1 2 3 4 5
That toy is such a baby, go find someone who has been born and play with him.
5/18/2012 4:03:07 PM
You guys can make all the arguments you want to justify why the fetus should be aborted, but at the end of the day, the individual life itself is not consulted on this issue. I'm okay with euthanasia because most likely, the individual person would've consented to let the doctors pull the plug, but nobody has and can consult the fetus. Thus, the fetus should be assumed to want to live, considering all the pro-life advocates that were born from failed abortions.
And the human race is no where near complete overpopulation. Despite the population being much higher than decades before, there's actually less famine and less starvation. That's the power of advancements in science and technology.
In the end, it's up to the individual to decide their own lives, including whether or not it should continue. That sort of choice should not be in the hands of anyone else, be it the government or the parent. The only time that should be taken away is as an extreme punishment for extreme crimes.
11/7/2012 8:22:51 PM
Scientifically speaking, the fetus is a living, unique human.
A living being, as defined by science, needs to:
1. Take in energy
2. Expel waste
3. Interact with the environment
4. Grow and develop
The fetus fulfills 1 (taking food from the umbilical cord), 2 (expels waste with the mother's waste), 3 (interacts with the stimuli within the womb), 4 (this is one of the two major growth periods in human development, the other being puberty), and 5 (though it cannot reproduce at that very moment, it has the potential for reproduction)
Plus, the DNA is human, not chicken, parasite, or alien, and it's also unique (unlike sperm and eggs which still have the DNA over the parent).
The fetus fulfills all scientific requirements of being a unique human being, and thus should be afforded the right to decide its own life instead of having someone else decide for him/her.
11/7/2012 8:28:24 PM
@asdfdsa and bob:
And where is the woman in your logic? She is entitled to her life and her autonomy of person, and should not be coerced to be an incubator. We don't force people to donate blood or kidneys or lungs. The personhood or not of the fetus is irrelevant.
If abortions are illegal, they still happen at the same rate - the difference is that they are simply unregulated and unsafe. And then women die. How many women should bleed out from uterine hemorrhage or die from infection or because their kidneys shut down just to make you feel better? Or do you think that women should die because they cannot be or do not want to be pregnant?
Do not mistake pro-choice for "pro-abortion". Abortion is necessary, but it should be necessary as infrequently as possible. This is an economic argument as well as a public health one. It is far cheaper (by maybe a factor of six) to prevent unplanned / unwanted pregnancies than it is to terminate them. The abortion rate in the US can be dropped by up to a factor of twenty by improved contraceptive use - most of the remainder are medically-necessary abortions where the fetus would not be carried to term anyway (that factor of 20 is an upper limit if everybody is on strong contraceptives; real-life contraceptive uptake rates in Western Europe are high enough to bring the abortion rate down by a factor of 2 as compared to the United States).
So I assume you both will approve universal and affordable access to effective contraceptives and comprehensive sex ed so that everybody knows to use them and how to use them? That's the only guaranteed way to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies and so reduce the rate of abortion. If you don't, then you aren't being honest when you say you want to prevent abortion.
Post-script at asdfsa individually:
The world is overpopulated.
Right now, 35% of the potentially cultivated land in the world is being used to grow crops, and as much or more fish are being fished out of the oceans than is sustainable. This, the Green Revolution, and lots of artificial fertilizers let us feed 7 billion.
Could we feed more people? Yes. But to do so with current food consumption would mean taking over even more of the ecosystem, with unknown and likely very unpleasant results. We could all become near-vegetarians, which would raise the number of people we could feed somewhat.
But access to clean water, good education, good medical care, and all of the conveniences and diversions of much of current developed-nation global society would be impossible in a world with a population of 18 or 20 billion. There simply isn't enough space or energy.
The question becomes what individual standard of living we want. That determines the sustainable world population - the carrying capacity. Estimates with the current distribution of standard-of-living are perhaps 4-5 billion. If you want everyone to live like people do now in Western Europe, the number is more like 3 billion; like the US it's a bit lower still. Improved technology could raise those numbers, but not to much above the current population.
Unless you want everyone to be struggling to survive in our collective waste, the population needs to at least level out or, preferably, come down gradually over the next hundred or so years.
Post-script at bob individually:
You Fail Biology Forever with that argument.
A tumor meets the definition of life you are using, and has different DNA than the patient it is growing in. But we still treat cancer by killing the tumor cells (see also Felix's comment below on the definition of 'parasite').
Identical twins have almost the same DNA, but are two different people.
You can make an argument based around the presence of a functioning and well-developed central nervous system, but almost all abortions occur before the fetus develops one. Those that don't are either because of artificial delays in the procedure being performed or, more commonly, medically necessary where the fetus is going to die anyway.
11/7/2012 9:13:52 PM
David F Mayer
There are already far too many humans on the planet.
11/7/2012 9:35:35 PM
@asdfdsa: Fine. We'll start consulting the foetuses. If they say "No, let me live!" then no abortion. Sound fair? Your argument does not hold water: Their inability to object, and unawareness of the situation, is a major justification for killing animals for meat and other products. Unless you're a vegan, I sense some contradiction.
As for overpopulation: You fail. The world may not be totally overpopulated, but regions of it are.
@bob: Thing is, the foetus is in no way sentient or a citizen. In that sense, it has no rights. Why does humanity matter so much? A sentient ape which commmunicates with humans has more "humanity" than a zygote does in the cultural sense; and genetically, what do you think of skin graft cultures for burn victims? That involves growing living cells with human DNA, only to be killed. The "unique" part of your argument is perhaps the worst: If I clone you, does that strip you of all human rights? Your DNA is no longer unique, so you're no different than a sperm cell? Does that make sense? Also, the definition of life you provide fails in two ways: it is factually wrong (the definition of life is a difficult issue in science anyway), and the embryo does not fulfil it. "Potential to develop reproductive capability" is not the same thing as "reproduces". Foetuses, in fact, do not reproduce, cannot, and never will. Only born, postpubescent humans do.
Both of you, stop using appeals to emotion and fucking think. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, it's highly likely (and until recently, it was absolutely certain) the mother will die if an abortion is not performed. The embryo will never make it to birth; your choice concerns whether the mother will live or not. That is it. If you can oppose abortion in that circumstance, "pro-life" is the last thing you are.
There are other scenarios which entail the same questions. This is not a black-and-white issue. Banning abortion in all scenarios will do nothing but ensure many more deaths - of adults as well as the unborn.
Edit: Also, bob, you may want to look up the scientific definition of parasite, if scientific definitions are so important to you. Embryos and foetuses are parasites by the scientific definition.
11/7/2012 9:54:35 PM
And at least as many because religion oppresses sex.
11/16/2012 6:26:32 AM
CHILDREN OF THE FAITHFUL DO NOT NEED TOYS! THEY NEED WEAPONS TO IMPOSE THE LORD'S WILL OVER THIS SINFUL WORLD!
1/8/2013 5:14:54 PM
So let me get this straight. You don't care about the fetuses at all, but just the toys? Seriously?
Tired of being pro-life, eh?
1/8/2013 6:25:26 PM
1 2 3 4 5