Abortion....According to KingRaw

"Yes and your point is? Do either of these statics mean it's right or okay to kill?"


It's better than the other option.


"On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI)"


Let's see. Messing up your job, school work and other responsibilities, not able to afford a child, and having problems with your partner. Gee, that sure does sound like a mere inconveinence.


"This gets back to the question...what is human? If killing a human is not right then if a fetus is human then why does it not get the same rights as a human?"


And I'll just repeat my answer. The fetus isn't a fully developed human yet. It does not even know it's alive, while the mother is dealing with serious problems.


Let me ask you this. Are you for the death penalty?
 
"So these reasons justify killing? If that is the case then we should be able to kill our children at any stage if the fetus is considered human."


Jesus, quit going back in circles with that same dead argument!


"Back to the question...What is human? Is all human life "valuable"?"


I said it dozens of times already. NO!
 
Last edited:
15 to 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. So these are at least deaths that MUST be reported to local law enforcement. Some studies have shown that as many as 50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before the woman even gets a chance at a pregnancy test. That is, under your view, one shit load of a lot of children's deaths. Do we conduct investigations to make sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those kids was not killed due to its mothers negligence?

First 12 weeks there is no brain activity that would keep the hospital from pulling the plug on you if that was all the brain activity you had. So if lack of brain activity is a good standard for ending an adults life why not a fetus. When it has minimal brain activity that gets above that of Terry Schiavo, then you can't abort it.
 
Last edited:
firemedic227 said:
So you don't believe in god therefore therefore morals are relative? Is that a correct assumption?
Click to expand...
No. Just because you make the argument that moral behavior is dependent on god does not make it so. In fact it begs the question. I don't need a god to tell me that murdering an In Vivo person is wrong. Moral behavior is good for society. It makes it easier to form larger groups and build industry and make a living. Your positing god does not make moral behavior any more moral or real.
 
KingRaw! said:
And I'll just repeat my answer. The fetus isn't a fully developed human yet. It does not even know it's alive, while the mother is dealing with serious problems.
Click to expand...

So because it "doesn't even know its alive" then it's not fully human? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
 
firemedic227 said:
So because it "doesn't even know its alive" then it's not fully human? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
Click to expand...


I through in the "doesn't even know its alive" just for the hell of it. Makes me feel better about abortions. But nice of you to ignore the "not fully developed" part in the same paragraph.
 
KingRaw! said:
"Yes and your point is? Do either of these statics mean it's right or okay to kill?"


It's better than the other option.


"On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI)"


Let's see. Messing up your job, school work and other responsibilities, not able to afford a child, and having problems with your partner. Gee, that sure does sound like a mere inconveinence.


"This gets back to the question...what is human? If killing a human is not right then if a fetus is human then why does it not get the same rights as a human?"


And I'll just repeat my answer. The fetus isn't a fully developed human yet. It does not even know it's alive, while the mother is dealing with serious problems.


Let me ask you this. Are you for the death penalty?
Click to expand...

Socrtease said:
15 to 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. So these are at least deaths that MUST be reported to local law enforcement. Some studies have shown that as many as 50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before the woman even gets a chance at a pregnancy test. That is, under your view, one shit load of a lot of children's deaths. Do we conduct investigations to make sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those kids was not killed due to its mothers negligence?

First 12 weeks there is no brain activity that would keep the hospital from pulling the plug on you if that was all the brain activity you had. So if lack of brain activity is a good standard for ending an adults life why not a fetus. When it has minimal brain activity that gets above that of Terry Schiavo, then you can't abort it.
Click to expand...

The first twelve weeks the brain is forming and will develope into a functioning brain. The brain dead person will not develope inot a functioning brain.
 
firemedic227 said:
So because it "doesn't even know its alive" then it's not fully human? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
Click to expand...
Yes this is all true and matters not a bit. Because the majority of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks, brain activity should be the key. And as I have said earlier, at 12 weeks the fetus has no more brain activity than someone that could legally be removed from life support due to their being brain dead. All the people in your examples above have much more brain activity than that. Not only that but the Constitution of the United States protects them because they are BORN.
 
firemedic227 said:
The first twelve weeks the brain is forming and will develope into a functioning brain. The brain dead person will not develope inot a functioning brain.
Click to expand...


But you just admitted that the fetus doesn't have a fully developed brain. It hasn't developed yet. How is that the same as a 7 month old fetus or a new-born baby?
 
firemedic227 said:
The first twelve weeks the brain is forming and will develope into a functioning brain. The brain dead person will not develope inot a functioning brain.
Click to expand...
UNLESS it spontaneously aborts? Then it won't. You are dealing with possibilities and probabilities. At 12 weeks gestation they don't have the existent brain activity to save a born person in a hospital from being removed from life support. People in persistent vegatative states in very rare occasions come out of them. But if I am in that position I have a piece of paper that tells the docs to pull the plug and put coins on my eyes.
 
Socrtease said:
No. Just because you make the argument that moral behavior is dependent on god does not make it so. In fact it begs the question. I don't need a god to tell me that murdering an In Vivo person is wrong. Moral behavior is good for society. It makes it easier to form larger groups and build industry and make a living. Your positing god does not make moral behavior any more moral or real.
Click to expand...

I don't make the argument that moral behaviors depend strictly on God. I didn't even bring God into this. I am debating this on the philisophical and scientific bases.
 
firemedic227 said:
I don't make the argument that moral behaviors depend strictly on God. I didn't even bring God into this. I am debating this on the philisophical and scientific bases.
Click to expand...
YOu were the one that said since I don't believe in god all moral behavior is relative. That was your logical falacy not mine.
 
Last edited:
KingRaw! said:
But you just admitted that the fetus doesn't have a fully developed brain. It hasn't developed yet. How is that the same as a 7 month old fetus or a new-born baby?
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that level of development determines value? If scientists agree that life begins at conception then the embryo is a human life in its earliest stages. True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Again I say some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
 
firemedic227 said:
So what you are saying is that level of development determines value? If scientists agree that life begins at conception then the embryo is a human life in its earliest stages. True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Again I say some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
Click to expand...
You keep throwing in all these strawmen. Four year olds, Fourteen year olds and those with Alzheimer's are all Born and therefore get the protection of the laws through the 14th amendment. If you don't like that get 2/3's of the congress and 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
 
KingRaw! said:
Are you for the death penalty Firemedic?
Click to expand...

The death penalty is the result of breaking societies laws for the value of human life. I am not against the death penalty but I also am not against states that ban it. The unborn child has done nothing to deserve the death peanalty but we impose it anyway?
 
Socrtease said:
You keep throwing in all these strawmen. Four year olds, Fourteen year olds and those with Alzheimer's are all Born and therefore get the protection of the laws through the 14th amendment. If you don't like that get 2/3's of the congress and 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of the constitution does not reflect the context in what it was meant. By using the word "born" that was not intended to be used to disqualify the unborn.
 
KingRaw! said:
"I am not against the death penalty"


All I wanted to hear.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you win the debate on abortion? Oh, man! So because I am not entirely against the death penalty for those that devalue human life, then the position of killing unborn children for any reason is the right position? Darn, you got me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top