Welcome to Gaia! ::

But shouldn't law and morality be based on something objective, so that our reasoning is clean, clear and pure? Something that relies on logic and science and not emotion or the opinions of the masses? The fetus is ALWAYS developing, just as is an infant or a toddler, adolescent, adult or elder.

The fetus inside of her was an ACTUAL person. The potential came not from the fetus, your friend, but from YOUR KNOWLEDGE of that person. If your mother had had him, and then shot him in the head, or if he died of anthrax, or in a car crash when he was a child- You would still not know him. Would you still consider him potential, since you did not know of his existence? The fetus in his mother was already a human being, already very real and alive. The difference, of course, is what that existence meant to you. The "potential" we see here isn't actually about existence or nonexistence of a person, but about whether or not someone is aware or interested- Which is either an appeal to authority, or an appeal to the people, depending on the scale of the argument.

I think there are limited instances where abortion is acceptable, and I have already stated them. I am beyond understanding that people can justify it as a form of birth-control.

I don't quote religious text in my arguments, as in my experience they don't account for all situations. I haven't seen a whole lot of, "The Bible says..." here either.

...but, If you are going to quote the words of God, then you might want to look to the verse that says children in the womb are sacred to God.

Exodus 21:22-23

I am not sure why you are bringing up the issue of embarrassment and the Torah, but if you are talking about what I think you are talking about, then the verses you are referring to command against stripping a person of all dignity; like forcing a person into a situation that goes against all that they stand for; basically we are talking about spiritual, and emotional rape, not April Fool's pranks. This is a topic for another forum though....

Don't try to say that a woman being embarrassed by being pregnant and forced to carry the child to term goes with your argument either, because the Torah was commanding others to respect another's dignity. It is a separate issue if a person does something that makes themselves feel loss of dignity.

If a woman gets pregnant from consensual sex, it is her own fault if she feels embarrassed (the same applies if a guy gets a chick pregnant, and it embarrasses him).

Then it isn't a good persuasive argument.
I'm not for abortion though. Nor am I necessarily against it.
I am aware that it performs certain biological functions in the womb. But so do all animals. To say that abortion is murder implies that it is a human. And that depends on what the complete and true definition of human is and when it meets those requirements. And how can we really know that?

But see, that is my point. In most cases, women weren't forced to get pregnant. Most pregnancies are the result of consensual sex. In consensual sex, no one forced the gal to open her legs. She knows the consequences, she should be able to deal with them. Too many people look at abortion as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card".

You don't want to be pregnant, refrain from sex. If you HAVE to have sex, do what you can to avoid pregnancy, but realize the possibilities, and be ready for them.

There is a case, in both cases, were you could be pro-life and pro-choice.
Both are correct mostly.
On one hand, you have pro-choice that allows abortion considering it can be unhealthy and dangerous to have the baby. Not to mention if you can't take care of the child.

For pro-life, you have people getting abortions because they ******** up trying to just have sex.

However, I rather choose pro-choice considering I find it better if a child is born in a good life instead of some terrible and poor area.
Then again, my reasoning could be because I'm Atheist but I digress, I'm pro-choice because trying to decide someone else's choices when it's not even your decision is a silly idea. You can't just edit the pages of a book because you don't like the ending, you aren't the author.

I see this argument a lot, but I don't really understand it.

People say they're pro-choice because it's wrong to make other people's choices for them, but at the same time, you're making the choice for that unborn child.
You're assuming that the child would rather never be born than live a hard life.
Or rather, you're ignoring whatever that child might want under the assumption that you know what's good for it better than it or anyone else might.



Furthermore, I feel a lot (though certainly not all) of people who claim to be pro-choice are actually limiting a woman's options. They say "legalize abortion!" and then leave it at that. Yes abortion is an option, and yes it may be the lesser of two evils for some women, but is it really a good option? It's still an invasive surgery that has lots of opportunities for massive complications.

Those who claim to be pro-choice and then ignore anything other than making abortion legal are hardly living up to their namesake. Wouldn't we open up more choices for women if we improved the welfare system, giving poor mothers the economic resources they need to care for children? Wouldn't we open up more choices for women if we improved the adoption system, making it a more feasible and appealing alternative to getting rid of a baby? Wouldn't we open up more choices for women if we changed the social stigma around being a single parent? (I mean, we don't have to encourage it, but we can at least recognize the courage it takes someone to do this instead of focusing on the negative.)

If you're pro-choice, yes abortion is something you might look at, but shouldn't you be paying just as much attention to these other things? Those who don't are, in fact, limiting a women's choice by presenting what appears to be a false dichotomy.


Of course, by the same token, all those things I mentioned as being pro-choice above are also pro-life. And yet, how many pro-lifers do we see spending their effort on those things? Probably around the same numbers of pro-choicers (though honestly, I have no idea what the split looks like). They're just as guilty at failing to live up to their namesake.


The point is, pro-choice and pro-life are kind of meaningless terms, since the majority of people who classify themselves under either category are failing to provide significantly more choice or life. It's time to stop segregating ourselves over this issue and take some time to look at things we can all agree with. That way, we can actually get things done and possibly improve the lives of thousands of women and children around the country.

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean nobody else could ever possibly think that.

I would think that. Actually, I'd probably think, "what's that blobby thing?" and then once someone said, that's a picture of you when you were conceived, I'd go, "Hey! That's me!"

Now, just a question. If you had a picture of someone you knew when they were just an embryo, how would you convey that information to them?
Would you say, "This is a picture of you when you were an embryo."? I mean, that would be completely accurate. At one point, we were all embryos, and that is the picture of that particular friend at that particular stage of development.
But if you used that language, you are demonstrating very much that you identify that embryo with your friend.

Of course, you might bring up the point that, when you look at that picture, you don't identify the embryo as being your friend. It has nothing in common with your friend. It possesses none of the same qualities that make him unique.

Then I might show you a picture of him as a baby and ask, is this your friend?

If you say no, then your argument for abortions being justified because the individual is not the person you know also justifies infanticide.

If you say yes, then one might assume distinguishing between an embryo and a baby is a valid reason to allow abortion. Of course, the reason you see one form as your friend and the other as not being your friend rests entirely on the way our culture handles the issue of life inside the womb. Do you think that, if you had been raised in a culture that believed unfailingly that fetuses and embryos were human life, you would feel the same way about them that you do now?

What I'm saying here is that it's circular logic. You defend a cultural belief by how you view embryos, but the only reason you view them like that is because of your cultural belief.




Some of what makes me who I am was formed at conception. I am someone with brown hair. At conception, that was already present in my genetic code. I am a carrier of Wilson's Disease. At conception, that was already written into my genetic code.

Of course, not all of who I am was formed at conception. But then, not all of who I am was formed just a few days ago. We are constantly growing, evolving, and learning. Every second of every day changes who we are in little ways.

Look back to when you were a baby. Did baby you have every personality trait that you have today? Did baby you have everything that makes you who you are today?
Unless you answered yes to both of those questions (in which case I would call bullshit), then you've just okayed infanticide again.



9 weeks after fertilization (11 weeks after the last period), actually.
(And I've been making this mistake too. I'll stop now. xp )



Personally, I don't see why you would distinguish the two. I mean, the distinction between embryo and fetus is just as arbitrary as the distinction between fetus and baby in my opinion.
I mean, at 6 weeks, there is already brain activity and a heart beat.
So what makes a 7 week old embryo any less worthy of personhood than an 11 week old fetus?

I understand what your getting at, it is bad to take away the choice of living.
That doesn't phase me too much, though, considering the mother has more conscious then the fetus. Not to mention the reason also plays a part.

I would also like to mention number 2 does not effect number one.
I said PEOPLE, that there is a fetus and does not make a human until properly birthed.