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?
His point was, at least I think, that adoption cenetrs are already crowded, and that the child can't be happy in there; no child should be killed. But it's wrong to give birth to a child just for the sake of your own conscience, even when you know it won't be happy (remember, children are one of the most frequent reason for poverty, and if a mother can't offer a good life to a child while ruining her own life too by giving birth, why should she be forced to?)
Yes, thank you. If abortion was made illegal we would have over a million more kids. And there will be kids who suffer, and mothers who suffer. Much more then if its illegal. Mothers should have a say in whether or not they produce life. And with abortion illegal, there will be mothers with no say.
And taking into account that a human is distinguished from animals because of our advanced brains, it's not really a human unless it's brain is distinguishably more complex then an animals
no, we're pretty right, most humans have brains. even then though it's technically just a parasite.
Most humans also have skin, teeth, and genetic information. Most humans in my area have some kind of housing. Everyone I know has hair somewhere on his or her body.
Um, it is.
0 brain activity = dead
How do you know that brain activity is the measure for whether something is living? What about heartbeat? Local nervous responses? Individual cellular function? You've arbitrarily decided what the measure for life is. What if arbitrarily decide it's the presence of complete genetic information? Or, maybe, employment?
Measure can mean criteria, and that's the definition I was using. Can you really decide that consciousness is based 100% on brain activity, and that consciousness is the proper criterion for determining if something is alive? How do you know?
Can you really decide that consciousness is based 100% on brain activity, and that consciousness is the proper criterion for determining if something is alive? How do you know?
Well first, its how we determine humans are alive and human. I suppose you could live for a while whithout brain activity. But it would be hard to eat, feel, smell, see, touch, hear, ect...
There is always that possibility that humans have souls. Most atheists would not venture to say that they know with certainty that no God exists and that humans are definitely only material.
We usually use the heart for that part, it's much easier to check.
I suppose you could live for a while whithout brain activity. But it would be hard to eat, feel, smell, see, touch, hear, ect
Not without being hooked up to machines that force your body to preform every function that your brain usually does (that's a lot of functions), and even then you probably won't survive for ever in that state.
