there is nothing to discuss life begins at contraception

Or does it start at the earliest possible moment that it can; contraception

yeah...when i hear things like that, i'm all in favor of contraception

^ Very true, Kretoma.

Imperator, despite my best intentions, I just can't understand your line of defence.

Luna, how would you define a living being, huh? A being which is capable of thinking?

how would you define a living being, huh? A being which is capable of thinking?

In the context of abortion, it is usually defined as a being that can survive outside the womb

grown animals and trees are actually a life form that can go on living on its own. A fetus is not.

This argument doesn't hold water IMO. Newborn babies can't go on living on their own either. They are just as dependent on their mothers as they were in the womb. A newborn baby cannot "go on living on its own.". It will die very quickly if it is detached from other people.

Under this logic, it's no biggie to kill Newborn babies either then. In fact, it's also okay to kill people who are dependent on the government for their incomes, and Every animal who is living in zoos.

So let me ask you the same question about this logic: How does something being Dependent on something else diminish it's value, or warrant depriving it of it's basic rights?

Edited 2/12/2016 21:01:56

Just allow abortion... you Americans who are anti-abortion are so stupid.

It's hard to define if it about thinking than is a down or a brain dead person alive (Not really imo at least not worth keeping them 'alive')

I think it could easly be defined as 'a being that can think or will in the future be able to think'

In the context of abortion, it is usually defined as a being that can survive outside the womb

The issue I have with this is someone on life support not really alive?

Also I find it annoying that w baby can't survive on its own anyway

I mean, look at this.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

Yet, fucking bible-bashers selectively take out parts of the bible that they want to use against their opposition, but neglect these parts. Seriously, some people are so hypocritical, inconsistent and stupid.

The people who are anti-abortion are the same people (on the most part) as people who are Christian!

So let me ask you the same question about this logic: How does something being Dependent on something else diminish it's value?

It's not about dependency. Its about the fact that a fetus is a biological system that can't survive in the outside world, biologically. However the help and medical assistance you give it, it will never grow into a human.

@Ox

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

Can you actually quote the bible on that please?

Woah... here you go a bit far, Imperator. Comparing babies to people or animals in zoos is a bit extreme.

Firstly, we do kill animals, albeit for other purposes (mostly meat), so it's not really a good example. Secondly, why would anyone kill animals in the zoos or people dependant on their government? I gave you reasons for which abortion would influence positively (or rather not influence negatively the child and/or his mother). Would you randomly go and start killing people in their houses for no reason? If someone does that, it's probably caused by mental issues. Thirdly, how can you compare a child to a grown person? People are able to survive without the help of the government. Might not be an easy life, but it's possible to survive. A newborn child (and a fetus as well, of course) wouldn't stand any chance without his mother (or any other female of his species, but that would imply the child was successfully born). Which leads us to my fourth point, which is the following : if a child (or especially, a fetus) is completely dependant on his mother, it would imply that his mother would have to dedicate a significant part of her life to him, therefore I find it natural that she has to agree to bear a child and then make him survive.

Though honestly, in such a debate there is no "good" or "bad" arguments. All arguments are good from a point of view and bad from another one. It has always been that way and it probably will stay so... ^^

I understand rape, but I still think you should put it up for adoption. but if you aren't ready to have a baby, don't go around making them.

The key point in determining if a living form should be given "rights", is on determining if this living form is a sentient form of life.

This is an argument that's impossible to win. It revolves around the discerning of the moment of when the baby counts as "alive" or "sentient." Since this itself is a matter of opinion, as we have no solid definition for this, it's really unwinnable unless you can convince everyone to see things your way.

Personally, I think that once the Brain is fully formed, then you shouldn't do anything. But before that, it doesn't really count as killing a person.

Why would you start this again?

This is how it should be done:
If you want your unborn kid dead, That's cool.
If you want to die,That's cool.
If you own it kill it.
Your pet included.

This is an argument that's impossible to win. It revolves around the discerning of the moment of when the baby counts as "alive" or "sentient."

Actually no. You don't need to know where to draw the line in order to know that there is a line.
If you acknowledge that a fertilized egg cell is not sentient, and you acknowledge that a newborn baby is sentient, then you also acknowledge than the line between "to be or not to be" exists. And the debate is now much more rational and answers can be studied scientifically.

I have a quick question. What's the argument against adoption?

I understand that a mother for various reason may not want the child, but what is wrong with having that child become a ward of the state until such time it A) becomes independent or B) is adopted. I think instead of wasting half a trillion on defense spending we could invest in more adoption facilities, greater advertisement for adoption, and better standards of living/education for those in the adoption system.

The question is not whether women should control their bodies, its why don't we want these fetuses to have a chance at life when it is easily possible for the state or government to facilitate it?

Also we should mention another double standard having to do with abortion: Republicans say no to abortion, then say no to greater federal funding for adoption facilities because of their political philosophy on smaller government. It can't happen both ways. I think (and this is coming from a pro-life conservative) that we should increase government spending to help increase adoptions while imposing stricter regulations on abortions and stricter requirements for being eligible to have an abortion.

Edited 2/12/2016 22:41:46

when it becomes a human is the debate issue here

Because of the controversial nature of the debate, using precise terminology is very important. Because fertilized human eggs are genetically human (species Homo sapiens), they are all 'human'. The correct term to use for this debate is 'person', not 'human'. So, I would rephrase your statement as:

when it becomes a person is the debate issue here

For the anti-abortionists, the reason 'human' is not the correct term is because every cell of a human's body is 'human'. You kill far more human cells when you scratch your nose than when a woman gets an early abortion. But your nose skin cells are not persons. They have no minds, no feelings of their own, etc. You're not committing mass murder when you scratch your nose. (Now at least you can get to sleep tonight.)

You see all these animal rights people going nuts about how animals have intrinsic rights(Case in point, Cecil the f*cking Lion), and then at the same time saying that because a "fetus" is not human it has no value and no rights.

Even animal rights wouldn't come into play here because it's legal to kill animals if done in a humane fashion, i.e. with no unnecessary suffering. The argument is that there is a certain point before which a fetus is not fully developed enough to suffer. Where this point is, is somewhat debatable, but a fertilized egg is certainly not.