Yes, I realize that this thread already exists - 13 pages and over a month back.
I'd like to remake it, I don't see why an issue such as this should fall from our eye.
This time around I'd like to focus more around the legality and the taboo side of abortion. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still include the aspects of the original thread though.
Should abortion be kept away from the public eye? Or should it be something that we openly discuss?
Should abortion be legal everywhere? Under what circumstances? How could those circumstances be judged to be the right ones? Do we follow the 'lesser of two evils' idea or do we take a separate path?
I personally feel that abortion is a women's choice, if abortion is the best option in a situation then it should be the one that is taken. As a man I really have no say in what a woman does with her body. But what if I was going to be the father of a child she didn't want to give birth to? I'm not sure about those situations - should the father have equal say to the mother?
But is it really natural to stick a tube into a uterus and suck a baby out?
No it is not natural. It is a medical practice. If you want to continue on this fallacious logic we can apply that to ANYTHING that isn't natural, and argue for or against it based on each individual's personal morals or ideals.
The true matter at hand is that government is in the business of imposing moral values on it's citizens, and this is flat out wrong. There is no collective consciousness that gives us all the same morals, therefore to impose your ideals on another infringes on their rights to personal liberty.
Morals are unique to each individual, and while there are some things which most can agree on, by and large morals constitute a massive gray area and to try to make black and white comparisons is fallacious and invalid when applied in this fashion.
And you use extreme examples such as murder, burglary, and other heinous crimes to prove your case. However this logic is fallible as well. We are not discussing a situation in which a human being is having his/her rights infringed upon, we are talking about an unborn embryo.
There are varying definitions of life, and when human life begins, hence the nature of the entire debate. Let's look at the science behind human development.
13 weeks or 3 months: The fetus is about 3 inches long and weighs about an ounce. Fingernails and bones can be seen. Over 90% of all abortions are performed before this stage
26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves indicating consciousness can be detected. The fetus will probably be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.
- Pediatrics, Wisconsin State University
1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
I might add that I was unable to find any concrete statistics regarding how many of the post 20 week gestation abortions were prior to 26 weeks gestation, however sifting through some vague statistics and compiling the data my estimate calculates that 70%-85% of post 20 week abortions are performed pre 26 weeks gestation, which means that ~2468-4935 of the 1.2+ million abortions performed annually in the US are performed AFTER the fetus has shown the first signs of consciousness.
The true matter at hand is that government is in the business of imposing moral values on it's citizens, and this is flat out wrong.
Have you ever heard of the Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau, or even from Thomas Hobbes? How about anything John Locke has to say? The government's sole purpose is to draw up laws based on the morals of the people, and in return the people should give up some of their rights (eg. the right to run red lights) to be protected by the government.
Interesting you should say that, because that was the primary argument put forth by the doctors and families of patients on life support who exhibited no overt signs of conscious awareness and allows for families to make the decision to 'ull the plug' as it were.
So if we use that as a basis for medical arguments regarding 'life' in fully formed human beings, why are we not allowed to apply the same principle to undeveloped life?
Have you ever heard of the Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau, or even from Thomas Hobbes? How about anything John Locke has to say? The government's sole purpose is to draw up laws based on the morals of the people, and in return the people should give up some of their rights (eg. the right to run red lights) to be protected by the government.
Actually I have. And let me put it into perspective for you.
During the times in which those arguments were put forth there were massive inequalities in their society, even with a dominate majority sharing the same religiously based moral principles.
Social and ethical inequalities were prevalent in all aspects of life. Women were unequal citizens, slavery was widely accepted, religious persecution resulted in thousands of deaths annually, and the people who fled this hostile environment found the United States on the principles of separation of church and state and religious and social freedoms for all.
Oh, and you don't have a 'right' to run a red light, as driving is a conditional privilege granted by the government. However you do have the right to religious and personal freedoms, the right to life and liberty, and those rights shall not be infringed upon under the law, which is EXACTLY what happens when we allow the government to generalize and dictate the morals for ALL citizens.
Just to let you know I got tired of sounding repetitive about the stealing or murder thing, so I used red lights. Terrible example, I know.
It's funny how you say your right to life can not be infringed upon, yet you called a fetus undeveloped life, which is life.
Please don't reply and say it is not life, because it is developing, and anything that is developing into something else is that something else. If I lost anyone it means this: A developing country is a country. Developing pictures are pictures. A developing baby is a baby.
Why don't you? The comment you posted is spam. My comment had logical baring to the argument. Without being conscious, you are virtually a cabbage.
...
Nope. Just to matter. Without it you are just a cabbage
...
Oh, and you don't have a 'right' to run a red light, as driving is a conditional privilege granted by the government. However you do have the right to religious and personal freedoms, the right to life and liberty, and those rights shall not be infringed upon under the law, which is EXACTLY what happens when we allow the government to generalize and dictate the morals for ALL citizens.
You also have the right to the pursuit of happiness (Not having to go through pregnancy) and liberty (The right to choose).
yet you called a fetus undeveloped life, which is life.
I never contested that a developing fetus was NOT life. I simply stated that according to medical and legal terminology it is not a 'erson'. Very different concepts.
We could even go so far as to say that it is not sentient, cognizant, or conscious either. Those would also be true. The simple fact is that there is ALWAYS life.
Your sperm are life, the eggs are life, so to say that 'life begins at conception' is a fallacious argument based outside of medical science.
We are continuations of our parents lives only insofar as we carry part of their genetic information within us. As people we are not continuations of our parents - we are separate sentient and sapient beings with our own lives.
