[Raven]

Originally Posted by AChimp

Man, we've had this discussion so many times before I've lost count.

Arguing that if we ban abortions, people will change the way they have sex is overly optimistic. People love to fuck, plain and simple. How will the lack of access to abortions decrease teenage pregnancy? Recent surveys have shown that most teenage girls who are sexually active are of the opinion "that it won't happen to them" (at least, here in Canada those are what polls are showing, I'm sure that it's similar in the U.S.)

With the existance of abortion though, it removes from line of sight the consequences of having sex. And with the removed from sight, it also removes understanding of the probability of the effect. If more people were to have "unwanted" children and actually show that sex does have a dangerous and probable consequence, than it is possible for teenagers to begin taking safer measures. Whether this be using a large(r) amount of contraceptives, or not having sex is undeterminable.

Originally Posted by AChimp

I agree that if a couple creates a child, then it's their own fault: his for not keeping it in his pants, and hers for not keeping her knees together. However, that does not invalidate abortions, but neither side can be kept happy.

Neither does it validate abortion. That is a double-edged sword. Forcing it to cut both sides.

Originally Posted by AChimp

think that, as Immortal Goat stated, a set limit has to be created after which abortions are no longer available. The first trimester is the span that I came up with last time we argued this.

IMO, blobs of cells are not human. With the proper manipulation, it could become anything. Just because it can grow into a human doesn't make it a human at that point. Using that logic, I could scrape off a few cells from here and there and call that human because, if allowed to grow properly, they'd turn into a clone of me.

But you yourself could become anything with the right manipulation. Under such a premise it is possible to invalidate all beings as what they are under their classification. And this is also including manipulation that doesn't exist as a technology yet. We haven't even created a new organism yet, while there is work into that currently I believe. So you are basing a belief that it is not human, from possible manipulation of technology that hasn't been invented?

Originally Posted by AChimp

Once a fetus has a somewhat functioning brain, though, the line becomes fuzzy, and it's better to give it the benefit of the doubt and not perform any abortions. If the couple really doesn't want the child, well, there's always adoption.

That I do agree with. But in truth from the beginning the line is already fuzzy. I mean we are asked questions of whether it is human or not. We are asked questions of whether it is living or not. So why simple choose the point of which the brain functions? And what determination of function is being used. Fully functioning, or partially. Is it sentient when the brain is partially functioning? Are we to allow possible "human" beings to be "murdered" because we haven't split the hairs correctly?

I just wanna say sorry if the quotes are fucked up, but I generally don't use them.