This is not a title.

Gamete. An unfertilized chicken egg is a gamete. Not a zygote. Thanks to sweetnesspsn for that correction. I knew something was wrong with that somewhere...

Good job. Have a thumb.

Without a nervous system, it's just a cluster of cells with DNA that just happen to be human DNA. So what? You kill hundreds of human-DNA cells whenever you scratch your ass.

False, my good sir. I should hope you don't scratch live cell walls when you scratch your ass... God that would hurt... And be dangerous... When you scratch your ass (or any part of your skin, for that matter) you are scratching the epidermis, which is made of dead and exhausted cells that are sloughed off just by wearing clothes. Even so, each cell in your body is a piece of *you*, and therefore a part of a human being. They are identified as HUMAN cells, not just generic cells. You can't plant them in anything else and expect them to grow. That's why rejection happens with organ transplants. A fetus is not just a collection of cells, it is a completely unique (except in the case of identical twins) being with self-replicating DNA. Your ass cells don't reproduce if you put them in a petri dish. So this little collection of coincidentally human-DNA--harboring cells is more than just a simple set of cells. Having a nervous system has nothing to do with the fact that it's human. A nervous system must *form* or it will never actually be anything at all and result in a miscarriage. A kid doesn't develop the ability to reproduce until puberty, but that doesn't make them genderless until they can.This is the same kind of thing.

I really like that this is a polite intellectual conversation, and not just a flame war.

Fine-the epidermis is non-living. But by your definition, killing any living human cells is wrong. Is it wrong to get my appendix removed? Or my tonsils?
Is getting a sunburn genocide? No.

Now, imagine an articifial intelligence, or an alien civilization. Would it be wrong to destroy them, based solely on them not being human? No, I hope you wouldn't think so.

Intelligence, your nervous system, determines your worth. An unformed fetus has nothing remotely approaching a mind, and is therefore not a person.

Your move, sir.

What about a baby? It has no intelligence to speak of in the way we think of it. If it doesn't have the signs you say need to be present even after it's born, why is it any more special? Sure it has a nervous system, but hey - intelligence determines worth, right?

A baby has some measure of form. It looks somewhat like a person-a fetus does not.

What you don't get is that a baby does have a mind. A simple, functional brain that is continually expanding. That makes it valuable.

A fetus is just a mass of cells that can eventually develop a nervous system and become a baby. But until it does, it is definitively not a person. It's the stage before a person is made.

imho, no matter the science of it all, I really think abortion should be the choice of the woman, simply because of freedom to have that kind of choice and things like that, and me not being a woman, I could never be pregnant so I don't want to impose my own opinion on a woman. Ignoring my opinions though, you manage to articulate a plausible argument with feasible evidence when many of the same view in political power pretty much use religion as their only argument. so... yay. please don't drown me in a sea of red thumbs. i said imho

Very well put...

Actually, a chicken egg is just an egg. it's not a zygote until it's fertilized.

Yeah. I tried to correct that with a reply below... It's a gamete before it's fertilized. Realized that after I'd posted... >_>

be your opinion as it may is it really someone elses right to say whether a woman can have an abortion? especially before the point of it being a physical human being, not a group of cells that have the potential to be a human being. arguing that is taking away the right of the woman and claiming its for the good of the baby. same can be said about circumcision but i think the decision of abortion should be between the doctor and the pregnant woman and in the cases of the father being present then the father as well. no one else should have a say in anyone elses reproductive organs.

if the child is unwanted and even more so unable to be cared for then it shouldnt exist and theres plenty of time to get rid of it before its actually a human and not a growth inside the uterus

The main flaw I see in that argument is where the argument lies... It's not about what someone decides to do. It's about whether or not it's ok to destroy something that all science says is life. Human life. It's an argument based on someone's want to erase something they irresponsibly created with another person. Abortion is, essentially, an unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions. Its an easy way out. *That* aspect, I must admit, boils down to personal ethics. But not the life part. The life being present is a standard. Also, circumcision is an aesthetic choice. Taking the foreskin of a penis is not the same as taking the kid's life. It's not even close to the same choice. Sure it's not really the parent's right to choose, but that's the way it's been done for millenia.

whether science calls it life or not is not meaning its a human before its cells form it as a human and the cells are specified to some extent. my argument as this stands was on moral standing not scientific. my relation to circumcision is specifically to the fact that its moral and generally tied to ideology and theology.

scientifically it may be life but only so because it is a group of living cells, cells reproduce and its dna is human nothing more. before the cells are specified (albeit how shortly of time that happens) it is a potential human. my point still stands that although abortion is the easy way out if the child is unwanted and unable to be cared for due to money issues or maybe its a one night stand and the father is unavailable to provide then why bring it into the world? not only is that unfair but its forcing that on an unready and unwilling parent but unless immediate adoption is already an option then it will live its life in probable poverty, a string of foster families or foster homes adding to an already huge number of unadopted or poor children.

in many cases it also boils down to (morals aside) what is best for the child or parents, if the person has cervical cancer for example it can actually be deadly to go through the pregnancy and the birthing process or take into consideration that the parent or parents could be physically violent and not want the child in their lives to be harmed, or the mother has an STD that is almost guaranteed transfer at birth. another example as a physical example is a woman in texas who was highly schizophrenic who killed her infant child and ate its brain in an episode she had not only is it a terrible idea to let her bring the child into the world its a worse idea to leave someone like that with a child.

at the end of the day morals aside, science aside theres situations where abortion is a viable option and shouldnt be discounted immediately as unspeakable and taboo.

Sure a kid could have a problem family. Sure adoption isn't always a good idea. Sure having a kid could ruin a person if they can't handle it. Sure STD's could hurt a kid. I'm not saying that anti-abortion is a flawless concept. I know there are issues with having a kid. For me, the main dilemma is do you let something live or do you kill it before it has a chance to?

I'm not gonna demonize you for being for abortion. I disagree with your viewpoint, though I respect it, and that's all I can and will do.

at least youre respectful about it. i disagree with your opinion but feel free to have it, i could debate reasoning for or against many things but youre right theres really nothing to do aside from let it be, id say i respect your opinion but my previous comments dont really share my viewpoint that as much as i would like to say them now.

please dont take my comments as an offense or attack on your opinion theyre not but solely a way to get viewpoints out there to someone who isnt a complete dick about it while at the same time trying to understand the sudden bandwagon to pro-life. again not trying to offend but any other day being pro-choice wouldnt result in negative thumbs and majority of comments claiming "thrones of stupidity" or "stupid twat", "imbcile" or near absolute praise of pro-life

You say that tree isn't a living organism?

Are you putting a tree on the same plane of importance as a human?

he knows his shit

They may be hungry and starving, but you know something? Those children are happy. Most publications of african children are showing them as the most joyful people. Only publications that are promoting the fight against hunger are what show the sadness. The 319 million dollars PROFIT (not total, profit. As in what the employees and leaders of the organization were able to put in their pocket at the end of the day) that people spent getting rid of their children from '05-'09 alone could have provided more than enough to help millions in africa. Those kids are alive, the kids aborted are dead. That's the difference.

Well.. An egg isnt alive true, but then again we eat chickens aswell and if you ask me a chicken is more alive then a fetus. Also what a fetus is just at the start a selfreplicating machine whats wrong with destroying something that doesnt even know it exists?

Actually, back home on my parents ranch I used to eat fertilized chicken eggs all the time. The only difference is a little blood in the yoke. Not to mention, a big delicacy, in one of those Asian countries, is a half developed chick within the egg. This is besides the point though.

I agree that this is a horrible argument, but it is an argument that is unable to carry any weight.
The only arguments should be made about whether or not the abortion could be justified. i.e. rape, being to poor, or having to much unprotected sex like a moron. (Im on the pro-choice side though, just providing what could be argued in pro-lifers side of things)

Most people don't eat fertilized eggs... You may, and I have no problem with that. It's none of my business. Also, I said in American society. But you're right, that's beside the point.

For every case where people justify abortion (rape, no ability to support, etc), there's a counter argument. I pointed out the arguments in the thread below, but I'll reiterate a few points:

Rape so rarely results in a child (about 1 in 82,000, with an average of 50,000 rapes a year) that it's not even really an issue.

Being too poor doesn't really factor. Not only do you get child welfare from the government, there's also the option of adoption. Yeah adoption isn't really the most savory thing, but at least you let the kid live.

Unprotected sex... What the fuck are you doing? If you're a supposed "responsible adult" and are having sex all the time, why the hell are you not willing to take responsibility? Abortion is just a free pass through life and lets you go with no consequences? I don't think so.

That's my personal take on the whole situation. Life isn't just something you can decide to do what you will with just because it's not in its most mature form.

You make having a child look like a punishment. The only people who should bring children into this world are people that are prepared to do so. That way the child has the best possible life for itself. Yes there are people who are so fucking stupid that they don't use protection and should that stupidity not kinda disqualify you from being a worthy parent?

No, that stupidity should force you to learn to be one.

Well, I'm saving this for future arguments.

Think of the issue of abortion in terms of possible timelines. The true issue that no one seems to see is not "abortion or no abortion". It's not a Boolean light switch that's either on or off. It's a point. A point and a timeline. A point on a timeline where the timeline branches: one branch with the abortion and one without it. So, anyone who argues that life begins at conception might as well argue that life begins at the beginning of time. If you're pro-life but it's not because your religion says it's wrong, then it's really because you're afraid of changing the timeline. But, the truth is, the timeline doesn't stay straight just because you avoid abortion and, even if it did, a straight timeline doesn't automatically lead to a perfect world. It's impossible to know how an abortion would affect the current route of the timeline. It's a decision that branches the timeline no matter what. Now we all just have to agree on a limit to where the point can be placed on the timeline.

Actually, it's saying "this IS NOT X."

Goodie.
But I'd like to see how you argue like that when it's about let's say your daughter being pregnant after she's been raped... And suddenly opinions change.

i don't like when you hear politicians get criticized about abortion, and their opposition will say, "Herp McDerpington is opposed to all forms of abortion, EVEN in cases of rape". So the children conceived of rape have less rights than any one else? If a grown adult who was the product of rape gets murdered, is it not important? If you've accepted the fact that there are some people out there who believe life begins at conception, why wouldn't those people think babies conceived of rape are any less important?

fair point. i don't really argue about abortion because my view about it changes a lot. that's just how i view it right now.

just saying, but the point is many pro-choicers, like myself do not believe that the children conceived of rape have less rights. I believe they are not children in the womb until a certain point, around the point where they have consciousness, certainly not as soon as they start cell division. I do not believe they have less rights if they grow up, the mother simply should have a choice whether to abort in certain circumstances because it is NOT A CHILD IN THE FIRST PLACE, whether concieved from rape or not.

the point i was making is that if you're aware that there are people who believe life begins at conception (whether or not you believe this), then of course they should believe an unborn child conceived of rape deserves the same rights. the point i'm making has nothing to do with when life begins, it's about the logic behind why some one would oppose rape abortions.

why would you want to bring a kid into the world that was product of arguably the most violent crimes plauging the world today being a constant reminder of that event something that you genuinely hate because every time you see its face you see the image of that violation you felt.

imagine being a woman in that scenario. and even more so imagine if the rapist wanted rights as a father convicted or otherwise

**AkatsukiNekoJr rolled a random image posted in comment #272 at OCD ** ^Watch out I have an opinion. I agree with theinvisibletheift, and if my daughter was to turn out pregnant after being raped, I'd try to have her keep the baby and at least give birth, help her raise it or give it away.

After rape (starting during, actually), the endocrine system floods the body with chemicals and hormones that will induce a natural miscarriage even in the event that there's conception in almost every case. Even in the incredibly off chance that a girl *does* become pregnant and has the baby, when she looks at the kid the only thing she is gonna see is the kid. What parent looks at their kid and sees horror? No matter the circumstance of the pregnancy there's a tight and loving bond that forms through pregnancy.

Explain. That's really all you *can* do.

False, life is defined (in animals anyway) as something with brainwaves which is a minimum of 6 weeks from conception+ (humans) Up untill that point it is not alive and "killing" it is just preventing it's life not ending it. Also, you kill as many cells scratching your leg as you do in an abortion

First of all, brainwaves have nothing to with life. Bacteria are life, and they have no brain. Jellyfish are life, and they have no brain. In biology, whether life is present is determined based on the following seven criteria:

1. It has to maintain some balanced conditions in its inner structure (homeostasis).
2. Its structure must be highly organized.
3. It needs to be able to break down or build up nutrients to release or store energy based on need (metabolism).
4. It grows, meaning its structure changes as time goes by in an advantageous manner.
5. It adapts to the environment
6. It responds to stimuli on demand (as opposed to adapting to it)
7. It must reproduce.

If we are going strictly by those rules and following them to the letter, then not even an infant (or a kid before puberty) is actually alive and infanticide is abortion. Biological science says it's alive and human. I'm gonna have to side with science.

Well, for one bacteria aren't animals, and comparing a fetus to a jellyfish really kind of proves my point hah, jellyfish don't do anything but float and really just exist. Although, I do agree with you it is rather unfair to compare silk and acorns to animals

Yeah bacteria aren't animals. But humans aren't jellyfish, either. We shouldn't be on the same plane of importance as them. The comparison I made was meant to point out that the presence of brainwaves is not indicative of life.

Sure, but intelligent thought is the difference between us and any other species. So why consider a clump of DNA with no regret, thought, or even instinct, a higher being than for example a deer or a cow? Cows and deer have instinct, yet we kill them because we "need" to. ( Don't get me wrong i love a nice slab of porterhouse steak)

Human life is inherently more important that a food animal's, that is for certain. My problem with your logic along those lines is in the case of babies. They can't reason or think intelligently in any senses of the words. I was speaking in complete and coherent sentences by six months of age, but I'm a one in a million anomaly. Children (to my knowledge, but I might be wrong) don't develop any kind of actual human traits in terms of awareness and reason and stuff like that until they are about two and a half to three years old. So if a baby can't hold regret or have thoughts, then by the logic you presented even though it has instinct it's equatable to a "clump of DNA" and infanticide can be justified.

^^This^^^

Is funny.

That sounds like logic!

you have to be liberal to be pro-choice?

Much more succinct then my more scientific answer... Good one.

Thank you!

You don't have to plant seeds for them to grow. Before humans became an agricultural society, they fell on the ground and just started growing.

but it is correct in saying a sperm is not a person. and a fetus isn't a person either. Idc if someone has an abortion. My 16yr old friend almost got pregnant and we decided that she would get one because it would ruin her entire life to have a baby in high school. So come at me u democratic nuts, say how im a terrible person and should go to hell for wanting to kill a sperm, which we do 1,000's of times everytime we masturbate. Say what u want but i dont give a fuck what u say, ik my choice.

Most democrats are pro abortion, I think you mean to challenge the republican nuts.

You used i.e. correctly. Oh, why aren't there more people like you?

Thank you.

so much yes i don't even

here take this GIF

I think that's a fair view to hold (the individual basis part), but I think what you have to understand is that there are people who believe a fertilized egg is a human life, who has the same rights as you or me. You might not agree with that belief, but I assume that you've accepted it, to some extent, as a rational belief that many people hold. So to people who think this, abortion, in all forms and cases, should be illegal.

Now, I agree with you in the regard that it's stupid to hold a strong view in the following way: "Abortion should be illegal, except in cases of rape and incest, and only in the first trimester". I think a vague view like that is stupid to say is the "right" answer.

While I agree it should be a decision based on the individual's situation, I still find myself asking. Should a human life be denied because of the parent's mistake or misfortune?

I may not agree with abortion but I think it should be the parent's choice. Not just the mother's but I think the father should have a say as well. Depending on the situation of course. If the father is an actual father and wants the kid and the mother doesn't shouldn't the father be entitled to have the chance raise his child? Or vice versa and the mother wants the kid but the dad doesn't shouldn't the mother have the chance?

But by that logic, not reproducing every second of every day is also destroying chances at life.
So get fuckin'.

thats not what my logic says at all. I cant destroy what isn't there. you might want to reconsider your wording.

You are fully capable of creating life, the potential IS there. If there is potential for something to exist, and you choose not to create it, then in effect, you have denied a chance at life, you have erased the possibility for a human being to exist. Explain to me how that's different from abortions.

>implying a have a choice

but yes, i now see what youre getting at

I prefer Milwaukee. Now thats a quality drill.

You can't have been here long if you haven't seen any gay marriage posts yet.

I like the way you think

"aloud"?

So you want everyone that wants to get an abortion to announce it?

It's kinda hard to murder something that hasn't been born. Being born is kinda a prerequisite for living.

We are all a mass of living cells and chemical reactions... Isn't that what the egg is as well?

No, that is like saying a baby chick isn't alive until it leaves its egg.

You can get fertilized eggs everywhere. And if they're not in your grocery store, they are easy to find in specialty stores.

*face palm* ignorance is bliss i guess.

The most stewmanniest of all arguementsI have ever heard.

lol

Can the egg survive outside the womb by itself? No? Then it fails to have self-maintained homeostasis, voiding it's description as life.

You haven't been in may labs... my sister survived not being in a womb... She's now 25 years old...

Ironically, as opposed as I am to abortion, I think that war is much more the answer to that. It gets rid of reproduction-capable individuals, rather than destroying the innocent and undeserving. If you only count soldiers, that is. I mean of course civvies die, but... Yeah... War has been what keeps our populations down the most. That and disease.

In other words, Mexicans should stop reproducing...

Because it's fun.

FOR THE SEXUAL THRILL
also you should be wearing a condom and be on the pill

and a vasectomy, jk

Hhhhhhhh, believe me, in our place most of the slum people have like 5-10 children.

they want tax deductions maybe, and there already on welfare so who cares. Or maybe they are just dumb. Idk just some ideas.