A beating heart is a poor criteria. Plenty of animals have a beating heart, and we still kill them. Why? Is it because they're not human? What makes humans more valuable than an animal? I'd say it's our brain, thus, brain activity (6 weeks of age) would be a much better definition of the beginning of life.
Poll: Abortion- What's your position and why?
- Thread starter shufflemonkey16
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is always the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, and so I can never support the death penalty. As far as the foetus question goes, Hitler was a foetus once, as was Mother Theresa. You cannot possibly predict the actions of a foetus for good or bad, so it is best to leave the foetus as neutral, in a moral standpoint, and not let it's probable personality cloud the decision.The Dr0w Ranger said:
What should affect the decision is:
Probable quality of life,
Probable risk of mother dying before giving birth to the baby,
Probable risk of mother dying full stop.
I think the law in Britain is that if it comes down to a mother's or a baby's life in the 11th hour, then the mother prioritised, but im not sure.
Also, as an interesting addition to you Christian standpoint (I am agnostic), I would just like to throw in this little wild-card in relation to you foetus' killing people.
Did Baby Jesus not indirectly cause the killing of hundreds of infants throughout the city, because of King Herod?
;P
I don't have any moral issues with killing flies or mosquitoes because they would never be anything other than flies or mosquitoes. Anyway, why shouldn't we consider them people? What is the real difference between a fetus within a woman and a baby that was just born? Why does one have any more rights than the other?Seanchaidh said:
its kinda like hunting. we kill animals and dont feel bad cause they are stupid, or cause we consider humans to be superior. we kill babies on the same pretense. they are fully aware, or they are not fully developed(inferior). it is what it is, whether its evil is up to you.
Because the stage of brain development matters. As I've said often: at 6 weeks of age, brain activity has just begun. Brain development occurs until you're about 25. The fetus is less developed than the newborn baby. As such, I might be okay with disallowing 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion.amazosaur said:
Here's some info to mix things up a little.
Did you know that there's a proven link between abortion and the crime rate? 20 years after the laws legalising abortion were made, there was a sharp drop in crime. This applies to every single country where abortion was made legal. It was first noticed in the US where crime statistics for all types of violent and petty crime plummetted in the mid 1990s.
The reason for it is simple - criminals on average tend to come from broken homes. Unwantedness in the family unit produces crime, ask anyone who works closely with juvenile criminals. It's those broken homes that are most likely to pursue the abortion option if it is available and the girl gets pregnant, because - obviously - they often don't want the children. So all those kids who WOULD have been born in the 70s to live a childhood hell and then run away from home and steal VCRs for crack in the 90s just... weren't being born in the first place. Well, a lot less of them were, anyway.
Source (because if I don't put this here, you will ask): "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" S. Dubner & S. Levitt, Chapter 4. You can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime for more information.
Did you know that there's a proven link between abortion and the crime rate? 20 years after the laws legalising abortion were made, there was a sharp drop in crime. This applies to every single country where abortion was made legal. It was first noticed in the US where crime statistics for all types of violent and petty crime plummetted in the mid 1990s.
The reason for it is simple - criminals on average tend to come from broken homes. Unwantedness in the family unit produces crime, ask anyone who works closely with juvenile criminals. It's those broken homes that are most likely to pursue the abortion option if it is available and the girl gets pregnant, because - obviously - they often don't want the children. So all those kids who WOULD have been born in the 70s to live a childhood hell and then run away from home and steal VCRs for crack in the 90s just... weren't being born in the first place. Well, a lot less of them were, anyway.
Source (because if I don't put this here, you will ask): "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" S. Dubner & S. Levitt, Chapter 4. You can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime for more information.
Yes, because when you start adding caveats, you're forcing your beliefs onto others, which in itself is a bad idea, but in this case, is just likely to lead to some very complicated screwups, like a woman not getting an abortion because she didn't want to report a rape, or some such horror.
Ummm...why are you comparing a miscarriage and stillbirth? They are two completely seperate things. For a baby to be still born they actually have to be born. During a miscarriage the fetus is in distress or dying most of the time which is what causes the woman to lose the pregnancy. Misscarriages almost always happen early in the pregnancy and usually signify that something was wrong with fetal development or that something wasn't right in the woman's body. Stillbirths are usually caused by something going drastically wrong such as an accident, sudden illness or even assult on the mother. Medically speaking the terms are not even close to interchangable and miscarriage is only used up to 20 weeks - after which a baby becomes viable outside the womb. At this time stillborn is used and in most causes a woman goes through full labor, unlike in earlier miscarriages. A miscarriage is a pregnancy that never had a chance, basically.Dys said:
I learned all this during my own two pregnancies and miscarriages and honestly I really don't understand how a woman could want to chose to make her body forcibly miscarry through abortion. At the very least it should be a very big desicion since it is still life changing. And yes, both my pregnancies were unexpecte also - I chose to keep them.
Depends on how you define a person, do you require a physical form and/or a spiritual one?dochmbi said:
I'm really sorry to hear about that, I certainly didn't mean to say the two are the same. From what I unterstand a stillbirth is horrendously taxing, you didn't mention how long ago the last was, but regardless my sympathys go out to you.Amoreyna said:
If anything, the point I was trying to get across was that it is, as you said, not right to compare the two (reading back over it, I seem to have misread to post I was responding too). An abortion is a choice, often very early in the pregnancy and, if done properly shouldn't remotely resemble a miscarriage. At any rate, however badly I worded my previous post, I definately agree that the two are most certainly not comparable.
So it's the potential that matters? In that case, choosing the point at which it becomes a zygote is terrifically arbitrary. Is it immoral for a woman to forgo sex or use birth control, have her period and thereby let her egg go to waste? (I won't suggest that sperm might be valuable because eggs are clearly the limiting reagent as regards new humans.) You can say that it isn't immoral, and I'd certainly agree that it isn't, but you need some sort of metaphysical explanation as to what makes a zygote special and an egg not. Suggesting eternal souls would be useful to your point but entirely unprovable and likely to provoke a good laugh. There is the potential for new humans in all human behavior that has an impact on whether someone has sex.amazosaur said:
As for why a newborn baby should have more rights than a fetus, it is not clear that it should: it is another arbitrary line, just like the zygote. However, it is a useful one as it allows the mother's legal rights to protect the baby that she wants to have born. That's good: mothers should be in control of the process. It's all going on in her body; we should think of the fetus as an extension of her. That is why it can only be her decision to have an abortion, and not that of anyone else (unless there's a power of attorney issue because the mother is severely disabled or incompetent, I suppose.) I can agree that fetuses should have some rights, but not that they should have any rights that interfere with any of their mother's rights or interests. They should have legal rights if their own mother chooses to legitimize them but not otherwise. Until it is born, I regard it as much like a property relationship. The mother has special rights that no one else can have as regards her unborn child.
Why stop there, people have been martyred and murdered for being Christians, and for not being Christians.
Millions I'd say.
That's not really relevant, but I have heard that before.
My point in the comparison was that a fetus has no actions on which to judge,
an adult convicted of a crime(we'll assume he is guilty), has done it and deserves punishment.
On has earned a death the other hasn't.
The comparison is moot, IMO
As someone who has witnessed abortions first hand (both medical and surgical), as well as the consultation and counseling involved, I'd say while abortion should certainly be legal and available, it in itself should not be the first option. The focus should alway be on education about sex and adequate access to contraception both prevenative contraception (condoms, OCP, IUD, implanon) and emergency contracpetion (morning after pill).
To that end I hate it when someone is described as "pro-abortion", no one likes abortions, but it's certainly a necessary procedure.
To that end I hate it when someone is described as "pro-abortion", no one likes abortions, but it's certainly a necessary procedure.
Pro Choice here. And all those who say those who are irresponsible enough to use protection should be punished with the pregnancy, does it seem like a smart idea to trust someone like that with the life of a child?
"We don't like to kill out unborn/we need them to grow up and fight our wars"
I think people will do what they need to to survive. A woman who decides to abort is, 9/10 times, reluctant but really needs it. So really, who are we to say she can't choose? IMO it's a small price to pay for a lot of women who cannot raise a child.
I think people will do what they need to to survive. A woman who decides to abort is, 9/10 times, reluctant but really needs it. So really, who are we to say she can't choose? IMO it's a small price to pay for a lot of women who cannot raise a child.