Thanks for the source Taka. I'm glad that we don't have these guys in Holland. Even though I am still against abortion, his way of view isn't very christian for the bible learns the opposite: To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence (this said God). Well, we didn't convince each other, but at least we agree about one thing

Written by Introspekrieg on 03.03.2008 at 12:27

I have wiped entire civilizations off the face of the planet with a grey gym sock.

Approximately 200- to 500-million spermatozoa (also called sperm or spermatozoans; AKA potential Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man")), produced in the testes, are released per ejaculation.

True, semen contains gamete (sex) cells, but they aren't potential humans unless joined with an egg to create a zygote, if I remember my Human Ancestry class well enough. It's been forever since I had biology, taking some this fall though.

i think that abortion should be allright until the child is capable of thinking and knowing that it's dying

When is that?

Written by [user id=30512] on 09.04.2008 at 15:48

When is that?

I think he was being sarcastic as in, when the child is actually born and of age to comprehend death and dying. So definitely after you are birthed.

Written by Clintagräm on 09.04.2008 at 19:13

Written by [user id=30512] on 09.04.2008 at 15:48

When is that?

I think he was being sarcastic as in, when the child is actually born and of age to comprehend death and dying. So definitely after you are birthed.

i didn't really mean it sarcastic. i don't know how many brain cells it takes to make a foetus/child capable of knowing this. and maybe i'll better say it in another way: abortion should be legalized for as long as the foetus doesn't feel the pain. because for me something is ethically just when it maximises the happiness of a maximum of people with a minimum of suffering. so if the child doesn't suffer and the "parents" are happy with not having a kid, then it's just because there is no suffering and at least two people are happy: 0<2. but if the child does feel the pain and one parent doesn't really want an abortion (which is mostly the case) then it will be 1=1 and then it's better to do nothing i think. i haven't counted all the joy or suffering the kid would create when it's alive,but that's impossible to do since i can't predict the future.

Written by belisarius on 09.04.2008 at 19:40

Written by Clintagräm on 09.04.2008 at 19:13

Written by [user id=30512] on 09.04.2008 at 15:48

When is that?

I think he was being sarcastic as in, when the child is actually born and of age to comprehend death and dying. So definitely after you are birthed.

i didn't really mean it sarcastic. i don't know how many brain cells it takes to make a foetus/child capable of knowing this

Well, to my minimal understand of fetal biology, I don't think fetus' are self conscious. I don't think many babies and even toddlers could comprehend death and dying. They could feel pain, but I don't think many would be able to comprehend that their body is failing them.

At least they cannot say anything about what they feel. I cannot say anything. A foetus is helpless and depends fully on the mother. When the mother decides to kill it, or the bf or husband decides this or anyone else, than the trust was completely in vain. That would be a sad thing, right?

Written by [user id=30512] on 10.04.2008 at 10:22

At least they cannot say anything about what they feel. I cannot say anything. A foetus is helpless and depends fully on the mother. When the mother decides to kill it, or the bf or husband decides this or anyone else, than the trust was completely in vain. That would be a sad thing, right?

Abortions these days aren't like partial birth abortion. They usually occur within the first few weeks, often before the zygote becomes a fetus I believe. And no, I personally don't consider it sad. Too many people think about who it could become, and not what it is.

I try not to reason from my own viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of the child. And for a child it is really sad to be thrown away like a piece of dirt because (one of) the parents decide it has not to live. That is sad. And I child cannot do much itself, it's like it's vegetating in the mother womb. It can only trust that this womb will protect it. But if even the womb doesn't protect the child anymore, what would?

Written by [user id=30512] on 10.04.2008 at 18:45

I try not to reason from my own viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of the child. And for a child it is really sad to be thrown away like a piece of dirt because (one of) the parents decide it has not to live. That is sad. And I child cannot do much itself, it's like it's vegetating in the mother womb. It can only trust that this womb will protect it. But if even the womb doesn't protect the child anymore, what would?

you are suggesting now that the foetus would be smart enough to reason. if the brain isn't evolved enough then the kid cannot reason about this, so it wouldn't be sad for the foetus. that's what i'm trying to say.

Written by [user id=30512] on 10.04.2008 at 18:45

I try not to reason from my own viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of the child. And for a child it is really sad to be thrown away like a piece of dirt because (one of) the parents decide it has not to live. That is sad. And I child cannot do much itself, it's like it's vegetating in the mother womb. It can only trust that this womb will protect it. But if even the womb doesn't protect the child anymore, what would?

Again, you're equating a zygote/embryo/fetus with a fully grown child and/or adult viewpoint so thus, it is your viewpoint. A collection of cells does not have within it's capacity to do anything, let alone understand it's complete and total annihilation. A seed is a not a tree. I've read about 87% of all abortions occur before the first trimester, which is about 12 weeks. Most women don't find out until their next period which can range anywhere from a week to a month, so the majority would most likely occur during those first four or five weeks. Embryo and fetal development doesn't even start until 8 and 9 weeks, respectively. Thus there is no possible way a zygote, embryo, fetus (let alone new-born or toddler) could comprehend it's destruction and thus feel sadness.

I'm not going to argue about abortion, I've stated my opinion, and it's legal. That's all there is to it.

Yes, I am suggesting that. I can understand that you say that the development of the child hasn't come far enough to reason. I cannot proove whether the child can think or not. Maybe it is for no rational reason that I hate abortion, even though I try to convince you with rational arguments. But really, abortion is for me one of the wickedest things that can be done. A life must remain a life, and if someone stops the life, I hate it, murder is for no good.

Written by [user id=30512] on 11.04.2008 at 15:05

Yes, I am suggesting that. I can understand that you say that the development of the child hasn't come far enough to reason. I cannot proove whether the child can think or not. Maybe it is for no rational reason that I hate abortion, even though I try to convince you with rational arguments. But really, abortion is for me one of the wickedest things that can be done. A life must remain a life, and if someone stops the life, I hate it, murder is for no good.

I know, I agree. I initially didn't, and still don't like the idea. Procreation is something that should be cherished, no matter who you are or what you believe. But unfortunately a lot of people don't take the necessary precautions, and many that even do, and become pregnant. This may sound unfair, but it some cases if the child was born, it would cause more harm than good. That kid would grow up in poverty, disease, sadness, etc. I don't want to run the cliché train on you, but that's how I feel. But I find it more saddening to wait for a child to be born to start destroying its life, instead of doing so when it's still just "a mass of uniform cells."

There is a problem, but abortion and/or forcing women to have a child is definitely not the answer. The answer is to make sure the women doesn't get pregnant to begin with, if she doesn't want to. Much easier said than done, or so it seems.

I just want to see a christian guy who says he agrees with abortion. It is so predictable, religion is so speaking for themselves. I cannot see any objective arguments there...
I've read the last 3 pages of the thread and found very good arguments pro and against but not coming from Aei Ontos (sorry guy but you've just said a lot of stupid things already and my whole brain feels more and more reluctant about you)
Abortion is just a matter of choice. You chose it or you have the baby.
I don't know how many 16-17 years old girls want to live their best part of their lives changing diapers.
Abortion is like throwing away one blank CD. Some can say. Hey, what are you doing with my Iron Maiden disc? Don't throw it away, it's just not moral, you're being so cruel, poor riffs...
how do u know that cd wouldn't end up as a "bin laden" copy?...

Of course there are some risks when having an abortion, but I think there are a lot of risks when it comes to giving birth too, I heard a lot of cases in which the mother simply died.
Yes, maybe I feel a bit happy I cannot have an abortion. I am just lucky to be a man

Since when can you compare a child to an empty disc??!?

It was an analogy
The information on the CD is the knowledge in Human Brains... some of them

if a child is born but isn't really wanted, it will feel that and probably it will feel sad about that. it will seek refuge in things that aren't good (f.e. hanging around in the streets without doing anything useful or iritating other people). then the balance of hapiness will be shattered because the parents don't want the kid, the kid itself isn't happy either and the kid hurasses other people, so noone is happy and everone is unhappy. shouldn't it then be just to not let the foetus live because it will not feel the pain (if it is done early enough) and the chance of having a miserable live is bigger for such a foetus to live?

I have always found a certain hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. Why don't all the pro-life people become vegetarian and speak out against the pain and suffering perpetrated by the meat industry? Why are they so concerned about abortion when billions of innocent animals are murdered every year to satisfy our enjoyment of meat?

Animals are God's creatures, too!

Written by [user id=22888] on 14.04.2008 at 06:49

I have always found a certain hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. Why don't all the pro-life people become vegetarian and speak out against the pain and suffering perpetrated by the meat industry? Why are they so concerned about abortion when billions of innocent animals are murdered every year to satisfy our enjoyment of meat?

Animals are God's creatures, too!

Because:

a) Unborn children are viewed as possible believers
b) they regard people somehow superior to OTHER animals

I have pain and unhappiness often either. It does not make me want to die. Even with pain and injuries and sickness my life has value. The hypocrisy of the prolife movement as you say is that they give animals a money value. A cow can be bought for a amount of money. A human cannot and must not be bought with money. There is a clearly different kind of value between a animal and human. And if you disagree, than strife for slavery again or give animals human rights.

In my opinion people are very easily bought. Even though we cannot speak about slavery we can talk about slaves to money. People often do a lot of miserable things because of money...

Go ahead give animals human rights but you still aren't going to have pigs engineers, elephants carpenters, chicken bankers...

I support choice
Though I personally think the idea of abortion is odd, and maybe even discusting, I am not a pregnant woman so I really have no idea how they feel. I think it should be up to them whether they keep a baby or not, not up to us.

It is always up to us to get bought, so it is not by animals. And never there will be any animal that will work for us and earn money for it. Maybe many people say that human are not superior to animals, but praticly it always is so.

Written by Hangar XVIII on 14.04.2008 at 16:07

I support choice
Though I personally think the idea of abortion is odd, and maybe even discusting, I am not a pregnant woman so I really have no idea how they feel. I think it should be up to them whether they keep a baby or not, not up to us.

Of course it is up to the woman to decide. But there is no reason that abortion is not subject to a critical approach. It's like saying that some poor devil could not say that very, very, very rich people should share a little of their money all because he has no money himself. There is the viewpoint of men and the viewpoint of woman and both are important to the issue.

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.04.2008 at 16:18

It is always up to us to get bought, so it is not by animals. And never there will be any animal that will work for us and earn money for it. Maybe many people say that human are not superior to animals, but praticly it always is so.

In what way are humans superior? Intellectually? Perhaps yes. Physically? I would say no. On the scale of things? I'm not so sure. Animals are in harmony with their ecosystem, we destroy ours. Animals kill for survival, we kill for pleasure and malice. Sure, animals don't have it within their capacity to love as we do, but they know affection. They however do not know hate, or evil, or malice. You have to weigh the good with the bad. Too bad this isn't an argument really relating to abortion though, but a product of it.

I've never said that humans are superior. I said that in the normal life animals aren't treatened like they are equal.
Physically I don't think there are much differences between human and animal either (depending on which animal), but as you said, intellectually they are. Humans can choose to do good or to do bad. A animal can't and doesn't. But the disuccion is not whether we should allow abortion for animals, but is abortion good or bad. I think it is bad.

I wish I could make my mind so clearly about this subject. But I can't, there are way too many things envolved in a decision like that, which I cannot judge because I've never been in that situation.

Written by [user id=30512] on 16.04.2008 at 16:28

I've never said that humans are superior. I said that in the normal life animals aren't treatened like they are equal.
Physically I don't think there are much differences between human and animal either (depending on which animal), but as you said, intellectually they are. Humans can choose to do good or to do bad. A animal can't and doesn't. But the disuccion is not whether we should allow abortion for animals, but is abortion good or bad. I think it is bad.

You may be surprised to know that even pro-choice people think abortion is bad. There is no woman who wants to have an abortion. Many women who do have abortions need counseling afterward.

So here is another million-dollar question:
If everyone agrees that abortion is bad, why is the procedure allowed? (Hint: the answer has nothing to do with evil abortionists or immoral politicians.)

Written by [user id=22888] on 18.04.2008 at 05:15

If everyone agrees that abortion is bad, why is the procedure allowed? (Hint: the answer has nothing to do with evil abortionists or immoral politicians.)

Because people believe that the immediate, undeniable bad will outweigh the possible, doubtful good.

Written by Clintagräm on 18.04.2008 at 06:43

Written by [user id=22888] on 18.04.2008 at 05:15

If everyone agrees that abortion is bad, why is the procedure allowed? (Hint: the answer has nothing to do with evil abortionists or immoral politicians.)

Because people believe that the immediate, undeniable bad will outweigh the possible, doubtful good.

No. Try thinking like a desperate woman instead of a pontificating armchair philosopher.