I can't make my mind up on the abortion debate.

all right I'm all for a woman's right over her body and i'm for protecting human life in utero… umm yeah. i believe that the state shouldn't interfere with personal choice, but i don't believe that foetus is a just 'clump of cells' either. I'm really stuck here on where i should stand with this one.

edited 7th Oct '10 3:56:08 PM by joeyjojo

The way I see it, abortion should be present in at least a limited state. There are instances of pregnancy resulting in the baby basically killing the mother. Times like that it would make sense to save the mother's life.

So, don't go one way or the other. Find the middle that makes sense to you.

edited 7th Oct '10 4:04:36 PM by A_H_R

You don't have to make up your mind on every issue that exists, you know. You can just let this one slide.

The whole issued depends on your definition of what a "human being" is, and at what point during development a fetus becomes a human. If you think that a fetus is fully human at conception, then you would seem to have little choice but to be against abortion in most cases (with some possible exceptions like when the mothers life is in danger, etc.). If, on the other hand, you dont believe that the fetus becomes fully human until a later point in the pregnancy, then the mother's rights over her own body can become a higher priority. I personally believe that the fetus only becomes human at some point after conception, but that it happens so slowly and gradually that we cant identify a specific point at which this occurs. So I think Roe vs. Wade should stand as is.

edited 7th Oct '10 5:49:28 PM by DeMarquis

^ Well for me the distinction isn't philosophical, it's scientific. Genetically you are 100% Homo Sapiens from the moment of conception. No amount of philosophical raging and pandering can deny that science.

I'm pretty strongly anti-abortion too, but it's only fair to point out that some would distinguish between "humanity" and "personhood".

This can only end badly.

edited 7th Oct '10 8:27:13 PM by jewelleddragon

I personally believe that the fetus only becomes human at some point after conception, but that it happens so slowly and gradually that we cant identify a specific point at which this occurs.

Under Roman law, you only became a person at eight days old. Anyone want to revive that?

I do Rott.

The distinction between human and person is an important one. In any case, be warned that I am watching this thread and will not hesitate to break out the thump stick if people get flamey or off-topic.  ^*

Genetically you are 100% Homo Sapiens from the moment of conception.

This is pretty much meaningless. You're 100% homo sapiens before conception and after death as well. This says nothing about personhood.

↑@Tze Tze: I was about to post that. Darn ninjas.

I am overall pro-abortion on an utilitarian perspective of order-versus-chaos. It makes more sense to have it "enabled but regulated" so that the people who actually need it can do it in a rightful way, than to have it penalized and go on witchhunting against people who only want to solve their problems, instead of going to solve other more important problems.

^yeah i guess that's how i feel about it. It aways seem like a bit cop out but :/

As for where you should stand, I'm with Das Auto. If you don't feel strongly, don't pretend to.

even if you think fetus is human, how about the right of mothers ? can you force someone to give you blood etc, if they didnt want it ? did you must help someone alive ? is this equivalent of not helping when see injured people on the street ? can you be sued if you did not help ?

A foetus is human, sure, but not a person yet. Not until higher brain functions are developed. In my opinion, mother's rights should be a priority. (sigh) It's strange, really. Female is a person like any other, but as soon as she gets pregnant, she seems to be regarded as a means to produce a baby, not as a person in her own right with her own life by many(((

^ If a fetus can be defined as human but not a person, a mentally retarded person can be defined likewise, and likewise killed if inconvenient.

In the absence of aliens, I am extremely skeptical of any discourse that separates "person" from "Homo sapiens".

^No, because a mentally retarded person usually has friends, a personality, things he likes and dislikes, etc., all of which a fetus lacks.

^Pretty much. It's not just being retarded, it's an absence of...anything...but physical sensations yet

I love how Rottweiler makes completely insane concern-troll slippery slope claims, while at the same time using a word that has for a long time been itself a dehumanizing slur.

(sigh) Let's not argue about semantics now, please?

Even if we except a foetus to have personhood that doesn't mean a woman has to support another. Violinist player argument and all that.

edited 8th Oct '10 4:14:04 AM by Sandor

^Aye, sir. Anyone who would not vote in favor of a law mandating blood and organ donations has no business demanding that a pregnant woman remain pregnant against her will.

I would have no problem making blood donations mandatory. Organ donation...depends on the organ, I suppose.

As someone who donates blood regularly, I would be appalled if it were made mandatory. It's just... people's bodies are their own. They must not be compelled to take from themselves to give to others, if it isn't a decision that they've come to on their own.

edited 8th Oct '10 7:20:00 AM by EnglishIvy