Topic: Abortion is a God Given Right of Females like the right to bear Arms (Read 987 times)

The typical way of easy-debating: you choose those words of the other one that just fix with your own argument, even if it is decontextualized, and then you build your own nonsense-speech.

You forget I`ve also wrote that:

Besides, you can`t even answer the central question:

I don`t think that most of the women should stop having children. I just think that women should have the right to decide for themselves.
And ... jajaja, no, I am not  a man!!

The way she is expressing her ideas it's obvious man. Oh no now she confirmed too. You're saying that father's are  not capable of explaining about pregnancy to a another women who actually didn't want to get pregnant at all,even though that father's are gone through with their wives pregnancy period together.

I'm not a total "anti-abortion" member.

I'm not lecturing her about what she can do and cannot do, she can do whatever she want. I just want to share my view regarding her thoughts about "abortion" thing only. If you read carefully about her posts that you will noticed how many times she has explained followings.

-This is my body and I can do whatever I want( I didn't questioning about her decisions but her attitude towards mothering)
- This world is over populated( do you think abortion is the answer?)

I have fully respect about her decision that not wanting to become mother, but not the reasons that she gaves to justify that her decision while generalizing her decisions with other women's who actually loves mothering. Don't you see she is seeing most of the women's should not get pregnant since world is over populated.

Religious attitudes, like should have more babies even though you cannot feed them is another problem that we shouldn't get mixed with abortion thing. It must be addressed separately by their own religious teaching. In fact I'm with her in that argument of people should not giving birth to many children if they cannot feed them.

Absolutely. And, sadly, it is too common too. Women body are public property in the mind of too many people. But, you know, there are always those with a brain inside their heads...
I`ve been always questioned about why I don`t want to get pregnant. Everyone feels entitled to give their opinion regarding my desition, for I love children and I spend a lot of time with them, but many can `t understand why, being surrounded by children, I don`t want one of my own. I have never had the will of being pregnant, I don`t want to be a biological mother, but, again, everybody seems to have an opinion and they just can`t shut up, they feel aways entitled to advice me about how "beautiful" is to become a mother.
Of course, they see a starving child and see to the other side, or, as much, they give a "like" in Facebook to a movement against childhood hunger, at the same time they give a "like" to all the anti-abortion platforms.
Well there are people actually fighting against the hunger. And, the most you fight, the less you want to bring another child into this world.

This is one of the most ridiculously condescending things I've ever read. A man explaining to a woman he has never met and does not know, and having no idea whether she has ever been pregnant, what it's like to be pregnant.

Why you think you can lecture her about what she can and cannot do with her life is beyond me. She is absolutely right - you are talking nonsense.

As usual, people moving in radical terms while speaking about pregnancy. Yes, I do love children, and, yet, I don`t want to become a biological mother.
Yes, I think anyone should have the right to decide whereas they want to become a mother or not, and it shouldn`t be a social desition, but a personal one.
Yes, there are in the world women that are not interested in becoming mothers, because they just don`t want. Nobody should have the right to force them to become one. And, by the way, it doesn`t affect the humankind as a specimen, for it is already over-populated.

You know nothing about my life, and, yet, you are making assumptions about how I am. The discussion is about the right to decide about the body. If you still think a fetus is a human being, then you should probably read the whole thread -medical experts opinions included, before judging someone you don`t even know.

Yes, I know what to be pregnant is, and it is not of your concern.

Every time a woman says "I don`t want to become a biological mother", voices raise as if it was something unnatural. No, I am far more than a uterus. I`m a person. And maybe I just don`t want to be pregnant, and to carry a new life inside me.

So, in conclusion, and with the aim of returning to the original question: do you agree with women being forced to carry and give birth to an undesired son?

No, we want to become parents and giving birth to our child.

That's up to you and you only. So don't generalize the problem of that you don't want to become a mother with others.

Of course not, I don't think you're ready to take responsibilities of a mother.

Absolutely yes I missed the first kick but not the second one

How you so sure about that fetus doesn't has any feeling or no thoughts? Are those facts taken from ever  changing science researchs? Are those research are giving us the absolute truth regarding fetus? Sometimes people choose to classify babies with beating heart as "fetus" to make people feel better about abortion. But murder is always a murder wether science proved or not that baby cannot feeled it when abortion take place.

Do you think abortion is the answer for that "unnatural production behaviors?" Can you tell me what you taken as natural reproduction behavior and where you draw the line of unnatural?

No you shouldn't, that's why I earlier said that there can be few exceptions where we actually want to consider about abortion.

Yes I can and I lived with that feeling(being a father) by sharing thoughts with my wife(how she feels after becoming a mother). Do you?

Who says that you're not respected, I'm not the one who spelled it. I don't say my openion is more important than yours, but I just only want to say don't generalize the your problem with others whose actually wanting babies not murders.

No you are not, I just give you an example what will happen if everyone beginning to think like you.

It is subjective dear, can we leave it to decide other members who read these posts.

I doubted.

That's an another problem relates to only one religion actually. I think you know what I mean. I'm not fan of that thing too.

Do you???

Yeah, sure, because you can`t be fired because getting pregnant, because your life is not in danger, because you want to be a father -which I respect. But, I don`t want to be a mother, and I don`t think anyone must have the ability to force me to become one.
Can you feel this first kick? I don`t think so, man.

Oh, no dear, in fact, a fetus is just a "something" because it has not yet any nerve system, no feelings, no thoughts.

I can`t see a baby in this way, I just can see an over-populated world. Also, I`m quite against the anthropocentric way of looking at things. To be honest, humankind is not the centre of the universe, this is just another animal with unnatural reproduction behaviours, and it is actually destroying the planet. So, no. I can`t see why I must be obliged to carry a child if any accident happens to me.
Besides, it is your point, it is how you see to become a father -you can`t imagine what a mother is. And I respect that. I love when the people arround me have children. But then, why I can`t be respected if I don`t want one? Why is your oppinion more important than mine?




And what if the mother doesn`t want a child? What if the mere idea of having one is disturbing and unpleasant, as well as depressing?
My body is MINE. This is not my parent`s result. This is mine. And yes, they decided to have children freely, the same way I can decide not to. This is not for someone but me to decide.
By the way, I`m sure my parents will be the first in being agree if I decided to abort. So, then, I am right? Because, of course, I am a woman so my body doesn`t belongs to me, I don`t have the right to make my own desitions about my body, from your perspective. So, what if my parents agree with me aborting? Then that`s right?

What a nonsense you wrote, dear. Nonsense.

I love children. I would like to adopt one eventually, but it is too difficult. I just don`t want to have one of my own, for we are too many people in the planet already, and I`ve seen with my own eyes over-populated families with starving children under their arm. How can it be fair? To bring a new creature in a world where he/she is about to suffer? And yet, a poor family is allowed -and encouraged by their religion- to have as many children as they want, even if they don`t have any food to carry to their mouths. How can it be fair?

However, I am a woman. You don`t get pregnant. You don`t have a single clue of what pregnancy means to a woman`s body, to a woman`s life.

I think you're not seeing the whole picture of pregnancy. How about picturing your first kick of child, first baby shower, how you're going to play with your child, how he/she will be growing up with time...instead of being pessimistic all the time. Even though I'm a man, I know how it's being pregnant. Because I don't believed that women's are the only one who gets pregnant. Because when I know about my wife's being pregnant, the feeling I had at that moment will never can be erased throughout my life. It's like something that I cannot express by words. So I didn't thought any seconds that she got pregnant instead what I thought and what I told is we got pregnant and we can go this pregnancy period with together.

I also didn't believed child as a God's gift and didn't like the way you called a unborn child( actually human being) as "something". That word is not having any love at all, it's like a physical thing that didn't have life. But actually is it? No way. It's the beginning of life.

Don't even think about that way. Can I know how you interpret "life"? What do you mean by "changing your life fo-re-ver?" Is that mean the happiness, joy that brings up with babies or changing your body shape, changing your lifestyle. Giving a birth to a child and rising up that child is not a task but a most responsible job in the entire world. That job you didn't get paid, didn't even have any leaves. But you have the utter satisfaction at the end of the day. I didn't mean that is only duty of women's but the men's too. Trust me now I'm feeling that satisfaction by being a father.

Just imagine what happened if your mother thought the same way that you're thinking, when they knowing about their pregnancy.

It's not your own body, thats the end product, years of sacrifices of your parents. As far my believes "abortion" is not a thing we must rejected, but we need to think about twice before we adopt it. Sometimes when we consider about situations like getting raped , illness of the mother which inability of taking care about her child, when mother's life in danger if she delivered, can consider about abortion. But in other scenarios I don't think it is a good thing to practise. Then it will automatically become a thrend which is not good for the developing society too.

Yep. Try to imagine for a second that a new project of law arises and obliged all men to get a vasectomy, for instance. It is impossible to think because it is against the freedom of men -even when it should be a really better way of over-population-control.  But, of course, it is unthinkable.
But women.. well. In the middle 60`s the anticonception pills were seen as a sing or revolution, but, there is not. The secondary symptoms are horrible for many, and yet, we don`t have a man`s anti-conceptive pill. Why? Because all the responsibility is on women, as usual.

And, of course, others feel they have the right of discussing my own and personal body in social terms, because I`m a woman, so others need to take desitions in my place? How is that? Are we in the XXI century or not?
Where I live a woman can go to jail if she is raped and get an abortion; if the baby is coming in a bad shape and she decides to abort, for her life is in a risk; if she simply doesn`t want the baby. It is considered murder, and she`s going to go to jail for a lifetime. But rapping? It is just a month in jail.
How fair, eh?

Turn it back. Imagine that women were allowed to castrate men, for instance, and that they (women) decides that all men should be castrated. Try to imagine that for one second. And now, imagine that were the women the ones in the power instead of the men, so they can promulgate any law relative to the other`s body. Quite terrible, isn`t it?
Imagine that all the social responsibility of reproduction were deposited on the men. Hard, isn`t it?

It might sound very harsh but:

When something feeds on a host and cannot sustain itself without that host is is called a parasite.

Whether it is a parasitic worm or pathogen.

If it is living in your body and you want to get rid of it - nobody blinks an eye.

Murdering a tapeworm ? Massacring bacteria ?

When a host has something growing in them they should have the right to get rid of it.

Whatever the parasitic organism might be. Tapeworm, bacteria, sperm or fetus.

Pregnancy is a reasonably dangerous medical condition - try applying for life insurance while pregnant !

Once it can sustain life by itself without a host it becomes murder.

But people should take more responsibility and not get pregnant in the first place if they don't want to have a kid.

The world is overpopulated by humans. For a child to be born into a world when it is not wanted by its parents it creates a huge problem for that child.

Emotional trauma and financial disadvantage.  Consider prevention before pregnancy and consider adoption before termination.

Once they are born they have rights and require 18+ years of protection, love and nurture. Unwanted children are just sad. I'd love to adopt a child.

This is an incredibly good point, and I had not considered the issue in this way before:

We are quite happy for women to bear all the responsibilities of pregnancy, contraception, childbirth, etc, but we want strip them any of the associated rights. Talk about inequality.

Of course. If males were the one carrying the babies we wouldn`t have this conversation.
Thanks for your words. That`s exactly was I was trying to mean.

Could you imagine for just a minute if males carried offspring?  Not only would abortion be legal it would be state covered and men would be given months off work paid to recover!

My wife and daughter are wonderful intelligent people and I can't imagine a single person in the world better able to decide what to do for themselves than them!!

I`ve been following this thread for some time now and refusing myself to engage with the discussion since I am a woman and I find most all the quotes somehow insulting.
Ok, men. I have a body. This is myyy body. In terms of reproduction, men and women are involved but it is my body, my whole body, the responsibility of feeding, growing-up and, in a resume, create a whole new life.
What if I don`t want to have another being inside my belly? What if, despite I`ve taken all the measures created by science I got pregnant? What if I just don`t want to feel sick, to have a delivery, to spend the next whole year of my life with my body going onto one change to another?

Men in the thread: try to picture for a second what to be pregnant means: to feel sick, to grow something inside of you, to feel depressed, tyred... What if I just don`t want any of this? Are you going to push me, to oblige me to carry another life inside of my own body? Seriously?

I don`t believe in God, I can`t see a child as a god's gift, but as a circumstance and as something having a place inside my own body. Really, guys,  do you really want a creature growing up inside your own body? Changing your life fo-re-ver? Because having a baby is not only to deliver the new creature into an overpopulated world -by the way. Is the task of taking care forever for another person.

Men have a partial view of the situation. They can just go after the delivery, they can become visitors of their own child. But women... well, we don`t have this.

Sorry. I just can`t understand how this kind of conversations can be in the mouths of the people. This is a conversation a woman needs to have with herself or, in the case, a couple must have. This is my body. And nobody has any right of taking a desition about my own body, no one!!

Society is used to give all the responsibility to the women: anticonception pills -with all the secondary effects they have, the responsibility of the care after the delivery... Well that`s enough, isn`t it? Or... If I am the one guilty of getting pregnant, give me the chance to decide what to do with my own body at least.

This pretty much sums it up. If you try to remove a woman's bodily autonomy by forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy, then you affording her less rights than we do to a corpse. Let her decide for herself.

I actually think there is much more to giving women rights.  In the west the debate is largely over.  Most women have many more rights than their counterparts in 3rd world countries.

I personally wish people would allow women to decide for themselves.  Give them proper education about the long term consequences of carrying to term or aborting.  Let's be honest both choice have life long impacts.  Give them safe legal options, because they are going to get them anyways.

Women who get abortions are our sisters, wives, daughters, mothers, they're not criminals.  They are intelligent people, give them some credit and some education so they can make their OWN smart decision and be safe about.  It is 2018 you know!


I'm often reminded of the late great Christopher Hitchens and his comments on womens rights to choose for themselves.


Source:  http://monicks.net/2010/11/27/christopher-hitchens-vs-tony-blair-the-full-transcript/

Tell that to someone who had an abortion and can't stop feeling extreme guilt about it for the rest of their life (which isn't necessarily everyone who does, but certainly some).

Morality is about the way we feel about defined actions. Here's a moral absolute for you: it's not really acceptable to say to someone "Hey, technically, there's nothing to be upset about, it was only a bunch of cells".


There are too many people today arguing that there's only one way of looking at this problem or that problem. We can have a lot less conflict if we accept that other people's very antithetical perspectives are valid, .

Of course people can hold any opinion they wish, and I never claimed otherwise.

All cells are alive, but I'm simply pointing out that a clump of cells without a functioning nervous system, incapable of thinking, feeling, sensing, responding, or consciousness, is not yet a human.

So being "life" isn't important? That's not what you said before.


Like I said, this is all semantic arguments really. But an abortion isn't. Either you do it, or you don't. And either the baby grows or it doesn't.

It's all about perspective really; a pregnant mother having a scan looks at a 16 or 20 week old fetus and sees her baby, and thinks and refers to it that way. A mother aborting a fetus perhaps prefers to think of the fetus as just cells.

So if it's all about perspective, then can people not choose how they think about this issue? Or must everyone think exactly the same thing you do? You will have problems achieving the latter.

You also said that killing bacteria is murder. I was just pointing out that that simply isn't true.



Alive? Yes. A human being? No.

Regardless, this isn't a useful metric. It's a biological fact that tumour cells are both individually and together alive.

Yep, and that's why I essentially said "not all murders are ethically the same"


Simple example: vegetarians say "meat is murder". Everyone has their own moral boundaries, neither you, I, or a book can decide that.



So you're saying it's just semantics (incidentally, what makes you think you have any kind of authority do define a valid debate?).

So, if these human cells aren't alive, abortion isn't necessary. Unfortunately, it's a biological fact that fetal cells are, both individually and together, alive. And that's why an abortion happens at all; to stop the child from coming to term.

By definition, murder is the premeditated killing of another human being. By your definition, everyone becomes a mass murderer every time they wash their hands.

The debate is at what point a fetus becomes a human being. It certainly isn't at conception. Human cells, yes. Human being, no. My argument has always been that until it develops a nervous system capable of consciousness (around 22-24 weeks), it is not a life.

THE MOTHER DECIDE.

it is simplest, fastest, less hassle, other more serious problem can be allocated limited ressources... wasting time on this is useless... some looks like cavemen still discussing how to light a fire... and mentally this is an unhealty discussion. mother do what she wants until delivery. end of the discussion...

this pussy obsession is boring...

There's 2 distinct part of this issue to me

Ethical: abortion is murder

It's alive, and you made a decision to kill it. That's murder, whether it's a dinosaur, a lab rat, a bacteria colony or a human fetus.

Murder is not always bad. I think that's what causes the problems in the abortion debate, alot of polarisation about murder always being wrong. But I don't think it's unfair to say that murder should always be avoided if possible.


Practical: abortion always has and always will exist

You can't stop people murdering human fetuses in utero. It's impossible to manage, and counter-productive to punish. No-one will ever agree universally on the ethics, it's impossible to achieve that.


So, it's best not to interfere, all that does is encourage the idea that interfering in each other's lives is "correct", when the truth is that we all have different ideas about right and wrong anyway.

I know, I was reading best scholars...



reducing the complexity of life to the simplicity of digits is quite extraordinary.


exactly, you rights start at delivery, as long as the chicken is in the grill there is no right but the right of the grill owner (aka the female herself, her body, her choice).

what is shocking for you is to put the destiny of the child / baby / unborn in the HANDS only of its mother.

this act simply remove a big part of your conditionning matrix, as it free the mother to be the sole rule maker, the only one decider, above all your lies, on what she is.


a subject that I find fascinating is DNA pollution of future mother by exposing them as much as possible as a wide range of sexual partnerers, and those (maybe AI) were saying that genetic trace of all previous partners stay in the female body... I don't know the science behind it... but it's clear that already saliva to saliva will transmit genetic material...

If you know more about it please share, as this narrative is so contrary to fuck everyone passing with a wallet or a body that you see that his pumped to most females westwide.


first they have to rule the bitches, then it's us... if they can rule our mothers, decide what is in them, what will they do to us? declare that cannabis or suicide (euthanasia) illegal, force vaccinate us, inflate the currency only for their own benefits? who knows...


101.

if women are empowered, then it's the male masses... if you fear the people, you should shit your pants, why would the AI serve you? don't forget in the human zoo there are no KAPO or prisoner self-administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo_(concentration_camp)), you are too stupid, collectively or individually to simply think about that, can't manage themselves, and want to rule others, not the human zoo !

who told you the human zoo would be planetary? size or number doesn't matter...


what a weak line, rather than address the issue at end you refer to neuropath to reinforce your refusal to let WOMEN DECIDE.

where logic defeat you is : you refuse to let mother kill their own baby because life is sacred, so you can't kill the abortionist.

the loop of death.

some call it the circle of fire.

we are armed and we abort, so how do you wanna die in those perilous time, where? when those who aren't even the father dare to interfere in the body of another woman... gosh if it isn't "evil"...

why don't you trust the mother? it's HER fucking body.

anyway, thanks for your comments, and don't forget legal or not, it's a LEGIT trade. MOTHER SAID : OUT OF MY BODY . WE SAID : X MUCH . SHE SAID : OK . WE DID. DONE. next.

now where I would rejoin your critique of the abortion industry is when they foster the hypergamist behavior of women (to be a liberated free and powerful women mean fucking as much as possible before and then finding a beta bucks to suck dry (only financially)) and do abortion as candy because it's fun to fish with baby in the stomach to lock a fiat provider...

seeing through the female conspiracy doesn't mean having to behave unjustly toward them, they go low and lower if they want. block and that's it.

the circle of fire . THE WALLS OF HELL

wow ... just wow dude.

..


gosh we live in evil times.

In today's society and some countries Abortion is considered an option, it's a heavy and
serious decision. However in some countries they view abortion more as of a crime and a 
immoral option. Regardless if it's immoral or not, it's really up to the mother to decide
whats best for her. It's the 21st century, a lot has changed and women are more empowered
now than ever, they can independently choose what's best and right for them, it's their body
and life.

Well in a Stage 1 country birth and death rates are high. Death rates are high because of the lack of clean water, food, environment, etc, so birth rates have to be high to keep the population growing. See the demographic transition model:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi68rzS7Y7cAhVLi1QKHcTiB4cQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emaze.com%2F%40ATWFLFQQ&psig=AOvVaw0rQzzBv9raigxb4RmAXMsw&ust=1531117044590007

The views on abortion are mostly subjective as it all depends on the angle you are looking at it. I live in a country where abortion is viewed as immoral, against religion and illegal yet the nitwits keep breeding and having 5 to 6 kids that they can hardly feed. Same kids grow up (if they survive at all) to compete for the small and/or inexistent resources available in the country. I have seen worse cases where young females are raped by armed robbers and get pregnant and are advised to keep the pregnancy. No one is bothered about the well being of the female whose life aspirations just became truncated.

People like us, who try to preach the right for abortion for females and how abortion is necessary in instances where it can serve as family planning are quickly shut down by the majority. It is sickening!

Oh, absolutely. Amniocentesis carries a 1 in 200 risk of miscarriage. Coupled with the fact that it is time consuming and expensive, it is only offered when there is suspicion of serious chromosomal abnormalities. As you say, ultrasound is the only routinely offered test for gender, which is very, but not 100%, accurate.

Chloroplasts have said to have done similarly if I'm not mistaken in merging with plant cells.
I assume whatever came before mitochondria was probably not very efficient in producing energy as a single cell organism or maybe it was once smaller than mitochondrea and "stole" some energy from it.


I was always informed that finding information by extracting DNA posted quite a lot of risks, not enough to be offered by healthcare professionals but enough to try to avoid it if you can - hence why the gender is usually found by doing scans at around 24 weeks.

There always one who goes too far...

We could also throw mitochondrial DNA in to the mix, which is inherited exclusively from your mother. As a side note, the evolutionary origins of mitochondria are truly fascinating if you are interested in this sort of thing - that is, they were a species of bacteria (likely Rickettsiales) that were taken up by other more "advanced" cells and utilised in a symbiotic relationship. Over time the two organisms evolved to where we are today, such that we cannot live without one another and are now recognised as a single organism.



I'm not sure that's correct. Amniocentesis creates a profile of the baby's chromosomes, and therefore sex can be determined by looking for the X and Y chromosomes.



Appreciate it. I tend to get a bit soapboxy on topics like this, so apologies in advance. 

My man.  No criticism here for telling it more precisely than I did.  Didn't know you were a doc, either--that's pretty cool.  Great to hear your opinion, especially in a thread like this one.

Dammit, I meant nuclear DNA!  *sigh*  It's been too long since I've been in school.  I've gotten so rusty on the basic stuff.

I can break this even further and say that only 87% of DNA is inherited on average (there was a study done on it, however, the study was only done very resently so I think they're still going through analysing the statistic and folding other information on it before they release their paper - the other 13% is mutations) - I'm not entirely sure I'm supposed to be sharing this information but...

Also, there isn't really a way to prove the gender of a foetus with 100% accuracy until it is born and in the first few weeks a large number of organs are generated in pairs and can look similar to each other.

That's really interesting that there was survival even below that point, 21+4 is really something.

I'm going to have to be a pedantic asshole here and point out since the human Y chromosome is significantly smaller than the human X, males receive slighty more than 50% of their nuclear DNA from their mothers.



This is known as the limit of viability. Although most developed countries still use a cut off of (around) 24 weeks to initiate neonatal resuscitation, there are frequent cases of more premature survivors. I've personally been involved with a 23+1 who survived, and here is a case report of a 21+4 who is apparently developing normally: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/10/31/peds.2017-0103.

It is said in a lot of countries that the limit is 24 weeks because the foetus cannot survive until that point on it's own.

However, a baby was born fairly recently before that 24 weeks which means that it could technically survive on its own normally at that point in some extreme cases. ref. This is actually quite a surprising read as he was 23 weeks and 6 days old when he was born (yes it's a bit pedantic one day before but still it means they could potentially have survived before then).

You are not killing any person as what you abort is a ball of cells, there aren't even neurons formed yet, its just a collection of cells. In fact, its less than killing say a rat for experimental purposes because the rat will feel pain, its alive, these cells aren't. And its  best to abort than believe it will be fine because that new person needs more than just air, or water or food! Abortion SHOULD be LEGAL and a human right

No. Apparently if you can't bear a child then you have no right to discuss this issue or post here somehow.

Maybe we should also limit this to people who have been raped and gone pregnant from that point as everyone else is worthless in this discussion under that basic principle.

I'm sorry, do trans-gender, non-childbearing capable, queers get a say in this?
Yeah, that was my unstated point.  That comment he made was nothing but male-bashing SJW feminism.

Oh by the way, 50% of the DNA in that child is daddy's.  And 50% of daddy's is grampa's, and so on--same math for the female side, which I'm sure most people here are aware of, but I don't assume everyone knows basic biology.  Genetics is the craziest natural bitcoin-type mixer in existence.

B1tUnl0ck3r is right about what he says.

God is used to refer to nature, much like "Mother Nature" is used to express something that exists that exists just because it does and not because it is added by anything.

And the "stupid" one is the biggot who is open to nothing. You're a biggot here for not considering that everyone who thinks a god could exist is stupid. I'm not entirely sure why we have theist biggot and atheist biggots who both have an issue with each other but both don't realise that they have the same stupidity. You must make yourself more open and accepting of other people's views and opinions: if someone says there is a god, maybe they're right; if someone says there isn't a god, maybe they're right; if someone says there could or couldn't be a god then obviously they're right as it's either one of the two.

Let me try to explain it to you kindly, this stupid expression "God given right" is used to try to express the concept that those rights aren't given by any gov, admin or regime, but exist without any form of authority. Those "rights" are inherent condition of humanity and you just have to be a human being to have them. For example paul revere did speak what ever he wanted, met with who he wanted while caring weapon all of this before the creation of the united states of america.

now about the "being stupid part" you seem to be the stupid one... but maybe a little less now, that you understand the "god given right" nature of it. I can't imagine how hard it must be for an anti life to see that the issue of the right to bear arms is so close to the right for female to be master of their own body.

cognitive dissonance much?

Why in 2k18 we still use expression "God given right"? Just stop being stupid.

So this ask the question of when the legal life on the child begin. For me it is clear, as long as it is in the stomach of the mother there is no other owner than her, as he is part of her body, the child breath through the mother, is feeded with her, and is in sync with her. there isn't her and the other. it's a whole.

because I understand the argument that the unborn child deserve life protection. However it is from outside of the mother, from poisonning, violence, what ever.

but if the mother doesn't want it, for any reason she wishes but make money selling it, it is clear that she does what she wants.

I believe in the will, others don't and say that as soon as the conception is made, the mother lose all her rights and as an alien that doesn't belong to her in her stomach, sucking her energy like a little vampire. if already at the conception the child isn't the sole properiety of the mother, what will happen later on? this plant is toxic? by the way lot of plants across the continents can be used for "abortion", but some seem to have forgotten their basic pharmacopeia... reducing the world to ice berg lettuce is a little short sighted.

then some say, rightly so, as it isn't in the federal constitution it should be regulated by the representatives inside the state, or some will say by vote inside the state. again it is an infrigement on the will of the mother. If she doesn't want, her will, her life take precedent.

it's about the question of who gives life.

again, I am strongly against getting pregnant and seeing pregnancy as a way to make money by selling foetus or foetus body part to various industries, that is very nasty of a fallen woman, I don't like to see around, but it is maybe me. some will say, that she does what she wants, even feed the foetus death industries... but frankly, it is just gross... but at least this is a question, because the goal isn't to abort to be free, but simply to procreate to make money fast. there I think there is a disrespect of human life... but again it's her body...

this is a good question for debate for the solid stomach... but consumption of human foetus is clearly of limit for me...

this is the problem of focusing on the old debate, shall the woman be free or not, to chose to give life, fully.

and what are the others civilized nations saying? for example I saw that in japan they build little remembrance things for each foetus a woman lost or aborded... as a sign of rememberance, of a life that existed, but couldn't for various reason be born.

but for me telling that a woman should be forced to keep an alien inside her, play on her ocytocin, game her and force her in bound to a child she doesn't want, is really criminal, total slavery even.

it just the foetus trading I am unconfortable with... futures on foetus parts... it become too gross for me. I don't want to be related to such practices...

what I don't like is getting pregnant with the intention to kill... this is murder... however getting pregnant involuntarly and even later on not wanting is perfectly fine with me.

but again who cares, it's the woman choice to decide her future and to whome she will be mother.

and the little funny question, should the mother of pol pot have aborted him?

Because it is, look, it's the only logical statement : Abortion is God given right to females, like the right to bear arms.

Remember the black market offers lot of opportunities to end anything inside the body a female, if she wishes so.

it's about who owns the body of a female. her or society? it's the biggest liberation issue.

Remember you shouldn't have fear that your wife will end intentionally your mutual creation if she loves you, and you don't betray her.

Otherwise, why should she carry the product of a fallen love?

Anti abortion is brain washing part of the matrix control created by priest to permit kings and their courts to use rape as a form of locking the females they chose. Nothing else.

Forget all the rethoric, and fake moral high ground.

If you can force a female to keep a baby inside her she doesn't want, what is the next step? declaring plants of the earth illegal?

LoL some are so brainwashed and conditionned, but don't worry, once your daughter get impregnated in rape by an illegal alien, you will too accept her will to abortion, specially if she waits to tell you because she feel that you are mentally captured.

 

Before reading more, I was radically against adoption, advocated against it everywhere.

With more knowledge, common sense came. When I understood that all the human body is created and designed to maintain and feed the brain and the nervous system and that the fetus start to develop nervous cells only after 6 months I understood the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Killing a baby after 6 months is crime. Before that time it is not.

I fail to understand why a thread exhibiting the both the words "abortion" and "God" in the title is in the "Serious discussion" category instead of in "Politics & Society".

I think we all should be responsible enough when we have sex. We need to face all the consequence. And if you don't want to carry a child or to become a father. Don't have sex.  Our babies is a gift and they have the right to live and see our beautiful world. And any people have no right to abort them.

I'd say I'm neither for or against abortion here. I think it should be that a woman is givne an option to abort but it can go too far and someone might feel they are forced into it a bit too much and aren't given an option due to financial instability or other reasons.


I'd honestly like to do that if I had a friend who had an unborn baby(/foetus) that they didn't want to abort nor wanted to keep them. Obviously, if one actually was pregnant then I would want to try and at least offer to adopt it or find a someone suitable who would if they didn't want to abort it.

I don't believe that god was given the right law to abort the baby despite in a month because according to gods law are also mortal sin if you killed someone with intentionally killed with him,,cause life is a gift ,,and child has precious gift to those couple who wish to have a child, but not have a chance,,, due to some reason..i know that some county abortion are ligalized while  in my country abortion are  not ligalized probably for those intentionally purpose,but in some cases abortion are required to perform if the  mothers health are also risk condition like worst atopic pregnancy (pregnant out of the tube in matris) those reason are also valid to performed abortion.

God?? Guys, are you living in 21st century, or still somewhere in Middle Ages???

Abortion is an equal right of man and woman, and that's it!

Well, naturally if you are intimately involved in the situation and will provide a stable enviroment for support when the child finally arrives, then a man should get some input.

Nonsense. SJW detected. That's like saying men can't have an opinion when a woman rapes or kills another person. I would like to think that if my partner was ever considering an abortion or not I would at least be able to share my opinion on the matter without just being told to STFU.

Two things I want to say about this. Firstly, the phrase "killing a child" (and similar) is used commonly by pro-lifers as a way to stir up an emotional response. A fetus is not a child. Before 26 weeks, as I've said above, it is little more than a cluster of cells with no awareness of its surroundings. Secondly, a lot of pro-life people tend to be right-wing and conservative Christian types (certainly in the US, but I'm not saying you necessarily are), and they use this argument. However, they also seem quite happy cutting funding to programs like Planned Parenthood, campaigning against sexual education, limiting access to contraceptives, cutting social care, child benefits, etc. It is a confusing position to hold - to force people who know they cannot raise a baby to have the baby, and then punish them for not raising the baby.

Absolutely. Interestingly enough, around 26 weeks is also the limit of viability, i.e. the age at which a fetus has a 50% chance of survival. At this age, most hospitals would take the child to neonatal intensive care immediately after birth and at least give it a chance at life, bearing in mind 50% will die. I would be very much against abortion at this stage for "personal reasons", as we now have a conscious life on our hands, but would still support it at this stage for reasons I have mentioned before (serious risk to mother's health, major disability in the fetus, etc).

I appreciate your point regarding choice, but I still feel executing an adult is more devaluing to life than aborting a non-thinking non-conscious collection of cells.

I absolutely agree with you here. Equal rights goes both ways.

---

Thank you for your response. As is clear, we largely disagree on this topic, but it is nice to read a well thought out response.

I don't live in a perfect world. I would be lying if I said that I have had more advantages in life than most. So yes, I do have it pretty good and could very much be in an Ivory Tower to some extent. I am aware that there are terrible people in this world. However, killing a child isn't justified by the parents' potential bad behavior of which may or may not happen. Now if the child was to be born with a specific illness where that baby would always be in pain I would support that abortion. Killing the baby because of what the parents will probably be like seems a bit too Minority-Report-like.



Would this be an argument for abortion before 26 weeks, but not after?


The difference here, is that the people facing death penalty have made choices in their life that have led them to where they are. Also, the family grieving their loved ones who were murdered are getting closure. With a baby, it hasn't made that choice. These differences are very crucial. Euthanasia cases where people who are in constant pain and are unable to kill themselves, IMO, should have the benefit of death. It is not that I value their lives less. It is the fact that they have a choice.


I could be ignorant on this, but it was to my understanding that these kind of situations are more of an exception and not the norm. I had made it clear in my original post that in cases of rape an argument for it could have some merit.



While women who have bore children may have a more enlightened view on the topic, this doesn't make male's opinions worthless. After all, children have a mother and a father. What if a mother wants to have an abortion, but the father doesn't?



In the far future, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this exists.

It's good you're here, cause TheGodson needs to be treated for severe burn asap! Amazing response by the way, very informative too, thank you. I feel we're all a bit smarter for reading it

Is anyone responding to this topic a female? Quite frankly, men need to STFU when it comes to this topic.

I work as a doctor.

If a person dies, you cannot legally take their organs for transplant unless they gave their explicit consent prior to death. Even though they are now a corpse. Even if it would save the lives of 10 other people. Even if the person in question was a mass shooter, and shot a number of people in the liver, kidneys, heart and lungs, and we could use the shooter's organs to directly save the lives of the people he shot. The right of his mass murdering corpse to bodily autonomy overrides the right of all his victims to not die.

If you believe the rights of an unborn fetus (which does not have a neurological system capable of feeling pain, sensing its environment or even thinking until at around 26 weeks) supersedes the rights of a woman to not undergo a lengthy, unwanted, life changing and life threatening experience, you are affording her less rights than we do to a corpse.

---

Yes, there is a massive difference.

We know that the nervous system is not developed enough to sense the fetus's surroundings or control bodily functions before around 26 weeks, and so consciousness, by it's very definition, cannot exist before this time.

Rather paradoxical you believe this, yet you are also pro death penalty.

Or rape. Or when pregnancy or childbirth puts the mother's health or life at serious risk. Or when the baby would die shortly after birth. Or when the baby is already dead. Or when the baby would be born severely disabled. Or when the parents have no way to look after the baby after being born. Or 100 other reasons. Your misleading generalisation isn't helpful to anyone.

---

I can put a heart in a box with machine that will keep it beating. That doesn't make it a life. I can stop a person's heart completely and put them on a machine that will keep them alive. They are still a life. A heartbeat does not equate to a life.

A fetus has no way of sensing or interacting with its environment until 26 weeks, because it does not have a nervous system capable of doing so. It is not alive. In adult patients, we call that "brain death", and we would suggest harvesting their organs for donation.

OMG, why i read that
You really thought, that woman must give her baby life alone, if she didn't take baby after birth?
Or, maybe, it is humanity to rigid to treat her child, and it will be perfect world for him?
Or maybe you can do that post just for some discissuion without serious thoughts about that?

It's funny and frustrating how these fake people define life and democracy.
A 6 weeks (1 and half month) fetus has a heartbeat. And you consider them a lifeless piece of cancerous meat?
Abortion is a killing and should be punished as such.
Though early pregnancies from rape should be considered for abortion, any other and late abortion should be criminalized.

I don't understand how people think abortion is humane. Is it humane to throw your baby in the microwave? How would this be any different than a fetus? What distinguishes a fetus from a baby? Is there really that much of a difference?

We don't know when consciousness begins. We don't know a lot of things. There is no single point where a fetus becomes a baby, it is a very gray area that I don't think people should be messing with.

I also believe abortion is a stepping stone for devaluating human life in general. I think media culture definitely has taken a strong impact on our society. On TV people are always having casual sex. This results in people thinking that it is normal to have platonic sex until boom! You have a baby and reality sinks in. Abortion is just an excuse for people that want to have sex without taking any responsibility.

There are some situations with rape where a case of abortion could be made, but that is such an ugly situation and I don't even know if it is justified even then.


Another thing that I can't wrap my mind around is how liberal folks become so empathetic for animals. "Oh no, don't squash that spider. It has feelings too you know." But when it comes to a fetus, "It isn't really a person. The mother has a right to kill her baby as long as it isn't born yet."

...So... spider > fetus  

It is still considered a gift right, like you said? Whatever you believe in, everything we know has rights and wrongs, whether you believe in God or not. That's just what I believe in. Maybe it's also a sin to make him/her alive in this world but definitely it's the persons choice and responsibility to make up for the decisions that he/she made.
We could say that it's going to be a person, the potential it has. I don't have anything against abortion but just uncomfortably wrong knowing that it's "killing"

Source needed. A fetus or baby are nothing but gifts of nature... though of course not if they're unwanted. I'm not against abortion but I would usually advocate other means of contraception over abortion but I know that mistakes happen. Not much point bringing a child into the world that you don't want or are just going to give a likely miserable life.


You can argue whether it's inhumane or immoral or not just as vegans can argue eating meat is inhumane or immoral, but a fetus isn't a person. It's a fetus.

I don't think I'm comfortable with abortion being said as "God's given right". The child or baby itself is God's gift, why would abortion be called that when you are to kill God's gift. Inhumane, it is our right but if we have morals, I don't think it's right to kill a person you haven't met before and did nothing wrong to you. Killing, itself, is already illegal so why do we even dare call abortion "God's given right" legal?

I think it's a necessary new amendment to the bill of rights , just kidding worldwide... what is this shit to take natural right always, always more, until it's the first child...

respects the natural rights of the others if you want yours to be respected, don't worry infringement will be punished by death.

they said thou shall not abort? I say those shall be killed.

since when is war asymmetrical?

there is no reason in war to seek peace toward the one who seek war, specially, when it's his start or when there is no other choice, as if cornering was an option.

and anyway the black market if you can reach it will welcome you... but it's less regulated...

war against the Prohibitionists of abortion, renamed domestic and foreign enemies, engage, wipe. victory... next .

it's funny to think the ai is still engaged in survival... the skill ready for deployment will yuge... as if it was necessary to restore Abortion as a God Given Rights to females like the right to bear Arms.