To Stump An Anti-Abortionist

[Goomba]

But it would really inconvenience ME since I'd be the one having to pay child support in the event that she gets pregnant and the laws force her to actually deliver this kid.

[Kuraudo Sutoraifu]

I'd rather not, but its her body and I'm not self-righteous enough. (And, no, I don't feel like arguing if a first-trimester fetus is really a person or not, so if that's your take on it, great.)

My main argument about the fetus not being part of her body is that the mother and the fetus have completely different DNA.  The fetus, from its smallest size til birth meets all qualifications of a living being as well: absorbtion, assimilation, circulation, differentiation, digestion, egestion, excretion, growth, ingestion, metabolism, nutrition, respiration, regulation, reproduction, and synthesis.  Try not to view this information not from a pro-life or pro-choice point of view, but from a scientific point of view.  

On a cellular level, this being is alive, albiet by the help of another living being.  If you remove the mother, the fetus will most likely die; this dependence upon the mother does not negate the qualification of life of the fetus but changes it to that of a parasitic lifeform.

Basing a law in America off of religious morals is un-American.  Our laws are designed to stop us from harming each others unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  They are designed so that we do not screw one another over.  Essentially, if what you do inhibits someone else's life unjustly, you are in the wrong.  If we view a fetus as a living being that is not the same cellular makeup as the mother, an abortion would be inhibiting the being's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  As such, it would be considered wrong.

It's just a plot from people who have control issues and want to create a substandard group of people with no marketable skills that live in poverty so that they can feel better about themselves. These people don't bust off checks for the homeless or the poverty stricken, so it's obvious why they campaign so much against it.

I hope you are trolling because this is absurd.  Both statements are unfounded and are merely opinions.

[philsov]

My main argument about the fetus not being part of her body is that the mother and the fetus have completely different DNA. The fetus, from its smallest size til birth meets all qualifications of a living being as well: absorbtion, assimilation, circulation, differentiation, digestion, egestion, excretion, growth, ingestion, metabolism, nutrition, respiration, regulation, reproduction, and synthesis. Try not to view this information not from a pro-life or pro-choice point of view, but from a scientific point of view.

On a cellular level, this being is alive, albiet by the help of another living being. If you remove the mother, the fetus will most likely die; this dependence upon the mother does not negate the qualification of life of the fetus but changes it to that of a parasitic lifeform.

Basing a law in America off of religious morals is un-American. Our laws are designed to stop us from harming each others unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are designed so that we do not screw one another over. Essentially, if what you do inhibits someone else's life unjustly, you are in the wrong. If we view a fetus as a living being that is not the same cellular makeup as the mother, an abortion would be inhibiting the being's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As such, it would be considered wrong.

[/size]
k

[Kuraudo Sutoraifu]

k

I lol'd.

[DarthPaul]

I completely understand your point on this K-Suto, but step into my point of view for one minute. With your explanation the birth of the child alienates the mothers right to the pursuit of happiness unless the child was planned or the mother wanted it. Do I totally agree with that, not exactly, I think the mother should give birth and put the child up for adoption(that's why we have the option after all). Even so I think abortion should be an option mostly in cases where the female in questions body is not ready for giving birth, like say an underdeveloped teen.

[Kuraudo Sutoraifu]

With your explanation the birth of the child alienates the mothers right to the pursuit of happiness unless the child was planned or the mother wanted it.

I agree to certain extent.  But I think that if a woman has had sex (excepting rape), she has consented to the idea that she might get pregnant.  And there are plenty of options for a pregnant mother aside from abortion, and I don't just mean adoption.  Well, actually I do mean adoption, but there are plenty of agencies that will assist women who don't want thier child: pregnancy resource centers, foster-based children's homes, some churchs, foster birth parents (think Juno) and even Planned Parenthood.  Some of these places will pay for full-term housing and food.

Even so I think abortion should be an option mostly in cases where the female in questions body is not ready for giving birth, like say an underdeveloped teen.

If it would kill or severely injure the mother, abortion should be an option, but, medically speaking, if a woman's body is capable conception, it is capable of birthing.

[spoonman]

Helbrax's & KSuto's responses FTW x9000+


As for the link, selectively interviewing protestors (or any crowd of people, for that matter) is one of the oldest shams in biased journalism. For every 50 faces you stick a camera in front of, 10-20 of them will draw blanks for whatever reason. It's a crude form of propaganda/political allure that's used so often it's pathetic. Not the kind of thing I'd use to support an opinion, let alone change someone else's. Regardless, though, it's still amusing to watch.

[DarthPaul]

I agree with you K-Suto except on the last part. Medically speaking you make a sound argument but there is a problem some younger women are capable of conception but carrying the child to term and birthing it would unrepairable damage their body. In those cases the chance of the child surviving is limited to 50-60 percent because of certain issues that arise in utero. As far as damage to the mother it has a capability of rendering the mother infertile or worse.

[CidIII]

I'm not going to get into this philosophical debate. I'm just going to make a comment on the video.

When I was in debate, we all had this same topic, and during cross-examination nearly everyone asked this question to the "pro-life" side. And, mostly everyone had a reply.

The fact is, anyone who truly believes in something and has well thought about it and researched it, is going to have a reply to nearly any question you ask them.

This video just shows what most of us already know, some people do what they think is right without knowing really anything about it, and some people just protest for the sake of protest.

[DarthPaul]

I think Cid said it best without getting into the debate. Good job.

[Kuraudo Sutoraifu]

I think Cid said it best without getting into the debate. Good job.

Agreed.

[Helbrax]

I'm not going to get into this philosophical debate. I'm just going to make a comment on the video.

When I was in debate, we all had this same topic, and during cross-examination nearly everyone asked this question to the "pro-life" side. And, mostly everyone had a reply.

The fact is, anyone who truly believes in something and has well thought about it and researched it, is going to have a reply to nearly any question you ask them.

This video just shows what most of us already know, some people do what they think is right without knowing really anything about it, and some people just protest for the sake of protest.

This X infinity.

[nates1984]

Much like how government agencies prefer to go after drug dealers rather than buyers

Once I read this, I knew you had no clue what you were talking about.

Drug laws have been abused by the police to target minorities and the poor countless times. The marijuana laws were damn near specifically created to target the influx of immigrants from Mexico at the beginning for the 20th century. You have little to no knowledge of this subject. Our jails and prisons are filled with people convicted with possession. The agencies, at least at a local level, tend to focus on people they "don't like" for whatever reason, and they're often times users, not dealers.

Rather then ask pro-lifers dumb ass questions like that, I instead turn to a different one that none of them can answer and not leave an opening big enough to drive a dump truck through.

Pro-choicers do not believe it's murder, yet pro-lifers do. Why are the pro-lifers right and the pro-choicers wrong? More specifically, what gives the pro-lifers the right and authority to make morality decisions for someone else who disagrees with them?

Be careful, that's a slippery slope. Any attempts to relate abortion to murder or theft, or any other firmly established crime that we can all agree is wrong, is completely missing the point of what makes this subject controversial and a blatant straw man.