What is your stance on abortion? (Abortion discussion)

[Jubel]

No, a fetus is a child.

And to get to the point where it can feel pain, it must first survive. Is it living then? If the mother kills it off before, it will never get the chance to be by your standards of what's "living", which is still bad.

theyll have a hard time surviving in the hustle and bustle of the world of business if we're to believe that theyre not dependant on their mother, as you so claim.

[Ad Bot]

[Derontchi]

I'm sorry, there are so many posts I can barely keep up. Sorry.


*This in itself is a delusion.

"Derontchi is delusional because he disagrees with me" is not a valid argument.

[Jubel]

"Derontchi is delusional because he disagrees with me" is not a valid argument.

you're delusional because you believe in your gut over a century of medical science.

[Goth77]

For the record (can't believe I'm saying this again)
A fetus OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANNA CALL IT. The thing that is created when the sperm and egg meet is called a child. I don't care how under developed it is. This is fact.

Now, onto abortion. Should abortion be allowed?
Simple answer: YES.

If the mother and father agree to abort the child than this is a dual agreement between the creators of the being. Nothing more to say here.

On the account that the female was raped and now bears the mystery child of some sick bastard, she should have the power or say so to abort the child, seeing as how she didn't get the choice to create the fetus/child/whattheforgetever in the first place.

the majority has moved on to cheese or australian tv, one is stuck on loop and/or trolling and another is trying to revive a dead argument

Sammich please? I'm getting stressed as hell. Provolone and ham, please. Toasted.
With ranch

While you were typing 8 new replies have been posted.
Holy shat

[McJob]

In what case would these two, the more developed and the less developed compete for the right to life.

During pregnancy is specifically what I want to focus on.

If the mother dies or is not capable of raising her child in a manner that is acceptable to society, what will become of the child and will they be better off alive or never having existing?

If a child's birth is going to cause the mother's dead, I don't think it's appropriate to give birth to the child. If the mother and father do not have the financial support to raise the child, I don't think it's appropriate to give birth to the child. If the mother and father cannot intellectually and physically raise the child so they can develop as normally as they can (we'll pretend that diseases and malformations don't exist), I don't think it's appropriate to give birth to the child.

It really is about what's best for the child.

If I'm honest, I was a bit confused by your post, so hopefully I made an appropriate response. If not, let me know and I'll try take another stab at it.

[Zack]

"Derontchi is delusional because he disagrees with me" is not a valid argument.

I'm not saying you're delusional because of your opinions,

I'm saying you're delusional because your opinions have been disproven and yet you refuse to accept it.

[Rally]

No, a fetus is a child.

No, a fetus is a fetus. A human fetus is still a fetus, not a human. A tomato seed is still a seed, not a tomato. Milk is still milk, not ice cream. I could go on for days.

And to get to the point where it can feel pain, it must first survive. Is it living then? If the mother kills it off before, it will never get the chance to be by your standards of what's "living", which is still bad.

It's not surviving. The mother is surviving. The fetus is an extension of the mother, without it, it's dead. The thing doesn't even breathe on it's own, oxygen is imported from the mother, through the umbilical cord, into the fetus. You call that surviving dude? It's developing, sure. Not 'surviving'.

"Derontchi is delusional because he disagrees with me" is not a valid argument.

You misinterpreted what he said. Probably on purpose. With you, who knows.

[Jubel]

Rally im sorry for calling you mean names before because now i love you

also many kudos to swat and mcjob and tokthree for discussing things without being a total mess

[Derontchi]

you're delusional because you believe in your gut over a century of medical science.

Believe in my gut? Look, all I'm saying is, by your classification of living or nonliving, which is not relevant to this matter, the mother is denying whatever you wanna call "it" the right to become living. But it is living, just gonna put it out there. All life starts at a single cell, ya know.

[Rally]

Rally im sorry for calling you mean names before because now i love you

Till our next disagreement do us part, lol

[Jubel]

Believe in my gut? Look, all I'm saying is, by your classification of living or nonliving, which is not relevant to this matter, the mother is denying whatever you wanna call "it" the right to become living. But it is living, just gonna put it out there. All life starts at a single cell, ya know.

how is the scientific classification of biological life not relevant to the situation.

[TristanLuigi]

Till our next disagreement do us part, lol

This one might do.

[Derontchi]

how is the scientific classification of biological life not relevant to the situation.

Well it does not really make much of a difference. Whether or not the thing is living (it is, just not an organism yet), the mother is denying it's right to be a human and to live.

[SWAT One]

During pregnancy is specifically what I want to focus on.

If the mother dies or is not capable of raising her child in a manner that is acceptable to society, what will become of the child and will they be better off alive or never having existing?

If a child's birth is going to cause the mother's death, I don't think it's appropriate to give birth to the child. If the mother and father do not have the financial support to raise the child, I don't think it's appropriate to give birth to the child. If the mother and father cannot intellectually and physically raise the child so they can develop as normally as they can (we'll pretend that diseases and malformations don't exist), I don't think it's appropriate to give birth to the child.

It really is about what's best for the child.

If I'm honest, I was a bit confused by your post, so hopefully I made an appropriate response. If not, let me know and I'll try take another stab at it.

No.  This suffices well.

I'd like to present a comparison.  I'd like to clarify in advance that I am not dismissing your argument, simply providing food for thought.  Edit:  I DO INTEND ON ADDRESSING IT IF THE DISCOURSE CALLS FOR IT.  I will leave that at your discretion.

Comparing these two instances side by side in a medical scenario, would the medical staff be held to uphold a quota or limit to what "kind" of children can be born, or to observe and discern upon comparative scenarios?

I just want to get this bit out of the way first.

[Jubel]

(it is, just not an organism yet)

contradicting yourseld again ggggg.

weve been saying that this whole time.