Of course it's a potential human being: it has the potential to become a human being. Just because there may be complications or obstacles towards that process doesn't change that fact. Not until all of that is done. And if it were, then I would value the new fertilized egg.
Why argue over what qualifies as "Life" when all that is needed is a simple solution that appeases both the Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion camps? It is evident that it would be unjustly cruel to condemn a woman to undergo and carry out an unwanted pregnancy for the satisfaction of others. A 13-year-old child should not be forced to undergo pregnancy caused by rape, especially when the pregnancy potentially threatens the life of both the child and the baby. That, I believe, is something we can all unequivocally agree on. Abortion is not something to be abused. It is something that should be conducted in the appropriate matters and not merely as a replacement for practicing safe sexual interactions. Like anything, it should be used responsibly, and with high consideration beforehand. Yet Abortion also entails the killing of the newborn growing inside them, a fellow human, who by all means did not choose to be in this world of their own doing. They merely followed the course of Nature, and thus are innocent of the very actions that brought them their existence. They possess the potential for great things in the future. Ten, Twenty, Thirty years from their birth, these new people could bring about great change in our world. They could be someone's caring spouse, a loving parent, a savior to others, and much, much more. Their only crime is having been unwanted, and that is a message we cannot send to our fellow people on Principle. We must accept anyone and everyone based on their own merits and actions, not by the history and actions of others. To kill one's own flesh and blood out of shame or discontent is not only to deny their right to exist, but to question the very idea of what makes us Human. There is no shame in requiring an abortion for the most dire of cases. We do what needs to be done to protect the lives of our Women, and we wholly understand that. However, there is great honor to be had if a woman chooses to bring life to this world regardless of the circumstances that arises, to give our new descendant a chance to prove oneself and to make a difference in this great world of ours. That in itself is enough reason to give hope and pride to the mother who, despite all difficulties and challenges, sacrificed herself to bring about this miracle of life, regardless of the circumstances. I should note that technology is advancing at an exponential rate, and that we are soon reaching the point that we may grow individual body parts to assist in the Medical Field. With such advancements, we can hope that one day, there will lie the technology that shall allow the complete extraction of a fetus to safely grow and mature without the mother's womb, essentially eliminating any past opposition to Abortion. What will be done once the fetus reaches maturity and a new Human is introduced to the world is a whole other argument for another time...
In that case, you do need to convince the government that personhood starts at conception (otherwise you do not get to make it illegal). What is your evidence that personhood starts at conception?
for legal purposes life begins at birth, otherwise women should be able to claim life insurance on their miscarriages threw there work life insurance on their children
Having the potential to be a person does not make it a person. If you paid somebody to build you a house, and they left you a pile of building materials on the property (a potential house) I think you would recognize the distinction between potential and actual. The fact that you would value every fertilized egg is no evidence that the rest of the world should value every fertilized egg. Apparently you do not recognize that this defeats your argument about "unique DNA." When you take a living cell and induce it to replicate, it is no longer building a unique human body. It becomes obvious that the human body is just a life support system and it is the mind (which is a product of experience processed by an active brain) that makes a unique person.
If you recognize that abortion is a a personal issue, why would you want the state to continue meddling in it (or did you mean that in terms of maintaining standards and safety)?
You can make these arguments until you are blue in the face, they will make no difference, because they are all being used to counter the "life of the fetus" arguments, which are all deceptions. The religious fanatics that support these laws don't believe them themselves The anti freedom laws should be called the Jezebel Punishment Statutes, their real purpose is to punish women for being the "vessels of sin" and tempting a man to risk his IMMORTAL SOUL by having SEX, the evil HUSSY. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, as is clearly indicated by the fact that all the anti-freedom religious fanatics are the first ones to cut welfare programs that help poor children. The more religiously brainwashed may even be deceiving themselves this way but many are not. Sex continues to be the greatest sin in Christianity, (even Will Durant noted the almost pathological way in which Christianity hates sex) and pregnancy is the main way in which religious fanatics want to punish it and that is the main purpose of these laws.
And even then it remains a medical procedure. Beyond enforcing a safe procedure in the opinion of qualified medical people the state has no further interest. Religious fanatics used this excuse to almost make abortions impossible to get in Texas and other states until the SCOTUS recently slapped them down
You state that violence is acceptable (in fact "needed") to support the institutions of civilization such as private property. Are you saying it would be acceptable to shoot an intruder because he might steal some of your property, but it would be illegal for a pregnant woman to abort an embryonic intruder that might endanger her future and/or her health. If so, that suggests that you value property more than you value the woman's quality of life.
Assessing the value of those things cannot be done in the abstract. I value both very highly. - - - Updated - - - We've already been over this. I really don't care. It's completely irrelevant to my position.
Do you think the trend of sexual conservatism among religions developed for no reason? That they were just saying "ew icky sex"? - - - Updated - - - I'm not sure how I can say anything that will make you understand, but I don't care when personhood starts. How much longer are you going to make up your own version of what I do and do not believe? Go back and read my words and try to understand them.
If your position is that you personally believe it is wrong to get an abortion, then your reasons are irrelevant. If you want the government to enforce your beliefs on everybody else, then you have to justify your reasons to those with different beliefs. Otherwise you are just begging the government to enforce your personal religious beliefs (whether you call them "religion" or not). Some people believe it is wrong to injure ANY life at all (including the ant that you might have crushed on your way to breakfast this morning). One could argue that theirs is an even higher morality than yours (since you are only concerned about human life). Don't you agree it would be wrong for the government to take that extremely moral position and impose it on the rest of the country?
Not all religions consider sex a taboo, but any organization that survives over a long period of time must have control over its members. Interesting that the religions based on an organizational hierarchy also declare sex to be one of the aspects of private life to be controlled according to the organization's dogma. I see that you only care when the empty human body starts to form, but you have not proven that a mere human body deserves to be treated the same as a person. I respect your right to believe and practice whatever you sincerely believe, but I do not support the pro-life practice of forcing others to follow their (primarily religious) beliefs.
I believe life begins before birth, abortion should be legal The problem is that how abortion is being abused. abortion should only be for medical reason if there is a health issue for the mother and the baby not for sexual inconvenience.
How to get the "government" to act according to my beliefs is a totally separate issue from the one at hand. It has nothing to do with me personally convincing anyone of anything, and more to do with the evolution of culture and ideology. For the last few centuries I think Western society has been in decline. I don't see that turning around very rapidly. I don't believe in meta-physical morality, just virtue ethics.
Yea, do you understand why? I don't have to prove anything. That's my view. So be it. My belief is not religious though.
None of the above. First of all, "life" is not a legitimate measure of when abortion is morally just. We eject all kinds of "life" from the body all the time. We kill "life" to make room for houses and shopping centers. We kill "life" to put food on the table. Now, let's talk about the developmental cycle of a fetus. It's actually not even called a "fetus" until about the eighth week of pregnancy, which is more than halfway through the first trimester. Before that, it's just an embryo. A clump of cells. A fetus doesn't feel pain until about the 20th week of pregnancy, well after the first trimester. The fetus' brain impulses don't begin to fire until about 14 weeks, again after the first trimester. Senses don't develop until about 19 weeks. All that being said, 92% of abortions take place in the first trimester. Which means a supermajority of abortions take place before the fetus is developed in any sort of significant way. I am not opposed to bans after the first trimester, as I believe 13 weeks are more than enough time to get an abortion if one is inclined to do so, but let's not pretend like babies are being murdered en masse. That's demagoguery, irrationality, and really just a plain (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lie.
Great post and true! How ironic that a certain religion is against abortion while protecting and hiding their own who rape children...
From PhilosophyBasics: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_virtue_ethics.html Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves (Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism). In what way does abortion diminish the moral character of the (formerly) pregnant woman? In most cases, the woman evaluates her resources, capabilities, and relationships before deciding that the only responsible thing to do is to terminate a pregnancy.
I can't take you seriously until you stop putting words in my mouth, asking me to justify things I never said.
Just because abortion is a personal issue, that is not to say that the state has no interest in the matter. You mention a couple of them (standards and safety), and I can think of other possibilities. But the point is that I don't think people living in AL or LA necessarily need to implement things in exactly the same way as those living in MA or NH. That's just my opinion.
A fetus in AL or LA does not develop into personhood any faster or slower than one in MA or NH, and there is no more or less of an excuse for politicians to seize control of a pregnancy in one state than in another.
Is "13 weeks" arbitrary, or does is it a significant developmental stage in human gestation? If not, the more onerous politicians make it to obtain an early abortion, the longer a woman should have to exercise her reproductive rights - up to the stage that an actual sentient person has developed.
Women who are American citizens are American citizens in every state of the union. They should not have their rights restricted because of the state they live in. The Constitution gives them the same rights as anyone else. States do have the right to restrict abortion to 23 weeks since that's when it's generally accepted the fetus is viable (able to live outside the woman). That's a compromise and a good one since most abortion are done well before that.
Because late term abortions are more emotive - even though second term abortions are usually done for lack of access to earlier abortion and third term abortions are overwhelmingly done for foetal abnormality
