I screwed up so this is going to be out of order.
Originally Posted by Helm
aos]The existence of the abortion is here ... duh, right? What I mean is that now that the idea of an "out" is out there, people with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason) will seek them whether they're illegal or not. This is NOT a statement for against the government paying for abortions. I'll set that aside. What I'm saying is that if an abortion is illegal, then people will find some nasty, back alley, unsterile, unqualified place to get them anyway. I'd rather it be legal, sterile, and out in the open. It's not something I'd prefer for myself should I be in the situation but I'd at least like to leave the decision open to anyone who has to face this dilemma.
This was actually one of the points utilized during the Roe v Wade case. The Roe camp had stated that if the Courts were not going to legalize abortions, woman would in essence be forced to go to back alleyways and have them performed in unsterile conditions. Now if anyone understands the nature of an abortion, they realize that it is an invasive procedure. Thus infection in those types of conditions is highly probable. And if such a large quanity of people were having back alley abortions, than a large quanity of people would be required to see a docter over vaginal and uteral infections. With such an existance of an epidimec, it would have been of great importance. Thus it is plausible to believe that the same deterances that affected the number of back alley abortions before 1976, would affect them now.
Originally Posted by Helm
I appreciate you for going for any other angle than the "WHAT? YOU WILL BURN IN HELL HEATHEN!!111" Raven, but still, what you just posted is a bit silly. Of course it's personal belief. Why cant a belief be based on quantifiable reasoning, however, I do not see. You have no point.
I'm gonna have to make this one quicker than it was before. Sorry about that. Sentience is essentially an undeterminable variable. It is based upon the belief that a being has to be self-aware, without fully understanding exactly what makes a being self-aware. Thus it can not be based upon reason. It is based upon faith. Much like the utilization of the soul for determination of life.
Originally Posted by AChimp
So someone with 47 chromosomes or other defect isn't essentially human and therefore can be aborted no matter what?
By using genetics as a basis, you can only define physically what is human and what is not. And, the end result is dependant on the conditions that the cell has to grow in.
Again, look at my cells from here and there example. They've got human DNA chromosomes in them, so do they count as human too? We can keep organs alive in machines, so because they have chromosomes and DNA, should they be granted rights? "In essence" they are human, too.
I think you might have misunderstood me; I meant better education about the risks involved in unprotected sex, not better education overall, although that couldn't hurt.
Regardless, though, I didn't meet a single person in high school with an average above 80% that got pregnant themselves or got someone pregnant. Better educated people tend to evaluate the consequences more.
Alright lets try this again. Under a chromosome method they would not be considered human, that is why utilizing DNA would be better. But that is, as you stated impractical.
But the end result will always come out to be human. No matter the manner of conditions you place it under. For the DNA is inherently human. Thus the being is inherently human.
Is the cell "alive" or is it just a part of a living organism? Is the organ "alive" or merely functioning?
I meant the same thing you did. But simple teaching them the use of contraceptives, and the consequences of sex isn't enough of a deterent. Or at the very least a complete deterent. For without being forced to view the risks it has outside of the realm of 4th or 5th person, teenagers will continue to foolishly believe it won't happen to them.
Originally Posted by Protoclown
That said, limits certainly do need to be maintained as far as a cut-off date where abortion is no longer allowed in the pregnancy, when the fetus is developed past a certain point. Agreeing on when exactly life begins is a difficult matter however, since both sides seem to differ in their definition and criteria somewhat.
I would rather see abortions performed in a safe, clean, clinical environment than in a back alley with a clothes hanger. Keep it legal, there's no other way. This is America, we should have the freedom to make our own choices.
I would touch on your other point, but Immortal Goat and myself have already touched on it. And I have admitted that certain exclusions would be needed. Agreeing on when life begins though is a simple matter of determining a method for which to answer that question. Do we use religion? No any law based around religion is in essence state sponsering a religion. This leaves logic and science. How about we utilize those.
But to make abortion illegal doesn't remove that choice. It merely creates a deterent. As does making murder illegal. I can still choose to murder someone, but because of the law against it I have a reason to choose not too.
Originally Posted by UnDeath
My point is nearly identical to Proto's. The age limit should be longer than 3 months, imho, since Ive heared of cases where women didnt know that they were pregnant up untill 5+ months. They even had a bloody... discharge... every month which was equivilant to a light period.
And on to the case of other contraceptives, they can fail. I know that you all have heared of cases where someone gets pregnant using the Pill and a condom (if I have, you most likely have, I rarely pay attention to current events). And if that happens, those involved would think that they are in the clear, and not take the Morning After Pill. Let alone, from what I hear, the side effects of the pills are quite unpleasant, so very few people would take them "just in case".
As for adoption, pregnancy can alter ones life almost as much as actually having a kid, albeit only for a few months. Then theres the case of the kid becoming the equivalent of an orphan, due to nobody wanting to adopt, but rather having their own damn kids.
Then theres the cases of people dumping their kids in the dumpster.
And making those responsible take care of the kid, uh... no. Babies end your life as you know it. Period. How many people what their lives to change entirely because of an accident? Hmm..?
Let abortion be up to the individual, not everyone has to do it. Morals are just a matter of opinion. Many people think its also morally wrong for a white girl to be dating a black man, for example.
So we should allow for the victimization of a human being solely for the gain of someone to irresponsible to take proper measures? Or being willing to have a child?
There are far more than two types of contraceptives in existance. I have a friend who uses double condom and spermacide.
Unwanted children are a tragedy. And if I were running the adoption agency I wouldn't allow them to put the child up. But thankfully a large number of babies are adopted. They are picked up quickly, and willingly.
Anyone dumping their child in a dumpster is committing a crime and should be treated as the criminal they are. And yes it is tragic that the irresponsible people had their lives alter. Sorry if this sounds condescending didn't really intend it to sound that way.
I'm also not basing this on morals. I'm basing it off science, logic, and the rights of all human beings.