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?
What facts? The .5 million argument? The suicidal girl? These don't really support the argument to ban abortion. So some girl felt bad because she had an abortion - then she should have gone to therapy or whatever, but to say that no one should have an abortion because some girl was depressed and killed herself just doesn't really apply normatively.
This is a unique case - one girl killed herself. While I'm sure that many people feel bad after having an abortion, I really think it's only because of societal influences. They feel like they should feel bad because that message is being crammed down their throats by conservatives and christians.
When Conservative Christians (I happen to be one) experss their views, it is "cramming it down your throat", but when Atheist Liberals do the same, it's treated like divine revelation.
I don't go around telling people to have abortions. I don't make people feel bad for raising children. After this long of being an atheist, my views have certainly never been held as "divine revelation." Also, I'm not accusing you of cramming things down people's throats, but you've got to wonder why certain people have such an influence on society.
I could say the same about you. All I need to do is see how the media treats Christian beliefs and views. You have to listen to the exact words they use and it shows their bias.
Well, say you were a girl and got raped. Chances are if you keep the child, you won't treat that child as if it was made with someone that you loved and wanted to have a child with.
People have killed their children because they didn't want them for a very very long time. The only reason it's an issue now has to do with legal matters, which weren't really an issue even 100 years ago. I will say this, Abortion is NOT murder. If it were murder, it would be illegal. Murder is just a term used to describe illegal killing of a person. To call abortion murder is one of the most basic fallacies - begging the question. If one of those babies could have created the cure for AIDS or cancer, then another one could have just as easily become a supremely evil dictator, mass murderer, serial r.apist, etc. In fact, it's far more likely. Besides, if one person in .5 million people could find the cure for some disease, then the likelihood that it could be found again is quite high (there are what, like 7 billion people on earth right now?)
DaMasta, let's start with the beginning of the conception of the child. It is a cluster of cells that is no different than a tumor in a human body. So, I COULD say that removing a tumor from a body is the same as removing that same cluster of cells from a woman's uterus.
No, but that tumor does not grow to form a human. Some say that the thing that makes us unique is our DNA, and the moment that the DNA of a new human comes together at conception.
So for you, person-ness must be retrospective. Something is a person only if it grows into being a person, right? Therefore only a person is a person, a fetus could be a person once it grows into a person, and an aborted fetus will never be a person.
Then is comes down to a classic problem of potential. There are lots of things in the body that can become a person. Should a woman not have her period because she is getting rid of eggs that could be potential life? When does potential for life start? If it's at conception, then should it be immoral for a woman to miscarry?
