this isn't a traditional abortion debate. I am focusing on one aspect of anti-abortion arguments. I could use a million other things but as the title of this thread says its about a flaw in one of the most used anti-abortion points. This isn't me doing anything other than that. That is why I focus on one aspect; because that aspect is the one that invalidates the argument of a fetus's worth as a future human life. I don't care about the other points pro-abortionists use such as women's rights or the typical argument: "the baby will not have a good life" which even I think is kind of a weak argument. I mean who are you to judge or know that. Sure its statistically true but there are always exceptions and how would you know if the fetus is or isn't going to be one? How would you know if being poor is so bad or not; Bhutan is the happiest country in the world but also one of the poorest.

There are huge problems with that kind of thinking which are disrespectful to a future life if you though a fetus=future life. What I did was i focused on what was it that made the fetus equal a future live in value and realised the same could be said of the abundant sperm+eggs which somewhat devaluated a fetus in my perspective. I am not doing the usual pro abortion balancing morality of future and present lives of the mother and fetus. I am looking at this from another perspective which focuses on other points so please stop bringing in the usual arguments for I know them all already.

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

@ljs

there is a difference between a barely started clump of cells and a finished one with mental capabilities. and no it isn't a slippery slope to use brain function as criteria because the only brain function fetus have is in the usually far off future in their development. many months after the allowed abortion period ended; when they are born and recognised as being alive mentally and physically. a person with impaired brain functions still does have some brain functions. a person in a long term comatose state might not have brain functions working presently or even the future, but (s)he already had brain functions work in the past which mean that since he was once recognised as a person, he is still a person. he just might be a kind of dead person. these points are pointless though because I am not arguing here that a fetus is alive; it isn't from any kind of criteria apart from the "future" criteria. I am arguing about its future value as a life which is the only way I consider a fetus to have value. however my argument is that a fetus value as a future human life is devalued as sperm and eggs are the exact same thing except a slight bit of time and circumstance away from that state than a fetus is yet a fetus is valued so highly whilst eggs and sperm are not. eggs and sperm are just as important, except that there are a lot more of them than fetuses, but the thing is that fetuses, sperm and eggs shouldn't be measured quantitatively but it is a habit which people aren't even aware of in this situation.

Nibroc420

here is my edit of that post which explains your question of why/to what extent I am using the masturbation egation

"my bit on masturbation is semi-serious. I do not consider masturbation wrong because I do not intend to use those sperm for reproduction just as women don't want to use the fetus they abort for reproduction purposes. I am not saying masturbation is wrong, I am saying that you could easily extend the logic of future human life value which people use against abortion to extend to masturbation it is natural for not every sperm to be a life in the future and it is also natural for not every fetus to be a human life in the future.

miscarriages/deaths at birth used to be far, far more common in the past when women in bad conditions simply couldn't feasibly have high chances of a healthy birth.Abortion is the answer to what happens when society takes out the "bad conditions for mothers causes hard births" part of the natural process. abortion is an artificial process created by humanity to depending on how you see it, either fix a natural imbalance problem made by humanity's artificial health affluence or to recreate the problem.some see abortion as a recreation of the original problem, but the thing is that it isnt that much of a problem anymore because its voluntary, nature isn't stepping in here and killing fetuses or unhealthy newborns in bad conditions, its people voluntarily stopping the future problems."

@ljs

there is a difference between a barely started clump of cells and a finished one with mental capabilities.

and no it isn't a slippery slope to use brain function as criteria because the only brain function fetus have is in the usually far off future in their development. many months after the allowed abortion period ended; when they are born and recognised as being alive mentally and physically.

a person with impaired brain functions still does have some brain functions. a person in a long term comatose state might not have brain functions working presently or even the future, but (s)he already had brain functions work in the past which mean that since he was once recognised as a person, (s)he is still a person. (s)he just might be a kind of dead person.

these points are pointless though because I am not arguing here that a fetus is alive; it isn't from any kind of criteria apart from the "future" criteria. I am arguing about its future value as a life which is the only way I consider a fetus to have value.

my argument is that a fetus's value as a future human life is devalued when looking at the whole reproduction process as sperm and eggs are the exact same thing except a slight bit of time and circumstance away from that state than a fetus is yet a fetus is valued so highly whilst eggs and sperm are not. eggs and sperm are just as important, except that there are a lot more of them than fetuses, but the thing is that fetuses, sperm and eggs shouldn't be measured quantitatively when talking about moral valuebut it is a habit which people aren't even aware of in this situation. you only need one healthy sperm and one healthy egg in modern times to make a baby (IVF) yet this is something people don't take into account in their perspective.

@ above post:my bit on masturbation is semi-serious. I do not consider masturbation wrong because I do not intend to use those sperm for reproduction just as women don't want to use the fetus they abort for reproduction purposes. I am not saying masturbation is wrong, I am saying that you could easily extend the logic of future human life value which people use against abortion to extend to masturbation it is natural for not every sperm to be a life in the future and it is also natural for not every fetus to be a human life in the future. miscarriages/deaths at birth used to be far, far more common in the past when women in bad conditions simply couldn't feasibly have high chances of a healthy birth. Abortion is the answer to what happens when society takes out the "bad conditions for mothers causes hard births" part of the natural process.abortion is an artificial process created by humanity to depending on how you see it, either fix a problem made by humanity's artificial health affluence or to recreate the problem.some see abortion as a recreation of the original problem, but the thing is that it isnt a problem anymore because its voluntary, nature isn't stepping in here and killing fetuses or unhealthy newborns in bad conditions, its people voluntarily stopping the future problems.

I understand some points, but wouldn't it not be murder if it didn't had a heart beat? Because it does take about 3 weeks for the fetus's heart to start pumping, so would that be considered murder or what?[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I always get amused at these arguments. I'm actually for abortion being legal. I strongly dislike it, and would never want my partner to have one, but I understand the issue of women's rights.

However, my justification is a woman's right to her body. Plain and simple, you can't force someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

But I dislike the tact that many others take - to devalue life and pretend as if a pregnancy is nothing more than a clump of cells. You guys act like having an abortion should be no more concerning than having a wart removed. I disagree. I've had plenty of women in my office who have been or are pregnant. They always want you to feel their belly to feel THEIR BABY kick. To feel their child move. They are excited. Many of them have picked out names and none of themsay, "I can't wait for my fetus to become a person becuase right now it is nothing".

Women who have had miscarriages are devastated to the point of depression. Why, if it was just a fetus and not a person? They can have more children, but they get depressed because they feel they lost their child. One of my coworkers is still devastated that she had a miscarriage, despite having 3 other kids later on. Should I comfort her by saying, "Hey, you just lost a fetus, nothing important."

I have a friend who had an abortion. It was incredibly difficult on her. She's a good person who was just in a bad situation. She made her choice and has lived with it. But it certainly wasn't an easy choice. I think she still has issues with guilt and regret over it, but it was the right decision for her. Point being, if it was just a worthless fetus, I doubt she would be as upset over it. It'smassive decision. Don't devalue it.

Dgalmun

even if the fetus has a heart beat it doesn't have a consciousness. In its state, a fetus is just a clump of cells. the closer it gets to birth, the more it becomes a person, both in reality and in the future mother's mind which is why miscarriage after spending so much time essentially creating a new life is so devastating. I just argue that just because a fetus is a closer form to humanity than a sperm and egg are, doesn't make it immediately worth an infinite times more. a week old fetus is barely out of its sperm+egg= zygote stage; why is it that people consider it worth so much more?

that is what is illogical in my perspective and that is what I argued for. But i constantly get people in here who believe this is some kind of emotional debate. This is purely a debate of logic, which is why i named it "big flaw with anti-abortion logic". Simply restating your beliefs and opinions doesn't work here, because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I am making simply a comment on the hypocrisy in people defining the line between life and death subjectively or according to their religious belief and then calling abortionists monsters and immoral because they did the exact same thing. It might be hard for one woman to have an abortion, such as the examples you gave. But some women do see the fetus as a clump of cells and I argue for their right to have a choice. Morality is inherent in this debate because morality is what often stops people from making this decision because others force about their own subjective views of the morality; such as the queensland couple in australia who were charged with unlawful abortion because they didn't follow the rules of a law from England that was made in 1861.

Your discrimination is obvious sonicare; why is it that a "good" woman would have problems with abortion. I know "good" women who don't have a problem with abortion. This is a typical case of judgement that the women who have abortions have to endure because people don't think logically but emotionally.

First off I'm catholic, but I have the right to say what i want here. sorry :)

What I don't get, and is, infact a flaw in your logic, is that textbooks on animals say life begans at conception. That is the moment the sperm reaches the egg.

How are humans any different??? The fetus is, infact, alive. It requires nutrients, it expels waste, gives off energy, and is growing.

Fundai

do you not see the fault of your own logic? we kill animals all the time, pregnant or not because they have only rudimentary thinking, self-awarenes and emotions. or not even rudimentary. What you are saying is that a fetus is at the same level as animals which we indiscriminately slaughter. I am saying it is even less than that due to its replaceability and due to the fact that it essentially is just a fluke of an egg and sperm meeting together most of the time.

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Fetus is most definitely the early stage of human development. Neither the sperm nor egg are.LJS9502_basic

well okay then, you make a fetus without using sperm or egg.

but what i am saying is that without that steel the plane is never built. without the sperm and egg the fetus is not made. without that fetus life is not developed later. all an abortion does is stop the process later than a vasectomy would. its the exact same moral standard is what I am saying. The difference between the situation is inconsequent because the end result is the same.

i used the manslaughter and murder analogy earlier on because it fits. if i kill a man by accident or intentionally, to him the result is the same. Of course the difference between that analogy and abortion is that there is a difference between the actual murderer's and manslaughterer's lives. there is no difference between to someone jacking off/ovulation and someone having an abortion in respects to their lives (well abortion costs more i guess but really the difference is trivial.)

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Donation is not natural and thus not bound by the morality.....in fact...such events didn't even exist. Nonetheless.....going by what is biologically possible...my answer stands. LJS9502_basic

sigh. but then, what is the difference between the logic that you use to compare a fetus and future life and a sperm and a fetus.

sperm+egg --> fetus --> life

if you get rid of an egg or a sperm you are also destroying a future life just as abortion does according to the "future life is the value of the fetus logic." You cant just selectively choose with no backing when this logic ceases to apply. you say that the difference between spem or egg and a fetus is organic; well isn't the difference between a fetus with no brain (which develops lat in womb) and a human with a working brain the exact same thing

well okay then, you make a fetus without using sperm or egg.

I can't believe i have to explain the logic behind this. If it is absolutely necessary for human development, it is part of human development. you can only make a fetus with a sperm and egg, both are unique. if either one of them is replace with another sperm or egg, then a different life is formed later.