12 year old girl speaks against abortion, and she does it well.

[Deleted]

I don't care about the opinions of children on politics or ethics. Regardless of whatever stance they take.

Neither do I really. I just find the reactions to children who take a side people agree with, vs those who do not to be wholly hypocritical in most cases however

Are you trying to posit that sentience cannot be observed scientifically?

Well, you are, and that is false.

I said 'personhood' not sentience. The former's very definition is actually a controversial subject in and of itself.

[Eroginous]

Women's rights does not mean you have the right to kill a person.

You should be responsible enough to ever A) use birth control or B) have him wear a condom.

You murdered a person cause of your selfishness.

A fetus is not a person. A fetus relies on a woman's body in order to become a person. You're essentially arguing that the woman has no right not to let a fetus use her body to become a person. That's the same as killing someone so we can harvest their organs to cure sick people.

Bodily rights includes whether or not to decide to let a fetus use your body. Either women have bodily rights, or they don't.

Which is it?

[Speaknoevil]

I said 'personhood' not sentience. The former's very definition is actually a controversial subject in and of itself.

Unfortunately for your position they are synonymous in this context.

We live in a mechanical and scientific universe, and that is the only way to objectively relate to our existence, with fact based reasoning.

[spinner981]

If the massive majority of late term abortions is for the mothers life, I cant object because mother > baby that isnt guaranteed to live. I will agree late term abortions for any other reason is absolutely stupid and abhorrent though.

and that was mu ultimate question, when looking at the dramatic decrease in percentages of abortions between week 13 and week 16, wouldnt the percentage after week 20 fall in line with the amount of abortions that are for life saving reasons?

A fourth isn't the massive majority.

Now we get to the point. What exactly is the point... in debating arbitrary (contingent solely upon one's discretion) definitions of what it means to be human or a person? Is there any way to remove the arbitrary definitions from the picture and simply take a factual approach instead of an opinionated one? To say that abortion is a matter of opinion is to say that murder is a matter of opinion, ultimately. To say that any moral choice is a matter of opinion is to say that morality in general is completely subjective. Maybe its your opinion that past the age of viability, abortions shouldn't be had. That doesn't mean that science supports your opinion that abortion is morally ok before 21 weeks. Science isn't the one saying "Any fetus under the age of viability is ok to kill", as science only deals in facts, not opinions.

You're right, it leaves it up to a person's opinion. Of course, that also implies that abortion isn't morally right nor wrong; it is merely 'acceptable' in the eyes of morality. That means that any killing would also be acceptable; not right nor wrong. It seems that most debates I have on here always end up on this topic.

A subjective morality might as well just say that everything is ok. But an objective morality has no shades of gray.

Abortion can't just be arbitrarily defined if you also believe that things are right or wrong in any sense. Morality doesn't work in the area of subjectivity; it doesn't take our personal opinions into account.

Setting arbitrary standards for what classifies as 'human' means nothing. Like I said earlier; our awareness of self, our ability to survive, etc. these things are a result of our cells. Our cells are specifically built to do certain tasks, to help us survive, just like the cells in a fetus are working towards helping the baby survive on its own (which they usually succeed). Everything has a beginning, and every single human is only alive because our cells were allowed to finish the job and build us up to the point where we can survive on our own. Besides, nothing can survive by itself in the strictest sense. A human isolated from the world, given no sustenance, will not survive. We all rely on numerous things in order to survive, many we take for granted.

Why is it that the things that we depend upon for survival are the things that determine whether we are a person or not? Why does fetal viability dictate whether a person is alive or not? "The potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced." - fetal viability, according to wikipedia.

Well, we as humans are only viable when breathing oxygen. But does that somehow make us not human? Not a person? No. Of course not. So why are we applying such a similar standard to the fetus? If dependency dictated whether we were human or not, then humanity as a species would be a myth. The only 'viable' conclusion is "Once a human, always a human", as that is the only conclusion that has no arbitrary breakpoints.

[cityguy193]

The only 'viable' conclusion is "Once a human, always a human", as that is the only conclusion that has no arbitrary breakpoints.

I can fill your mouth with billions of "humans" then I guess.

Your big essay can be condensed into one line, "I think human life begins with fertilization." Which is an opinion, and people think human life begins before that point, and after that point.

I personally know that human life begun billions of years ago. Life is one big continuum, and that is the only start point that matters. We as a society can only determine the point where saving a fetus would lead to the least harm, and the greatest benefit to society, which is still massively debated.

[Deleted]

Unfortunately for your position they are synonymous in this context.

We live in a mechanical and scientific universe, and that is the only way to objectively relate to our existence, with fact based reasoning.

Unfortunately for my position on what exactly?

[Deleted]

To say that abortion is a matter of opinion is to say that murder is a matter of opinion, ultimately. To say that any moral choice is a matter of opinion is to say that morality in general is completely subjective.

Many things in morality are subjective but there are universally agreed upon things as well, such as murder being wrong.

[Deleted]

With regards to that quote that was attributed to me in Cityguy's post (although it didn't come from me) I'd like to respond with the following:

"Once a X, always a X" only comes into effect AFTER once becomes X. It does not retroactively make an individual X, thus it cannot be used to argue that a foetus is human.

[Vokal]

"Its fun to act holier-than-you from my armchair"

Oh no, I ll happily do it to their faces too.

[Bryntrollian]

Theres a reason why the voting age is 18. Moving right along...

[Zdrasti]

Many things in morality are subjective but there are universally agreed upon things as well, such as murder being wrong.

Even when it comes to murder things can get murky. For example, killing in self defense or in war. Or what about the death penalty? Etc etc. My biggest qualm with this whole debate is that often the same people who will fight tooth and nail for an unborn child don't give a flying $*#@ about it after it's born. Sanctity of life?

[cityguy193]

Many things in morality are subjective but there are universally agreed upon things as well, such as murder being wrong.

Most moral things are universally agreed for the benefit of society as a whole. Killing other humans is only morally wrong because we defined it as so as a society, and even then those norms change all the time, such as wars, etc.

The flu, a tiger, or soldiers in Iraq have no problem killing you, and we have no problem killing them, especially from a moral standpoint, because they live outside out society, with self imposed moral laws.

[Masark]

because the egg would have never hatched. He obviously doesn't know anything about chicken's reproductive organs.

Depends. Fertilized eggs are considered a delicacy in some places.

[cityguy193]

Depends. Fertilized eggs are considered a delicacy in some places.

Is caviar fertilized fish egg?

[Man-of-Blue]

I’m really sick of how confusing the ‘right to life’ is according to pro lifers.

To me I see the right to life as secondary to the right to bodily autonomy in every circumstance. My right to decide who may use my body and for how long comes before anyone's right to life regardless of my relationship with that person.

All I see from pro lifers though is ‘If it’s a fetus the right to life comes before the right to bodily autonomy but once it is born bodily autonomy comes before the right to life’.

Um. No. Rights don’t really work like that. Either one right always trumps the other or it never trumps the other. That one really is black and white.

In short if the right to bodily autonomy comes first then abortions must remain legal, safe and easy to access.

If the right to life comes first then mandatory blood donations and mandatory organ donations needs to be a thing you support too.

[Sauronxyz]

All these posts in here about not giving a shit what a 12 yr old thinks and yet here you are. A thread full of murderers and potential murderers backing each other.

[Deleted]

All these posts in here about not giving a shit what a 12 yr old thinks and yet here you are. A thread full of murderers and potential murderers backing each other.

The people in this thread are as much 'potential murderers' as you are a 'potential pedophile'. So, if you want to start using 'potential murderers' to insult us then I'd like to point out that you are potentially the kind of person who makes even murderers feel disgusted.

Any questions?

[Crissi]

I think Im going to give up since he;s still not quite grasping that stats in that study he linked, let alone saying something is murder when murder is a legal definition, not an emotional one and resorts to "since both adult humans and zygotes have cells, we're all the same!"

bowing out.

[Vokal]

All these posts in here about not giving a shit what a 12 yr old thinks and yet here you are. A thread full of murderers and potential murderers backing each other.

Shhh.

Don't call the cops on us bro.

Didn't you know? Everytime a 12 yr old regurgitates beaten to death arguments off the internet its a miracle and the kid is 100% right.

[Sauronxyz]

The people in this thread are as much 'potential murderers' as you are a 'potential pedophile'. So, if you want to start using 'potential murderers' to insult us then I'd like to point out that you are potentially the kind of person who makes even murderers feel disgusted.

Any questions?

You'd have to be a murderer to know if I'd make them disgusted. I was right all along.