I'm unsure about this, but I think the medical definition for birth is the removal of the baby from the mother's body.

^ do you mean the medical definition for birth as in the "creation" of a life? or just simply....birth.

Well, according to this Medical dictionary [nih.gov], birth is defined as:

1 : the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent
2 : the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb

I don't understand the distinction here. If a fetus is a person prior to birth in other respects, why does it not count as a person prior to birth for purposes of citizenship?

And why is a person counted for two counts of murder when murdering a pregnant person, but the fetus is not counted in any other respects?

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that it was a malicious, concerted act of violence, and the fact that the killer took the life of a mother and her unborn child just gives the court another good reason to lock away such a psycho.

In an abortion clinic, however, the "mom" doesn't want the baby.

March for Life was crazy. Soooo many people in DC.

Disregarding ethics, is abortion beneficial to society? In Freakonomics (yes, one of my many hobbies is reading horribly mainstream non-fiction), the author argues that Roe v. Wade prevented the birth of future criminals and was the reason why the crime rate decreased. What do you guys think of this analysis/theory?

Well, the author clarified that abortion wasn't exactly an efficient was to end crime, and, depending on one's viewpoint, may have resulted in more deaths than the crimes would have caused.

Of course, I don't hold the opinion that abortion is murder, so I think there's some merit to Levitt's point. As he noted in Freakonomics, most women who get abortions do so because they know they cannot care for a child—not only in financially, but also merely in terms of truly loving and raising that child. Most abortions are had by low-income women who would not only be raising their child in poverty, but would be raising their child in a culture in which the child is not loved or nurtured—a culture in which the child will end up making the same mistake as his parents, in terms of drug abuse, crime, and so forth. The question is, is that better or worse than terminating a fetus before it really develops into a person with a personality, etc.?

^ that theory is interesting and i never thought of it before. but one could also argue that future scientists/great thinkers were aborted too. it works both ways.

i believe this debate is rather exhausted, both on CB and in real life. i love children, i honestly do, and i believe that everyone deserves a chance (although i don't have a very sentimental value towards life). i think that a controlled system is best, not a complete blanket ban. a system that offers other options and counseling.

a system that leaves abortion as the last possible resort while trying to help the mother pick another option leaves both sides satisfy both sides, in a way. with total open abortion, you give tons of careless women/girls a get-out-of-mummy-life card. with a blanket ban, you force tons of women into a desperate corner that would led to an increase number of back alley abortions and suicides.

That appears to be the general consensus.

women will always find a way to get abortions, whether they are legal or not.

if worse comes to worse, they can always take a drug to cause thier bodies to abort the feotus.

anyways; what we have is a stalemate of beliefs.


one side believes they are right and are morally obligated to force thier beliefs upon everyone.

the other side believes they have a right and wish to retain this right.


personally, if we were talking about muslims and, say, control of jeruselum or something, most "anti-women's-rights" people would support the latter side, when they are in face the former.

i do not see pro-choice people forcing economically disparaged women to get abortions.

i do not see pro-choice people forcing prospective mothers considering adoption to have abortions.

this is not china, where the government will force an abortion on you.

but i do see people, supported by judges like alito, attacking women attempting to enter abortion clinics, as current law allows them to.

i do see people bombing abortion clinics.

i do see people attempting to maim or kill abortion doctors.

and i will go by what i see when i determine which side to join.

(i'm considering making signs that have pictures of gang members, convicted criminals, and homeless children with the caption that says "you made my mommy have me. why didn't you mind your own buisness? the world would have been better for it.", then going to oppose the next anti-abortion rally in town. of course, these "pro-lifers" would probably stone me to death.)

(ironic, isn't it? that the people who value this "life" or a feotus don't seem to value the life of those with differing opinons.)

Classic case of selection bias. And you of all people? I'm disappointed.

Both sides have loonies.

the point still remains.

Aren't the people for abortion forcing their belief on the babies?

The key difference is that with the pro-choice movement, no beliefs are being forced. If you are against abortion, you don't have to get one, even though they are legal. Even though the pro-choicers support abortion, they don't force anyone to actually get one; whereas the pro-life movement forces an individual to adopt its views on the matter.

That's inherently absurd as a fetus does not have the compacity to compehend and believe anything, whether it is forced upon it or not.

That's why I didn't say pro-choice, I knew someone would attempt to point out the difference...



The mentally retarded? The comatose?

Sure. Some of these people truly do not have the capacity to believe certain things. However, when it comes to upholding a right to life, these individuals have a representative who cares for them and their rights, even if they can not understand the duties that follow. Their guardian takes the responsibility to uphold their rights and duties.

Guess who is in control of the fetus? The mother is.

not any more than those forcing people not to get abortions; as who knows? the feotus could want to be aborted.

the mentally retarded generally have some comprehension of who they are and hvae some mental capacities.

the comatose also have these mental capacities; they just cannot express it for the time being.

the people in persistant vegetate states, however, have no mental capacity, and they should be placed under the control of thier next-of-kin or otherwise stated person.

First time I ever heard that one.

I don't mean to nitpick or single out old material, but that doesn't exactly nullify my point.

doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

i hear a lot about how the feotus wouldn't want to be aborted, but that's not any more provable than the feotus wanting to be aborted.

What scientist backs up the idea that a fetus wants to be terminated? Tell me that same scientist doesn't live in a basement in suburban Ohio and write sci-fi books about space invading aliens from the planet Mars.

what scientist can back up that a feotus doesn't want to be aborted?

tell me that same scientist doesn't accept tens of thousands of dollars from people, usually republicans, to say that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory?

what kind of theory is that? "it's too complicated, so there must be a god"

I'm doubtful there are a lot of scientists, or people in general, saying that abortion is a good thing and that fetuses want to be aborted. Most pro-choicers don't think abortion is good; they just think it is better than the alternative (that being a ban on abortion).

it doesn't matter.

it can't be proved either way.

If it doesn't matter, why are you bringing it up?
You have a large tendency to bring up things that have no relevance to anything.

i didn't bring it up.

if i recall correctly, someone said that the feotus's rights were violated because it didn't want to be aborted.

No, no one said that.
Kryo asked if allowing a mother to abort her baby was forcing her beliefs on the fetus.

Nothing about the fetus not wanting to be aborted. You can force your beliefs on someone whether you want them to or not.

So yes.
You brought it up.

and that was my reply as to whether a mother not aborting a baby would be forcing her beliefs on it.

This topic had the most replies on the Debate page...

I just so happend to pass by this on my friend's xanga.



I shall not reveal my opinion on abortion just yet.

Hm, that would work if abortions were legal after the third month.

But, oh! They aren't!

Oh.

Well I just found that somewhere.

Abortions are legal in the United States after the third month, although only about 12% of abortions occur after the third month. [1]

There was a partial-birth abortion ban passed in 2003, but it has never been enforced, and several judges have declared it unconsitutional.[2]

ok

my friends and i have been talking about this

one of my friends said "what would the use of the child who was "an accident" be? you might as well get an abortion or it would just be another abandoned child."

well.

think of it this way. you didnt even give to the baby a CHANCE. no chance at all. you just looked at it, and sed, "i dont think ur gonna do well in this world, so im gonna kill u"

thats like your teacher saying, "well i was going to give u guys this test. but i dont think u guys are gonna do well, so im not gonna even give it to u. im just gonna skip it and give u a zero in advanced."

they deserve a chance.

did you know that there are alot of people who want to adopt children BUT THERE ARENT ENOUGH? thats really sad.

also, how many of you have actually SEEN AN ABORTION? I have, on video of course, but i encourage all of u to watch an abortion to see
WHAT REALLY GOES ON.

oh, you know Roe vs Wade? Roe, is now against abortion; shes happy she had her daughter.


ok. When you are 70 years old, what would you rather think?

"I gave that child a chance in this world."

"I killed that child."

Everyone loves to widdle this down to cliche potentional and fictional realities. However, the reality of the matter is, a fetus doesn't know the difference. You destroy a fetus and it doesn't have that chance for life, it never lived life, so it never really lost anything. If we want to talk so seriously about the moral questions behind potentials, we should stop masturbating because every time we blow a load we're terminating millions upon millions of potential human beings. When a woman has her period, should we hold her to involuntary manslaughter?!

No. Think about how babies come about. Sexual intercourse produces babies. The union of the sperm and the egg is a special process. That is why life begins at conception.

sperm is not life

life starts when the sperm meets the egg

...no one ever said that sperm was life. some people believe that life exists right after conception

I was trying to draw from the absurdity of saying that we shouldn't abort babies because they should be given a chance to live or that they have the potential to be born. I wasn't trying to say that sperm is life, but it most definately has the potential to become life.

Also, why do we value life? What exactly makes life special?

And, what about a fetus reflects these valued realities, and special qualities?

Quite simply, why shouldn't we destroy a fetus? What exactly is so morally reprehensible about a mother terminating her fetus?

Ironically, your dogmatic rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ precludes you from accepting the correct answers to those questions. In addition, your references to utilitarianism are highly distasteful.

Hm, I don't know if I was mistaken, but I do believe that this thread is about abortion and not about religion.

Either way, there's a thing called separation between church and state, and since there will never be an established religion in this country, we should not hold our laws to a certain religious belief's values.

QUOTE

did you know that there are alot of people who want to adopt children BUT THERE ARENT ENOUGH? thats really sad.

Um, that's blatantly wrong. There's an overabundance of kids waiting to be adopted and not enough parents to take them in. Abortion would probably help that number go down so less children would end up living their lives without parents or jumping from foster home to foster home being beaten because they can't get any good parents.

You make such claims, yet you don't specify the reasons, or provide support for your argument. I'm not presumptuous enough to say you are wrong, but thus far, your argument lacks weight. Morals and ethics are a major part of any study of philosophy, and when broken down, it can be very hard to define right and wrong without recursively referring to their opposites. In fact, there's a topic about this that never even came anywhere close to resolving this issue.

1. My "rejection" of gospel has never been dogmatic in nature. What a bold claim. Mind supporing it?
2. What exactly would be the correct answers, and why do you believe that they are correct? Why should we believe that they are correct?
3. I have no idea where you got any hint of Utilitarianism from my post. I was simply asking questions so that I could get a more accurate picture of the moral grounds against abortion consist of.
4. I am not, in any way, a Utilitarianist.

I'm listening to pretty music. (Regina Spektor // Chemo Limo)
Check it out.

Regina Spektor is very pretty.

nerve cells do not become mylenated until the end of the last trimester, month 7-8.

unmylenated nerves are generally incapable of proper fuction, like being able to transmit pain or feeling.

when the feotus is being developed, it's like constructing a building. the tenant doesn't move in untill it's nearly finished.

but the tenant moves in gradually.

so what's a person? i could pull a frankenstein, sew together a bunch of organs and create a 'self sustaining' system that would be arguablly more alive than some people.

the feotus is certainly alive. but so is bacteria. when does a feotus become a person? it certainly isn't a person in the blastocyst stage. even after it develops a rudimentary heart, there isn't a functioning nervous system.

movements in the uterus, like kicks and sucking the thumb, are considered to be reflexive actions by the brain stem to develop the muscles.

and, for anyone wishing to use religion; please give me, chapter and verse, where the bible says that a just fertilized egg is a human and has a soul.

I don't know if myelination should be used as a benchmark for "life". Some myelinization doesn't occur until the late teenage years, yet I, at least, wouldn't say it's okay to kill a twelve-year-old, simply because not all of his nerve cells are myelinated.

but when not enough nerve cells are mylenated to facilitate correct nerve function?

A lot of myelination doesn't even occur until after birth.