Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Many simple outpatient procedures are done on the day of the initial consultation, sometimes even during said appointment itself.

Granted many do not have the same potential impacts on your life as aborting or continuing a pregnancy... but given that most of these consultations will happen at an abortion clinic, one would have thought the person would already be pretty sure of their course of action and have already considered the impact, thus being prepared to have the procedure then and there.

I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

This lady is one sick puppy. It is a bit of a statement as well. "put your money where your mouth is". All well and good if the child is saved, but then what happens when people start to follow her foot steps? "I need money or the baby dies" funding campaigns will show up and after this likely to fail.

Means nothing to the women (as evident) because she loses nothing either way.

I wonder which state she is in. Texas recently passed a law (that got shut down by the courts) requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and to possess a facility equivalent to hospitals, both of which are extremely difficult, if not downright impossible.

Anyway, I get the message she is trying to send, but I disagree with the method. Certainly there must be adoption agencies or other organization that would help cover the costs of her pregnancy in order to pass the child on to a loving home? I'm not making any argument for or against abortion here, as, since I am neither a woman nor a deity, I do not believe I am qualified to form anything close to an informed opinion on the matter.

 Ashiraya wrote:
You're giving way too much weight to accusations.

Actually, this more seems like she is giving people a chance to disprove her own opinions rather than to prove them.

After all, as said above, anonymousness means that it's entirely possible people won't pay because they can't know if she's a fraud, so everyone knows that not reaching the goal will prove little. But reaching the goal on the other hand, will prove a lot.

She essentially extorting money from people. I hope you will forgive me if I don't think that such a course of action is constructive.

Reaching the goal will prove that emotional blackmail and (what may be considered) hostage taking works.



If she wants to have an abortion she should go ahead and schedule the procedure. This stunt is just beyond contempt.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Except the lady in question knows that for the majority of pro-lifers that life begins as conception. So in their view she is aborting a child.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Reaching the goal will prove that emotional blackmail and (what may be considered) hostage taking works.

And failing to reach it could suggest that people who are "pro life" are... not really?

If she wants to have an abortion she should go ahead and schedule the procedure. This stunt is just beyond contempt.

I believe that it mentions in the OP that she already has arranged one for the earliest legally permissable.

I find it odd that it would be quicker to buy a hand gun than get an abortion...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Except the lady in question knows that for the majority of pro-lifers that life begins as conception. So in their view she is aborting a child.

And I love harry potter. Unfortunately that does not mean magic is real.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...

The emotive argument is just that; emotive.

Here's a better idea. Instead of the abortion extortion route that this lady is going a better solution for all involved is work with an adoption agency, or a charity for infertile couples to help them adopt instead of this nonsense.

Meh, it's a publicity stunt that really just restates something that has been demanded from the pro-birth crowd for a long time: if you truly feel so strongly about being pro-life then put your money where your mouth is and be willing to provide for non-aborted children in the form of social support, state support, community resources, money for health and education, etc etc. Try to show that you actually give a damn about a strangers child once it passes past the labia instead of switching from "we should be able to decide what is best for the unborn child" to "why are you bothering us with your child, you birthed it now to take care of it". I'm pro-choice, but I think as a country we do a pretty shity job encouraging the choice to give birth.

Or just abort it without this dance.

I like d-usa's post.

 d-usa wrote:
Meh, it's a publicity stunt that really just restates something that has been demanded from the pro-birth crowd for a long time: if you truly feel so strongly about being pro-life then put your money where your mouth is and be willing to provide for non-aborted children in the form of social support, state support, community resources, money for health and education, etc etc. Try to show that you actually give a damn about a strangers child once it passes past the labia instead of switching from "we should be able to decide what is best for the unborn child" to "why are you bothering us with your child, you birthed it now to take care of it". I'm pro-choice, but I think as a country we do a pretty shity job encouraging the choice to give birth.

Spot on

 SilverMK2 wrote:
And failing to reach it could suggest that people who are "pro life" are... not really?

So "Give me a million dollars or you're all frauds"?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I believe that it mentions in the OP that she already has arranged one for the earliest legally permissable.

Then she can stop grandstanding and have the procedure

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I find it odd that it would be quicker to buy a hand gun than get an abortion...

This seems unrelated to the discussion at hand

 SilverMK2 wrote:
And I love harry potter. Unfortunately that does not mean magic is real.

Again I would ask how this is relevant to the discussion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Meh, it's a publicity stunt that really just restates something that has been demanded from the pro-birth crowd for a long time: if you truly feel so strongly about being pro-life then put your money where your mouth is and be willing to provide for non-aborted children in the form of social support, state support, community resources, money for health and education, etc etc.

Don't we already do that indirectly with taxes?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...

The emotive argument is just that; emotive.

No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.

It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.

Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.

Anyway the argument is very well played out.

We do, but often the same crowd that says "more control about what to do with your unborn child" also says "less taxes, less spending, bootstrap yourself and your child away from my money".

 d-usa wrote:
We do, but often the same crowd that says "more control about what to do with your unborn child" also says "less taxes, less spending, bootstrap yourself and your child away from my money".

If you want to get into painting with a broad brush does that mean that the other side says "Stay out of my bedroom unless I want tax payer funded birth control"? and also says "more taxes, more spending, more government dependence and here's a ribbon for participating"

 Cheesecat wrote:

Knockagh wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Sigvatr, I cannot agree with your judgment or labeling because I do not consider this murder. The law agrees, which is enough for me.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
This sounds dangerously close to extortion.

Would 'give me one million or I won't get knocked up' be extortion?

Laws throughout history have made murder not murder. Just because a subjective legal definition says something don't make it true. As a farmer I'm well aware of the detail of pregnancy and conception. Sanitising murder doesn't make it right just because it doesn't feel like it.

Isn't murder the killing of another human, so at what point when the sperm hits the egg is it considered a human to you?

If you want to get techy here. It's murder when you kill someone that society doesn't want you to kill. It's legal to have an abortion, so not really murder.

I don't know what the message is meant to be here.

Oh yeah, I think you're right I think murder is the illegal killing of another human.

Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?

Spoiler:

There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.

Such as?

Edit: and of course it matters. It being illegal means women who have one will go to jail, and the practice will be driven underground with zero regulation.

And it matters when people claim it is murder to try and sway others to their way of looking at the world while trying to hide the fact that most of the time the only argument they have against it is because "god says so".

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...

The emotive argument is just that; emotive.

No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.

It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.

Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.

Anyway the argument is very well played out.

It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Does it really matter if abortion is murder or not though?

Spoiler:

There are some practical reasons as to oppose abortion though.

Such as?

Edit: and of course it matters. It being illegal means women who have one will go to jail, and the practice will be driven underground with zero regulation.

And it matters when people claim it is murder to try and sway others to their way of looking at the world while trying to hide the fact that most of the time the only argument they have against it is because "god says so".

Ya more and less. It matters because murder is a thing that means things. So it's kind of important if something is murder or not.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...

The emotive argument is just that; emotive.

No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.

It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.

Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.

Anyway the argument is very well played out.

It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.

Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.


Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.

See it's not mush. It's a person, it's just OK* to abort a person. Let m see if I can find a link to the chello argument. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Edit: Maybe OK is the wrong word. I don't think abortion is a good thing, but it's something we allow as a society.

Seems like a scam.

Would've been more interesting had it been a bidding war, pitting both sides of the abortion issue against each other.

 nels1031 wrote:
Seems like a scam.

Would've been more interesting had it been a bidding war, pitting both sides of the abortion issue against each other.

Who would pay someone to have an abortion? (You know outside of helping someone pay the cost of the operation.)

nomotog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...

The emotive argument is just that; emotive.

No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.

It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.

Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.

Anyway the argument is very well played out.

It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.

Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.


Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.

See it's not mush. It's a person, it's just OK to abort a person. Let m see if I can find a link to the chello argument. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Her arguments are flawed because they hinge on the fact that the women did not chose to make the baby. Or involve rape. (personally I wouldn't abort a baby from rape if I where a women, since the baby was not at fault, but ultimately this is also a messy area).

The ones that do (I.E aborting a baby to save a mother) are hard to answer no matter what. Who lives? That is something I cannot answer nor wish to have an answer for. I know I would be disappointed if my wife chose to kill our child to save herself and it would likely end the marriage. As sad as it sounds the mother will die of natural causes and the baby lives, or the alternative is my child gets killed while my wife gets to live on. Horrible situation but I think there is no right answer in that one, only the choices of those involved.

In one example she goes back to a lot, the violent man on a death bed, is flawed. The argument should be "if a person was going to die unless you gave a kidney would you do it?" Adding in the violent man is unnecessary and means nothing in the case of an abortion. Now being forced to save this mans life is where the water is muddied, I would like to think any normal person would give a kidney to save someone else. However I also think any normal person can almost always avoid pregnancy so maybe I just have a high opinion of people.

However when it comes to the human mush, I believe abortion to be wrong. We would all rather secure our house with alarms and keys to protect it, because prevention is the best method of safety. People who ignore prevention (in this case pregnancy) should not terminate children. There is nothing that can sway me on that.

Ultimately it depends on if you consider to, as you put it, abort a human, is ok or not. No matter how you put it, the baby had no choice to be there, so why should the baby be punished for the choices of others? We all get upset when people who have no choice are punished for what they have no control over. But we happily punish people who make choices that are wrong. So why is the coin flipped in this situation?

 Swastakowey wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...

The emotive argument is just that; emotive.

No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.

It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.

Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.

Anyway the argument is very well played out.

It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.

Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.


Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.

See it's not mush. It's a person, it's just OK to abort a person. Let m see if I can find a link to the chello argument. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Her arguments are flawed because they hinge on the fact that the women did not chose to make the baby. Or involve rape. (personally I wouldn't abort a baby from rape if I where a women, since the baby was not at fault, but ultimately this is also a messy area).

The ones that do (I.E aborting a baby to save a mother) are hard to answer no matter what. Who lives? That is something I cannot answer nor wish to have an answer for. I know I would be disappointed if my wife chose to kill our child to save herself and it would likely end the marriage. As sad as it sounds the mother will die of natural causes and the baby lives, or the alternative is my child gets killed while my wife gets to live on. Horrible situation but I think there is no right answer in that one, only the choices of those involved.

In one example she goes back to a lot, the violent man on a death bed, is flawed. The argument should be "if a person was going to die unless you gave a kidney would you do it?" Adding in the violent man is unnecessary and means nothing in the case of an abortion. Now being forced to save this mans life is where the water is muddied, I would like to think any normal person would give a kidney to save someone else. However I also think any normal person can almost always avoid pregnancy so maybe I just have a high opinion of people.

However when it comes to the human mush, I believe abortion to be wrong. We would all rather secure our house with alarms and keys to protect it, because prevention is the best method of safety. People who ignore prevention (in this case pregnancy) should not terminate children. There is nothing that can sway me on that.

Ultimately it depends on if you consider to, as you put it, abort a human, is ok or not. No matter how you put it, the baby had no choice to be there, so why should the baby be punished for the choices of others? We all get upset when people who have no choice are punished for what they have no control over. But we happily punish people who make choices that are wrong. So why is the coin flipped in this situation?

It doesn't really matter much if you consented or not. I mean even if you signed a contract, no court would force you to act as a human dialcis machine. (And you know odds are you didn't sign a contract before sex.)

 Swastakowey wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would do anything in my power to stop my child being murdered by abortion personally. As much as I hate abortion there is simply not much I can do to stop them.

Whilst emotive, the "child" is not generally viable at the term limit most nations have for abortions. It is no more murder than having a tumour removed.

Well is that mass of our genetic mush gonna be anything other than a human? I mean that's kinda like telling starving people that apple seeds are not food yet so I will burn them. But in reality those apple seeds WILL grow into trees (unless they die for whatever reason... like prematurely killing them off for example).

Outside of special circumstance that baby is going to be a human no matter what.

Unlike say a single sperm, that sperm is never going to be anything until it impregnates successfully. Do what you want with sperm and so on, but once they mixed their paths are sealed (well should be) as humans.

Just my opinion though, so yes if my partner decided to kill my child I would do anything to stop that, unless she can prove it will not be human in mere months.

And given the right conditions, any one of those sperm could become a human being too. At the point in time where a pregnancy can legally be terminated, the "genetic mush" is just that...

The emotive argument is just that; emotive.

No... a unlike a pregnant women a sperm only MAY become a human under the right circumstance and only some of those sperm will even have the chance in that circumstance. Human genetic mush is still human. It is human genetic mush that will grow into a fully human (because it is human genetic mush). A sperm will not grow into a human until it becomes mush.

It is not an emotiv argument, saying it is genetic mush is just there to make women who kill their babies feel better. It is merely a play on words.

Would you be upset that your child was killed while being genetic mush because someone took a sledgehammer against your wife? Ignoring the obvious downside of being attacked by a sledgehammer, would you not care at all that your child did not have the opportunity to fully grow? I know I would consider it the day my child died, not merely genetic mush.

Anyway the argument is very well played out.

It's down to the autonomy of the person. The sledgehammer attack violates the autonomy of the parents by denying them the chance to have a child that they want. However, an abortion exercises the woman autonomy to not be burdened with a child.

Yes I understand that. But what I am saying is if it is only genetic mush as the other person stated then he would ultimately it would not matter what happens to that mush until it became a baby. How wanted that mush is considered should not change the status of the child. The child has no choice but to exist, the mother had a choice to get pregnant (99.99% of situations, given you have to pretty dumb to get pregnant now days without wanting to). In my opinion almost always the mothers choice or right to govern was exercised when she helped make the child.


Also to the person who said those who disagree with it should pay for the children. Why should the dumb actions of some people become the financial burden of those who managed to go through life without getting pregnant? Something anybody can easily do. It is a bit of a cop out really, wouldn't the better question be "if you didn't want the baby, why did you make it?". It is shifting the burden away from those responsible. Here in NZ birth control is practically free. Especially when you are younger. It is really hard to get pregnant if you don't want to be pregnant.

See it's not mush. It's a person, it's just OK to abort a person. Let m see if I can find a link to the chello argument. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Her arguments are flawed because they hinge on the fact that the women did not chose to make the baby. Or involve rape. (personally I wouldn't abort a baby from rape if I where a women, since the baby was not at fault, but ultimately this is also a messy area).

The ones that do (I.E aborting a baby to save a mother) are hard to answer no matter what. Who lives? That is something I cannot answer nor wish to have an answer for. I know I would be disappointed if my wife chose to kill our child to save herself and it would likely end the marriage. As sad as it sounds the mother will die of natural causes and the baby lives, or the alternative is my child gets killed while my wife gets to live on. Horrible situation but I think there is no right answer in that one, only the choices of those involved.

Those of you considering starting a family should have these discussions with your significant other beforehand. My wife and I came down on the side of saving her over the baby- even during childbirth. Callous as it sounds, you can always make more babies. Making that call in the moment would likely destroy a relationship.