Does that mean we shouldn't outlaw them?

If so the same can be applied to murdering children and slinging crack-cocaine.

People are going to do them anyway, so we should let it happen on a regulated basis!

I hate that logic. Simply hate it.

ehh. like it or not, some people don't believe abortion is wrong.

now, if the people who don't believe abortion is wrong don't force people who think it's' wrong to get abortion, and the people who think abortion is wrong don't force people who don't think it's wrong to not get abortions, then that's fair.

it's a matter of freedom. abortions, arguably, don't hurt any registered living human being. arguably, if from the point of conception is where you're counting it to be a living human being, then arguably, it's still the mother's untill it's born.

outlawing abortions is taking away a 'right' that people have had for a while and people in other countries have.

not giving people rights is easy. taking them away, that's harder.

it'd be like... saying women can't serve in the military anymore.

Until you can prove to me that abortion isn't wrong (which you haven't done), allowing abortions, to me, is like legalizing murder and the selling of crack-cocaine.

I think your vision is pretty skewed. I think we should go back to the letter system. If a woman is a whore she should have a small red W sewn into all her clothes.

Was it a 'W' or an 'A'?

I dunno i saw it on SNL.

double post

bah. abortion isn't wrong because:

in the first trimester, the fetal material is not congnitive. the brain has not developed any higher learning areas.

sure, it looks human, but it's only 3 cm long and it's still forming.

it is, at this stage, still a parasite. this can be recognized in fetuses where the mother's immune system isn't put in check- it kills the fetus.

and in the ones where the mother's immune system does the wrong thing- it kills the mother.

and the most imporant reason why abortions aren't wrong, as of now, is that they're legal. prove why they're wrong.

justin, using that it's legal isn't going to help us. ciggarettes are legal too, as is alcohol.

also, something i pointed out in the stem cell research thread..

an organism is not considered living until it has all of these characteristics:

Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.

in 1st trimester pregnancies, the embryo does not have all of these characteristics. it has not started eating (obtaining and using energy), it cannot reproduce, it is not yet growing and developing (maybe in late 1st trimester), it does not respond or adapt to its environment..it is just a lump of cells, which is not a living organism.

i think its wrong, even if you've been raped. is it the baby's fault that you were raped? or that you had sex? if you dont want it, people can put it up for adoption,or something. what if that babylearns how to live forever or find the cure for cancer in the future?

This is a debate. Please back up your opinion with facts.

Anywho, many, many people have been born, but not one of them has found a cure for cancer yet, right? That is a weak and baseless arguement against abortion.

please, please learn to read the thread before posting in the debate forum. it is part of the rules. thanks.

1) Should we just start ending all potential?
2) Several thousand 2nd trimester abortions occur annually, and several hundred 3rd trimester abortions; justify that.

responding to 1)

potential is ended all the time. every month by billions of females. there is tons of potential around. if a 4 cell embryo is divided in half, it will become two identical twins. but just because there is to potential for an extra life there doesn't mean it has to happen.

and, in the end, that's what an feotus is. potential. just potential for life. which means- not life. and we shouldn't start ending all potential; but we shouldn't stop ending potential either. potential could be for good or bad- just because there is the potential for good doesn't mean you should allow it.

sure, that potential may find the cure for cancer. they could also cause the destruction of the human race. but, to be realistic, how adopted babies now a days find cures to anything?


anyways:

people go outside the country to adopt babies because they don't want black babies. that's just the way life is. so, what happens for all the unwanted babies that are newly in the adoption system? all the pretty white babies will be adopted... and then white soccer moms who want a baby without the trouble will pay 32,000 dollars to go to russia to adopt a baby.

if abortions are illegalized, then where do all the other babies go? the ones that no one wants, because they don't look america, they don't fit with the decoration? how many people do you think will walk into the adoption center and say, hey- give me your ugliest baby that nobody wants.

don't see too many adopters saying "that baby has AIDs? we want to adopt him!"

the adoption system works well. if you're a good looking white baby. but when people go to russia to adopt babies because " they look american, and you can't get american looking babies in america anymore, you just can't", you can't in all honesty say it's working for everyone else.

and yea, when women go on their period, that's ending potential lives too. .. should we outlaw menstruating? (sp? gosh, i never ever knew how to spell that..)

Even if abortion would be illegalized.. some pregnant women would still do it due to their situations..

Alright then. When I become a politician, I'll be sure to end all social welfare programs because God forbid I go against sadolacked acid's sentence.

just because there is the potential for good doesn't mean you should allow it.

ehh. you're taking that out of context.

anyways; social welfare systems help people who are alive.

Seriously...for all those people that don't know anything about abortions and are saying...if its done early its not really alive and not murder. If you ever seen pictures and videos captions of abortions being done..you'd think otherwise. It only takes like a week and a half for the baby to be differentialized. IE. Having a body, arms, hands, legs, basically a little human being already. Women can't find out they're pregnant until a week after their missed period so....do the math. What happens in abortions is that they rip apart limb by limb the small baby inside the woman. its sad...its murder i'd say. I used to be for abortions because i didn't know much about them, and thought i'd rather not have the child...but then i found out what really happens. That's all i gotta say...but really its the girls choice.

i have seen pictures and vidoes of what the feotus looks like in various stages of devolopment. i also know what's happening there.

having limbs isn't the requirement to be alive.

that's just a framework. it's a scaffolding. it's a mold. inside, the various cells are differentiation and dividing. because the foetus is more than three cells thick, it need to hvae a blood supply, so the heart develops and starts beating pretty soon.

however; the baby will not develop working nerves untill the middle of the third trimester. the nerves don't work because they haven't been mylenated yet.

yes. abortions require cutting apart a cell mass and extracting it piece by piece. but it's not more human than a teretoma- a mass of ESCs (or EC- embryonic carcinoma) cells that form a tumor and differentiates into teeth and hair and nerves and a heart. it's the the exact same as a feotus, just not in the right places. neither are alive.

hahah sorry but i have to say this.

"No, you may not get an abortion! We're conservatives! That's the one way that we don't kill people!" -American Dad

^ haha.



READ THE THREEEEAD.

if you had read my post about the characteristics of living things, you'd KNOW otherwise.

None of whom are more important than the person that would grow from an 'unimportant, disposable fetus'.

A homeless man with an addiction to methamphetamines is more worthy of the government's protection than a would-be innocent baby?

But sure, I guess you're right. I read an example about a woman named Teesha Groth in New York who's had seven abortions and is only 27 years old.

I can see how you'd want to fight for that 'right'. [/sarcasm]

This topic has just been beat into the ground.

Everyone's point of view is different and mostly dependent upon their religion and personal beliefs. Why even debate this topic is nothing is going to come of it? It's not like you can really change anyone's beliefs regarding abortion on a message board...

Here is a brief explination of my view:

1) Yes, a fetus is alive from the moment of conception.
2) No. 1 is a technicality, because even though it is alive, it CANNOT feel nor truly grasp what is being done. Only the mother and other human beings on the OUTSIDE can.
3) Once the mother is past 6 months in her pregnancy, abortion should not an option. Period. A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N, people.....
4) I think that abortion should be used as birth control when necessary to keep drug addicts, prostitues and the terminally ill from reproducing.

Anyone who thinks I'm radical or wrong or both.....well, I might be but I am not going to change or repent.

im pro-choice, but its a difficult matter to talk about. there are certain times it should be allowed and certain times it shouldn't. but realisitcly you can't have that sort of law..so if i had to choose one or the other i'd say yes. but only allow like..one per person, cause thats ridiculous to have to have multiple abortions.

ah, yes. i also agree with this. (=

^ please don't double post. just edit the first post next time.

and people, stop saying that embryos are living. cause they're not. this is proven, as i pointed out a couple posts back. most 1st trimester embryos only exhibit 1 or 2 of the characteristics of living organisms. that means they are not living.

Right then. Justify the example I pointed out in my previous post and I'll withdraw all of my preconceived notions about abortion.

Signed,

Justin

I CAN'T.

justin, i already said i only support 1st trimester abortions, and 2nd if it's life-threatening..and only 1 abortion..

stop telling me to justify others..

Being against abortion is okay. For yourself.
When you begin to protest against it, to prevent ANYONE from having this choice, that's when it pisses me off. Stop trying to control other people's lives and decisions. If they don't want the baby, it's their choice and so abortions being available just helps them.

I think the baby counts as a human being when it begins to develop a brain.

I should have specified.

Justify the Teesha Groth example. Justify 7 first trimester abortions before 30 years of age.

^ we can't. sure, limit those a bit. don't limit all.

Let's move onto a contradiction that the supporters of the "1 and then you're done" have set themselves up for.

Lady gets her one abortion, then gets pregnant again.

Oh no, she might go into a dark alley with a coat hanger and do it improperly!

well, if she decides to get pregnant again, that's her problem.

i do think one is ok. it gives those who did accidentally get pregnant a chance to learn from their mistakes.

In other words, let's coddle ignorance once in this instance. Got it.

We should do that for armed robbers, murderers, rapists, and domestic violence offenders, too! Let 'em screw up once.

drunk drivers can kill people.

but we don't revoke licenses till the third charge.

Who said I didn't support more stringent rules concerning DUI's and even the Third Strikes law?

You're confusing what I do and do not want to push for. You can only work one step at a time.

oh wait. i'm so stupid...



we do do that. we wait till someone commits a crime to arrest them, instead of just arresting all the people in the ghetto.

That doesn't mean we don't legally outlaw raping, murdering, and selling narcotics to someone.

yes, but those hurt a living being.

a feotus has status, yes, but it's not really alive.

the whole principle of banning abortions is based on the idea that abortions are killing a living human.

so; prove feotuses are living humans.

It all deals with potential.

A knife has the potential to kill someone. A line of crack has the potential to kill brain cells.

Turn the tables and say that an abortion kills a potential human and wow, we have ourselves a completely justifiable law.

One that gets abused by single people several times.

just because a freedom gets abused doens't mean it's wrong.

americans are free to own guns, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

birth makes a potential stillborn alive. we have to let potential play out. all feotuses must be aborted.

^ same logic.

That is not funny. Although I'm pro-choice, I would never laugh at something as sadistic as that.

I dont support abortion. Mainly because I know a couple of people close to me that were supposed to be aborted. To me I just cant understand why a mother cant put up her baby for adoption if she doesnt want to raise it.

why can't you let the mother decide?

Yeah I know its the mothers decision. She has the right to abort and I cant stop that. I didnt make that clear earlier. I just dont see why its so hard for them to put the baby up for adoption. But thats just me, its her choice not mine.

I'm pro-choice. I'm just gonna leave it at that.

Do you have any idea how hard adoption is? Not only does it cost more money than an abortion, but there is the potential of that kid being shuffled around from foster home to foster home. There is so much paperwork involved, and it's not easy finding a family willing to adopt. There are also emotional drawbacks. The biological mother can feel regret, sorrow, anguish, and it can come back to haunt her AND the child. Yes, many of these emotional cons are experienced in abortion, but the child can suffer as well. They can feel rejected, unwanted, and a desire to meet their birth parents, which can alienate the adoptive parents as well.

Would you rather one person and a lump of cells inside their body suffer, or a group of people with developed brains, emotions and lives? Would you rather save a "potential" life and let an actual life (or lives) suffer?

Many places such as Planned Parenthood can offer abortions for a low cost or sometimes even for free. Adoption costs so much more than that. This is maybe why they weren't put up for adoption. Abortion, however immoral it may seem to some, is the best and sometimes only choice for some people. Who are you to judge that? If you don't want your girlfriend/wife to have an abortion and she doesn't want one, that's fine. But this is why I'm pro-choice. We cannot judge others' decisions based off our beliefs. That is selfish and narrow-minded.

However, there is a 100% failure rate when it comes to abortion, and you know why. The potential is killed every time.

On the contrary, the failure rate when it comes to adoption is substantially lower. At least some success stories come out of it.

There are those who don't want that potential to happen. Why? Because that "potential" life could ruin theirs. How can our society expect a 14 year-old girl not to feel gulity about giving up a live, breathing baby to a man and woman she barely knows, then turn around and say giving up a lump of cells is wrong? It would be illogical to say that a potential life is more important than a living, breathing baby.

A lump of cells with arms, legs, and defined features of a face. Sounds like a 9-month difference of bona fide selfishness.

Go out on a weekend and get knocked up, but pay the price.

"Rape, incest, what about these instances?!"

Yeah, yeah, I know. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to reiterate the fact that those are rare instances. I just don't know.

People don't listen.