Abortion

[Alrexwolf]

Personally, I always had a problem with the whole "beating heart stops," argument of pro-life people. Cardiac muscle moves on its own - not to get too graphic, but if you have ever seen an animal heave or appear to breathe after death, or get muscle twitches, it's much the same thing. Just because you get a muscle spasm doesn't mean there is any thought behind it. 

 

All a beating heart is is electrical signals telling a muscle to contract. It would be no different than, say, someone with an eye twitch having a spasm. What really makes a human, in my opinion, is the ability to feel and experience - which embryos most certainly do not. The people carrying them are already alive; with memories and happiness and things they want to live for. An embryo - or even a fetus, for that matter - has no concept of happiness, love, want, memories. 

 

Remember that spiders and most other insects have a beating heart too... but people have no problem ending those lives without a second thought. A cardiac muscle does not a sentient being make. 

[RWyvern]

3 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

Personally, I always had a problem with the whole "beating heart stops," argument of pro-life people. Cardiac muscle moves on its own - not to get too graphic, but if you have ever seen an animal heave or appear to breathe after death, or get muscle twitches, it's much the same thing. Just because you get a muscle spasm doesn't mean there is any thought behind it. 

 

All a beating heart is is electrical signals telling a muscle to contract. It would be no different than, say, someone with an eye twitch having a spasm. What really makes a human, in my opinion, is the ability to feel and experience - which embryos most certainly do not. The people carrying them are already alive; with memories and happiness and things they want to live for. An embryo - or even a fetus, for that matter - has no concept of happiness, love, want, memories. 

 

Remember that spiders and most other insects have a beating heart too... but people have no problem ending those lives without a second thought. A cardiac muscle does not a sentient being make. 

 

To further on this — the heart operates independently of the brain (as stated), and I have seen — graphic — the exposed hearts of very brain-dead animals still beating. I mean, not even just twitching.

 

Heart activity is literally no surefire indication of life.

Edited August 30, 2018 by RWyvern
Edited text 2 white in case the imagery comes off too confronting. Idk

[Cecona]

it’s not the heart that indicates life, even brain dead people have a heart beat. It’s the beings ability to survive and live a hopefully normal life. A baby after birth is able to look around and see things, create it’s very first memories. Even at a few hours old I was looking around the nursery  where the newborns were kept. I was aware of my surroundings and that they were different. A fetus, still requiring the placenta it’s attached to, cannot do such things.  Only after it can be considered viable does that change. I hope things have been cleared up, and I agree if a viable fetus is alive after the procedure and it does not have deadly birth defects it should still be given a chance to live and be given to a family that would want it. But please keep in mind late term abortions are extremely rare and only done for the sake of the child/mother’s health whether that be physical or mental.

[HeatherMarie]

6 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

Personally, I always had a problem with the whole "beating heart stops," argument of pro-life people. Cardiac muscle moves on its own - not to get too graphic, but if you have ever seen an animal heave or appear to breathe after death, or get muscle twitches, it's much the same thing. Just because you get a muscle spasm doesn't mean there is any thought behind it. 

 

 

This is a very good point and definitely something that should be thought about. A beating heart does not equal 'living' or 'viable'... While a viable fetus will have a beating heart, a beating heart doesn't mean that the fetus is viable. Nor, I believe, does the existence of human-like features mean that the fetus is a 'baby'... Generalized shapes can be made very very early on in the creation process, and that's true of pretty much everything, not just growing fetuses/embryos/etc. Just because something kind of resembles what a human looks like does not mean that it's alive or viable or able to feel or any of those things. 

 

In general, I don't like to get into the 'when is a fetus viable' debates, because I personally don't think it matters most of the time. The vast majority of abortions are done before the fetus could ever even have a chance of living outside the woman's body; To my knowledge the majority of late-term abortions are done because of medical complications, where either the fetus *isn't* viable regardless of late-term or the birth would put the mother's life at risk. In which case, I don't mean to be cold here, but if the mother would probably die by giving birth then it's completely her choice to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the fetus's development. 

 

I really can't think of any other situation where an adult's life matters less then a *potential* not-yet-life. Even when it comes to stuff like being in the military or risking your life as a cop or whatever, that's a *choice* the adult is allowed to make. There is no other situation where an adult human is *forced* to put their life at risk in order to 'save' another 'life' that's actually not a for-sure life yet. That's one of the most baffling things to me, is there is nothing else comparable to the abortion debate. I'm 99% sure that most pro-lifers would balk if someone tried to force them to put their life on the line just because some stranger said they should. If someone tried to force them to, say, undergo a very risky medical procedure in order to donate an organ, because some stranger said they should. And yet for some reason when it comes to females and pregnancy suddenly that's just fine. It's baffling to me.

[Alrexwolf]

1 minute ago, HeatherMarie said:

Nor, I believe, does the existence of human-like features mean that the fetus is a 'baby'... Generalized shapes can be made very very early on in the creation process, and that's true of pretty much everything, not just growing fetuses/embryos/etc. Just because something kind of resembles what a human looks like does not mean that it's alive or viable or able to feel or any of those things. 

 

Snipped for easier reference but, man. This baffles me too? Maybe it's just because most people don't have experience with embryos/fetuses but for quite some time, practically up to between 12 and 16 weeks, most mammals are nearly indistinguishable.

 

By 12 weeks, a fetus of a human looks almost the same as that of a pig, calf, etc... most other mammals. People use the image of much older fetuses (not that that would impact my opinion), but like... most of the time I see pro-life arguments using nearly full term fetuses because they look more human. If they had images of actual fetuses at that stage, I suspect their message would be somewhat lost, as it's so emotional based.

 

--

As someone who wasn't wanted, whose grandparents on one side offered to pay to abort me but whose grandparent on the other side offered to pay for a wedding, who was adopted (only to be constantly told I owed my adoptive parents because they adopted me - that they owned me, like I was property), and who suffers from some pretty bad disorders myself (although thankfully medically controlled at this point, knock on wood)... I wouldn't wish it on any unborn child. I can say for certain right here right now that had I been aborted like... I don't care? People always say "you're alive to be pro-choice because your mom was pro-life," but that's not even true. Depending on our ages, some of our mothers had no choice. People always use it like a checkmate option when I hear them talk about pro-life but the adoption system is garbage in the US and the foster system seems even worse. There are so many children out there who have gone through hell that they never should have had to go through to begin with. And they, as fetuses, would never have known suffering, hunger, pain, or abuse. It never would have been created.

 

As an aside, the world is so expensive. It's not overpopulation that spurs my argument, but that people born without an almost perfect/ideal situation have it much harder. In my opinion, it's far better for a couple who is not emotionally or financially ready (as of their determination of course, that's not my call to make where that cutoff would be), to wait until they can provide their child the best. Raising a child takes a lot of resources beyond just having the baby and the physical and mental toll of that. For all the pro-lifers who say give 'em up for adoption then! There are people out there who can't have kids! ... Adoption is so expensive. Many people who would be able to give a child a good home probably could not afford the fees associated with adoption. I was not even adopted across states, let alone countries or continents. I was adopted within my own biological family - and it still cost thousands upon thousands of dollars. Let's also not forget that the joke about paying for babies to be born in Matilda wasn't a joke at all - it costs thousands of dollars just to have a baby in a hospital setting, or elsewhere, and God forbid that something is wrong with the child at birth. Debt for days.

 

And have y'all seen school lists lately? Just for one year of school supplies it can be hundreds of dollars if not more - and that's just for classroom supplies. That's not counting lunches and other food, meals outside of school, field trips, club activities, and other things that children should have. It's also not counting non essentials but still wanted - new clothes, new shoes. By the time a child is in high school - sometimes middle school, even - they'll likely require access to their own computer to keep up. If abortions were illegal, completely illegal, people would end up having to pay these costs over and over again. Per child. And you know what? It happens all the time. Families raised in times/areas where abortions aren't legal, or contraception is frowned upon.

 

My mother practically raised her two youngest siblings because contraception wasn't readily available as it is in our area now and abortion was, if not illegal, so highly stigmatized it would ruin anyone. That puts a lot of pressure on a child, having to help raise younger children all because their parents didn't have access to better options and had children forced upon them.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with the pro-life point of view (as I'm sure I've said before, I can't even kill a spider, so I can definitely sympathize with the ideals) if we were willing and able as a population to take care of the unwanted and abandoned children/families such a thing would spawn. People balk at more laws, more benefit programs, more communal programs in general. It seems like all that matters is letting a life come to fruition. The pain, the poverty, the lack of resources - none of it matters. It doesn't matter who suffers so long as someone can sit back and feel like they have the moral high ground for "stopping baby murders," when meanwhile that baby that someone was forced to have can't get medical attention easily. Doesn't have enough food. Doesn't have enough diapers. Parents can barely make ends meet; they can't work harder or longer because they can't afford childcare to take on more hours. Babies, of course, cannot be left alone. It's a vicious cycle, and even more vicious when parents refuse public assistance out of pride or fear of ridicule. And it happens all the time - I constantly hear people making jabs at stores when they have to wait for someone with food stamps to go through. They scrutinize every item of their cart, asking why the government should let them have this or that food, talking about how it should only be used for the Healthiest of Fresh Foods. It cannot be easy on the parents emotionally - which, in turn, leads to rocky relations with the child. And that's not even getting into what the parent needs after a baby is born. There is a huge spectrum of services needed that most pro-lifers I've met don't seem to care about or support in any way.

 

everything sucks and kids shouldn't have to suffer for it. thanks for coming to my ted talk-

[HeatherMarie]

41 minutes ago, Alrexwolf said:

 

As someone who wasn't wanted, whose grandparents on one side offered to pay to abort me but whose grandparent on the other side offered to pay for a wedding, who was adopted (only to be constantly told I owed my adoptive parents because they adopted me - that they owned me, like I was property), and who suffers from some pretty bad disorders myself (although thankfully medically controlled at this point, knock on wood)... I wouldn't wish it on any unborn child. I can say for certain right here right now that had I been aborted like... I don't care? People always say "you're alive to be pro-choice because your mom was pro-life," but that's not even true. Depending on our ages, some of our mothers had no choice. People always use it like a checkmate option when I hear them talk about pro-life but the adoption system is garbage in the US and the foster system seems even worse. There are so many children out there who have gone through hell that they never should have had to go through to begin with. And they, as fetuses, would never have known suffering, hunger, pain, or abuse. It never would have been created.

 

 

(First, I'm very sorry that you've had to go through that.) 

 

This is exactly how I feel. I've mentioned before that my mother wasn't supposed to get pregnant with me, she'd had multiple miscarriages and the doctor said it would be very risky for her to get pregnant again. She did, against doctor's wishes, because she wanted a child so bad. But if she didn't? If she had gotten pregnant with me accidentally, and not wanted to risk her *life* by attempting to carry yet again? There is no way I would blame her for aborting. I don't understand that argument in general, 'well what if your mother had aborted you??'.... Like, it's still her choice. I wouldn't want my mother to be forced to carry me any more then I'd want to be forced to carry. Especially if it puts her life in danger... I do not value my life above my mother's. I do not think my life is more important then hers, especially not my *potential* life that hadn't even begun yet. 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

9 hours ago, olympe said:

That still doesn't answer my questions in the last part of the post. Where's the difference between an unwanted baby that got aborted at a late stage in pregnancy, when it's already viable, and a wanted preterm baby?

Also, I'm well aware that, from a biological standpoint, an embryo has no consciousness. However, even a born baby has no sense of self, either. Because that only develops around the time a baby learns to move from one place to another.

 

Also, a fetus (that's still called a fetus) around week 23/24 has a 50% survival rate if born prematurely.

 

An embryo becomes a foetus at 8-10 weeks. I referred to embryos because a l;rge number of abortions ARE of embryos. Except in countries where people put blocks in the way of abortions and it takes longer. None of the examples I posted were anywhere close to 23/24 we4ks or viable. Except the one where the baby was anencephalic and would have died within minutes of delivery. I do think that is one case (among others) where a very late abortion is totally acceptable. That is one condition which cannot be detected till 16-20 weeks, and which is always, always, ALWAYS fatal.

 

9 hours ago, hazeh said:

I'm not sure there are really many cases that would qualify as an unwanted baby aborted late term, when most, if not the vast majority of late term abortions are strictly medical issues either for fetus or mother. I've not heard of that instance happening yet. I don't doubt it could happen, and if at a point the child is unwanted but viable, I don't see why the fetus couldn't then just be delivered and given into the custody of the state. 

 

For me, approaching the issue of "when does a fetus become a baby, etc" is the difference of stages. I don't equate stages as being the same thing even if they all lead to the same end results (which, technically human pregnancies do not-- some of those pregnancies will not end up with a baby human, but a tumor, or a calcified mass, which are certainly not "humans" any more than a loped off pink finger counts as a human). A zygote is not the same thing as an embryo, and an embryo is not the same thing as a fetus, and a fetus is not the same thing as a baby because there are stages of development that separate them. I would not qualify a fetus as a baby until it is developed to the point of being viable outside the womb. Of course the easiest way to define that is birth, because that's the natural succession of a fetus to child, but there are exceptions to that with certain pre-mature babies. But unless that baby has a chance to actually live outside the womb, it's a fetus, and is thus directly the responsibility of the person who carries it to decide what happens going forward. Even if technically a 23/24 week fetus is capable of surviving without the mother, a medical condition may render it nonviable-- thus, still entirely the choice of the carrier on how they want to proceed. And 50% isn't really the greatest of odds for survival; it's a coin toss. 

 

Either way, whatever the reason, it's not my decision until I'm the one in that position, so it doesn't matter to me much what the justifications behind why a mother chooses to do it or not are. 

 

 

I would qualify a foetis as a baby at the m[point at which medics call it back - it is technically a scientific definition,. But I would not rule out its abortion just because it is now technically a foetus rather than an embryo. It is still only a potential human, and the woman is a fully formed, living breathing human person. With hugely more rights than what is inside her.

 

9 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

Personally, I always had a problem with the whole "beating heart stops," argument of pro-life people. Cardiac muscle moves on its own - not to get too graphic, but if you have ever seen an animal heave or appear to breathe after death, or get muscle twitches, it's much the same thing. Just because you get a muscle spasm doesn't mean there is any thought behind it. 

 

All a beating heart is is electrical signals telling a muscle to contract. It would be no different than, say, someone with an eye twitch having a spasm. What really makes a human, in my opinion, is the ability to feel and experience - which embryos most certainly do not. The people carrying them are already alive; with memories and happiness and things they want to live for. An embryo - or even a fetus, for that matter - has no concept of happiness, love, want, memories. 

 

Remember that spiders and most other insects have a beating heart too... but people have no problem ending those lives without a second thought. A cardiac muscle does not a sentient being make. 

 

I well recall chickens running around after their heads had been chopped off....

 

1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

This is a very good point and definitely something that should be thought about. A beating heart does not equal 'living' or 'viable'... While a viable fetus will have a beating heart, a beating heart doesn't mean that the fetus is viable. Nor, I believe, does the existence of human-like features mean that the fetus is a 'baby'... Generalized shapes can be made very very early on in the creation process, and that's true of pretty much everything, not just growing fetuses/embryos/etc. Just because something kind of resembles what a human looks like does not mean that it's alive or viable or able to feel or any of those things. 

 

In general, I don't like to get into the 'when is a fetus viable' debates, because I personally don't think it matters most of the time. The vast majority of abortions are done before the fetus could ever even have a chance of living outside the woman's body; To my knowledge the majority of late-term abortions are done because of medical complications, where either the fetus *isn't* viable regardless of late-term or the birth would put the mother's life at risk. In which case, I don't mean to be cold here, but if the mother would probably die by giving birth then it's completely her choice to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the fetus's development. 

 

I really can't think of any other situation where an adult's life matters less then a *potential* not-yet-life. Even when it comes to stuff like being in the military or risking your life as a cop or whatever, that's a *choice* the adult is allowed to make. There is no other situation where an adult human is *forced* to put their life at risk in order to 'save' another 'life' that's actually not a for-sure life yet. That's one of the most baffling things to me, is there is nothing else comparable to the abortion debate. I'm 99% sure that most pro-lifers would balk if someone tried to force them to put their life on the line just because some stranger said they should. If someone tried to force them to, say, undergo a very risky medical procedure in order to donate an organ, because some stranger said they should. And yet for some reason when it comes to females and pregnancy suddenly that's just fine. It's baffling to me.

 

Bolded because I totally agree.

[Astreya]

1 hour ago, Alrexwolf said:

 I can say for certain right here right now that had I been aborted like... I don't care? People always say "you're alive to be pro-choice because your mom was pro-life," [...] People always use it like a checkmate option when I hear them talk about pro-life

When people tell me "But you wouldn't be born if your mother would have aborted you." then I usually tell them "And that is a problem why?"

As a matter of fact that I'm here is just simple chance. If I weren't here - well, I wouldn't be there to think about it, so why should I care? This is why I also have no fear to be dead. After all, the universe existed before I became conscious, and it will exist just like this when I won't be there any more to think about it. Imagine you would go to sleep and wouldn't wake up any more - would that really be a problem? You wouldn't even notice.

 

Oh, and as for being wanted or not - my Mom told me "If I had had the choice, I wouldn't have had children. It was just expected of me and so I had to go through with it."  Well, I was really overjoyed to hear that.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Astreya

[Fuzzbucket]

Yeah - it made me think when my daughter said she wished she had never married her now ex. I thought about my grandchildren - but then - well, they would never have existed for me to mind that they hadn't been born, like.

[Astreya]

Oh, by the way, @Alrexwolf made some very valid points about the costs.

 

IMO one could easily get rid of about every pro-lifer, if every person being forced to go through with an unwanted pregnancy could simply pass all the bills to these people. So let's start with all the medical bills concerning the pregnancy (examinations, birth, all medical bills for the kid until s/he is able to earn hir own money). Medical bills for long-term psychological support if the kind was result of a rape. Then the clothing for the pregnant woman, then the clothing for the kid until s/he earns her own money. The food for the kid. School expenses, expenses for hobbies and vacation etc. I think this will amount to quite a sizeable sum, and I think if someone is so pro-life, they should be more than willing to pay that money to each person they force to go through with a pregnancy.

[hazeh]

Ugh, the entire "how would you feel if your mother had aborted you" quip always infuriates me. First off... I wouldn't feel. That's... kind of the point. 

I was an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. My mom was eighteen and an out lesbian and got too drunk at a college party. When she found out she was pregnant, she confronted the boy (he was 16) about it, and he begged her to have an abortion. But she decided, for whatever reason, that she was going to keep me. She didn't even want financial compensation from my dad; she just wanted someone to watch me while she went to school, because she had 2-3 jobs and could only go to school at night. But he couldn't even do that because he was too scared, and refused to tell anyone. So she cut him out of our life and raised me on her own, on welfare, until she met my other mom. 

If she had chosen differently, if she had chosen herself over me-- I would be glad for it. She gave up a great opportunity at a theater college and her dream of becoming an actress for me. Now she's a nurse that saves peoples' lives, and she's amazing at it, but there will always be a part of me that wishes she could have had the life she'd worked so hard to have before I came crashing in unannounced. 

And the adoption system? It's horrible. My siblings are both adopted and I have about 7 aunts and uncles that were adopted by my grandparents while I was growing up. Learning about the things those kids go through, especially in foster care, and having to see the mental and emotional affects on them is mind blowing. And my little sister was so screwed up by her birth mother that my family believes she probably won't make it through adolescence. And that's terrifying. 

What it comes down to, though, is that there is no other alternative for pregnancy than abortion. If someone doesn't want to be a parent, there is an alternative-- but there's no other choice if someone doesn't want to be pregnant, and we should never, EVER, pass legislation that requires a person to be forcibly pregnant when they don't want to be. 

[High Lord November]

17 hours ago, olympe said:

That still doesn't answer my questions in the last part of the post. Where's the difference between an unwanted baby that got aborted at a late stage in pregnancy, when it's already viable, and a wanted preterm baby?

 

People can't abort late-term unless it's for a medical issue (sometimes not even then), so it's really a non-applicable comparison.

 

Most abortions in the States are already restricted heavily in terms of when you can do it. On top of that, it is excruciatingly difficult to get one, with a ton of barriers in the way (fake clinics, too far to travel to get one, intense social stigma). If access was reasonable and achievable, then we would see a lot less suffering in the adoption system and for children with people who should not be parents, and it would really help avoid this grey zone everyone seems concerned about. This is why accessible abortions early-term are really important for everyone. This is needed along with widely accessible birth control and education, which will also reduce the amount of abortions.

 

I've said it before, but I don't want pregnancy, I don't want a child at this stage, and if I got pregnant for any reason, I am educated on sexual health to recognize the signs and make a decision early on. This thing sitting in my uterus (a parasite who can only survive by leeching off my own nutrients and remaining in my uterus) is nothing compared to my established life. It has no brain, no capacity to feel or think or even self-realize at this stage, and to me that's a no-brainer (pun unintended). 

 

Context is important. If it's wanted, it's a joy because of the potential. If unwanted, it's nothing more than a parasitic tumor growing in me that I want out NOW. Kind of parallel to sex or anything else that requires consent really. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by High Lord November

[AlicornsPrayer]

8 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

(First, I'm very sorry that you've had to go through that.) 

 

This is exactly how I feel. I've mentioned before that my mother wasn't supposed to get pregnant with me, she'd had multiple miscarriages and the doctor said it would be very risky for her to get pregnant again. She did, against doctor's wishes, because she wanted a child so bad. But if she didn't? If she had gotten pregnant with me accidentally, and not wanted to risk her *life* by attempting to carry yet again? There is no way I would blame her for aborting. I don't understand that argument in general, 'well what if your mother had aborted you??'.... Like, it's still her choice. I wouldn't want my mother to be forced to carry me any more then I'd want to be forced to carry. Especially if it puts her life in danger... I do not value my life above my mother's. I do not think my life is more important then hers, especially not my *potential* life that hadn't even begun yet. 

 

 

 

Actually, the argument of 'well, what if your mother had aborted you?' loses the race right out of the gate.....IF one's mother had aborted you them, then they wouldn't be here to begin with, let alone have any opinion about the subject....Or any other subject. They'd simply have ceased to exist before they'd even learned what life was or meant. 

There was days I definitely wished my own mother had aborted my 2 brothers and I, instead of feeling pressured to have and raise us to live with her physical abuse and our stepfather's sexual abuse. If she'd aborted us, she'd not spent a lifetime feeling shamed for getting pregnant out of wedlock, and the three of us definitely never would have known a thing about living in hell on earth. We also wouldn't even had registered 'dying' in utero, because fetuses don't experience what breathing and living humans do to begin with. We're a blank board in the womb, and anything that makes us 'human' is developed outside of the womb by the good and bad experiences that affords being 'human'. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by AlicornsPrayer

[olympe]

Another thing to think about: The easiest way to actually kill another person is to first take away their humanity. This happened in history time and again. "Less than humans", "monkeys", "unworthy lives", "barbarians" or "uncultured and thus unworthy", "sub-class humans", "perverted", "idiots" or "non-believers" are all labels assigned to whole groups of people during history with the intent to make killing them either acceptable or even desirable. (Yes, the barbarians example is from the Roman Empire.) 

 

Now, let's make a list of the terms floating around here to describe an unborn child. "Parasite leeching off nutrients", "no-brainer", "potential human" (with emphasis on potential, not on human), "clump of cells"... 

Edited August 30, 2018 by olympe
edited for spelling

[Laryal]

1 hour ago, olympe said:

Another thing to think about: The easiest way to actually kill another person is to first take away their humanity. This happened in history time and again. "Less than humans", "monkeys", "unworthy lives", "barbarians" or "uncultured and thus unworthy", "sub-class humans", "perverted", "idiots" or "non-believers" are all labels assigned to whole groups of people during history with the intent to make killing them either acceptable or even desirable. (Yes, the barbarians example is from the Roman Empire.) 

 

Now, let's make a list of the terms floating around here to describe an unborn child. "Parasite leeching off nutrients", "no-brainer", "potential human" (with emphasis on potential, not on human), "clump of cells"... 

Could  not agree more i was thinking long an hard on this an i want to ask the ones who keep asking me is it a baby? what alse could it be do women carry anything else other than a human baby before it is born? if you say yes then think on this it is not your body that you are allowing to be killed.It is anouther human life.but ohhh no you say it is a fetus a none human.so if you say that what are you carrying then what other being are you carrying?

 

https://hangthebankers.com/abortion-what-happens-to-the-baby/      http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/

Edited August 30, 2018 by Laryal

[olympe]

Well, we can carry a lot of things. Tumorous cell growth (that should have become a baby, but somehow didn't). Other tumors grown from our own bodies. Lice, worms, mites. Bacteria, viruses, fungi. Eurkaryotes, like Plasmodium (which causes malaria). And probably lots of other stuff I don't remember.

[Laryal]

31 minutes ago, olympe said:

Well, we can carry a lot of things. Tumorous cell growth (that should have become a baby, but somehow didn't). Other tumors grown from our own bodies. Lice, worms, mites. Bacteria, viruses, fungi. Eurkaryotes, like Plasmodium (which causes malaria). And probably lots of other stuff I don't remember.

So what your saying is a baby is no different than what you said here? Then if that is true you were one your self at one time in your life or are you still one? So if you carry this clump of cells you call it what does it come to be? An you cunffused me for to me you were taking up for unborn babies an now you say this?

Edited August 30, 2018 by Laryal

[Alrexwolf]

I'm just going to point out that people use derogatory terms like that for living, breathing people. People who already have memories, have had experiences, etc.

 

An embryo is NOT a fully formed human. It is a clump of cells. It is, technically speaking, a parasite. These are all scientifically accurate statements about the nature of an embryo / fetus. It is not the same as making up stereotypes/justifying racism, at all. That should not even be a part of the discussion.

 

Most of the things you listed - lice, mites, bacteria, fungi, etc - can have benefits to the human body. We host bacteria in our guts that we would be unable to survive without. On the other hand, a fetus takes away from the human body. We have no problem getting rid of harmful bacteria/worms/lice/mites - a fetus falls into the same category, technically speaking. It causes illness. It drains nutrients from the body. It is a parasite.

 

It's like comparing fruit to tar from before. It's a ridiculous comparison and just pulling on nonexistent emotional ties. In fact, I think it's a little disrespectful to compare the suffering to millions upon billions of children and adults to the plight of a clump of cells that has no feeling at all and has no experiences. A fetus/embryo is not even capable of experiencing discrimination or emotional/societal abuse or understanding what any of that is. 

[Cecona]

It is very possible for that clump of cells to not turn into a human baby. It could turn into a tumor or something else non-viable. It’s kind of ignorant to think it will always turn into a healthy baby. Also you are not doing yourself any favors linking to obviously biased websites that are anti-choice/pro-forced birth.

 

I would also like to point out a friend of mine would troll those calling themselves pro-life with a picture of an elephant fetus and saying it’s not a human. Because of how similar mammalian fetuses look everyone was fooled, even me at first, into assuming it was human. 

[Fuzzbucket]

An apple pip is not an apple.

[olympe]

20 hours ago, Laryal said:

So what your saying is a baby is no different than what you said here? Then if that is true you were one your self at one time in your life or are you still one? So if you carry this clump of cells you call it what does it come to be? An you cunffused me for to me you were taking up for unborn babies an now you say this?

No, that's not what I'm saying. But you asked what else a woman could be carrying, and I gave you an answer.  

 

20 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

I'm just going to point out that people use derogatory terms like that for living, breathing people. People who already have memories, have had experiences, etc.

I'm well aware of this. Still, it appears there's a similar trend here.

 

An embryo is NOT a fully formed human. It 

is a clump of cells. It is, technically speaking, a parasite. These are all scientifically accurate statements about the nature of an embryo / fetus. It is not the same as making up stereotypes/justifying racism, at all. That should not even be a part of the discussion.

The term "clump of cells" implies that it's just a clump without proper form and absolutely no specialization. Very early on, an embryo develops a very defined form and specialized cells. As a matter of fact, even a gastrula - which is literally a clump of cells with a big hole in the middle - has cells in the early stages of specialization, as it already contains the three germ layers, which develop in ways very different from each other. 

Also, if you want to be scientifically accurate in your statements, you should discern between a fetus and an embryo. Equating a fetus with a clump of cells is like comparing fruit to tar, as you so eloquently put it.

Most of the things you listed - lice, mites, bacteria, fungi, etc - can have benefits to the human body. We host bacteria in our guts that we would be unable to 

survive without. On the other hand, a fetus takes away from the human body. We have no problem getting rid of harmful bacteria/worms/lice/mites - a fetus falls into the same category, technically speaking. It causes illness. It drains nutrients from the body. It is a parasite.

Seriously? What's the benefit of lice (suck blood, cause itching, sometimes inflammation, pass on diseases), mites (cause itching, sometimes inflammations), fungi (can cause a variety of sicknesses - even Candida albicans, which is normally present on our skin and mucous membranes in small numbers, can cause a lot of trouble - ever had a vaginal yeast infection?) or worms within our body? 

Also, parasitism is usually defined as a relationship between species, although some other kinds are mentioned: Sexual parasitism - a term which I would like to dispute, but this discussion doesn't belong here -  and adelphoparasitism. Nowhere is pregnancy mentioned as a form of parasitism. And, last but not least, pregnancy is not a disease. Not to mention that we, as a species, would be unable to survive without pregnancies. These are all cold, hard facts.

 

19 hours ago, Cecona said:

It is very possible for that clump of cells to not turn into a human baby. It could turn into a tumor or something else non-viable. It’s kind of ignorant to think it will always turn into a healthy baby. Also you are not doing yourself any favors linking to obviously biased websites that are anti-choice/pro-forced birth.

This kind of thing usually only happens in the earliest stages - which make up maybe half of the time a human spends as an embryo.

You could argue just as well that not every baby turns into a self-sufficient and fertile human adult, but could turn into a corpse or an infertile adult instead. As a result - wouldn't it be acceptable to kill babies? (Not that'd I'd advertise that, seriously. But it's the same line of argument. Why does it apply to one and not the other?)

[Laryal]

51 minutes ago, olympe said:

No, that's not what I'm saying. But you asked what else a woman could be carrying, and I gave you an answer.  

 

I'm well aware of this. Still, it appears there's a similar trend here.

 

 

 

The term "clump of cells" implies that it's just a clump without proper form and absolutely no specialization. Very early on, an embryo develops a very defined form and specialized cells. As a matter of fact, even a gastrula - which is literally a clump of cells with a big hole in the middle - has cells in the early stages of specialization, as it already contains the three germ layers, which develop in ways very different from each other. 

Also, if you want to be scientifically accurate in your statements, you should discern between a fetus and an embryo. Equating a fetus with a clump of cells is like comparing fruit to tar, as you so eloquently put it.

 

 

Seriously? What's the benefit of lice (suck blood, cause itching, sometimes inflammation, pass on diseases), mites (cause itching, sometimes inflammations), fungi (can cause a variety of sicknesses - even Candida albicans, which is normally present on our skin and mucous membranes in small numbers, can cause a lot of trouble - ever had a vaginal yeast infection?) or worms within our body? 

Also, parasitism is usually defined as a relationship between species, although some other kinds are mentioned: Sexual parasitism - a term which I would like to dispute, but this discussion doesn't belong here -  and adelphoparasitism. Nowhere is pregnancy mentioned as a form of parasitism. And, last but not least, pregnancy is not a disease. Not to mention that we, as a species, would be unable to survive without pregnancies. These are all cold, hard facts.

 

This kind of thing usually only happens in the earliest stages - which make up maybe half of the time a human spends as an embryo.

You could argue just as well that not every baby turns into a self-sufficient and fertile human adult, but could turn into a corpse or an infertile adult instead. As a result - wouldn't it be acceptable to kill babies? (Not that'd I'd advertise that, seriously. But it's the same line of argument. Why does it apply to one and not the other?)

On the part you answered me on ok understand now sorry.

[Cecona]

the thing you don’t seem to understand is that an unborn embryo/fetus is not the same as a baby that’s already been born. You also cannot equate an already living person with memories and experiences with something not even aware of its own existence. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy, and not a very good one either. If we killed living babies because they might die as an adult there would be no adults to reproduce and the human race would die out. That’s not even close to the same thing as abortion.

 

Also what does being infertile have to do with anything? You think that we would feel the same about people that can’t reproduce? That’s just asinine, and insulting because I’m infertile.

 

 

we that are pro-choice advocate for the CHOICE to keep or abort depending on the woman carrying (that does not mean we are okay with women using it as an alternate for birth control like was mentioned before. Whom I think just had no idea how the pill works). If they want it and plan to keep it, wonderful! If it would be overwhelming and a toll on them mentally, physically, financially, etc then the option to abort should be available to them early on with no hoops to jump through that would keep them from aborting until it’s too late or close to it. We are not pro-abortion as that would mean we wanted every woman to abort, and advocated for forced abortion which we do not at all. That takes away their choice, the exact thing we don’t want to happen. 

 

Also if you pro-lifers are so against late term abortions maybe you shouldnt force women that want to terminate early on to wait. No law will stop someone if they want it bad enough and that includes abortions. It’s pro-lifers that want the baby born but are against government support that would keep that family above water, and healthy. That is not pro-life, that is pro-forced birth because once the baby is born you guys couldn’t care less. Also none of you have answered us in why you think the woman’s already established life is less important than a POTENTIAL life that may not even make it to birth. A potential human still developing within the womb does not have the same personhood as an already existing person. Even newborns have personhood, but an embryo/fetus still within the womb unable to form memories with its partially formed brain or feel anything with its partially developed nervous system does not.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Cecona
Added something about the infertile thing mentioned along with adult corpses

[olympe]

Where is the difference between a fetus and a baby, save for the fact that a fetus might not be able to survive outside the womb yet? (Sadly, the same is true for way too many babies, too. So, maybe not quite as much of a difference as it seemed at first glance.)

So, extreme case: Let's take a newborn as an example.

• Memories? Probably the same as those of a fetus, just with the trauma of birth added.
• Aware of their own existence? Not yet - as a matter of fact, children only become aware of their own existence as an entity separate from their mothers around the time they learn to move around on their own.
• Able to feel pain? Yes, definitely. Same for the fetus.

And while killing all babies would end the human race, so would killing all embryoes and/or fetuses, too. Just the same. Without fallacy. And, yes, there were and still are cultures were unwanted newborns were/are killed right after birth. One famous example would be ancient Greece, where it was usually newborn girls who were left to die. Because, according to their belief system, the newborns were not yet presented to society, thus not part of society and thus not considered human beings yet. So, this was not considered "killing", although most people here in this thread would probably argue that. Plus, the newborns couldn't survive on their own... Apparently.

 

And, while I'm still pro choice, I feel that many women nowadays take this choice too easily. Because, in the end, aborting is willful the ending of another life. In other words: Killing. Unless, of course, you successfully dehumanize the victim. Which is happening a lot here in this thread.  

[Dekka]

1 hour ago, olympe said:

Where is the difference between a fetus and a baby, save for the fact that a fetus might not be able to survive outside the womb yet? (Sadly, the same is true for way too many babies, too. So, maybe not quite as much of a difference as it seemed at first glance.)

So, extreme case: Let's take a newborn as an example.

• Memories? Probably the same as those of a fetus, just with the trauma of birth added.
• Aware of their own existence? Not yet - as a matter of fact, children only become aware of their own existence as an entity separate from their mothers around the time they learn to move around on their own.
• Able to feel pain? Yes, definitely. Same for the fetus.

And while killing all babies would end the human race, so would killing all embryoes and/or fetuses, too. Just the same. Without fallacy. And, yes, there were and still are cultures were unwanted newborns were/are killed right after birth. One famous example would be ancient Greece, where it was usually newborn girls who were left to die. Because, according to their belief system, the newborns were not yet presented to society, thus not part of society and thus not considered human beings yet. So, this was not considered "killing", although most people here in this thread would probably argue that. Plus, the newborns couldn't survive on their own... Apparently.

 

And, while I'm still pro choice, I feel that many women nowadays take this choice too easily. Because, in the end, aborting is willful the ending of another life. In other words: Killing. Unless, of course, you successfully dehumanize the victim. Which is happening a lot here in this thread.  

i don't think we are at risk of 'ending the human race' anytime soon. even if countless women chose abortion, there are still 7 billion + people on this earth at least half of which are women, and most women do not abort.  from an objective standpoint we are VASTLY overpopulated and in no way near becoming extinct so i'm not sure what point that was meant to make