Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, which side are you on?

[HorrificAttack]

Haha, I wanted to write that in my last post but chose to put it a bit more delicately

 

Saaame, I've been avoding it haha.

 

Completely agree with your points as well, but I think the rape issue is because it's an unwanted child maybe? Which to be honest would jsut further back my point up if that was the case, so they are just hypocrites.

[Tnspieler1012]

Pro-Choice. There's a population problem, you know.

well, surely you have a better argument than that, its kind of beside the issue...

[Reilly]

Saaame, I've been avoding it haha.

 

Completely agree with your points as well, but I think the rape issue is because it's an unwanted child maybe? Which to be honest would jsut further back my point up if that was the case, so they are just hypocrites.

 

Yeah that's it as well, a mother having to bring up a child when it is a reminder that she was raped and this entire ordeal was not her fault, pro-lifers seem to agree that this is acceptable. Someone mentioned that the child would have the same mental problems as a rapist and that kinda stuck in my head as I made my last points.

 

Spieler I don't think it is besides the point when looking at in a broader form, not as in personal morals and what YOU would do, but what's best for society. Ultimately, she's spot on and not a lot else needs to be said.

[an angel]

Of course not, that's a fully formed living child at that stage, no longer cells. I don't know what 'she' said or who 'she' is (that confused me) but I wasn't aware that newborns weren't conscious and aware of anything when they are born, they can choose where to look, whether they cry, they have a personality and I define that as the start of a 'life'. I don't consider cells, growing an collecting into a form that hasn't even developed to determine what type of human that child will be, as 'life'.

 

Sorry, I was referring to what noonsun said, which is what I was originally talking about in the post you quoted earlier. I don't see an unborn baby as just a bunch of cells at all, I see it as a developing human.

 

Abortionists don't abort the fetus until at least the 7th week. As I posted earlier, the heart, liver, spinal cord, etc have already begun to develop during the third week. The heart begins to beat on the 21st day. Do you really think it's just a bunch of meaningless cells at that point, at least?

If cells are alive, then scratching your arm is murder.

 

like I said earlier also, masturbation is genocide.

 

I also lol'd at "incest" being a reason for abortion, that makes absolutely no sense to me, unless they accidentally have sex then they did it intentionally.

 

I really don't get how you can supposedly value life and then allow a child to be born into circumstances where it is not wanted, when an abortion takes place it is not a child, it is merely the potential to be a child.

 

So a girl who is 16, has no job, the father want anything to do with her, her single parent mother can barely afford to keep the 2 of them getting by. She, by your standards, would have to give birth to this child as she doesn't meet your crieteria for abortion. She can't afford to raise the child, the child wont have a proper upbringing and she's going to resent the child for taking over her life, it's a fucking terrible situation to be in. But she has to "deal with the consequences" just because she didn't have sex with her brother, it seems ridiculous to me.

 

The beginning of life is conception; it's not just cells, it's a developing human. That's it.

 

Mkay, so it's okay to end the life of a human because it's simply inconvenient for you? And like I've said, there's adoption. Just because the mother doesn't want the child doesn't mean that no one else would. And did you know that many, many women regret having abortions later in life? It's not always the best choice at all.

[Dfit00]

Pro-Choice. There's a population problem, you know.

And the scarcity of natural resources as well.

[HorrificAttack]

It's more than an inconvencience, if you honestly can't see my point there then it's needless for us to even bother discussing it.

 

Adoption is an incredibly imperfect system, mothers naturally get attached to their baby as the pregnancy goes on, there are shit loads of kids already in the world, it's not like there really needs to be another unwanted child having a shit life in a foster home.

 

I see adverts quite frequently telling people to adopt, they clearly have too many kids already, not enough to meet the demand.

[HorrificAttack]

There are population problems because most people live tightly packed in metropolitan areas. The world is big enough to hold more and more billions of people.

 

Are you actually kidding? It's not about space, it's not like "there's room for a house over there, stop whining" it's about resources and everything else, jesus christ.

[Dfit00]

Are you actually kidding? It's not about space, it's not like "there's room for a house over there, stop whining" it's about resources and everything else, jesus christ.

Well, if there are more people then subsequently more resources can be produced.

[HorrificAttack]

Well, if there are more people then subsequently more resources can be produced.

 

Oh ok then, you are just an idiot. Do you really think this is true? How do you think things are made? Out of thin air?

 

Also I have to go back to the point about life beginning at conception.

 

So cell division is the start of life? I really don't see how that means it is alive, how are those cells any more special than sperm inside a condom?

[an angel]

Cell division =/= conception.

[HorrificAttack]

Cell division =/= conception.

 

So what? A cell with a complete set of chromosomes is life? I still don't see your point.

[an angel]

Conception is the beginning of human life, for the millionth time.

A gamete by itself cannot develop into a human, unless it's fertilized of course.

[Reilly]

Sorry, I was referring to what noonsun said, which is what I was originally talking about in the post you quoted earlier. I don't see an unborn baby as just a bunch of cells at all, I see it as a developing human.

 

Abortionists don't abort the fetus until at least the 7th week. As I posted earlier, the heart, liver, spinal cord, etc have already begun to develop during the third week. The heart begins to beat on the 21st day. Do you really think it's just a bunch of meaningless cells at that point, at least?

 

I think it's clear that I do indeed see them as meaningless at that point. I appreciate your preservation of life thing, but to me a human does not exist at that stage it is just developing cells.

 

What I really don't understand, and I haven't brought it up yet, is the double standard opinions that the pro-lifers have taken in this thread (I'm not just replying to you anymore Kels), a bunch of cells is still as much as a human being as you or me, but if those cells were created by a rape or incest they aren't a human being anymore? I'm trying to get my head around that.

 

I mean if you all do think that it's a human being, it shouldn't matter how it lead to this, it's a human to you, so how is it different from killing a grown person? Is it ok to kill people who were conceived by rape and are now in their 20s? Isn't it the same principle? I don't get it.

 

There are population problems because most people live tightly packed in metropolitan areas. The world is big enough to hold more and more billions of people.

 

What the world doesn't have is the billions and billions of times more natural resources we'd need to have a fully functioning spread out population. And people don't create natural resources, in fact most of us just use them up, that's why it's a crisis. I don't even understand it above a basic level but do I need to explain it any further? Too many people are being born for the world's resources to cope with right now and it's estimated for this to get considerably worse in the foreseeable decades. You could be right that the world has enough room to keep billions and billions more people, but definitely not at this rate (The world's population has increased 250% since the 50's! That doesn't add up).

[HorrificAttack]

Conception is the beginning of human life, for the millionth time.

A gamete by itself cannot develop into a human, unless it's fertilized of course.

 

That's exactly what I said though, so at the point when it is 1 cell, it is life? That's genuinely ludicrous in my mind. You destroy more cells than that if you scratch your arm, potential to be life=/= life.

[an angel]

I think it's clear that I do indeed see them as meaningless at that point. I appreciate your preservation of life thing, but to me a human does not exist at that stage it is just developing cells.

 

What I really don't understand, and I haven't brought it up yet, is the double standard opinions that the pro-lifers have taken in this thread (I'm not just replying to you anymore Kels), a bunch of cells is still as much as a human being as you or me, but if those cells were created by a rape or incest they aren't a human being anymore? I'm trying to get my head around that.

 

I mean if you all do think that it's a human being, it shouldn't matter how it lead to this, it's a human to you. I don't get it.

 

At exactly what point do you think it's not meaningless, though? Before the heart begins to beat, or later? Because abortions occur long after that...

 

I actually do believe that an unborn fetus is a human being even if it was created by rape, and if I were in that situation, I would not get an abortion. I used to be completely against abortion even in that circumstance, but now I think I'm on the fence about it. But when you take it into perspective, only 1% of abortions occur because of rape, compared to 93% which occur because the child is unwanted.

[HorrificAttack]

At exactly what point do you think it's not meaningless, though? Before the heart begins to beat, or later? Because abortions occur long after that...

 

I actually do believe that an unborn fetus is a human being even if it was created by rape, and if I were in that situation, I would not get an abortion. I used to be completely against abortion even in that circumstance, but now I think I'm on the fence about it. But when you take it into perspective, only 1% of abortions occur because of rape, compared to 93% which occur because the child is unwanted.

 

Thos figures might not necessarily be true, how many rape victims do you know who go round telling people they've been raped? It's not something you really tell people unless you are really close to them. But that is besides the point...

 

Also I have to go back to my point again about "unwanted" being completely justifiable, it's not like "oh I can't be bothered with condoms OR a baby, YAY ABORTION" it's a last resort thing for people who genuinely can't raise a child to the best of their ability. Adoption is not the answer.

[an angel]

That's exactly what I said though, so at the point when it is 1 cell, it is life? That's genuinely ludicrous in my mind. You destroy more cells than that if you scratch your arm, potential to be life=/= life.

 

I'm just saying that's the point when life begins. It's not a potential to be a human life, it is a human life. A skin cell is not a human being.

[HorrificAttack]

I'm just saying that's the point when life begins. It's not a potential to be a human life, it is a human life. A skin cell is not a human being.

 

This zygote in the the woman has nothing different to any other unspecialised cell in the body inside it, other than the rapid mitosis taking place.

[an angel]

Thos figures might not necessarily be true, how many rape victims do you know who go round telling people they've been raped? It's not something you really tell people unless you are really close to them. But that is besides the point...

 

Also I have to go back to my point again about "unwanted" being completely justifiable, it's not like "oh I can't be bothered with condoms OR a baby, YAY ABORTION" it's a last resort thing for people who genuinely can't raise a child to the best of their ability. Adoption is not the answer.

 

 

But murder is, eh?

[an angel]

This zygote in the the woman has nothing different to any other unspecialised cell in the body inside it, other than the rapid mitosis taking place.

 

That doesn't change the fact that that's the point at which life begins.

By the way, do tell me how a zygote is not different than any other cell inside a woman's body. :thinking:

[HorrificAttack]

But murder is, eh?

 

Clearly you're impossible to rationalise with, no point arguing with a brick wall.

 

Bye.

[Reilly]

At exactly what point do you think it's not meaningless, though? Before the heart begins to beat, or later? Because abortions occur long after that...

 

I actually do believe that an unborn fetus is a human being even if it was created by rape, and if I were in that situation, I would not get an abortion. I used to be completely against abortion even in that circumstance, but now I think I'm on the fence about it. But when you take it into perspective, only 1% of abortions occur because of rape, compared to 93% which occur because the child is unwanted.

 

But even to be 'on the fence' about it, by definition you are admitting that a foetus certainly is less then a human being. You can't call an abortion 'murder' (Which to be honest just makes me want to dismiss you're entire argument) because then the 'murder' is possibly understandable on the right type of 'person'.

 

I will admit that I don't know at exactly what point I consider a developing foetus a human being, but I know that there is at least up a certain point that to me, a foetus is a collection of cells which haven't formed to the point where they have that right to choose, because they simply can't choose anything physically or mentally, they are just an organism feeding off nature at that point.

[an angel]

I'm guessing by "rationalise with" you mean to change my opinions about it.

[HorrificAttack]

I'm guessing by "rationalise with" you mean to change my opinions about it.

 

No, I've made several great points that you haven't even countered, instead you just call it "murder" which like Reilly suggested is just absolutely infuriating and makes me want to not even bother listening to a word you say.

[Reilly]

I'm guessing he was annoyed by the word 'murder', it just seemed like you threw that in there to debase what he was saying and make him look barbaric, in the same way fundamentalist Christians use 'murderers' to describe those who have abortions. That was irrational.

 

EDIT: Yeah, that.