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 cannot. A virus doesn't live. It is called natural selection. Only the virus that accidentally mutated to become more infectious and that works survives.
A virus is not technically considered living, since the do not follow the basic criteria of a living thing. Viruses do not have a metabolism, they take over other cells and program them to make virus cells. Viruses also do not grow. Metabolism and growth are considered two essentials to life. This is why viruses are not considered to be 'living'.
Bacteria can move and react, but they are uni-cellular. This means killing one kills the whole organism. However, in a human that is not true. You have 110 trillion cells in your body. Only 10 trillion are yours. The rest are bacteria.
"Potential life is different than life. Look up the enzyme telomerase. Once the baby can react and respond to it's surroundings it is a human."
I agree that a virus is not alive, but it certainly can react and respond to its environment. But at this stage, I don't think a fetus is any more alive than a virus.
That isn't necessarily true. Take into account (may not be many) those that used abortion as a method of birth control. They may not have gotten pregnant if abortion didn't exist. Also, you could say the same thing about most anything that reduces the population, but it doesn't make it right.
"I agree that a virus is not alive, but it certainly can react and respond to its environment. But at this stage, I don't think a fetus is any more alive than a virus." Once again natural selection. A virus copies itself countless times. Random mutations happen. The viruses best suited to survive survive, the ones that arn't don't. It'ss not response, it is sheer number.
steevo, not all of the children that were aborted would have survived long enough to be born anyways. I think the survival rate up to 3 months is only about 33%. I might be a little off on that statistic, because I took the class I learned it in over a year ago, but I am pretty sure that is what it is. Either way, that chances of a child who is conceived, actually being born, is quite low.
@ Chiliad: The question here isn't the state of living vs. nonliving (and viruses as well as fetuses are alive), it's a question of sentience. Are we killing a person, or an animal? I am divided over this issue, but I still believe in free abortion for these reasons.
If a person gets pregnant when they are unable to support the child, not only does that ruin the parent's (or parents' life, it also has a good chance of ruining the child's life. I judge my "right" versus "wrong" in terms of pain caused, and since the child will most likely not feel the pain of the abortion, it most will certainly feel the pain of being homeless and starving, or even abandoned on the street. Abortion, seen in that light, is something of a mercy killing.
