Pro or Con: Abortion

[Edward]

If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.

Are you saying the little child that could eventually grow into a very successful person isn't having their life drastically changed for the worse? I mean, if you were faced with someone that's already born and relatively young (young enough to still do something with their life), you probably wouldn't kill them if keeping them alive meant your life got worse. And more likely, a teenage mother would give the baby to someone else--an orphanage, foster family, etc. It wouldn't effect her life much after that, and the baby lives.

But to kill a person just to keep your life normal seems terrible to me, especially since there's a good shot it's your fault (excluding rape).

A clump of cells is considered a person now?

But, but, but, fingernails ;_;.

 

[Muesli]

If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.

Are you saying the little child that could eventually grow into a very successful person isn't having their life drastically changed for the worse? I mean, if you were faced with someone that's already born and relatively young (young enough to still do something with their life), you probably wouldn't kill them if keeping them alive meant your life got worse. And more likely, a teenage mother would give the baby to someone else--an orphanage, foster family, etc. It wouldn't effect her life much after that, and the baby lives.

But to kill a person just to keep your life normal seems terrible to me, especially since there's a good shot it's your fault (excluding rape).

A clump of cells is considered a person now?

But, but, but, fingernails ;_;.

Rats have fingernails, and we kill them all the time.

 

[qqwref]

It's silly to consider a fetus a person before it has consciousness; before that it's just a bunch of human cells hooked up to a system of nutrients, and I think it's only fair to consider it part of the mother, which means it's her choice to decide what to do with it. It's true that it will become a person later, but that doesn't make it a person at that point (if a person who you think will win their first gold medal at the next Olympics dies, did a gold medalist die? no). I've heard that the brain starts being able to send signals around week 17-20. So, before that, I think the mother has the right to kill her fetus, just as she has the right to cut off her leg.

 

[Chapuunka]

If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.

Are you saying the little child that could eventually grow into a very successful person isn't having their life drastically changed for the worse? I mean, if you were faced with someone that's already born and relatively young (young enough to still do something with their life), you probably wouldn't kill them if keeping them alive meant your life got worse. And more likely, a teenage mother would give the baby to someone else--an orphanage, foster family, etc. It wouldn't effect her life much after that, and the baby lives.

But to kill a person just to keep your life normal seems terrible to me, especially since there's a good shot it's your fault (excluding rape).

A clump of cells is considered a person now?

It's someone that would grow into a person. It's not necessarily a "person" right then, but murder is still murder.

And to me, it's more of a question of the soul. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.

 

[LewisJ]

If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.

Are you saying the little child that could eventually grow into a very successful person isn't having their life drastically changed for the worse? I mean, if you were faced with someone that's already born and relatively young (young enough to still do something with their life), you probably wouldn't kill them if keeping them alive meant your life got worse. And more likely, a teenage mother would give the baby to someone else--an orphanage, foster family, etc. It wouldn't effect her life much after that, and the baby lives.

But to kill a person just to keep your life normal seems terrible to me, especially since there's a good shot it's your fault (excluding rape).

A clump of cells is considered a person now?

It's someone that would grow into a person. It's not necessarily a "person" right then, but murder is still murder.

And to me, it's more of a question of the soul. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.

And the Bible is the source of all truth! :fp

 

[4Chan]

@Musli, Edward was making a reference to Juno, a movie that hipsters like.

 

[Muesli]

@Musli, Edward was making a reference to Juno, a movie that hipsters like.

Yeah I got it. It's a meh film.

 

[Chapuunka]

And the Bible is the source of all truth! :fp

Like I said, if you don't believe in that kind of thing, than I'm not saying to you have to. I personally do, and that's where a lot of my stance comes from. It's just an opinion, and as such I'm trying to support it, not preach it.

 

[4Chan]

Oh, my mistake then! >.<

I implied that you hadn't seen it from your reply.

 

[shelley]

And to me, it's more of a question of the soul. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.

Show me empirical evidence of the existence of a "soul". Until you can do that, it has no place in this debate.

 

[Chapuunka]

And to me, it's more of a question of the soul. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.

Show me empirical evidence of the existence of a "soul". Until you can do that, it has no place in this debate.

That kinda depends on what you consider a soul. To me, a soul is what, to Christians, makes a human "in the likeness of God." I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right. My personal beliefs follow that into the whole heaven/hell thing, but that has to do with my beliefs, not how the soul is defined.

So as a human with conscious thought, I believe we have souls. And, (correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot) we don't know where this starts or what controls it. So it could start as soon as the sperm and egg meet, or as late as the fetus is developed. I tend to side on the former.

Edit: Missed the empirical thing. But I think there are things in science that are commonly accepted although not empirical: the earth's age, for example. Carbon dating has been proved to be inaccurate several times before.

 

[Tortin]

And to me, it's more of a question of the soul. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.

Show me empirical evidence of the existence of a "soul". Until you can do that, it has no place in this debate.

That kinda depends on what you consider a soul. To me, a soul is what, to Christians, makes a human "in the likeness of God." I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right. My personal beliefs follow that into the whole heaven/hell thing, but that has to do with my beliefs, not how the soul is defined.

So as a human with conscious thought, I believe we have souls. And, (correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot) we don't know where this starts or what controls it. So it could start as soon as the sperm and egg meet, or as late as the fetus is developed. I tend to side on the former.

Edit: Missed the empirical thing. But I think there are things in science that are commonly accepted although not empirical: the earth's age, for example. Carbon dating has been proved to be inaccurate several times before.

That's why scientists don't use carbon dating.

 

[Rpotts]

I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right.

A brain? :confused:

So as a human with conscious thought, I believe we have souls. And, (correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot) we don't know where this starts or what controls it. So it could start as soon as the sperm and egg meet, or as late as the fetus is developed. I tend to side on the former.

The brain continues developing long after child birth. So far no infants (or fetuses) who can distinguish between right and wrong and make conscious decisions have been reported.

On a different note, telling a pre-pubescent girl to bear her rapists child is a punishment worse than death. She already had to endure the act itself, she will have to cope with the psychological abuse her entire life, and you want her to also have to tear her vagina open to bear the spawn of rape? That is insane.

Anyone here who is a virgin shouldn't post. Also, 12 year old boys shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies.

 

[Tortin]

I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right.

A brain? :confused:

So as a human with conscious thought, I believe we have souls. And, (correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot) we don't know where this starts or what controls it. So it could start as soon as the sperm and egg meet, or as late as the fetus is developed. I tend to side on the former.

The brain continues developing long after child birth. So far no infants (or fetuses) who can distinguish between right and wrong and make conscious decisions have been reported.

On a different note, telling a pre-pubescent girl to bear her rapists child is a punishment worse than death. She already had to endure the act itself, she will have to cope with the psychological abuse her entire life, and you want her to also have to tear her vagina open to bear the spawn of rape? That is insane.

Anyone here who is a virgin shouldn't post. Also, 12 year old boys shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies.

It isn't possible for a pre-pubescent girl to get pregnant.

 

[Chapuunka]

And to me, it's more of a question of the soul. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.

Show me empirical evidence of the existence of a "soul". Until you can do that, it has no place in this debate.

That kinda depends on what you consider a soul. To me, a soul is what, to Christians, makes a human "in the likeness of God." I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right. My personal beliefs follow that into the whole heaven/hell thing, but that has to do with my beliefs, not how the soul is defined.

So as a human with conscious thought, I believe we have souls. And, (correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot) we don't know where this starts or what controls it. So it could start as soon as the sperm and egg meet, or as late as the fetus is developed. I tend to side on the former.

Edit: Missed the empirical thing. But I think there are things in science that are commonly accepted although not empirical: the earth's age, for example. Carbon dating has been proved to be inaccurate several times before.

That's why scientists don't use carbon dating.

I can't seem to find anything that says they don't. Although they use other methods to verify results, they seem to all be pretty similar.

The brain continues developing long after child birth. So far no infants (or fetuses) who can distinguish between right and wrong and make conscious decisions have been reported.

We also can't communicate them, so there's also no way to prove it wrong. And infants constantly make conscious decisions, albeit not big ones.

 

[deco122392]

We also can't communicate them, so there's also no way to prove it wrong. And infants constantly make conscious decisions, albeit not big ones.

Do you believe that animals have souls?

What conscious decisions do baby's make that are different from conscious instinctive decisions animals make.

 

[Chapuunka]

We also can't communicate them, so there's also no way to prove it wrong. And infants constantly make conscious decisions, albeit not big ones.

Do you believe that animals have souls?

What conscious decisions do baby's make that are different from conscious instinctive decisions animals make.

Good point. But I think babies go farther than that; they don't just adapt, they learn. I don't really know much about this, having never had a baby, but that's a small observation.

And from my biblical view (ignore this if you want...) animals were set aside from humans, who were given souls to be in the image of God while animals weren't.

 

[Tortin]

That's why scientists don't use carbon dating.

I can't seem to find anything that says they don't. Although they use other methods to verify results, they seem to all be pretty similar.

Sorry, I should say that they don't use it for determining the age of the earth, because it's not very accurate for dating really old things. There are many other types of radiometric dating used to accurately determine the age of the earth.

 

[deco122392]

Good point. But I think babies go farther than that; they don't just adapt, they learn. I don't really know much about this, having never had a baby, but that's a small observation.

And from my biblical view (ignore this if you want...) animals were set aside from humans, who were given souls to be in the image of God while animals weren't.

I was and am being raised catholic but i'll be the first to admit i'm a terrible Christian, or at least far from being exemplary. With all my questioning and blaspheming thoughts.

From what simple experiments show learning occurs in most if not all living organisms, even the small rat shows that it learns.

Although I think humans do an amazing job at learning and adapting.

 

[fanwuq]

Learn2biology. Let's assume that leadership is a genetic trait. If the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the frequencies of alleles cannot change.

Sorry to butt in but this isn't quite necessary, at least for breeding natural politicians/cubers/athletes/generals/astronauts/etc. You would only really need a handful of each to reach the maximum attainable skill levels, so all you would need is a smallish group of people who agree with the eugenics philosophy, have natural ability in these areas, and are willing to contribute by creating and raising children. The overall frequency of alleles doesn't have to change. The technique is similar to that done in farming, where farmers often want a strain of plant/animal that has a particular desirable trait or as close as they can get; after enough generations you end up with something like the standard dessert banana, which is so much better than wild varieties that few supermarkets will stock anything else.

So, yeah, I agree that it's pretty much impossible to make the vast majority of people 'natural followers' without a huge number of casualties... but maybe you wouldn't have to go that far to have some measure of control over the society. With some careful breeding you could get a few very smart people who are ideally suited for various occupations. They could probably have enough natural talent that no normal person could compete with them. This actually already happens once in a while; usually it's by accident, like in athletics where some people have incredible natural talent because their parents did. Anyway, it's easier to create a natural ruling group than to force everyone else to be natural sheep.

Good points, but my argument on epigenetics still stand. Read more about epigenetics; it's much more important than you think. Also, it's difficult to tell if athletes who are kids of athletes are affected by natural talent or their exposure to an athletic environment.
Of course it is possible to breed natural leaders; it's called monarchy. But can they relate to the common people? The oppressed will always be stimulated enough to rebel. Such stress induced leadership is much greater than any genetic influences. There's a reason why home field advantage and adrenaline rushes exist.