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?
I put the thing about the blood in there because I was wanting to make a valid, non-religious point. That proves it is independent and suggests that it is indeed a life.
A fetus could, should technology advance enough, develop outside of the womb. I said that because it is true.
Unfortunately, the family doesn't play as much a role. If that could be changed, I believe our extreme drift towards liberalism could be slowed. I have nothing against liberals, just extreme liberalism... I think if there is something wrong, it should be changed, but don't change something for your personal benefit if society suffers...
I know it doesn't show many brainwaves, but the reason is because the brain works with knowledge packets. At first, it is difficult to describe something, but within a few months, enough information has been gathered to begin making connections between things that accelerates the learning process. This also is the reason that your IQ changes very little after you are 3-4... The point was, it is sentient before birth. It is not intelligent, but still sentient.
So, I would like to hear someone intelligent give me a reason why they are not alive and why it should not be considered murder.
A fetus could, should technology advance enough, develop outside of the womb. I said that because it is true.
Doesn't matter, because we don't have that tech currently.
Teh fetus is a part of the mother anyway- it doesn't matter if it could develop outside the womb. The fetus is part of the mother, and she has the right to do with her body what she chooses. Not allowing abortion takes away a woman's right- not to choose, but to do with her own body what she pleases. ------
The point was, it is sentient before birth. It is not intelligent, but still sentient.
Keep in mind that abortions are only legal before the first trimester. After the first trimester, it starts to become a little person and not a blob of cells that is part of the mother. And fetuses aren't sentient, at least to my knowledge. --------
So, I would like to hear someone intelligent give me a reason why they are not alive and why it should not be considered murder.
You obviously have very little understanding of actual abortion laws. Abortions after the first trimester are illegal (unless a clinic is otherwise allowed. There are now only two clinics in the USA that operate late-term abortions). And of course they're alive- anything made of cells is alive. And it i not murder because a fetus is not a person, it s a blob of cells that is part of the mother, and should be in control of solely the mother. It is not a person until it can survive without the mother, and is therefore not a part of the mother.
So, abortion is a good thing if you really need it.
Not all abortions are needed, though, which is why the Pope speaks out against them. Besides, you are just as free to speak out in support of abortion. You condemned the Pope for saying "Abortion is bad" but then yourself said "Abortion is good."
no unless the birth endangers the life ob the mother AND the fetus/baby
Why? And the fetus is very far from a baby. . . . Abortions SHOULD be illegal when it gets to a point where the baby could survive outside of the womb- unless the mother's life or the baby's life would be in danger from birth. I think a fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside of the mother-s womb- because that constitutes it as being a separate entity from the mother, meaning that the mother can't have the baby aborted because then the banby would have full rights on it's own.
just like viruses are not considered living, a fetus should not be considered living until it can sustain itself. Currently when it is still relying on the mother for sustainence it should not be considered living. (this statement is meant to provide an exemplary reference that currently exists in the world of biology today).
Anything that has cells is alive- so the fetus would be. But that means it's just another part of the mother. and the mother should have total jurisdiction over the fetud until it can sustain itself.
I think of the fetus as a virus, not alive, because if we were to take it out of the womb, it would die. Therefor relying on someone to survive technically means that it is Not Alive.
But that means it's just another part of the mother. and the mother should have total jurisdiction over the fetud until it can sustain itself.
I'd agree with you, but I feel that the mother shouldn't be allowed to, shall we say, abuse the use of abortion. ie, if it's not necessary, or doesn't have a good chance of being necessary. Of course, I can completely understand abortions for rape, incest, child problems, etc, but I respectfully disagree.
I think of the fetus as a virus, not alive, because if we were to take it out of the womb, it would die. Therefor relying on someone to survive technically means that it is Not Alive.
I think of it more as a parasite than a virus. It doesn't necessarily have negative effects on the woman's health depending on the way you look at it, but it does need to feed off the mother to survive.
Umm, don't allow abortion really, if in any case something happens, you was drunk, no money for the contraceptions etc then it's tough, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.... You should know what I mean - I am not joking, if you are abused sexually I would if I were a female take the baby without killing it - Once it's began to grow, it's alive in any case..... It's a legal version of murder...
The bottom line is plainly the fact that it's murder, you are literally murdering an innocent PERSON, you was one before, everyone - It's not fair to judge these people due to their stage, if they're an egg, they're dead.... In a way - If not then they're alive, of course unless they've been killed in some way
Silver Line is clearly that anyone who stands against murder and does this is a hypcrite
It's clearly obvious, I find it dull anyone would bring this topic up in the first place...
I'd agree with you, but I feel that the mother shouldn't be allowed to, shall we say, abuse the use of abortion. ie, if it's not necessary, or doesn't have a good chance of being necessary. Of course, I can completely understand abortions for ****, incest, child problems, etc, but I respectfully disagree.
But what you don't get is that the fetus is pat of the mother's body- and not allowing her to do with her body what she wishes is discriminatory.
Silver Line is clearly that anyone who stands against murder and does this is a hypcrite
No, not really, because in the legal sense of the word, fetuses are not people, therefore it is not murder.
The bottom line is plainly the fact that it's murder, you are literally murdering an innocent PERSON,
The bottom line is, the state does not have the right to prohibit women from choosing whether they want to suffer economic and social hardship.
Calling a fetus a person is nothing more than emotional blackmail to garner sympathy for the pro-life cause. If your argument requires sympathy, then it is a weak argument.
Once it's began to grow, it's alive in any case..... It's a legal version of murder...
If the prevention of life is considered murder, then by that same logic, condoms should be outlawed.
