Pro or anti abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

And when does it change from a bunch of cells to a human being?

Most of the 'pro-life' movement is in favor of banning the pills you speak of, as well as the IUD and several other forms of birth control - this comes from their conclusion that 'life starts at conception'. They see such methods you advocate as early term abortion, which they consider morally indistinguishable from any other abortion.

If my wife or daughter were raped and became pregnant, they would NOT REWARD the rapist by carrying the child to term.

don't be so ignorant...look who's talking. We are made up of cells hat constantly renew themselves, that in itself is life and aren't they looking for LIFE on Mars? And what exactly do they find on mars? Bacteria in ice. Life you can see under a microscope and it doen's always need 2 arms and 2 legs

No life, including bacteria, has been found on Mars.

thye did find bacteria in ice crust on Mars, they did

No, no bacteria have been found on Mars, no unicorns or dragons.

there were several speculative articles that came out a while back - the only bacteria found were on Antarctica, and some thought that similar bacteria could possibly exist on Mars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/120270.stm

oh well then, but bacteria is life

Your repeated insistence won't change the facts: no life has been found on Mars. As monty said, bacteria living in extreme conditions in Antarctic ice gave rise to speculation that something similar might possibly exist on Mars. Nothing of the sort has been found yet.

read well my dear, I am not insisting anymore that there is life on Mars, but yes, that bacteria is life, as an answer to the person who wrote that a fetus is not life...

So you think that killing bacteria is wrong because they are alive??

no the debate was that a fetus is life, and she says it is not because...just read it ther, you'll see.
And life is considered anyhting like bacteria mcrobes are proof of life too, no?

Bacteria are proof of life on Earth, but I was unaware that this was an open question.

Your logic is hopelessly flawed. A human embryo merely has the very beginnings of a human brain. It has no consciousness. The embryo lacks the cellular machinery for learning. As for the claim that it is "a living human being already", the matter of being a "human being" is a philosophical one, not a question of biology.

You also have an extremely myopic view of the possible motivation for an abortion. "Convenience" is not high up on the list; other factors such as quality of life of the unborn are far more important. If the pregnant mother finds herself unsuitable for motherhood, are you personally going to ensure the well-being of the future child? Because no amount of legislation or claims about hordes of desperate childless couples eager to adopt the first baby that comes their way are anywhere near enough to ensure any quality of life for the future child. There are hundreds of thousands of children (possibly millions) languishing in homes throughout the world, hoping to be adopted. Where are your desperate childless couples? Why have they not adopted these kids yet?

The biological definition of independent life, which too you seem to be confused about, is the ability to sustain life functions without any physical connection to the parent unit (such as mycelium or umbilical cord). The biological definition does not refer to any after-birth care that may be desirable or necessary: For example, once a human child is born and the umbilical cord is cut, it is independently living if it can maintain life without being physically attached to a life support system. So, a baby that has been born and is capable of independent living can be looked after by any capable person, not necessarily the biological mother. However, until such time as the baby is born and is capable of independent living, it cannot be separated from its biological mother and be sustained by anybody else.

I am prochoice, in that I believe the decision should rest with the person potentionally having the abortion, and no one else. Many very vocal antitabortion types seem to me little more than outraged, chance bystanders feel compelled to barge into someone else's personal space, where they weren't asked to go and where they didn't need to be. The rhetoric about abortion encouraging a throw-away attitude to pregnancy is ridiculous. Almost no one ever involved in an actual abortion—mother, father, or anyone else—approaches it lightly. I know this from personal experience, even though I'm not female. Yes, it can leave mental scars. At the very least, I think it would leave the average person with a greater respect for life. It certainly did for me. But one person's situation differs from another, so a simplistic answer—go this far and no farther under any circumstances—just isn't enough. I believe that every individual situation must be assessed for itself.

Overall, I think the best state of affairs is what I understand of the situation here in the United States—abortion is legal and available, but both sides, pro and anti, can voice their opinions and be heard, and the person having the abortion has both opinions, along with her own views, to draw on to make her own decision.

take into account the instinct of mankind to have its 'own' offspring, and adoption is not always deisrable, it is not their kin. Animals prove the same behaviour, diregarding some exceptions of course.

So, you advocate abortion because the mother or father isn't ready? Well, I didn't want children, my grilfriend did n't even heed the shrink's advice who told her I wasn't emotionally ready for fatherhood. She proceeded and blamed the lack of functioning of the pill (she told her sister she would get pregnant to make me stay home forever), and became pregnant. I accepted fatherhood and did not demand abortion.

But I suffered severely psychologically in the long run of this forced fatherhood. I even told my kids later( which was stupid but couldn't white lie) to my firstborn that I hadn't planned her, to which my daughter later put her as blame for her parents (us ) separating.

One has to assume and accept fatherhood ready or not, is my conclusion

Last edited by Loborojo on 04 Sep 2008, 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly. For a total stranger to approach someone who has agonized over having an abortion and tell them, "you aren't taking this seriously enough because you came to a different conclusion than I do," is insulting to say the least.

Who is this "she" to whom you refer?

Bacteria may be life, but because of the massive difference in complexity between prokaryotic (bacterium) and multicellular eukaryotic (human) life forms, it's pointless to compare their life cycles. Bacteria mostly reproduce asexually by budding. As soon as the parent cell splits, two new daughter cells are born that are normally immediately capable of independent life. On the other hand, the life cycle of any multicellular eukaryote is much more complex. Basically, the offspring is considered to be born once physical contact has been severed. The birth isn't always viable: the offspring can be stillborn, or die soon after. Only when the offspring is capable of sustaining life on its own is it considered to be born alive.

The term microbe also includes viruses, which do not qualify as living beings under the conventional definition of life, and bacteriophages, which are even less alive than viruses. More significantly though, I find it a bit worrying that you cite bacteria as a worthy comparison for human foetuses in a discussion about their status as living beings.