Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

It's the concious control of the reproductive system by the Individual, up and until the point, there actually is ANOTHER one. Hands off, private property.

And that another one, means that "life" is deceptive. We don't value life. Look at all this "life" in the supermarket in the meat and vegetable section. There is more to Humans than just "life" which is what every metabolizing cell does. It is cognition and personhood, ego and thinking. Consciousness.

Without it, it's not an Individual.

We DO know what thought needs.
We DO know where the mind is housed.
We DO know which organ is responsible for it.
We DO know what must be going in that organ in order to be thinking:
having neurons, them being alive, them having synapses, them exchanging signals, in very detectable ways like an EEG. All of which, conditions aren't until after the 24th week.
And there isn't a single person in the world capable of thinking without displaying those characteristics.

Until then, there is no conciousness. And what never existed as a person, and until the point of time does not exist, cannot be treated as existing. It's a car without driver, a body without mind, under construction, and we, the factory owners, as long as there is no, "driver" around, can push the stop button any time. And our right to do so.

New Abortion flame war thread, round 1

*ding!*

But seriously, I haven't given any real thought into it. I mean, I have expressed my opinion of supporting the idea but now I'm so sure.

So what I've done is, on this occasion I've left it for the government to decide it's fate. So no matter what happens, it gets more restrictions or outlawed I will support those decisions because I can't make up my mind and I'm a guy so I shouldn't care anyway because I'm never going to be pregnant so I can empathise.

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote:

What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death.

Odd, it indeed is.

Would these very same people agree that a similar choice should have been made about their own existence?

Of course not, unless their parents who didn't want them caused them to become suicidal or something to that extent.

Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.

Rape.
What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country?

Once again, rape. But otherwise, yes, you have a point. And even if raped, the child could be sent for adoption.
Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter!

I think there are some other things to be done before sending a child to adoption.

Does the father of the child have a say in this?

I don't think he has much say. At least he has no legal jurisdiction to decide whether or not the child should live.

Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Another name for being born is conceived, so technically, since the baby is still in the womb, it does not fit your wording of the constitution.

I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country.

I absolutely agree.

Your belief is nice and all, but my religion sees it different. In Judaism, life starts when the head comes out of the vagina (this is why it is considered fine to kill a baby coming out legs first to save the mother). Now, unless you claim a Christian country, as some do, we start to see where we hit some bumps along the way to anti-abortion laws.
Your Christian belief states that life begins at conception, but not everybody believes that. And, as is the trend in the Western world, we come to science to fix our "moral" dilemmas. And science claims that the fetus is not living until a certain point in time. As such, it is not murder.
Again, if you wish to have your beliefs as reality, I think it counts as oppression because it would be a Christian ruling.

Regardless, I do agree with you that people are being careless. Abortion should be the final solution, not the first thought. And there should be some minimal say for the father, particularly if he is willing to take care of the child alone.

Abortion topics are almost always futile, since it deals mainly in the emotional, not the logical. Its what I feel to be considered life, and what you feel to be life can never be proved more valid than what i feel.
So aside from educating a few people on D&E there's no point to these discussions.

I don't have much of an opinion on abortion, but I guess I am for it in a way. I agree that it is not fair for a rape victim to be forced to mother a child. Partial-birth, though, I am strongly against.

I know two people that have had abortions.
They did not do it because of self indulgence, and they took it seriously.
One girl couldn't afford to feed the baby, and was only 16.
Another was a rape victim.
I want you to go up to them in person, and tell them the exact same thing you typed.

Yay let's control what women can/can't do with their bodies and lives.

At 1/14/08 12:58 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: Yay let's control what women can/can't do with their bodies and lives.

Fucking FUCK! A FETUS AND/OR UNBORN CHILD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IS NOT PART OF IT'S MOTHER'S BODY! The child has a completely different DNA coding. It is a different "body", it's just INSIDE another's body. Not a PART of it. Fuck, if you're going to make ignorant asshat claims, at least get your science right.

At 1/14/08 04:58 AM, LadyGrace wrote: It is a different "body", it's just INSIDE another's body. Not a PART of it.

It's attached to the mother and living off of her, how much more "a part of" do you want.

At 1/14/08 05:06 AM, HaloKing336 wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:58 AM, LadyGrace wrote: It is a different "body", it's just INSIDE another's body. Not a PART of it.

It's attached to the mother and living off of her, how much more "a part of" do you want.

Are siamese twins only one person even though they are distinctly different? No.

At 1/14/08 05:06 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: It's attached to the mother and living off of her, how much more "a part of" do you want.

Any living, fully formed infant, or most animals for that matter can't live without a caretaker. Just because something is "independent" of another body doesn't mean it isn't still completely dependent.

And a woman's choice for "her body" isn't a valid argument, because she's choosing to kill something that is not "her body". The point is invalid, if you think of it that way. And don't give the whole "parasite" argument. Because a fetus does not harm "the host" in any way.

At 1/14/08 05:15 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 1/14/08 05:06 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: It's attached to the mother and living off of her, how much more "a part of" do you want.

Any living, fully formed infant, or most animals for that matter can't live without a caretaker. Just because something is "independent" of another body doesn't mean it isn't still completely dependent.

Well, I'd argue that there is a vast diffrence in needing a flock or a parent to depend on, versus living inside somebody elses body so that person has to eat and breathe directly for you.

And a woman's choice for "her body" isn't a valid argument, because she's choosing to kill something that is not "her body". The point is invalid, if you think of it that way.

But, if we think of the fetus as one person, and the mother as another. If you argue that the mother can't decide to kill this other person. However, does the fetus have the right to demand the mother's body for support?

If I needed your blood donated to me regulary, could I demand this of you because I would die otherwise?

Getting pregnant is not always choice made by the mother, anymore than you choose to be the only one who can donate blood to me.

And don't give the whole "parasite" argument. Because a fetus does not harm "the host" in any way.

Actually, it does. Pregancy can hurt the woman in many ways, and birth even moreso. Having the mother die at childbirth wasn't that uncommon before modern medicine came along.

At 1/14/08 05:20 AM, Drakim wrote: Well, I'd argue that there is a vast diffrence in needing a flock or a parent to depend on, versus living inside somebody elses body so that person has to eat and breathe directly for you.

How so? Because the herd has a choice to take care of one another as opposed to a mother who has none? Honestly, biologically, there are times when women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to be pregnant. That is, evolutionary wise, the choice to prevent pregnancy in a "natural" setting. Also, 0the evolution of humankind after millennia have produced this means of incubation, it seems the only means necessary in order to procreate. So to claim one's body is one's own, simply by the state of incubation, I think that's not only flawed logic, and scientifically inaccurate, I'm sure if there were a better way in order for the individual to survive more easily, our bodies would have adapted for it.

But, if we think of the fetus as one person, and the mother as another. If you argue that the mother can't decide to kill this other person. However, does the fetus have the right to demand the mother's body for support?

The fetus doesn't "demand" it. All it does it lay there. Pretty much, it goes beyond "rights" and "fairness". It is, what is the natural progression of things? I'm sure if the fetus had a choice, it wouldn't want to be a burden on anyone.

If I needed your blood donated to me regulary, could I demand this of you because I would die otherwise?

There's a difference here though. Where one individual may refuse to donate blood, another will willingly give. Unfortunately, the fetus doesn't have a choice on who is willing and unwilling to take care of it.

Getting pregnant is not always choice made by the mother, anymore than you choose to be the only one who can donate blood to me.

Of course, that's obvious. However, to forcibly remove the fetus from the womb is not the choice of the fetus. Every living organism on the most basic level strives to live. Pretty much, when making a decision such as me choosing to donate blood to you, I can not only weigh the consequences for me, as an individual, but I can hear your arguments, as well, and if you're willing to compromise/compensate/improve anything about the current situation. A fetus doesn't have this option. However, because it doesn't have the cognitive function at the time, does not mean that it's eventual cognition will never happen. If anything, it would be more "just" and "fair" and "right" for the fetus to eventually reach a cognitive state before terminating it. At least then it could make some sort of protest, or "argument". True, it may not be coherent or understood, but the individual would know it's state of mind before making the decision to destroy it. Of course, I'm going into the metaphysical. But it's still an idea that should be thought about before automatically deciding "my body, I do what I want".

Actually, it does. Pregancy can hurt the woman in many ways, and birth even moreso. Having the mother die at childbirth wasn't that uncommon before modern medicine came along.

Yes, however, birth complications are not a definite. It's not like insects that give birth and immediately die. Evolutionary wise, humans have been designed to live far past the birthing stages of our offspring. Death from a complicated pregnancy and birth is not the norm. Just like having a parasite is not natural or normal.

Anyway, if anything's unclear, just ask. I'm tired and I feel like I'm rambling incoherently.

At 1/14/08 05:40 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 1/14/08 05:20 AM, Drakim wrote: Well, I'd argue that there is a vast diffrence in needing a flock or a parent to depend on, versus living inside somebody elses body so that person has to eat and breathe directly for you.

How so? Because the herd has a choice to take care of one another as opposed to a mother who has none? Honestly, biologically, there are times when women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to be pregnant. That is, evolutionary wise, the choice to prevent pregnancy in a "natural" setting. Also, 0the evolution of humankind after millennia have produced this means of incubation, it seems the only means necessary in order to procreate. So to claim one's body is one's own, simply by the state of incubation, I think that's not only flawed logic, and scientifically inaccurate, I'm sure if there were a better way in order for the individual to survive more easily, our bodies would have adapted for it.

If a woman is raped (which is too common in many parts of this world, it's not just a rare happening if you are really unlucky) and get pregant, she has absolutely no say whever she was to be pregant or not.

If you are to argue that the fetus counts as a full person, then it shouldn't get special treatment. It requires a body to live, and the only person who can give this body did not put herself in this situation willingly.

It would be as if you were missing a kidney, and the only person who can donate one to you is me, your twin brother (because of some random sickness we have that prevents others from donating). You could absolutely not demand that I give up a kindney for you. Just like that, I don't see how a person can demand that another person should act as a host in 9 months, and then go though a painful and dangerous birth.

Sure, it's true that the fetus didn't remotely want to be a burden, but that isn't any diffrent from you not wanting to need a new kidney. You can't overule another person's right to his/her own body because you personally was caught up in a bad situation.

It's a loss you will face, and you don't have any automatic right to use others to pull yourself up, even if that loss wasn't something you could help.

But, if we think of the fetus as one person, and the mother as another. If you argue that the mother can't decide to kill this other person. However, does the fetus have the right to demand the mother's body for support?

The fetus doesn't "demand" it. All it does it lay there. Pretty much, it goes beyond "rights" and "fairness". It is, what is the natural progression of things? I'm sure if the fetus had a choice, it wouldn't want to be a burden on anyone.

Yes, but you can't really mix natural progression of things with rights. Freedom of speech is not something natural. No rights are.

If you had a sickness that hurt you if you heard my voice, then that wouldn't overrule my freedom of speech. Society and laws aren't based on the natural, but our intellectually human-made basis.

If I needed your blood donated to me regulary, could I demand this of you because I would die otherwise?

There's a difference here though. Where one individual may refuse to donate blood, another will willingly give. Unfortunately, the fetus doesn't have a choice on who is willing and unwilling to take care of it.

No, you are mixing up it a little here.

In the blood example, you are talking about the donating individual who may refuse to donate blood, or willingly give. But in the fetus example, you are talking about how the fetus doesn't have a choice.

The correct comparison would be to complare the guy who NEEDS the blood, not donates it, to the fetus. The guy who needs blood doesn't have a voice on who is willing to donate or not donate blood to take care of him.

Getting pregnant is not always choice made by the mother, anymore than you choose to be the only one who can donate blood to me.

Of course, that's obvious. However, to forcibly remove the fetus from the womb is not the choice of the fetus.

Just as not donating blood to the person that needs it is not the choice of the blood needing victim.

Every living organism on the most basic level strives to live. Pretty much, when making a decision such as me choosing to donate blood to you, I can not only weigh the consequences for me, as an individual, but I can hear your arguments, as well, and if you're willing to compromise/compensate/improve anything about the current situation.A fetus doesn't have this option. However, because it doesn't have the cognitive function at the time, does not mean that it's eventual cognition will never happen. If anything, it would be more "just" and "fair" and "right" for the fetus to eventually reach a cognitive state before terminating it.

Might be true, but because the fetus has a lack (not being able to think or argue), then that does not overrule the rights of others. If you lack the ability to reason, then that shouldn't prevent me from getting justice in court if you do something bad. Lack of ability does not equal lack of responsibility. If we think that way, then that means a retarded person may kill others without punishment because he doesn't know better.

At least then it could make some sort of protest, or "argument". True, it may not be coherent or understood, but the individual would know it's state of mind before making the decision to destroy it. Of course, I'm going into the metaphysical. But it's still an idea that should be thought about before automatically deciding "my body, I do what I want".

Even so, no matter what argument the fetus brings up, it cannot demand that the woman give him/her a host body for 9 months. There is simply no right in any law for anything like that.

Actually, it does. Pregancy can hurt the woman in many ways, and birth even moreso. Having the mother die at childbirth wasn't that uncommon before modern medicine came along.

Yes, however, birth complications are not a definite. It's not like insects that give birth and immediately die. Evolutionary wise, humans have been designed to live far past the birthing stages of our offspring. Death from a complicated pregnancy and birth is not the norm. Just like having a parasite is not natural or normal.

True, but not everything is "live or die!". I don't think it's possible to go though a pregnancy without getting some aftereffect. It might be very little for some women, but it simply isn't an thing you can do completely flawlessly. The human body simply isn't 100% tuned for birth. The fact that mothers can die without unnatural aid says something.

Seperate DNA means nothing.

Bacteria have seperate DNA, and headless bodies have separate DNA, we do not consider them Individuals. Such an opinion is also dangerous because it would imply that identical twins (same DNA) or fully conscious clones do not deserve to be considered persons.

Consciousness is the sign of the Individual, and we have the science to know when it appears.

At 1/13/08 08:43 PM, Vaebn wrote:

having neurons, them being alive, them having synapses, them exchanging signals, in very detectable :ways like an EEG. All of which, conditions aren't until after the 24th week.
And there isn't a single person in the world capable of thinking without displaying those :characteristics.

Like to cite a source on that one? Or provide some proof that this specific pattern before an EEG is a pre-requisite of consciousness? And besides, even if consciousness did develop at 6 months, that's still a part of pregnancy in which you are against abortion. So you're not pro-choice, or pro-life, you're more in the middle.

At 1/14/08 06:46 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/13/08 08:43 PM, Vaebn wrote:

having neurons, them being alive, them having synapses, them exchanging signals, in very detectable :ways like an EEG. All of which, conditions aren't until after the 24th week.
And there isn't a single person in the world capable of thinking without displaying those :characteristics.

Like to cite a source on that one? Or provide some proof that this specific pattern before an EEG is a pre-requisite of consciousness? And besides, even if consciousness did develop at 6 months, that's still a part of pregnancy in which you are against abortion. So you're not pro-choice, or pro-life, you're more in the middle.

To be fair, we are arguing against the OP who says that "Life begins at the point of conception". Which is when the sperm touches the egg.

Yo, I is totally into abortion, I've been responsible for at least 5. You know, I is well up for it.

agreed

At 1/14/08 04:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yo, I is totally into abortion, I've been responsible for at least 5. You know, I is well up for it.

British comedian lol.

At 1/14/08 04:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yo, I is totally into abortion, I've been responsible for at least 5. You know, I is well up for it.

That's ironic coming from the man who thinks British comedy sucks.

At 1/14/08 04:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yo, I is totally into abortion, I've been responsible for at least 5. You know, I is well up for it.

Has you ever had an abortion? Surely yous should try somethin before you say it is bad.

Hm maybe its cuz he's british Jewish comedian that makes up for it, lol.

At 1/14/08 05:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yo, I is totally into abortion, I've been responsible for at least 5. You know, I is well up for it.

That's ironic coming from the man who thinks British comedy sucks.

My point still stands.

At 1/14/08 05:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: My point still stands.

I'm not going to let another useless arguement spill onto another thread so I'm going to leave you with this and you can do what you want.

At 1/14/08 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/14/08 05:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: My point still stands.

I'm not going to let another useless arguement spill onto another thread so I'm going to leave you with this and you can do what you want.

My point still stands.

I don't need an Op Ed article to tell me anything.

Abortion makes me horny.

At 1/14/08 05:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yo, I is totally into abortion, I've been responsible for at least 5. You know, I is well up for it.

Has you ever had an abortion? Surely yous should try somethin before you say it is bad.

Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Surely you should try something before you say it is bad.