I agree that abortion isn't a bad thing as longa as it is used reasonably. Besides, I'm pretty sure that a fetus is not capable of curing AIDS and cancer. I've always thought that it all depends on the environment they grow up in, anyways.
Abortion is the only reasonable option. The only arguments I have heard for no abortion is grounded in religious beliefs which quite frankly have no place in determining politics or science.
Fair. My mother had an abortion because the child she was going to have would end up suffering extremely and die within the first few weeks anyways (or something along those lines), and doctors recommended it because it would be safer for her mental and physical health. So I have nothing against it at all. :D
Can we all agree that, regardless of your views on later-term abortions, a fetus still in the first trimester doesn't actually have the physical development to be considered a separate organism and up to that point, the only "individual rights" to be considered are the mother's? If we can settle that, then we can worry about later-term and medically-necessary abortions later.
Aborted fetuses can actually be used for their stem cells to help dwarf and possibly stop the spread of cancerous cells! abortion can help cure cancer in safer ways than radiation. using stem cells can open more doors in the medical and scientific communities with cell restoration, thus helping cure both cancer and aids!
@_I: a non religious pro choice speech: Religion, freedom, decency, etc. are all philosophies. They aren't survival imperative and in extreme cases are suspended. The crux of the issue is wether a fetus is human. Into the 1980's the main stream medical belief was babies felt no pain, they would operate on infants without anesthesia. Into the 20th century western medicine believed many races didn't perceive pain or the world as whites could. Pro lifers believe it's no more right to kill a fetus than an adult. It's an ethics argument. lifes practical value is in its potential. What you are at a moment is irrelevant. A criminal can become a pillar of society, a ward of the system can become productive. Otherwise we could simply kill "undesirables" for practical reasons Only morals stop us. Would a severely mentally infirmed person even be cognizant if you killed them? Wouldn't it unburden us? I'm pro choice by the way, but we have an orange POTUS because we didn't see the other pov.
Genetic engineering can easily cure AIDS... but it's those same types of people who find that kind of approach to curing diseases unethical. There are currently many cures for cancers, but cancer isn't one disease; genetic engineering is again a really good approach to the inoperable and drug resistant cancers. The truth is, we have the knowledge and technology necessary to cure almost anything, it is just an appalling lack of scientific funding, mass misinformation/ignorance, unethical business practices, and stubborn adherence to outdated traditions that hold us back.
This is why I believe that abortion (in most circumstances) is wrong.
- I am a scientist, and from a biological point of view, an organism (of any type, bacteria, animal, fungus, etc) is considered ALIVE when it has dividing cells. As soon as egg and sperm come into contact, the cells divide rapidly.
- All organisms are considered separate from any other organism if they have unique DNA, which babies do as soon as egg and sperm combine.
- Plus, the baby/fetus/whatever word you prefer has its own independent blood circulatory system - separate from the mother. Nutrients pass through the umbilical cord, but the mother's blood never comes into contact with the baby's blood. This is why we don't all the the same blood types as our mothers.
This is why I think that abortions should be avoided. If you're having sex, both parties need to be taking proper precautions and should know the risks. I think that abortions are only permissable if the mother's life is in danger.
Tl;dr Science!
Your facts are sound, but what is your argument against abortion? All I gathered from this is that you're against it but for no explicitly stated reason. Is it because you're against killing and harm in any form? What is your reason for being against killing and harm?
A part of the abortion argument is that the baby isn't alive, but from the moment of conception, it is. I feel that most people are generally against killing things, but in this instance they might not know if it's alive or not. Are there many people that are FOR killing and harm?? There are always peaceful ways to solve problems, so yes, I would say that I am against killing and harm.
Explicitly stated: "There is never a good reason to kill anyone"
@kittycat what about those scenarios where one person has to kill the other and eat them or else they'll both die?
sorry, i'll stop being a smart ass, but really
as far as i read, your facts ARE sound, but again, your reasoning for it being bad is still just opinion. there's really no benefit of keeping an unwanted baby other than that the baby is alive, and even then, the kid will likely grow up miserably in an unfit home, or in an orphanage if it's not adopted. when you consider all of the benefits to abortion (the happiness and health of the mother and family, stem cell research, biological research, among many many cures that could save lives and be formulated, overpopulation rates, etc etc), would you rather have a miserable hurting woman with a baby she doesn't want, or would you rather have hundreds, thousands of lives being saved by what could be created using these cells?
Does this come from an arbitrary personal belief, religion, or science? Because someone argued that an embryo is basically a cancer nodule until about the first trimester.
If you're against killing a cluster of cells because they technically have life, you're against killing flies, spiders, mosquitos or any bug. You're also against the slaughter of animals and must therefor be vegan. You're against killing parasites that live in the body as well. (Let's be real that's basically what a baby is at first). I dewormed my dog, is that wrong because "science"?
Your argument is irrelevant and ridiculous. The facts are sound which make the obvious argument, killing a human is wrong. Does an unwanted embryo have less value than a wanted embryo. If you really believe that, you believe that a humans life is valued by what other people think of them. As stated above, a fetus is its own human from the point of conception, according to scientific ideas, not religious ones (because apparently religion inspired ethics is disgraceful). Because of that, it is not morally right to suggest that termination of ones life is acceptable and a right that should be guaranteed.
If we could put the funds that go towards abortion into revitalizing family planning education and overhauling the adoption programs, then I think we could live in a more ideal world. I'm not saying every woman who gets pregnant should have to keep their baby, but I do think that more care should go into having casual sex. More planning and more caution. A life is a serious thing to terminate and shouldn't be done just because it's "inconvenient". Some mistakes can't and shouldn't just be erased.
I didn't forget, it's just that your example is just a case of the "few". Most of the time this isn't the case, but I do agree that special consideration should be given to each instance. However, as a general rule, abortion shouldn't be viewed as a cure-all.
Non-religious argument against abortion:
A miscarriage is a genuine loss. You would (hopefully) never tell a woman who lost her unborn child to just get over it. It's just a cluster of cells at nineteen weeks, so be fine with it.
Human compassion is the argument.
The big question being whether it should be a choice. If human compassion allows you to at least contemplate the validity of an unborn cluster of cells life or potential, surely that at least makes abortion a more complicated choice. Suicide is a choice, that doesn't mean it should be.
A human fetus is not viable outside the womb until 24 weeks. It could technically survive but the chances are minuscule. Until a human being can survive outside the mother's body, it is part of her body. She has bodily autonomy. There are hundreds of reasons that abortions are necessary, and it is nobody's damn business why someone might choose to have one.
^guest In most circumstances, she and her partner chose to have sex with each other. Eliminating the consequences of our actions removes responsibility.
Example: I choose not to do my homework for a class, and I get a failing grade. Removing the consequences of this action would be like hacking into the school's system and giving myself a C. Technically passing, but the affects of this could still damage me later in school.
Well a poor grade is a bad metaphor, an unwanted pregnancy affects many more people as well affects them more harshly. If everyone is just going to "live with the consequences of their actions" everyone is going to be miserable. The woman would have to carry and support a child she doesn't want, the man would have to financially support a child he doesn't want, and the child would grow up in less than fit environment, whether with the parents or in an orphanage. Yes, the old "they chose to have sex" argument is one thing, but most abortions are not used as birth control. Most people who have abortions ARE taking precautions that, for whatever reason, failed.
I don't think it's an argument avout when it's "life." Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure, by scientific definitions, fetuses are life from very early on. The question for me is when they become human. It's okay for us to kill animals because they aren't conscience, intelligent life on the level we are. So I think the question is at what point in their cognitive development they should be considered human. Very early on though, before detectable brain waves... no. (Please correct me if anything I said was innacurate. I'm no expert and am grateful to rid of misinformation.)
Genetically, it is a human right at the very beginning. What you're asking is "when is it morally a human?" I don't know exactly, but I think you've just got to figure out your own definitions for "alive" vs "human". To many they are one and the same. To others who value choice over what might be murder to some, they have a different definition.
"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester." -Scientific American article
Yup, this is perfect.
I would much rather be dead than have had substandard education.
I would much rather be killed before I was born than possibly die because I could't afford healthcare.
I would much rather die than face racism and have to overcome that adversity.
I would much rather not be born that have to pay back student loans.
I would much rather not exist than have someone view me as homeless.
I would much rather never have been given a chance than to have been kicked while I was down.
And I would much rather allow children to be killed than have to make responsible decisions to not have sex when I'm not prepared for the consequences.
Definitely better off not giving these babies a chance.
Thank you for pointing this out.
I'm not saying rape is right, I'm just saying that justification is far overused when compared to the percentage of people who actually use the procedure because of that.
The thing here is that ALL of these apply. But abortion may or may not be a necessary evil, I hate saying it, but... murdering babies still isn't cool. That's just my opinion, please do not keep me from saying so because that's also not cool. i will let you say what you want even if I do not believe in it because I must love and forgive my neighbor, even if I will never have an abortion if I have anything to say about it.
/unwanted pregnancy. It's a shit storm no matter what happens
- I am a scientist, and from a biological point of view, an organism (of any type, bacteria, animal, fungus, etc) is considered ALIVE when it has dividing cells. As soon as egg and sperm come into contact, the cells divide rapidly.
- All organisms are considered separate from any other organism if they have unique DNA, which babies do as soon as egg and sperm combine.
- Plus, the baby/fetus/whatever word you prefer has its own independent blood circulatory system - separate from the mother. Nutrients pass through the umbilical cord, but the mother's blood never comes into contact with the baby's blood. This is why we don't all the the same blood types as our mothers.
This is why I think that abortions should be avoided. If you're having sex, both parties need to be taking proper precautions and should know the risks. I think that abortions are only permissable if the mother's life is in danger.
Tl;dr Science!
Explicitly stated: "There is never a good reason to kill anyone"
sorry, i'll stop being a smart ass, but really
as far as i read, your facts ARE sound, but again, your reasoning for it being bad is still just opinion. there's really no benefit of keeping an unwanted baby other than that the baby is alive, and even then, the kid will likely grow up miserably in an unfit home, or in an orphanage if it's not adopted. when you consider all of the benefits to abortion (the happiness and health of the mother and family, stem cell research, biological research, among many many cures that could save lives and be formulated, overpopulation rates, etc etc), would you rather have a miserable hurting woman with a baby she doesn't want, or would you rather have hundreds, thousands of lives being saved by what could be created using these cells?
A miscarriage is a genuine loss. You would (hopefully) never tell a woman who lost her unborn child to just get over it. It's just a cluster of cells at nineteen weeks, so be fine with it.
Human compassion is the argument.
Example: I choose not to do my homework for a class, and I get a failing grade. Removing the consequences of this action would be like hacking into the school's system and giving myself a C. Technically passing, but the affects of this could still damage me later in school.
I would much rather be dead than have had substandard education.
I would much rather be killed before I was born than possibly die because I could't afford healthcare.
I would much rather die than face racism and have to overcome that adversity.
I would much rather not be born that have to pay back student loans.
I would much rather not exist than have someone view me as homeless.
I would much rather never have been given a chance than to have been kicked while I was down.
And I would much rather allow children to be killed than have to make responsible decisions to not have sex when I'm not prepared for the consequences.
Definitely better off not giving these babies a chance.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Source: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
I'm not saying rape is right, I'm just saying that justification is far overused when compared to the percentage of people who actually use the procedure because of that.