StarGateWars Forums

this applies to legal abortion:

how can you 'murder' something that is not able to live. thats like throwing a pie of a bridge and calling it murder.

LiQuiD wrote:this applies to legal abortion:

how can you 'murder' something that is not able to live. thats like throwing a pie of a bridge and calling it murder.

Because you are probably like me and don't read every post since your last one I'll go ahead and quote myself in answer to this question.

Thade wrote:Now to argue against abortion. Stating that it is okay to abort a fetus because it is yet viable does not make it something other than murder. If you went into a hospital and removed the intubator from a coma patient who was unable to breath on their own that would result in a murder charge (or attempted murder if the staff was able to re-intubate). Because science has yet reached the level of ability to sustain the life directly after conception does not cause it to be an less alive.

i may not have said this but i think you might have missed it 1st time around. who knows

recent advancements in medical technology/knowledge are not in proportion to the age of a baby that will survive. despite leaps forward in our medical ability there seems to be a point at which a baby cannot live, or be viable as you said. so a foetus cannot be 'murdered' before it is itself capable of life.


the coma patient scenario is not applicable here imo.


a question for ya:
hope this never happens but if a female relative of yours was raped by a disgusting serial rapist/killer would you agree she could abort the foetus?

LiQuiD wrote:i may not have said this but i think you might have missed it 1st time around. who knows

recent advancements in medical technology/knowledge are not in proportion to the age of a baby that will survive. despite leaps forward in our medical ability there seems to be a point at which a baby cannot live, or be viable as you said. so a foetus cannot be 'murdered' before it is itself capable of life.

Hmm...even though that initial fertilized egg could one day be surgically removed and implanted in another foetus thus making it viable? or even test tube grown at a certain point in scientific advancement? To state that just because something is not currently possible doesn't mean it never will be.

the coma patient scenario is not applicable here imo.

Why...never could survive without assistance...yet one is murder and one is not?

a question for ya:
hope this never happens but if a female relative of yours was raped by a disgusting serial rapist/killer would you agree she could abort the foetus?

Though I hope this never happens (statistics say it will as 1 in 3 American woman are sexually assaulted in some form by the age of 18). I would not stop her from having an abortion, nor would I stop talking to her or loving her as she's family, however it would be her choice to make as it is her body. I may not agree with the choice but it's not mine to make.


(with that I'm out for the day back tomorrow)

a coma patient was alive and that is maintained by the medical tech. the foetus was never truly alive.

yeh you're right that medical tech is getting better but i think it will be a long time before a baby could reach maturity outside of its mother. when that does happen the world will probably be so different the debate on the matter would be hugely different too.

Thade wrote:Though I hope this never happens (statistics say it will as 1 in 3 American woman are sexually assaulted in some form by the age of 18). I would not stop her from having an abortion, nor would I stop talking to her or loving her as she's family, however it would be her choice to make as it is her body. I may not agree with the choice but it's not mine to make.

fair point. its good that you recognise the most important factor in all this; the womans choice. right or wrong doesnt matter so much as whats best for her, in her view.

man thats quite a shocking statistic. id guess/hope most of the sexual assaults are minor things like gooseing etc rather than serious shizzit

LiQuiD wrote:this applies to legal abortion:

how can you 'murder' something that is not able to live. thats like throwing a pie of a bridge and calling it murder.

A baby is a living entity, it is alive before it is born is it not?

Lets have a look at a developing fetus.

______6 Weeks________10 Weeks________20 Weeks________40 Weeks_____


Having an abortion at any stage of development is killing the unborn baby. Even if the abortion takes place in the embryonic stages that is denying the life future baby. What right in this world does anyone have to take the life of an innocent unborn baby?

im no fan of abortion just to be clear. but i dont see it as murder if it is done before the foetus can survive. thats an important line that if crossed would affect my view.

n3M351s wrote:What right in this world does anyone have to take the life of an innocent unborn baby?

every right. its the mothers choice (and i suppose it should be the fathers to a certain extent )

i dont agree with abortion as a form of contraception. if the mother is ill while pregnant and is likely to die then abortion is the correct thing to do, assuming the baby would not survive either. also in the case of rape. the mother did not choose to have a child if she was forced. what it boils down to is that its the mothers choice and whatever she opts for is right for her.

LiQuiD wrote:a coma patient was alive and that is maintained by the medical tech. the foetus was never truly alive.

yeh you're right that medical tech is getting better but i think it will be a long time before a baby could reach maturity outside of its mother. when that does happen the world will probably be so different the debate on the matter would be hugely different too.

man thats quite a shocking statistic. id guess/hope most of the sexual assaults are minor things like gooseing etc rather than serious shizzit

I think medical tech is advancing much faster than you anticipate, at least one can dream and hope that it is as I can't wait to get a neural jack so I don't have to type anymore and then I'd actually be decent at making computer art too...

As for the statistic I've never been contradicted on it but that was a number given to me a few years back during a sex ed class in college (the girls in there were hot). Anyways, as the other statistics goes 73% of statistics can be reversed 63% of the time for 40% of the situations...so really statistics can say anything you want as long as you use loosely defined terms, such as sexual assault (which doesn't have a current legal definition to my knowledge).

LiQuiD wrote:i dont agree with abortion as a form of contraception. if the mother is ill while pregnant and is likely to die then abortion is the correct thing to do, assuming the baby would not survive either. also in the case of rape. the mother did not choose to have a child if she was forced. what it boils down to is that its the mothers choice and whatever she opts for is right for her.

It seems that the only point we really disagree on is the rape issue (though I would never tell a woman she had no right to abort; I'd just disagree with the choice). And of course when life actually begins but that's a medical tech differentiation.

Mister Sandman wrote: 3. Men are dogs.

Not fraking true at all.

Rudy Pena wrote:

Mister Sandman wrote: 3. Men are dogs.

Not fraking true at all.

Thats an over generalisation.

I was implying the type of guy who just wants to bang a chick for fun without worrying about any consequences.
This includes rapists as well.

In context, it is some men have no self-control and thus being feral and giving into instincts... aka. Dogs

Mister Sandman wrote:

Rudy Pena wrote:

Mister Sandman wrote: 3. Men are dogs.

Not fraking true at all.

Thats an over generalisation.

I was implying the type of guy who just wants to bang a chick for fun without worrying about any consequences.
This includes rapists as well.

In context, it is some men have no self-control and thus being feral and giving into instincts... aka. Dogs

Well its better to say some men are dogs instead of men, as men mean all of us.

aborting is not murder for the simple reason that it's being done on a foetus and not a baby.
that's the distinction of being born (getting out) and unborn (staying inside), otherwise you'd be calling it a baby from the moment the sperm and the egg merge.

that's like arguing that i can't cut my hair or cut off my finger. As long as it's attached to me i can do with it what i want, because without me it's incapable of living ergo not human.

once it's out (whatever way) and is able to survive given the proper conditions (food, warmth, etc.) then it becomes a human.

trying to pull out a foetus in the 4th month when it still has underdeveloped organs and will most certainly die and then try selling it as murder is ridiculous

Theoretically, and only staying within the scope of your argument, there is a point where the foetus can be extracted and be kept alive by machines, meaning that it does not need you to live, making it human.

I mean, there are older people, sick people and injured people who need machines and they're human.

Also, without your heart, you are uncapable of living, therefore you are not human and your heart has the right to kill you whenever it damn feels like it. The heart has recently realised it and this might explain the recent rise in heart disease, actually...

However, there are other situations where biological entities that most of us call humans would depend solely on one person to survive. These may include rescue scenarios, for example. In many countries, laws make it that person's responsibility to do what they can to help the one in danger, unless it can be shown that doing so would have necessarily put him or her in significant physical danger.

The "inside me" argument finds structurally similar, yet laughingly silly scenarios that would counter it. One of these would be the woman's right to amputate a specifically male apendage during consensual intercourse, because it is "inside her".

urogard wrote:aborting is not murder for the simple reason that it's being done on a foetus and not a baby.
that's the distinction of being born (getting out) and unborn (staying inside), otherwise you'd be calling it a baby from the moment the sperm and the egg merge.

that's like arguing that i can't cut my hair or cut off my finger. As long as it's attached to me i can do with it what i want, because without me it's incapable of living ergo not human.

once it's out (whatever way) and is able to survive given the proper conditions (food, warmth, etc.) then it becomes a human.

trying to pull out a foetus in the 4th month when it still has underdeveloped organs and will most certainly die and then try selling it as murder is ridiculous

It is always human, the day it was conceived, human.

Its ridiculous to define human any other way.

Technically the foetus is human.


Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, therefore abortion should not be allowed.

Abortion on a 5 monthes old "inside" child is murder (unless there are medical reasons of course).
Abortion on a 3 weeks foetus-whatever...ohh please! Let's not consider it a murder lol.