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?
Yes, thank you Asherlee. That is also my point. But if someone wants to get down to the nitty-gritty about I am always willing to go blow for blow.
Malfunction, I am going to assume that you believe that as soon as an egg is fertilzied it is a person. Same as many people do. So think about this: For a good while, the zygote it nothing more than a several celled organism. Organism, are in a way, alive. But that does not mean they are truly aware of what is going on at all. At that point, all it cares about is getting nourishment and reproducing. To kill this organism takes nothing more than a pill or two.
If someone really wants and abortion, they are not going to wait until it is partially developed.
Those of you who consider abortion to be wrong, what makes "killing" a fetus worse than, say, killing a fully grown cow? If you stipulate that both are alive and you further assert that the fetus has a right to life, then why doesn't the fully grown cow? Or should we just outlaw eating meat, too?
Oh, one more thing, this is kind of weird. Asherlee, you suggested that since we have shown that no one really matter-of-factly agrees with the potential for life argument, there is no basis upon which an argument can be mounted. Does "erson-ness" imply life? Or in other words, is being alive a necessary condition for being a person. I know that sounds weird, but what makes something a person? Is it consciousness or sentience? If that's the case then if we emulated sentience in a computer it would be called a person. Is it synonymous with human? What I'm getting at is maybe you can reject that the fetus is alive but still say it's a person which has a right to life. I dunno...
I, personally, believe it has to be consciousness, but that too leaves some very nasty decisions.
I don't think there is any black-and-white time that we can say that people automatically assume life. For instance, a 2 month old baby is not conscious, but I think we would all still consider it "alive".
On the other side, I don't see a person in a persistent vegetative state as alive.
It's a very tough situation, but one that certainly deserves to be discussed in a logical and ethical way, not summarily decided on a religious basis.
I definitely agree Razaki, that this definitely is not a black-and-white issue. There are many different shades of gray in there that many people will argue over.
some people don't even eat eggs because it is killing unborn chicken. Enough said.
Apart from that, it would be emotionally stressul for both parents, but especially the mother: What if s/he lived? Was it worth it? Did I commit murder? etc.
An embryo is alive once it has a brain. Before that, it is only stopping potential life from develpment. I think early-stage abortion is bad, but acceptable. Once it gains conciousness, it is equivalent to killing babies.
Then again (even thoughit is wrong) people use to accept infanticide.
I would agree jwalshjr. I do not think that someone should get an abortion unless that have an extremely good reason for it. But if they do, I think that option should be open.
Devoidless, not all women know right away that they are pregnant so that point of taking a pill is not soon enough. For example, I have a cousin who had a baby boy a couple of months ago. She didn't know she was pregnant until she was 6-7 months in. Imagine going to the doctor and finding out your are having a baby in 2 months! But not everyone has the option of doing it so soon.
But anyways back to the discussion at hand. So some here are saying that when the egg is first fertilized, it is life because it has the 'otential for life'. But doesn't every single egg and sperm have the potential for life? So every time a woman has her period, or a man does what guys do, isn't that destroying the potential for life as well? Every one of those sperm and eggs has the possibility of becoming a child.
And as far as the argument went for the day after pill, I don't understand why some are against the morning after pill but not against birth control.
As far as the morning after pill goes: The egg does not even start dividing for up to 24 hours after fertilization. So if the pill is taken before cell division, would that also be considered abortion and therefore wrong?
And birth control: Since this causes what would naturally occur as the production of life, why is this not considered wrong when the day after pill is? It is still the potential for life. If the pill was not there, life would have formed.
I would just like to hear some more of the opinions on the day after and birth control pills. Sorry if this is too long or slightly confusing, it is quite late and I can clarify later if there are any questions.
I think preventing birth is fine, but once again late stage abortion is not killing a living, thinking, organism. cells die every day, and one cell is technically life. One cell, though, is ok to kill. even a cluster of cells. Once it can be called human though, it should not be killed. Killing a human is homocide, no matter how yo look at it.
If you work at a gold plant, and you inhale gold dust, enough that makes you go to the hospital. They remove the dust from your lungs, but you don't get to keep the gold in your lungs. That is returned to the factory.
Also, the idea that you own your kids and you can do whatever you want with them is ancient idea and makes no sense. (you were allowed to kill your child for no reason, until they became of age).
