once a pretty common reason for the death of the mother.

You were saying?

Abortion carries a higher risk of death then pregnancy does.

You can see the details in my reply here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A "risk" of injury of death does not justify action...an actual medical determined presence of a threat of injury or death does.

reply to post by My_Reality


Hmmm...I seem to have lost a reply somewhere in cyberspace...my earlier "self-sufficient" rant probably will make more sense after readign this.

You have a point...it is life, in a sense. However, is this life that you are defending self sufficient life? No...it is not. An embryo or fetus cannot survive without the mother providing the necessary biological necessities pertaining to biological growth. Yes, some late term fetus can survive out of the womb but almost in every case it is due to modern technology. I do not understand how you can classify an organism that is not biologically self sufficient as life.

How can you consider a single celled biologically self sufficient organism to a multi-cellular organism that is not biologically self sufficient? That argument makes no sense and is worthless.

It is not life "in a sense"...it is biological life...period.

You keep using "self-sufficient", when I think you are meaning to use "self-sustaining". "Self-sufficient" has no part of the biological definition of life.

But let's look at "self-sufficient" anyway...here is the definition:

dictionary.reference.com...

able to supply one's own or its own needs without external assistance

There are many humans that don't meet this criteria of yours. Newborns, infants, some elderly, some physically handicapped, and some mentally handicapped. None of those meet this criteria of "self-sufficient"...are all of these people not "human life"??? Is it ok to kill all these people because they are not "self-sufficient"?


Like I said...I think what you mean is "self-sustaining". And when it is used in the biological definition of life, it is in regards to "self-sustaining chemical reactions". A fetus has self-sustainng chemical reactions and processes...as long as it is provided food and a safe environment.

This goes for us as well...as long as we are provided external food and a safe environment, we are self-sustaining. This is all the mother does for the fetus, no different than a mother does for a newborn infant. And like I said before, there are many humans that can't provide food and shelter on their own.

So your criteria of "self-sufficient" isn't valid...and you are misusing it in relation to the definition of biological life.

2) Human women do not lay eggs like chickens. Your "hypotheses" is meaningless. Female chickens and humans do not share the exact same reproductive traits.

I think it is a perfectly valid scenario. The only difference is that the egg is external for the chicken and internal for humans. Biologically, there isn't much difference.

3) Yes, all humans start out as fertilized eggs. However, they are not fully developed until they are forced from their mother's womb. The "child" is not biologically self sufficient and could not have survived in the womb without the mother's body & biological processes(or outside the womb, prematurely, without modern technology). Biological self sufficiency is what makes organic life possible. This is not debatable.

This is debatable...because you are mis-using the biological definition of life. It doesn't have to be self-sufficient...a lot of life isn't...it only has to be chemically self-sustaining.

But you seem to go a step further here...and say that a "fetus" isn't a human until it is born. So are you saying you support abortions up to they day they are born? 8 months into pregnancy? 9 months into pregnancy? That is kind of sick, I think even most pro-choice folks would disagree with that position.

Abortion would be a non-issue if people would mind their own personal business.

Yeah...I guess so would murder

Frankly, anti-abortionists disgust me.

Frankly....baby killers disgust me.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Abortion carries a higher risk of death then pregnancy does.

Gosh thanks but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying, the point I was making, or what I was responding to. If you cannot follow along...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin

 

What is your opinion about embryonic stem cell therapy?

If adult stem cells from human body could be reversed by gene therapy to be exactly identical to embryonic stem cells (which would probably be accomplished in the future), thus creating embryo without sexual reproduction or conception involvedin the process, would it also have to be protected?

I am against embryonic stem cell research, just as I would be against any scientific research that would involve killing a human as a precursor to the research.


If they create a complete embryo, then yes...it is a human life and should be protected.


Do you not think so? What if they allow the embryo to develop into an infant...do you think they should be "protected"?

Originally posted by sliceNodice
You are not even human to me if you can justify abortion (unless it is to save the mother's life). The lot of you scares the hell out of me... You are demons, trash, filth, scum, lower than maggots.

jesus, what a hell of a discussion and still people not understanding abortion is NOT a pleasure, NOT a plastic surgery kind of intervention, it is a decision taken by just 1 woman in a given situation ( and NOT by us, we do not push women to have abortion, instead of lots of macho man make women pregnant and then leave them alone with their pregnancy and big problems to assume all of it ..... ), it is a very very very difficult decision because it is NOT what she did expect initially
( in case of rape or health problems or whatever she thinks is endangering her life !!!! ).
Do you really think the "pro"abortion people do push women to have abortions ??? that they are having a party after a abortion because some poor woman did take away a embryo into her womb ??? ridiculous !
the "pro"abortion people really would like there are at less abortions as possible !!! the less the better of course, but when 1 woman decides to have one because of big big problems who are you to defend it ?? who are you to push her into illegal abortion situation in suburb slums to endanger a bit more her life ???
pro abortion people just want as less as possible abortions !! but if one has to be done, well let it be in the best as possible clinical clean way.
You find the pro's inhuman ??? we find the ones that are putting women into danger and into despair and into pregnancy without responsibility much more inhuman ! Stupid world, stupid machos !!!

Originally posted by Gorman91
Ergo, your point is nor valid, as the choice was made to take on that risk a long long time before the child became a risk.

Because you shifted the goal posts, changed your argument, and switched topics? I do not think so. Changing the discussion in order to make a DIFFERENT point, does nothing to nullify the point I made. Your weak tactic is all too clear.

What you said was

Originally posted by Gorman91
Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence does not endanger your own..

That was your original argument. You not only failed to find fault in it, you barely addressed it. You just rambled onto something else that kind of sounds related but anyone that can read and follow a line of thought can see that is just a diversion. Sorry you cannot address the faulty statement you made.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by MindSpin
Abortion carries a higher risk of death then pregnancy does.

Gosh thanks but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying, the point I was making, or what I was responding to. If you cannot follow along...

I know exactly what you were responding to. You were trying to make the point that an unborn child presents a risk to the mother. I showed you that abortion carries a higer risk to the mother.


Do you dispute the facts I presented?

Originally posted by MindSpin
I know exactly what you were responding to.

Are you sure about that?

You were trying to make the point that an unborn child presents a risk to the mother.

For a very specific reason to point out the flaw in a very specific argument presented by another poster. If you actually read what I responded to, then I am even more sorry you have gotten so lost.

I showed you that abortion carries a higer risk to the mother.

And I said thank you but pointed out that had nothing to do with the point I was making.

Do you dispute the facts I presented?

Not really because I do not have to in order for the argument I was making to stand.
You really do seem confused. Perhaps allow gorman to continue shifting his original argument and you just sit back and watch because clearly you missed his original argument which was

Originally posted by Gorman91
Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence does not endanger your own..

To which I pointed out that a fetus does exactly that- endanger my own.

So you pointed out so do abortions. Great. Add that to the list then. Whatever helps you feel like you did something. Adopt any kids yet or just working on another 14 hour day of discussing abortion?

Actions speak louder than internet forum posts.

reply to post by Sinnthia

To which I pointed out that a fetus does exactly that- endanger my own.

A potential risk is not an actual endangerment.

There are times in pregnancy where a fetus does in fact endanger a mothers life...it is very rare...and most people I have seen have said that abortion is a medical decision at that time.

But just because the risk is present, does not justify actions in the case of abortion.


Technically...there is a risk my neighbor might kill me...should I do something about it? Kill him first in "self defense" of the potential risk???


And the risks of abortion being higher is relevant to your argument....because you are suggesting the solution to avoid a small risk is to undergo a procedure that has a higer risk

reply to post by Maslo


See, you think going to college and getting educated makes you worthy. From where I'm standing, in college, most of these folks are just not going to do anything for humanity. Most are just going to be like everyone else, only with money and power. They won't contribute much, The only difference between them and a starving middle aged man in India is that they're in America and have the potential to do more because of their freedoms. Not that they will. And once again we go into potential. Because right now you are arguing worth based off assumed potentiality. Assuming that education and other factors makes you better. The truth is that it's just not true. In every generations, very few actually contribute to humanity.Fewer still do it for good reasons. And overall, this is a moral issue, and therefore irrelevant to the value of a life.

All life is valued equal. What you are saying is not only against the equality of humanity, but simple nothing more than eugenics nonsense and has no place in contemporary society. If a people become overpopulated, we will deal with it. We will not say killing the problem is the solution. This is illogical and flat out suicidal and bordering psychopathy.