46 thoughts on “The Case Against Abortion: Prenatal Development

  1. Consciousness isn't something that suddenly appears. It's developed over time, bit by bit. The big question should then be at what level of consciousness should it make a difference. In other words, when the fetus has a level of consciousness equivalent to a bug, I would imagine abortion shouldn't be a problem. When its consciousness becomes more evolved and its equivalent to something a little more advanced, then maybe, or maybe not. When it's equivalent to a dog (or something…), I would imagine not. But I really don't know where to draw the line.

  2. I find it disgusting that the reporter compares the holocaust with abortion. The holocaust has nothing to do with abortion!!!! Again I see people who don’t well- consider different situations. What if the child will be extremely disabled, so disabled that it would live like a plant and would never recognize his parents?( I’ve met disabled people like this and it was so sad to see) What if the unborn baby is endangering the mother’s life or threatening her health? I know this sounds strange, I’m no doctor but I’ve had to learn this when I was in university and there are mothers who died because their unborn child was poisoning them. An abortion is the only option to save the mother. This is the reason why some countries legalized abortion.

    These are difficult and sad situations and in this case abortion is unfortunately the best decision. You can’t give it up for adoption because the child doesn’t have a life quality!!! The reporter in the vid is completely full of rubbish! He said how can you decide that the child will not have a life quality? Well let me tell you the doctor will investigate that!!! I have nothing against disabled people but I would be devastated if my child would be extreme disabled and I would rather remove it. Only looking at it every day would break my heart. No one will experience damage in his life because I made this decision in my life! I’m happy I never had an abortion but if you don’t like people to take your rights away then don’t take others rights away! Even in nature abortion exists. What do dogs and cats do if one of their young is weak? They let it die or they kill it.  I don't see this as murder I see this as giving someone a chance for a better life.

  3. As a great philosopher once said, "why is it when it's a human it's an abortion, but when it's a chicken it's an omelette?"– George Carlin

    Most of the time these same pro lifers that are so against abortion are adamant supporters of wars, the military, and the death sentence. Something is wrong here…

  4. If you make laws forbidding her from terminating the pregnancy – then, yes, that would be the equivalent of forcing her. It doesn't matter that the fetus does not "intentionally" violate her rights, her rights are being violated nonetheless.
    "You don't just get to kill people for being an inconvenience to you" – Actually people have been doing that for a long time and continue to do so – but that's another issue.

  5. Here is the problem… She isn't being forced… Again you imply that someone is actively violating her rights on purpose. It is no one's fault that to terminate the pregnancy requires killing the fetus. This isn't someone strapping her down and jury rigging her insides into some kind if life support system for themselves. This ispregnancy. She has another separate human being inside of her. You don't just get to kill people for being an inconvenience to you.

  6. I am not talking about affording to care for it. I am talking about her having to endure ongoing consequences of an criminal act and violation. Yes, you can argue that the fetus is an innocent casualty of that crime, but a casualty nonetheless. That blame should be on the head of the rapist, not the victim.

  7. No. talking about rights does not necessarily imply criminal actions. I believe the rape victim has every right to not participate in the pregnancy if she so chooses. As medical technology stands now, that typically means the fetus won't survive but she should not be forced to support it with her body if she doesn't want to.

  8. You dumb ass… By "left alone" I meant left as is, not acted upon, unaltered, ect… I should have thought you intelligent enough to make that distinction. Was I wrong or were you just being a smart ass?

  9. As such I don't think it right to take sides between the mother or the child, but to rather let nature take it's course up until birth unless there is some circumstance to justify action before that. For example if the mother's life is at risk due to complications then intervention is certainly justified, but if the mother's primary concern is she cannot afforded to care for the child then I see this as a non issue as she is not required to do so. She can put the child up for adoption instead.

  10. The problem I see here is that by making this a "rights issue" you are effectively stating the child is a criminal. In order for the mother's rights to be violated someone must therefore be violating them. Both the child and the mother are innocent of any wrong doing so the rights of both are of equal importance. The only one who would be violating either individual's rights would be you as no action you can take can resolve anything without violating the rights of one or the other.

  11. "Why should the child be punished?" – Why should the rape victim be punished? It's a no-win situation, I would choose not to inflict any more suffering on the woman who has already been victimized. The fetus would never know what happened if the procedure is done properly.

  12. It doesn't matter that the fetus isn't a willing player. Yes, you can look at it as also a victim in the case of rape. The fact remains that in such a case protecting the rights of one means necessarily sacrificing those of the other. I would choose to put the rights of the woman before those of the one who is not yet a self-sustaining entity.

  13. As I understand it, partial liver transplants can be done and the donor can pretty much fully recover.
    Logistics aside, everyone still has the right to not donate if they so choose.

  14. I disagree. If left alone – outside the womb – an early stage fetus will definitely die. Actually, "left alone" could also mean abandonment, which would kill a baby even if it has been carried to birth. That's one way that wild animals do an abortion – albeit a postnatal one.
    And I think the donation analogy holds. I think a rape victim has every right to refuse to donate the use of her uterus to a fetus that was forced upon her.

  15. Regardless… my point is not donating does not equate to killing. Their disease is what is killing them… you just aren't saving them from it if you don't donate. A fetus, if left alone, has a pretty solid chance for survival to maturity. The only way to end the pregnancy is to willfully and deliberately kill the fetus. These two things are not comparable. It is like comparing a doctor failing to save his patient to a gang member killing a witness to avoid getting caught.

  16. You sure you don't mean kidney and bone marrow? Last I checked the liver is actually pretty important. It is not just the number of donors available at work here. Geographical location influences it too. Sometimes a willing donor is just too far away. You have a very short time to transplant an organ once it has been taken. There is a limited distance it can be transported within that time. To go further would require transporting the donor which is often not an option for them.

  17. The fetus does not willfully interfere with it's mother's rights. It has no control over it's own conception. Abortion on the other hand is a willful violation of the rights of the fetus.

    My main point with the donor bit was that you don't have to kill someone to opt out of it. By the way the organ donor bit… not one of the examples you used before. Even if you do choose to be an organ donor very few of your organs can be transplanted into someone else untill after your death.

  18. Many thousands of people die every year waiting for transplants and transfusions of one kind or another. So, no, another donor doesn't always take your place.
    "Your rights end where they interfere with the rights of others" – So why does the fetus get to interfere with the rights of the woman who was raped?

  19. Your rights end where they interefere with the rights of others. You have the freedom to choose whether to give blood or bone marrow because you don't have to kill someone to decline. Another Donor will simply take your place. Pregnancy is a very unique situation. You don't get to just get out of it. You must kill to do so.

  20. It isn't about seeking revenge on the fetus. It's about any person's right to refuse to have their body robbed in order to support another person. Would it be right to force people to donate blood, or bone marrow, or liver tissue against their will to save others? I would say no, it isn't right and I apply those same standards in the case of a rape pregnancy.

  21. When the technology exists to keep a fetus alive and healthy outside of a womb, then perhaps a compromise can be reached. But, until then, it's one or the other, and I side with the rights of the rape victim.

  22. Of course I am not saying I have any delusions about such a pregnancy being an easy thing to go through. However, I certainly think there are better ways to handle it than killing the fetus.

  23. It might do you well to remember that the fetus is not the rapist. It's conception may be the product of that rape, but the child did not choose to begin it's existence this way. Why should it be punished for it's father's crimes? Even more harshly in fact… we don't execute rapists after all. I should hope any daughter of mine would be raised well enough to assign blame to those whom deserve it and not to seek retribution from the innocent parties involved.

  24. Let me get this straight, are you saying that the fetus must be protected at all costs, but when it comes to the woman – the person who was fucking RAPED – then we should just say "Oh, well. Shit happens."

    Forcing the person who has already been victimized to continue to be violated for another 9 months IS doing more horrible shit. If you had a daughter that was in that situation, would you really put her through that? If the answer is "yes", then I sincerely hope you never have a daughter.

  25. Should the child be penalized for what happened to the woman? Certainly the woman has been horribly wronged, but where would the justice be for the child? Horrible, painful things happen to people all the time. It's a part of life. If that happens to the woman, it doesn't give the woman (or me, or anyone else) an excuse to do it to others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *