Get an abortion, go to jail...but for how long?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

how much sex there is in the world

If you have lots of sex, then you should know contraceptives are a must.

About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes about 25% for primarily economic reasons.

Here I should point, if the woman doesn't have money for contraceptives, then she surely won't have money for a decent abortion even when it's legalised, so she will resort to cheap and risky methods. The root of the problem here are external factors: how much % of the GDP is spent on Public Healthcare, how well is wealth distributed among the population, etc... Socio-economical reasons. Instead of encouraging Abortions, governments should and many indeed encourage contraceptive methods as the best way of avoiding a baby when it's too early.

we cannot judge all abortions on the acts of mindless idiots

Abortion is quite an extreme thing to resort. Considering how low are the chances that contraceptives will fail, and considering that they can be even lower if some precautions are taken. I really don't see the social need for Abortion, except for rape or health issues on either the mother or the child.

[Gary88]

If you have lots of sex, then you should know contraceptives are a must.

yes but the more sex you have the more statistically likely that contraceptives will fail

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

yes but the more sex you have the more statistically likely that contraceptives will fail

But then, the conscious woman will do something to reduce the odds of an unwanted pregnancy, and that includes combining two contraceptive methods (like the pill and the condom) or etc... thus still keeping chances of an unwanted pregnancy very low.

[lord o kelly]

Abortion shouldbe illegal as soon as the baby inside the mother has developed even the remotest human charateristics

[Lord Condormanius]

Who would want a "hybrid", in the first place?

I think a better question is, "who wouldn't want a hybrid?"

And second, it still has human traits.

Yes, but it might have non-human traits as well, like cloven hooves or a forked togue, maybe a tail...

I am pro-hybrid all the way.

[wandervogel]

Pro-abortionists don't have logic on their side. As I stated in other Abortion threads, they say a "few cells don't make a human", some even going further and saying "few cells indeed are parasites". Let's check the fertilized egg: it's a human, yes. Just because it doesn't have a nervous system and the traits most children have, doesn't mean it isn't a human. Because it is programmed to develop and will do so with the right means, as much as a child will turn into an adult if he or she is fed.

Again, if we kill fertilized eggs just because "they're parasites, they don't resemble humans", then by using the same logic we can kill children. You know? They don't resemble adults except remotely, so some wacko scientist will come explaining that they aren't "humans", and will add that it's a genuine's woman or mother's right to commit infanticide if she finds it convenient. Afterall, they need to be fed, but they don't work, so they're truly "parasites"!

And soon, of course, the killing by convenience will continue. As moral degrades into nothing, they'll just start killing people because they think it's their sacred right to eliminate anything they find incovenient. Nobody will interfere, and caos will prevail. That's a probable scenario! Start by legalizing abortion, and soon you'll moral backing for infanticide and all the worst.

QFT.

No it's not. You said the definition of human life was when cells began to divide. I pointed out that this can be achieved in a lab to grow body parts or whatever you want really. So it's refuted no matter what your personal opinion is.

What has a lab got to do with anything? I am talking of a what happens in the womb of a woman when a human egg and a human sperm join. The cell division that then begins thereafter is the beginning of human life. Don't confuse yourself with unrelated factoids beyond that simple fact. Your tangents are obfuscations of the reality of the situation. Now, you can deny that conception is the beginning of human life, however rediculous that opinion may be, but the fact remains that your denial is based in opinion, not fact.

Are you aware human/animal hybrid fetuses have been created? Are they human life?

Again, your tangents into other subjects reveal that you cannot deal with the facts at hand. Stay on topic.

Interestingly enough, your analogy manages to find some backing in history. More particularly, the efforts of the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda to portray all Jews and Eastern Europeans as "subhuman," thus clearing the way for eventual mass executions and genocide. Indeed, the "they resemble humans, but not closely enough to be considered human" argument was used to justify much of the Holocaust and other atrocities in Nazi-occupied Russia.

Not staking out a position one way or another, your analogy simply awakened some historical parallels in my mind.

QFT again. This is why the abortion argument has wider implications than just a "women's choice" (or second choice, as it were...). It is indicative of an entire society's selective disregard of life in general, and the sociopathic path down which we are headed. The societal temperament we are encouraging effects everyone.

[Gary88]

there is a difference in saying that a specific ethnic group is less human when it is complete bollocks and saying that a non human collection of cells isnt a human

[wandervogel]

there is a difference in saying that a specific ethnic group is less human when it is complete bollocks and saying that a non human collection of cells isnt a human

That's one way to look at it. But you first have to believe that a fertilized human egg is a non-human collection of cells. There's the rub...

[Gary88]

That's one way to look at it. But you first have to believe that a fertilized egg is a non-human collection of cells. There's the rub

well biologically it is a bunch of stem cells, so it could be anything. morally it certainly isnt a sentient being no more so than the most primitive cellular life

[wandervogel]

well biologically it is a bunch of stem cells, so it could be anything. morally it certainly isnt a sentient being no more so than the most primitive cellular life

Biologically it isn't just anything. It was produced by humans and becomes human under natural biological processes. Many here are trying to remove the human being from it's natural state in order to attempt to refute the fact that it is human. That is not using science, but avoiding it. Beyond that, the argument as far as I am concerned has never been about the level of feeling of the organism, but time when a new, developing human being begins (a process that does not end until roughly the teen years!).

[Gary88]

no biologically a foetus for a good while doesnt fulfil any of the criteria of being a human (homo sapien sapien) or even much broader groups, as an embryo its hard to even call it an animal.

[wandervogel]

no biologically a foetus for a good while doesnt fulfil any of the criteria of being a human (homo sapien sapien) or even much broader groups, as an embryo its hard to even call it an animal.

That depends on who's criteria you are using of course. You can call a human fetus non-human, but it puts you in a bit of a bind. Again, this is all a matter of opinion. I think a human fetus is a human fetus, you believe it is not. This is really the crux of the debate.

However, I take nature's side on the issue. A woman, when she conceives, is carrying a human being. She knows this (the trauma which many women experience after having abortions is proof-positive of the fact that women feel that they are indeed with child). All other opinions about what that child is (the non-child, you pro-abortionists must think, I guess) are a matter of personal preference. You can rationalize a justification for your preference, but it will never jive with nature.

[Gary88]

at what point is an embryo a anthropomorphic primate? for at least several weeks an embryo isnt even in the same phylum as a human

[wandervogel]

at what point is an embryo a anthropomorphic primate? for at least several weeks an embryo isnt even in the same phylum as a human

Wup, there you go rationalizing again. A human fetus is a human fetus is a human fetus. I care little for it's greek or latin stage-names, as that is irrelevant to the point that a a fertilized human egg is the the beginning of human life, and thus should be protected by law thereafter. Now, I realize that may not be as glamorous a fact as forcing others to go spelunking into etymological dictionaries, but it is fact nonetheless.

[Gary88]

Wup, there you go rationalizing again.

curse my rational logic and correct scientific definitions, i thought we were discussing what a human being is. silly me

[wandervogel]

Indeed we are. See here.

[Gary88]

you linked me to the post directly above mine...

[wandervogel]

you linked me to the post directly above mine...

I know.

In all seriousness though, the salient point of all of this is that there are perfectly reasonable arguments that could be made for or against abortion. This thread seems to have plenty of folks who think it is a black or white issue or that science or god or what have you is entirely on their side. In fact, the reason that the abortion debate in RL is so ferocious is precisely because even the most basic concepts are very contentious, with many persuasive, logical, and scientific arguments that could be made for both sides. My goal here was never to persuade anyone to believe the way I believe. Everyone will take a stance based on their pre-determined personal beliefs rather than by the arguments presented anywhere. Instead, I've merely presented a very simple set of common sense points that by themselves provide a reasonable defense of the "right to life" argument. There are folks who could have done a better job, and blunt-force trauma-ed you to death with lots of nifty scientific jargonizing. But again, the point here was that even the best pro-abortion arguments, filled with 5-syllable words can be brought to its knees but a laymen's understanding of nature and life.

[Richard]

Abortion is murder and should be punished as such by the state, and in many cases this involves the death penalty.

...which also happens to be murder. Well, at least 'legal' murder, like abortion is currently. Neat huh?

[deRougemont]

...which also happens to be murder. Well, at least 'legal' murder, like abortion is currently. Neat huh?

True enough. Other significant examples: police shootings, military shootings. In fact the state has always been the final arbiter of the legitimate use of violence. However, there is quite a difference between abortion and other legalized forms of murder. Most abortions are lifestlye choices. No one is threatened, no one is in danger. It is simply a personal preference. Thus, abortion is the odd man out as far as legitimate murder is concerned.