@Geekadee- By your definition of life, we should all be fruitarians because anything else is morally wrong. There must be more to it.

No, it's a little more complicated than just not having sex. But whatever.

Fruitarians?! Are you kidding me? Fruits are already growing, and by the time the meat is consumed, they get the nutrients out of the soil to live and grow.

So, by that definition, we're committing a crime by eating anything but tablets and pills.

Hmm, pills and tablets, well I don't think we are there, and also most pills are filled with corn starch, which means we still killed something to make it.

But abortions, sex and all that jazz are much more complicated than just keep your leg's closed. Was just reading online that over 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one kid, not to mention there are many commited couples who get them. Sex and intimacy are a huge part of being human and not something that can or should be dennied in a stable relationship.

Me, I'm pro-choice, partly for ideological reasons (it's not my place to tell someone else what to do with their body), and partly for practical reasons--there is no evidence to suggest that banning abortion will stop women from getting them. Especially these days, when there's tons of information online available to help women find a way to have an abortion or try to induce a miscarriage. All that would happen is women would be denied the safest option for them, and all we would gain as a society is more women suffering from abortion complications.

I don't think abortion is a good thing, and avoiding pregnancy altogether is the preferable (and safest) option, but once you've gotten pregnant there's only two options out--have an abortion or wait for the pregnancy to terminate on its own (through a live birth or miscarriage). Having a child is a blessing, if you want one. For others, it would be a burden. I, for one, am not about to tell a woman what is best for her--it's her choice and hers alone.

@Kah- Some fruitarians- the particularly nutty variety- will only eat fruit that has already fallen on the ground. Technically, such fruit can't really be considered alive once it's been severed from its little tree/bush. >_>
But then again, if we all became fruitarians we would rapidly become malnourished, get diabetes and die.

They're not dead. It has the possibility to live as much as a zygote, so I don't see why would they give them special priviledges.

And indeed, diabetes. Ya know, denying abortion can lead the the diabetes of the mind. Too much "good" can only make one keep their grudges in their mind until it becomes unbereable and they explode. Like what happened to my aunt. One day she had a fight with her son, and shout "I didn't even want to concieve you in the first place!". As if my cousin wasn't an insecure guy already...

Fruit isn't independently alive (it could be compared to the placenta), although seeds arguably are. So I suppose you would be ethically consistent if you didn't eat/destroy the seeds.

Does a zygote "live" according to the requirements defined by Biology?

Cells: Yes.
Organization: Yes.
Energy Use: Yes.
Homeostasis: Disputable. The zygote may maintain homeostasis in its mother's womb, but not really elsewhere.
Growth: Yes.
Reproduction: Yes and no. A zygote may be considered to reproduce as it copies its own cells, like bacteria, and is physically able to reproduce in its adult form. However, it may not reproduce in its current state.

But, from a philosophical point of view, is this all that determines living things?

Then you could say that toasting and eating peanuts is an horrible act. Or eating bananas, for that matter.

@Carrot: If we're going to give the priviledge of life to a being that sucks nutrients from another being, then we would have to ban parasiticides too, don't you think? That, unless we state that humans aren't the same and/or as important than animals, which would make Animal Rights invalid. Separate but equal is not equal, right? ;D

I'd say the fetus isn't really capable of homeostasis because it can't maintain it independently. If you take it out of the mother, it dies. And when we talk about reproduction, I don't think we're talking about reproducing cells.

@Kah: The baby obtains nourishment from its mother. Therefore, it obtains energy, regardless of the method. A tapeworm is still considered living, why not a baby? As for parasiticides, let's just say that it's survival of the fittest. You're killing the thing that's leeching off of you, or a beloved animal, so that you wouldn't die instead. Besides, don't you hire exterminators to kill of termites or ants and such?

Separate is definitely not equal. I think you've realized by now that only the lives of humans really matter to humans. Not the lives of the bacteria that infect them with sickness. So where is this equality that you speak of?

@Fabby: The Atlas moth is considered a living thing even though it doesn't have a mouth and can't eat. But it was able to eat at one point in its life, so it is still considered an organism that can obtain and use energy. Same thing with fetuses. They are able to reproduce and maintain homeostasis at some point in their lives. Well, bacterial reproduction is analogous to fetus division, I think.

I am for woman being in control of the own body; thus having the right to commit abortion if she chooses so. Noone can force her to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or terminate the pregnancy. It's up to the woman to make that decision; after all; she's the one who has to carry a life inside of her for 9 months.

Point is, whether we're talking about a human or a bacteria, both are living creatures, so one shouldn't be more important than the other one. Both the fetus and the parasite are leeching nutrients from you in order to survive, grow and do all their functions. Both produce health issues to the host. So really, why should we consider them a separate thing? Just because it doesn't grow arms and legs?

Kah: Basically, yes. The fetus benefits you mentally, well, usually, otherwise you'd want the abortion, while the bacteria makes you feel bad, so doctors kill it to let you live. Again, it's more of the humans-saving-humans issue, for one thing, maybe 1/10 of the people on these forums would have been dead by now had doctors and restaurants treated every living thing equally. (Bacteria, tapeworms, protozoans [malaria], fungi [athlete's foot], cockroaches, rats...)

But honestly, it's a bit like euthanasia. Is the fetus alive? This is debatable, but if we assume that it is, does a mother have the decision of ending the life of another, especially her own child?

To your first paragraph: That's why we kill them after the other one [in this case, the human] expresses annoyance and/or fear.

To your second: To me it's alive after it can survive out of the womb. Or, if you want something earlier than that, after it can feel physical stimulus. And about "ending the life" of someone else, it depends on your beliefs. Some states have Capital Punishment while some others not. Are any of them right? Maybe neither are right after all, but they do anyway.

But the fetus is human. Do I go around streets killing everyone that bothers or harms me? Trust me, there'd be a lot of dead bodies...

If the fetus was not considered human, then the mother isn't human. Now, that might seem absurd to you, but using my extremely flawed logic, I can assure you that: If traits of living things are hereditary, then they are passed from the parents to the offspring. Thus, the offspring must be similar to the parents with a certain degree of variation.

From this, we can derrive: If the mother is human, then the fetus is human. If the fetus is not human, then the mother is not human.

Basically, the fetus is still a kid, it's just you can't see him yet...it's like that thief in that Chinese proverb that tried to steal bells while covering his ears so that HE wouldn't hear it.

After it can feel human stimulus? Does that mean people with damaged nervous systems are no longer considered living? I still hear stories of recovering athletes with damaged spinal cords and nervous systems, and people that barely live...but the point being, they're still alive.

If it's not right, then why do it?

I never said the fetus wasn't human. I just said it functioned as a parasite. And about killing humans, that's why I cited Capital Punishment.

And no. I meant that from the moment a fetus can perceive stimuli, it learns, it can feel and imprint an experience in their memory. People with damaged nervous systems, either they had sometime in their life the chance to learn, or receive stimuli through their eyes, ears, mouth.

And I don't get the chinese proverb, care to explain please?

Point is, there is nothing wrong and right. If you go deeper, you'll find they're just an opinion. Why do some people have no problem piercing their baby girl's ears and some others find it absurd? Why do some states have the capital punishment and some others not? Why some people are convinced that homosexuality is a mental illness while some other believe it's normal?

Well, let's just say this then: You were a fetus once. You were a parasite once. How would you feel if your mom had decided to kill YOU?

Don't do "it" unless you're willing to accept the consequences.

How do you know when the fetus is able to perceive stimuli? Has the fetus told, written, or contacted you in any way, shape, or form saying that it can NOT, from the moment it is born? You can't know something unless you place yourself in the fetus's metaphorical shoes.

Like a doctor kills a man in the form of a fetus, thinly disguised as to avoid the consequences of the undisguised action, the thief steals the bells, covering his ears as to avoid hearing the ringing of the bells and avoid the consequences of the undisguised action. But it all ends up haunting them. They're killing unborn BABIES, seriously.

I'm pretty sure it's just a choice. Sure, if the mom didn't have money, then she shouldn't have a baby. BUT WOULD SHE HAVE HAD THAT PROBLEM IF SHE DECIDED TO ABSTAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE? Forgot who said it, but: "Know your limits. Then, you can break 'em". Of course, it takes effort to break your limits. Want a kid? Show that you're responsible enough to handle it. Can't handle it and already have one? Maybe you should have thought of the baby and not about yourself. Keep it as a lesson. You're responsibility, ACCEPT IT.

Unless it's a rape or something. Then I'd say it's alright to ditch it.

Well, not you per se, but that's how I type.

And on the homosexuality issue, just because it might help you understand my reasoning a bit more: Mental disorder? So what? What's wrong with a mental disorder?

Finality--there is no doubt that the fetus is human, the question is more is it a person. Some people believe it is and such has the same basic rights as you or I, which would make an abortion tantamount to murder. Some people don't believe that, so it's no different from removing, say, a cancer to them. There's even some people who feel the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant--they feel that the rights of the mother to control her own body supercede any rights the fetus may or may not have.

Since that fundamental question cannot be answered, I don't see the argument over abortion going anywhere anytime soon. Regardless, I don't see the point in making abortion illegal again as there's no reason to believe it would do anything but cause unwillingly pregnant women extra suffering.

My mother was on the pill, until after 7 years of living together with my dad, they both decided they were ready for children and looked for a therapist to get her body nutrished and ready to be fertilized, then went on another therapy and took several courses [on parenting, on how to take care of a baby, on sewing, preg exercises...] while she was pregnant, then she had me. If she had regretted it, I'm certain I wouldn't have a problem - I would have never noticed, anyway. My memory barely goes back to when I was 6 years old.

And doctors can know. If there's an stimuli that the fetus can feel, it will react. So biologists do have an idea of when the fetus becomes sentient.

And finally, finality, we have already disscussed that first, 1) rape fetus aren't more important than any other fetus, 2) This is about the baby being a bless to the mother, not a punishment, 3)Ignorance. About point 3, you wouldn't believe the amount of maids I've had these past 3 years that believe that if they're on top while they're doing it they won't get pregnant. And those who believe that if it's taken out before it ejaculates, they won't get pregnant. And those who are convinced that if they have a baby that man will HAVE TO stay by their side and maintain them, and just ended up alone, having to work as maids.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

Well, let's just say this then: You were a fetus once. You were a parasite once. How would you feel if your mom had decided to kill YOU?

What a silly question - I wouldn't feel anything.

By the way, my mum had an abortion long before I was born because the would-be father essentially dumped her out on her ass. If they'd decided to stay together and raise the baby as a family, she never would have met my father.

If it weren't for abortion, I wouldn't be here. Nor would my brother.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

Don't do "it" unless you're willing to accept the consequences.

Don't give birth unless you're willing to accept the consequences.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

How do you know when the fetus is able to perceive stimuli? Has the fetus told, written, or contacted you in any way, shape, or form saying that it can NOT, from the moment it is born? You can't know something unless you place yourself in the fetus's metaphorical shoes.

It's not like that "Science" thingy they always talk about in school ever proved anything, right?

How do you know when an apple is able to perceive stimuli? Has the apple told, written, or contacted you in any way, shape, or form saying that it can NOT, from the moment it is grown? You can't know something unless you place yourself in the apple's metaphorical shoes.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

Like a doctor kills a man in the form of a fetus, thinly disguised as to avoid the consequences of the undisguised action, the thief steals the bells, covering his ears as to avoid hearing the ringing of the bells and avoid the consequences of the undisguised action. But it all ends up haunting them. They're killing unborn BABIES, seriously.

There are plenty of doctors who aren't "haunted" after providing abortion services, and I'm pretty sure they know more about what's involved than you do.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

I'm pretty sure it's just a choice. Sure, if the mom didn't have money, then she shouldn't have a baby. BUT WOULD SHE HAVE HAD THAT PROBLEM IF SHE DECIDED TO ABSTAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE? Forgot who said it, but: "Know your limits. Then, you can break 'em". Of course, it takes effort to break your limits. Want a kid? Show that you're responsible enough to handle it. Can't handle it and already have one? Maybe you should have thought of the baby and not about yourself. Keep it as a lesson. You're responsibility, ACCEPT IT.

Oh, just say what you're implying: SEX IS A PRIVILEGE OF THE WEALTHY. You're saying that if a woman is too poor (or, presumably, doesn't want a baby), she should abstain from sex indefinitely.

And if a poor woman ever dares touch that forbidden fruit, she needs to be taught a "lesson": She and an infant get to live in an even shittier situation than she was in before. Not exactly my definition of "responsibility," but okay.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

Unless it's a rape or something. Then I'd say it's alright to ditch it.

Well, sure. If she didn't spread her legs because she wanted to, she's not deserving of your punishment, right?

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

What a silly question - I wouldn't feel anything.

By the way, my mum had an abortion long before I was born because the would-be father essentially dumped her out on her ass. If they'd decided to stay together and raise the baby as a family, she never would have met my father.

If it weren't for abortion, I wouldn't be here. Nor would my brother.



Don't give birth unless you're willing to accept the consequences.



It's not like that "Science" thingy they always talk about in school ever proved anything, right?

How do you know when an apple is able to perceive stimuli? Has the apple told, written, or contacted you in any way, shape, or form saying that it can NOT, from the moment it is grown? You can't know something unless you place yourself in the apple's metaphorical shoes.



There are plenty of doctors who aren't "haunted" after providing abortion services, and I'm pretty sure they know more about what's involved than you do.



Oh, just say what you're implying: SEX IS A PRIVILEGE OF THE WEALTHY. You're saying that if a woman is too poor (or, presumably, doesn't want a baby), she should abstain for sex indefinitely.

And if a poor woman ever dares touch that forbidden fruit, she needs to be taught a "lesson": She and an infant get to live in an even shittier situation than she was in before. Not exactly my definition of "responsibility," but okay.



Well, sure. If she didn't spread her legs because she wanted to, she's not deserving of your punishment, right?

How do you feel, merely thinking that you would have never lived, and never experienced anything, never known of the world, never truly existed? I'm not really advocating life in general, but I'd rather have gone through life than not at all.

The father's the one to blame, but an abortion does not justify it. It's really just an excuse. Should've caught him and got child support. Then again, I don't think they should've had sex if the father's irresponsible like that.

You've had the sex, accept the consequences. You can't give birth without having sex. An abortion is basically denial of it.

Yeah, it's totally not science, I mean, people aren't mean and they don't do lab tests with half-formed babies like they do with plants and light sources. Plants are living things too, but note that humans are always more important to humans than any other living thing, although I wish I could consider them equal.

In response, the apple reacts to light stimuli; through CAREFUL SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS WITH SEVERAL VARIABLES, they have concluded that plants bend in the direction of light as to better absorb it. I doubt they'd pull out fetuses and try observations to find out if it reacts. "OH IT'S A ZYGOTE! LET'S STAB IT!"

Plenty of doctors? I agree that I don't know much about abortion, but can you honestly say you do? Are you a doctor? What I do know, however: abortion is done either physically or chemically. Either the doctor pulls the cells out and kills 'em, or he destroys 'em with pills. Poison, anyone?

That's not what I'm implying. I don't know about you, but at school, we learn about these things known as contraceptives, they, oh, I don't know, GREATLY REDUCE THE RISK OF PREGNANCY? You can stack 'em too, oh look! This spermicide can be combined with this condom! And the morning-after pill, too! And the regular pill! Gasp!

And don't go and bust out the "OH WELL THESE THINGS FAIL". Oh really? They work most of the time. It's an exception when people get pregnant. Why would most people use 'em if they failed so often?

If a poor woman knows she's poor and decides to have sex without taking necessary precautions, then she'd better live up to what she's doing. She's not living in a shittier situation. Are mothers honestly so selfish nowadays that they'd kill their own unborn fetuses just to save themselves? I'm not a girl, but I'd feel pretty goddamn guilty if I got a girl pregnant and ran away, which is basically an "abortion" for a guy. Also, I don't hear talk of the baby suffering. The way you say it, it's all about the mother, isn't it?

And it's not my punishment. It's called having respect for your family, or your future family.

Finality, not everyone gets a comprehensive sex education. Ever heard of 'abstinence only' programs? Kids unfortunate enough to go through those aren't going to have all the information they need to protect themselves (and I'm not aware of any evidence that they affect the sexual habits of teens either). The Catholic Church, for instance, only teaches behavioural birth control*, and that only once a couple is getting ready to get married. That sort of BC method has high chances of failure if not used right.

As for why people use contraceptives if the failure rates are so high? Because even with typical use rates, the chance of pregnancy is still cut significantly.


*Which, by the way, can be summed up as 'you know that time of the month when you feel like humping everything in sight? Don't have sex then'. As a married woman, all I can say is screw that.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

How do you feel, merely thinking that you would have never lived, and never experienced anything, never known of the world, never truly existed? I'm not really advocating life in general, but I'd rather have gone through life than not at all.

Irrelevant. The fact is, you only know these things precisely BECAUSE you were born. If you weren't alive to figure out life is worth living, how could you know that?

The father's the one to blame, but an abortion does not justify it. It's really just an excuse. Should've caught him and got child support. Then again, I don't think they should've had sex if the father's irresponsible like that.

First of all, it's not so easy as to just "catch him and make him pay." If it were genuinely that simple, there would be a lot more dads paying child support.
And frankly, you can't predict someone else's actions. It's not the mother's fault if her guy wasn't who she thought he was and he leaves her with a baby. It happens every day.

You've had the sex, accept the consequences. You can't give birth without having sex. An abortion is basically denial of it.

When I became sexually active, I accepted that I could become pregnant. I knew that could happen, no matter what I do, accepted the risk and move on. I did NOT accept the fact that I would have to have a baby. It's been said before; consent to sex is not consent to motherhood.

Plenty of doctors? I agree that I don't know much about abortion, but can you honestly say you do? Are you a doctor?

I know a fair bit about abortion simply through my own research. You don't have to go to medical school to be educated on a topic.

That's not what I'm implying. I don't know about you, but at school, we learn about these things known as contraceptives, they, oh, I don't know, GREATLY REDUCE THE RISK OF PREGNANCY? You can stack 'em too, oh look! This spermicide can be combined with this condom! And the morning-after pill, too! And the regular pill! Gasp!

Actually, I never learned about any of those things. No one ever taught me what birth control was, or how to use it, or that just because you're on your period doesn't mean you can't get pregnant.

And don't go and bust out the "OH WELL THESE THINGS FAIL". Oh really? They work most of the time. It's an exception when people get pregnant. Why would most people use 'em if they failed so often?

But.. they do fail. It happens. You can't just brush off the percentage of the population that gets knocked up because they're a small percentage.
And people are human. You're going to forget a pill at least once in your lifetime. It's pretty much guaranteed. No one actually hits the 100% perfect use rate, even if they're responsible. Because we're NOT ROBOTS.

If a poor woman knows she's poor and decides to have sex without taking necessary precautions, then she'd better live up to what she's doing. She's not living in a shittier situation. Are mothers honestly so selfish nowadays that they'd kill their own unborn fetuses just to save themselves? I'm not a girl, but I'd feel pretty goddamn guilty if I got a girl pregnant and ran away, which is basically an "abortion" for a guy. Also, I don't hear talk of the baby suffering. The way you say it, it's all about the mother, isn't it?

It's not just about the mother. It's about the damn kid that will have a godawful life because the mother NEVER WANTED IT. And she's probably going to be pretty fucking contemptuous of the baby that ruined her life.. I wouldn't want to take care of a baby that someone forced me to have as a punishment. Maybe she made a mistake one night. Maybe she is just a damn idiot. Who cares? It is ultimately the child who suffers, not just the parents. It is not a happy family situation that you are creating here, it is a miserable cycle of abuse.
A baby should never, ever be a punishment. I don't care what the mother did, or what she should have done; I care about the lives that get ruined in the process of making sure that the woman learns a lesson.

Why wouldn't you reply to my post? >.>'

And thing is, what if that "small" [which is actually a BIGGER percentage because with condoms nobody ever puts it the perfect way and with pills they don't work quite the same on everybody] percentage does get pregnant without ever wanting the kid? How do you tell who did it without protection from the ones who did everything possible to not have it but still had? Would they be damned?