For if it was, could we give a mother the choice to murder her baby? And if it isn't, then why wouldn't the mother get to choose?
Did I say anything about killing babies? I fully understand that after a certain stage in the womb, abortion should not be allowed anymore. But you need enough time for the woman to realize she is pregnant, and to decide whether she can raise that child (financially/emotionally). That's why I think that abortion should not generally be prohibited. Also, women who can't afford to abort certainly also can't afford to have a kid, therefore someone has to pay for it. Maybe an official voluntary donation instance could help out, so that pro-choice can support them and the others don't have to.
How do we define what human life is? A basic requirement of being a person is individuality. But what constitutes this? There is a time at which the fetus can not survive without being physically connected to the mother, as it's own systems can not support itself. The nervous system isn't even controlled by the brain until around 18 weeks. Could we really consider this individuality?
How do we define what human life is? A basic requirement of being a person is individuality. But what constitutes this? There is a time at which the fetus can not survive without being physically connected to the mother, as it's own systems can not support itself. The nervous system isn't even controlled by the brain until around 18 weeks. Could we really consider this individuality?
Sure. It's a completely unique creature, as far as genetic and hereditary makeup goes. Not to mention, the disabled may be completely dependent upon others, yet we cannot kill them.
Not to mention, the disabled may be completely dependent upon others, yet we cannot kill them.
The two aren't really comparable. It's more like a person who has every bodily function on a life support systems, entirely dependent on those systems with little or no brain function.
HahiHa, I said it was fine to fund for abortion in cases of ****/things against a mother's will, and not fine for a woman to due it just because she didn't think of contraception first. It might seem wrong for to force her to have the child as punishment, and morally wrong to the kid, but I still don't think anyone should pay for it. It's not as if she won't love him, but I don't think the correct way to go about it is to legalize killing babies, as all that does is make people more lenient.
Could we really consider this individuality?
Can't you consider it potential individuality? Sperm and Eggs could be considered the same way, but the two, if left on their own, don't really amount to much. But a Fetus is the combination of the two that is pretty much 100% potential individuality, as long as you give it time to grow.
I also see that raising a kid in financial stress and stripping someone of their dreams doesn't sound too hot, so I suppose the best option is to allow abortion up to a certain time. [I think, currently, its the first 3 months/first trimester?] And as for a donation service from pro-choice people, that's fine, as long as nobody says tax.
I am not talking about a human, I am talking about an 18 week old human fetus that cannot think, feel, or act.
WHAT!? YOU'RE SAYING THAT FETUS' AREN'T HUMANS!? Excuse me for yelling, but what the hell? They're still humans, and eventually they'll be able to think and feel.
They're still humans, and eventually they'll be able to think and feel.
So really, while they may be humans, they still can't do anything at all, and so far, they haven't accomplished anything, correct? Correct.
Okay, so with that established, let me point out that:
But year after year the statistics reveal that black women and economically struggling women â" who have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies â" are far more likely than others to have abortions.
See, it isn't the people that have access to money and high standards of living that are having abortions, it is the people that can't raise a child with the salaries that they are currently making.
With those two points of evidence (poor people have abortions, and they raise poor adults) what is to say that allowing them to deny society of one more stone on it's ankle is a bad thing?
May I remind you that there has to be something holding the rest of us up?
And you think that enough people will be aborted to entirely wipe out the lower class.
Enough people fail at life that I doubt highly that the approximated 1.37million abortions each year will have that much of an effect. And that number is from a 1996 statistic!
Since millions of people have been aborted and our overall population is still on the rise, how can you say that the lower class will be wiped out by abortions? Even more reason for them to abort!
See how little it adds to a thread to just say something without backing it up or giving a reason?
I'm in favour of abortions as long as they're not for trivial or stupid reasons, if it's in the best interests of the woman or the foetus then abortions are acceptable, it's stupid to make a blanket statement like 'abortions are never right'.
