I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
It is hard to really accept that term, I know. But individuals own their hearts, lungs and kidneys, as well as any tumors growing within their bodies. A tumor can be defined as "human" just like a fetus can. They are both growing masses of cells.
Even though I can argue for pro-choice, I still find something inherently wrong with it because of unnecessary abortions, partial birth abortions, and using it as a method of birth control. Those things represent irresponsibility in the mother.
A group of cells can be killed, but once again, once it has a brain it has a conciousness, (or at least a subconciousness). I would rather have the child born and put up for adoption than never given a chance. You don't ever hear what a fetus has to say about abortion. The only one time a late stage abortion is acceptable is when both the mother and fetus will die in childbirth. An abortion will at least save the mother.
I like your argument Asherlee, sort of Ayn Rand-ish. It's a valid argument, although the word "may" has some odd implications to it. Anyway, as far as irresponsible use of abortions a pretty dominant theory right now is that a fetus can be aborted up until the point where, if it were born, it would have a good (at least 50%) chance of surviving under hospital care. Of course, as medical technology advances, this maxim may no longer work. Something else I was thinking about was the use of abortion as a birth control. While I completely agree that it's incredibly stupid, if one abortion is moral, then shouldn't 20 abortions be moral? You have an abortion because you don't want a baby. You take birth control pills for the same reason (I don't mean you personally). So abortion even once is already a means of birth control. Where do we draw the line?
I stated this before, but the best place to draw the line is when a woman gets an abortion after the fetus develops conciousness and an individual mind. The individual mind part is new and I think that anything that is a person when they get the ability to think. If you are just rmoving a group of brainless cells, then it is moral. It is also moral to remove cancer, as Asherlee stated. The absolute worst type is partial-birth abortion. This is because the baby is independant fully and no longer even needs nourishment through the umbilical chord.
Moegreche, as far as where we draw the line, I do not think that it is always moral. I think there are certain situations, like if a woman is raped, way too young, abused, etc. where the option should be available. Chances are, these things would not happen multiple times to one person, and so the need for a large amount of abortions would not be necessary.
Oh okay, that makes sense. I totally agree that the situations you listed wouldn't happen multiple times. So do you think that abortion outside of these circumstances is immoral? And if so, do you think it should be illegal?
Well I think that if people just try using it as a normal method of birth control, then they should not be able to use the method. If they cannot use it responsibly, they should not be able to do it at all. If people are repeatedly getting themselves into situations where they need an abortion, maybe they should have to stay with the pregnancy to mature them up.
I would say that outside of those uncontrollable circumstances I listed in my last post, it would depend on how far along the pregnancy was. If it is at the very beginning, to me it is more reasonable because that child already has a pretty low chance of survival. If it is when the child is already developing features, is aware, etc. I do not think that it is morally acceptable. Unless of course the mothers life in in danger because of the pregnancy.
Well put. I think past a few months, the abortion should have already happened if it's going to. I suppose there are cases with women who don't get regular periods who might not know until much later that they're pregnant, but you seem to have very reasonable standards.
True. With most people that is the case. But for example, to bring up my cousin again, she didn't know she was pregnant until a few months before the baby was due. She was still getting light periods. So it really varies depending on the person and how your body reacts to different things. But for most people, that would be an indicator and they would know soon enough.
This is a bit late, but I will still answer your question: When the fetus develops a brain, then it has a conciousnous. In reality, the only thing we need to survive is a brain. The other organs keep the brain alive (heart) and give it mobility and purpouse (extremeties and senses). When the baby starts moving it is a sign that it probably can think. It is really your brain that moves your muscles.
