I think women should be able to choose even if I don't approve of abortion being used as birth control, my thoughts are this, we already make to many babies to quickly.

i don't think abortion is such a big deal....it's much better, in my opinion, to have an abortion than to have a kid then give it up to an orphanage, or to raise it in a bad environment....

to me, abortion is the same as using a condom or birth control everytime you have sex...it's still a type of prevention so the sperm never gets to fertilize the egg...destroying an embryo is pretty much the same, just much later in the cycle...

obviously, the woman should be the one with the full rights to decide, since it's her body...the man contributed like what, 3 minutes, to the fertilize the woman? also, no matter what age she is, the woman, once pregnant with the child, would develop some sort of maternal instinct and able to make a logical decision for the future of her kid



________________
The Deviant

err...saying abortion is not such a big deal and it's like using a condom...saying it so lightly...well it's plain wrong in my book (i could use much harsher words, but i won't).

I do agree about having an abortion in special circumstances, like the ones kaerf mentioned though...and some people really shouldn't have children at all...
Also i generally agree on woman having the right to choose, but if a man wants to keep the child, it should be thought of as an option...

I may be biased because I strongly believe in taking responsibility for your actions, even though one may not lead a life as fun as if he just walked away in a difficult situation.


________________
If the sea were made of Whiskey and I was a duck
I'd swim to the bottom and never come up

Agreed.

To speak of it so lightly...as a form of birth control...

I am certain that future generations will look upon our generation in disdain over the abortion issue. We have thrown logic completely out the window with little question of what we are actually doing.

When Roe vs. Wade was passed, we knew absolutely nothing about genetics. With our study and advancement in the field, there should be no reasonable argument to keeping it legalized. We know mental traits such as personality are ingrained in one's DNA. Studies have shown that identical twins who were separated at birth share not only minor personality traits, but deep personality and psychological traits such as, but not limited to, likes and dislikes in types of music and clothes.

The amount of information contained in a single fertilized human egg is equivalent to about a thousand printed volumes of books, each as large as a volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. A combination of genetics that only happens once and defines who a person actually is.

Zygote, embryo, fetus; these are not discrete entities. They are only labels for the stages of development of a single human entity, just as is newborn, teenager, and adult are. From zygote to adult, it is the same human being. From the point of fertilization, a new human life is created. A human life that has his own distinct DNA, with all the genetic information needed to grow as that specific human being.

Giving the right of choice to kill that human life to the woman is to deny that another sovereign human being has a right to his life. Does the woman have the right to kill that individual simply because that individual cannot speak for itself and that woman is stronger?

That child's right to his life trumps the woman's right to her liberty and property because that child is there unwittingly. It never chose to be growing inside her womb, but it exists now and it has the very right to life that every other human life has.

Doris Gordon from Libertarians For Life describes a child in the womb as a captive, who is there involuntarily and cannot defend herself. To evict that child from the womb is comparable to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. The situation the child is in has been imposed upon the child.

Last edited by harmonious at 8:55 am, Nov 7 2008

Really? Completely out the window? Lets take a look at your logic, then...


Really? There's not any evidence that these identical twins might have had similar upbringings? And that this is always the case? Although there are cases of identical twins being distubingly similar, even if separated at birth, there are also examples of having completely different personalities. Not only that, even if they're separated at birth, it has been suggested that the adoption system, because it uses certain standards in who is allowed to adopt and who isn't, makes it so that even in different households twins are likely to grow up in similar environments, and that's not even taking locations into account.

So if I were to change any of the genetic code in vitro, I'd effectively be killing one person and bringing another into existence. Even if these changes cure otherwise incurable genetic defects, improving the child's quality of life and general health while making only the most minimal of changes, it would still be unlawful, using this logic.

My heart, liver, lungs, bone marrow, blood, kidneys, etc, etc, are capable of surviving while separated from my body. It can even be translated into another human being. It will still have my genetic material, after transplant, and will be completely autonomous of my life functions. Yet, since it has my DNA, using your argument, I could argue that it is still a part of me. If someone stabbed that man and it hit a kidney, donated by me, then I could make an argument that the man stabbed me, and basically have the man charged for stabbing two people, although said kidney hasn't really been a part of me for a long time. That would be absurd. Just like you attaching the same importance of a small, non sentient clump of cells as to a fully grown newborn baby.

Sovereign human being? Sovereign of what? I don't think that clump of cells is going to be ruling over anything for quite some time, and it's status as a human being is questionable.

You know, cancer grows inside a human being, sometimes even inside the womb. Genetically, it's completely human, and it never chose to grow anywhere. Would you argue that we should not end that human life, simply because it has a certain genetic make up?

I'd like to hear Doris Gordon make a prequel metaphor for using birth control. Is that like closing the door to my airplane, but still trying to push the person through the closed door, until they die of natural causes?

Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to be against abortion with this, I'm just trying to show you that your logic is not absolute, and can be refuted, just as easily as mine can. Abortion wouldn't be controversial if it could be proven illogical so easily.

________________
This signature was recovered from Hades to serve in my rotting armies.

Pro-Choice

Your (harmonious) saying that because it is a person from conception destroying it is murder. I agree, but I also think it should be legal when I consider the alternatives. It is impossible to force women to have children. There will always be abortions legal or not. Preventing pregnancy is a much better option to prosecuting would-have-been mothers.

Besides the government shouldn't make laws based on morals, you can say murder is illegal because you shouldn't kill another person, but really it is more about self-preservation (this is only opinion); the government doesn't want people to be able to kill each other all willy nilly. And I guarantee that there are plenty of circumstances (specific to the individual) where any person would be willing to commit murder.

Leave it to each person to decide what is morally right, because who the hell are you to say they are wrong.

Last edited by AX at 9:40 am, Nov 7 2008

________________
Hand Rooster is a rooster made with your hands.

I'm all for abortion. We so happily murder old people, middel aged people and children, why not fetuses. But seriously women should have the oiption to have an abortion if they want.

It was an experiment and it was quite an unethical one. They were deliberately separated at birth to study this very thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1567542/Identical-tw ins-reunited-after-35-years.html



Yes. This is what is known as eugenics and is known to be quite evil in itself.



Your comparison is not only erroneous but illogical. My argument had absolutely nothing to do with the fetus being anything like an organ. Your liver, lungs, bone marrow, blood, kidnets, etc, etc do not have a separate and distinct DNA from yourself. They also don't have a complete set of human genetic information.



Every individual is a sovereign entity. Meaning he has his own natural rights to life, liberty, and property. A sovereign individual has supreme power over himself.



Genetically it is not a separate human entity. It doesn't have a complete set of human genetics.



Your metaphor is flawed because neither the egg nor sperm cell have a full set of human genetics.



My logic is absolute, but one has to understand at least a little bit about genetics to understand it.



You can't stop people from killing other people, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. Preventing pregnancy and prosecuting would-have-been mothers isn't mutually exclusive.



The government is suppose to be there to protect everyone's life, liberty, and property. Does it simply not become murder when the victims cannot defend or speak for themselves?



So do we legalize murder? Theft? Everyone is free to do what they want unless it is an act of aggression against another. You have no right to deprive another of their rights.

Last edited by harmonious at 10:09 am, Nov 7 2008

I voted Women should have the choice.
I see nothing wrong in abortion. It's the woman's choice, nobody has the right to say anything and making it iligal is just absurd.

Nothing more to add here. I was always solid on this opinion.

________________
Hrodulf and Bjornolfr, you will not be forgotten.

And if the world were black and white,
you would be my rainbow in shades of grey.

Click 'n Play!

If I had a fantasy self, it'd be a tentacle monster.

Curious to know when this is going to spin out of control...

Pro choice, by the way.

I fail to see why women you should not hold rights over their own body.

Pro-choice.

The people before me gave plenty of good arguments as to why.

________________
source: animenewsnetwork

Join SRoMU Scanlations or visit #SRoMU at IRCHighWay.

And future child.

That is not a controlled experiment. In fact, what that's actually known as is a case study. And again, it doesn't take into account the similarity of adoptive environments, or even how being in a similar region would play into personality. It's very easy to argue that most of these similarities are completely coincidental.


That's a matter of opinion. You also fail to take in to account that man has been using his advanced intelligence to disrupt the process of evolution for quite some time. Most would argue that inaction to save a childs life from a curable disease is immoral, yet it uses man's intelligence to avoid an otherwise unavoidable event, and potentially disrupt the genetic pool. In the grander scheme of things, perhaps it's evil because it alters the survivability of man. Before you declare some evil, make sure it's not just an opinion.



Really? You don't think that every cell in a body has a complete set of human genetic information? Because they definitely do. Right there in the nucleus. They simply don't utilize it, and function primarily using RNA. Now, anyways, onto the organ argument. Remember, while your argument doesn't take organs into account, mine does. Say I'm killed by a murderer. If I have donated a kidney to save a man's life, does that mean the 'murderer' can't be charged with murder, since a part of my unique genetic code lives on in that other man? A zygote is an incomplete human. So is a fetus. It cannot survive on its own, just like my kidney. My kidney has its own unique genetic code, now, and so does the fetus/zygote. Neither can currently reproduce, yet each could be used to form a new human being if utilized properly.

Yet, in the law, some people have these rights removed. Children don't have the complete set of these rights, nor do many mental patients, and many people otherwise incapacitated in some way. You have made an assumption that isn't necessarily verified by the law, especially in cases where an individual has less than optimal mental or physical capabilities.

Sure it does. It's just defective. Now considering humanity is, from an evolutionary perspective, the results of countless cell defects that turned out beneficial, I think it's perfectly fair to argue that these cancer cells are human. The question is, much like an unborn child, at what point can we draw the line?

Alright then, let's write a sequel metaphor instead. Instead of throwing the kidnapped victim out of the plane, the two of us finish our flight, after which I feed, clothe, and house the victim, and proceed to brainwash him or her with a new set of principles and way of thinking. Twenty years later, I release him or her back into the world, and continue to monitor his or her actions. Wow, this metaphor makes it sound like it might be an even worse crime to give birth and raise a child. I think you might need a better one.


You just keep telling yourself that. Please try and understand that there IS a reason why abortion is contested.


________________
This signature was recovered from Hades to serve in my rotting armies.