Abortion is immoral and should be illegal

[Conrad]

Sould abortion (the killing of an fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy) be legal? Well, in order to answer that question, we must first know what the fetus is. If the fetus is just a meaningless thing, like for example an insect, then why shouldn't it be legal to kill it? However, what about if the fetus is a human being? Should abortion be legal then? Of course not. It would be absurd to argue that abortion should be legal if the fetus is a human being.

So, what is the fetus? Is it a human being? Yes. We know from science that from the earliest stages of development, the fetus is a distinct and living human being. In fact, we also know from science that a new human being comes into existence at conception, as the standard text of Human Embryology and Teratology states. Indeed, it is surely absurd to say that the unborn isn't a human being. If it isn't a human being, then what is it? A lion? Or maybe a cat? Of course not. The fetus is obviously biologically human, genetically human, and a distinct member of the species homo sapiens.

[Conrad]

It must also be noted that although I'm against abortion, there is one situation in which I believe that abortion is justifiable; and that's when the life of the mother is directly threatened.

 

 

[Shaun]

Fetuses exist but brains don't? 

[Aakash]

The baby is an embryo and the definition of a baby is when the zygote forms for me. This is for those who are unaware, when the sperm cell and the egg fuse together. This is my opinion of when a baby is born, however, the traces are unknown to the woman and therefore legally the abortion can only be carried out between 2 months and 6 months of pregnancy. This is a fair and accurate rule, anything above 6 months is murder. 

The reason this law should exist is actually teenage pregnancy, they should be able to terminate the baby when they speculate it would be difficult for them to raise. it is a choice based on morality and that morality is how big is the fetus. 

Realistically, i should pull some statistics up to back my point.. i will do this next time. 

[Rilles]

So many assumptions in your post. Start by asking yourself what ”alive” actually means and if something can even be alive. 

[Arhattobe]

@Rilles ....

[Conrad]

4 minutes ago, Shaun said:

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Aakash said:

The baby is an embryo and the definition of a baby is when the zygote forms for me. This is for those who are unaware, when the sperm cell and the egg fuse together. This is my opinion of when a baby is born, however, the traces are unknown to the woman and therefore legally the abortion can only be carried out between 2 months and 6 months of pregnancy. This is a fair and accurate rule, anything above 6 months is murder. 

The reason this law should exist is actually teenage pregnancy, they should be able to terminate the baby when they speculate it would be difficult for them to raise. it is a choice based on morality and that morality is how big is the fetus. 

Realistically, i should pull some statistics up to back my point.. i will do this next time. 

You are right. My argument is that abortion should not be carried out at the beginning of conception as that is the beginning of a new life. 

A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

 

6 minutes ago, Rilles said:

So many assumptions in your post. Start by asking yourself what ”alive” actually means and if something can even be alive. 

Enlighten me.

[Rilles]

1 minute ago, Conrad said:

Enlighten me.

Im not your teacher. 

[Conrad]

Just now, Rilles said:

Im not your teacher. 

That is what I thought. 

[Rilles]

Just now, Conrad said:

That is what I thought. 

Good. Your personal contemplations will be much more valuable. If you want to do them. 

[hamedsf]

Again, another post, saying what is wrong and what is not.

 

 

[Conrad]

1 minute ago, Rilles said:

Good. Your personal contemplations will be much more valuable. If you want to do them. 

Maybe I will, maybe.

[Aakash]

@Conrad Yes, because the baby is a full human being. They have a point, i would agree with them as long as the pregnant woman has enough time to decide if she wants the baby or not. 

Having children has huge implications for one's life, the ultimate decision should go down to the individual,  

Edited June 20, 2019 by Aakash

[RendHeaven]

Oh boy, the mods are going to have a field day.

Read the guidelines: "Politics" is listed under what NOT to talk about.

This thread is a massive distraction. Just by looking at the title I can see your ignorance.

Unless, of course, you're trolling. Hard to tell. Even then, that's not allowed either!

 

[Conrad]

Just now, Aakash said:

@Conrad Yes, because the baby is a full human being. They have a point, i would agree with them as long as the pregnant woman has enough time to decide if she wants the baby or not.  

Simply because the unborn are dependent on their mothers care does not make them any less valuable than others. This is not a matter of choice of the mother, murder should be illegal.

 

1 minute ago, RendHeaven said:

Oh boy, the mods are going to have a field day.

Read the guidelines: "Politics" is listed under what NOT to talk about.

This thread is a massive distraction. Just by looking at the title I can see your ignorance.

Unless, of course, you're trolling. Hard to tell. Even then, that's not allowed either!

 

Have an argument instead. I have the right to express my opinion. 

[Aakash]

@RendHeaven Hes not trolling, he's asking a serious question on where the boundaries lie between the definition of a physical entity and an image of god, which is what he sees in his direct experience. The political nature is conscious politics, not political ideological warfare. I personally haven't read the terms and agreements of using the forum, however, under leo's own guidelines, he would not be allowed to talk about politics himself if you were correct. 

all i see these days is people telling the mods who to ban and for what : / why don't you all just leave that to them to decide. 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Aakash

[Conrad]

 

1: Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud write, 'A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.'

2: 'Its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being" was a scientific truth.'

3: 'It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)'

4: 'Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition. (E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)'

5: "Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School speaks clearly, when he says, "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.)"

6: A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers.)

7: 'Former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was shocked that anyone would question these basic scientific facts. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making. (A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3.)'

8: A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.'

9: 'Its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being" was a scientific truth.'

10: 'It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)'

11: 'Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition. (E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)'

12: "Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School speaks clearly, when he says, "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.)"

12: A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers.)

13: 'Former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was shocked that anyone would question these basic scientific facts. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making. (A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3.)'

 

 

 

 

In short, a human life begins at conception.

[Shin]

18 minutes ago, hamedsf said:

Again, another post, saying what is wrong and what is not.

 

 

Looks like enlightened dudes become more and more moralistic by the day !

Edited June 20, 2019 by Shin

[iTommy]

I'm for abortion. Although yes, it's a human being that is forming in that belly, conceiving that human being could result in harsh upbringings amongst other stuff, obviously not all would have it "bad" and many of them would probably do pretty good for themselves. Yet, if we look at the numbers of kids that are in foster care, we see that many more are coming in, than getting adopted. Now, if abortion is determined to be illegal, then this number will skyrocket. I don't see any good in this. Some of them will get in foster care, some of them will live in abusive households, some of them will get aborted (DIY methods, that might endanger the woman too), and some of them would probably live on the streets. 

Nor is it of good help telling people to stop f*cking around, or to use a condom. Animals do what they do.

As of now, I see abortion as a necessity, so that the things don't occur that I think might happen if it would be labeled illegal.

[Leo Gura]

@Conrad Locking this thread because the way you are expressing yourself is moralistic and not really about a genuine discussion. You want to preach your opinion here but that is not what consciousness work is about.

It would be wise of you to contemplate the various dualities which infect your thinking, such as right/wrong, moral/immoral, dead/alive, human/non-human, biological/non-biological, etc. And to notice how your position is a function of ego survival.

Go meta. Don't get lost in choosing between left and right positions.