Liberals are sick!

[Mixed View]

I'm actually on MOZO's side. I'm for abortion when it comes to rape or if the mother's life is at stake. If you use abortion for birth control then you got to admit that is pretty sick. From now on I'll call the act of abortion sick, not the people who support it. My apologies.

 

[carolyn-]

I'm actually on MOZO's side. I'm for abortion when it comes to rape or if the mother's life is at stake. If you use abortion for birth control then you got to admit that is pretty sick. From now on I'll call the act of abortion sick, not the people who support it. My apologies.

:smile:

I'm for abortion when it comes to rape/mother's life at stake!

But other than that, I just think it's wrong. How can you take away someone's life just like that? This is murder, whether you like it or not. However, there is always a certain amount of people against abortion, and many that are with abortion. Many people don't count it as murder because they don't believe the fetus is actually alive. But truly, how can it not be alive if the baby has a heartbeat? That alone should be enough to deter the woman from going for abortion.

Moreover, the set of definition for death itself, is the cessation of heartbeat. The moment there is no heartbeat, it is considered dead. If a set of definition for death is put in place, why not a definition for life? Why not the very first set of heartbeat considered life? The fetus starts it's heartbeat at the 18th day in the womb (woo, my biology is working.. :rofl ) If a single heartbeat is used to define life, won't abortion be illegal?

 

[carolyn-]

The difference between a Zygote and a Baby is the difference between a 2 month year old child a 11 month year old child.

TIME.

Nothing more; nothing less.

:agree

YAY!

 

[Pacridge]

:smile:

I'm for abortion when it comes to rape/mother's life at stake!

But other than that, I just think it's wrong. How can you take away someone's life just like that? This is murder, whether you like it or not. However, there is always a certain amount of people against abortion, and many that are with abortion. Many people don't count it as murder because they don't believe the fetus is actually alive. But truly, how can it not be alive if the baby has a heartbeat? That alone should be enough to deter the woman from going for abortion.

Moreover, the set of definition for death itself, is the cessation of heartbeat. The moment there is no heartbeat, it is considered dead. If a set of definition for death is put in place, why not a definition for life? Why not the very first set of heartbeat considered life? The fetus starts it's heartbeat at the 18th day in the womb (woo, my biology is working.. :rofl ) If a single heartbeat is used to define life, won't abortion be illegal?

Welcome to Debate Politics!

 

[carolyn-]

( thanks.

 

[Schweddy]

The difference between a Zygote and a Baby is the difference between a 2 month year old child a 11 month year old child.

TIME.

Nothing more; nothing less.

:clap: Absolutely impossible to be more accurate.

 

[Mixed View]

Welcome carolyn! i'm the coolest person in the world. What side do you lean to?

 

[carolyn-]

Welcome carolyn! i'm the coolest person in the world. What side do you lean to?

Definitely the opposition side.
However, I'll follow the proposition when it comes to "Carolyn's the coolest person in the world" (

Heh, take it easy. I'm joking already. Oh, thanks for the warm welcome. :2wave:

 

[ShamMol]

The difference between a Zygote and a Baby is the difference between a 2 month year old child a 11 month year old child.

TIME.

Nothing more; nothing less.

I don't agree with this at all. The difference between a Zygote or fetus and a child is the ability to conciously think. But, hey, nobody in this forum agrees that personhood begins at conception, so why did I bother posting this...

 

[V.I. Lenin]

I don't agree with this at all. The difference between a Zygote or fetus and a child is the ability to conciously think. But, hey, nobody in this forum agrees that personhood begins at conception, so why did I bother posting this...

Hey i agree with you ShamMol....but i'm socialist and my icon is Lenin so no one will really care

I don't advocate constant abortions OR abortion as birth control, but when it needs to be done i believe it should be legal.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I don't agree with this at all. The difference between a Zygote or fetus and a child is the ability to conciously think. But, hey, nobody in this forum agrees that personhood begins at conception, so why did I bother posting this...

But that is just another stage of development in human life. If you are basing the argument of "life" off of stages in development, what is to say that one person cannot hold the view that if a child cannot walk it is not considered viable. Therefore, anytime before a person can walk they are not a child and subject to termination.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Therefore, anytime before a person can walk they are not a child and subject to termination.

I'll bite...if you think that's true then when will this practice begin? Will it cost the same as a regular abortion? Will it be covered by Medicare? Do you still get to name it?

Seriously though, isn't it foolish to post what you wrote? It's that type of nonsense that only creates discourse and tension....you know?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I'll bite...if you think that's true then when will this practice begin? Will it cost the same as a regular abortion? Will it be covered by Medicare? Do you still get to name it?

Seriously though, isn't it foolish to post what you wrote? It's that type of nonsense that only creates discourse and tension....you know?

Well, obviously I dissagree with murder at any point in the span of life, so wether I come up with a system of intiating it or not, it is still wrong, and it ought to be legally so. Just as I believe abortion should be illegal.
I am certainly not creating discourse in the subject of abortion, it already exists. I will allow you to be the judge of whether or not it is foolish. But the reality of the situation is that if it is foolish, then it ought to be easily refuted, but it is not. If you are going to base human life off of a stage of human developement, why should it be one and not another?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I am certainly not creating discourse in the subject of abortion, it already exists. I will allow you to be the judge of whether or not it is foolish. But the reality of the situation is that if it is foolish, then it ought to be easily refuted, but it is not. If you are going to base human life off of a stage of human developement, why should it be one and not another?

A 10 week old fetus is not alive in the sense that it can live for even 10 minutes without being connected to its mother.

A child who is already born is so obviously not the same thing.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

A 10 week old fetus is not alive in the sense that it can live for even 10 minutes without being connected to its mother.

A child who is already born is so obviously not the same thing.

A five-minute old baby could not live without some sort of nutritional and protective care either. So really, it is just as in need of another living being as is the child in the womb.

By the way, have I ever told you how cute it is when you talk like a Valley girl?

 

[anomaly]

A five-minute old baby could not live without some sort of nutritional and protective care either. So really, it is just as in need of another living being as is the child in the womb.

By the way, have I ever told you how cute it is when you talk like a Valley girl?

A baby needs care and protection from its environment, surely, but biologically it is obviously independent of its mother. It is not biologically a parasite. It so isn't. A fetus is biologically dependent upon its mother for everything. It so, like, is! (your right, that is cute!)

 

[sebastiansdreams]

A baby needs care and protection from its environment, surely, but biologically it is obviously independent of its mother. It is not biologically a parasite. It so isn't. A fetus is biologically dependent upon its mother for everything. It so, like, is! (your right, that is cute!)

And then later in life, a child is not in need of environmental care and protection from his/her parents. So by your logic of moving through stages of development to qualify something as worthy of life, can we assume that once the child is no longer environmentally in need of environmental care and protection from the parents, does that make the child even more worthy of life? In otherwords, can we say that because the child has not yet reached that point of development, the child's life is not as important as it would be once the child reaches the ability to be environmentally independent of its parents?

 

[ShamMol]

But that is just another stage of development in human life. If you are basing the argument of "life" off of stages in development, what is to say that one person cannot hold the view that if a child cannot walk it is not considered viable. Therefore, anytime before a person can walk they are not a child and subject to termination.

Well, I don't agree with that, after six months in the womb, a fetus begins to conciously think-the first sign of personhood and when they should be protected. I don't base it on the normal stages of development, I base it off mental progression. A person could say what you suggested, but then they would be killing a conciously thinking human being. Go ahead and make all the then you would kill anyone who is brain dead and can't conciously think comments you want-I will say yes to all of them because that is how I define personhood.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

So then, a person with a lesser ability to think conciously, for instance, a mentally retarded person or other such defects are, by your opinion a lesser person and less worthy of life than you, a fully functioning concious mind is. So you would have a much lesser problem with someone killing off a mentaly retarded person than someone who was fully conscious. Okay, then that is your opinion. But I certainly can't see arguing THAT before Supreme Court.

 

[ShamMol]

So then, a person with a lesser ability to think conciously, for instance, a mentally retarded person or other such defects are, by your opinion a lesser person and less worthy of life than you, a fully functioning concious mind is. So you would have a much lesser problem with someone killing off a mentaly retarded person than someone who was fully conscious. Okay, then that is your opinion. But I certainly can't see arguing THAT before Supreme Court.

forgive me, but I believe retard does not mean "cannot conciously think." They can still conciously think as far as I know and if they can't...well, prove me wrong. Their thinking capacity is low, but so is that of a fetus when it first begins to conciously think. Their thinking ability doesn't matter, the fact that they conciously think is what is important to make a human a human.

 

[Arch Enemy]

and the whole thing about a thumb.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

forgive me, but I believe retard does not mean "cannot conciously think." They can still conciously think as far as I know and if they can't...well, prove me wrong. Their thinking capacity is low, but so is that of a fetus when it first begins to conciously think. Their thinking ability doesn't matter, the fact that they conciously think is what is important to make a human a human.

No, but it means that their ability to conciously think is lesser. And since you put so much value in the ability to hold concious thought (you claim that it makes a human a human), then is it not fair to say that the more ability one has to think consciously, the more human they are? Besides, this is nothing but your opinion. Some believe that a child isn't a child until it leaves the mother's womb. Some believe that a child is a child as soon as it is concieved. And if so many people dissagree, then how can we reasonably say exactly when a life is a life? BUT, that being said, shouldn't we "err" on the side of overprecaution rather than not? Does it not seem that since there is no defined point in which one becomes a being, we should give benefit of the doubt to the fact that maybe it is a child with a soul, and consider it wrong to snuff it out, on matter of mistake principle?

 

[Mixed View]

Here's a question. What if the mother drank a lot and did drugs. What if the father was abusive and wanted an abortion, but the mother didn't, so the child was abused all their life and committed suicide or became a felon. An abortion sounded ok there, in that situation, didn't it? I still think it's murder.

 

[Fantasea]

I don't advocate constant abortions OR abortion as birth control, but when it needs to be done i believe it should be legal.

Perhaps you could cite a few examples of when a child in the womb doesn't deserve to live.

 

[Fantasea]

The difference between a Zygote or fetus and a child is the ability to conciously think. But, hey, nobody in this forum agrees that personhood begins at conception, so why did I bother posting this...

You are mistaken.

This is the progress of a child through the first three months of its life.

Two questions for you to answer:

1. Which parts of the following are you able to factually refute?

2. What competent authority can you cite in agreement with your comment regarding ability to consciously think?

After the first day, biological development into human form progresses very rapidly. Two weeks after conception, the embryo has a developing brain and rudimentary heart. Three weeks after conception, the baby has a working heart, the beginning of vertebrea, a closed circulatory system separate from the mother's, developing eyes and ears and the beginning of lungs. Around the 25th day, lungs are fully developed, and the heart begins to beat. The heart circulates blood throughout the fetus' body; blood completely different and often incompatible with that of the mother. The baby's developed systems are already separate from those of the mother.

Five weeks after conception, the embryo has developed smaller organs such as a bony jaw, and by six weeks, it has fully developed a vertebral column , ribs, a four-chambered heart, fingers, and nostrils. The baby also has a developing nervous system, and brainwaves are recorded at an average of 40 days after conception. Death is often defined as the cessation of brainwaves, and it follows that the presence of these brainwaves guarantees the individual life of the fetus.

By 7 weeks, the baby has developed a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, and a larynx, and muscles begin to appear. By eight weeks, the embryo has ears, fingers, and toes, and all key bodyparts are developed or developing.

Nine weeks into the pregnancy (about 2 months), the baby can feel pain. In ten weeks, the baby has developing fingernails, and also begins to move by itself. By eleven weeks the baby has the fingerprints that will identify it for the rest of its life. Twelve weeks after conception, the baby's gender can easily be determined, it is able to swallow, and its kidneys are able to make urine.

Fourteen weeks into pregnancy, the fetus has fully developed legs. It can kick, sleep, and move its head.