The Argument for Abortion is the Same as the Argument Against Vaccination

But at fertilization there IS a human life. Some fail. Some miscarry. That does not mean that there wasn't a human life.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

It's a lot more honest if you use the reply with quote function so other posters know you are addressing them.

 

Maybe singles should think about that before choosing to have children without a partner.

Couples can work opposite shifts so one is home with the children, or one can find a job where they can work from home.

 

Ok so now we are living in a fantasy world where people always know that they will be single parents? Because people don't die unexpectedly or leave their spouse right?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Those are hardly the majority.

 

I don't know what world you are living in, but it is clearly not reality

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

I don't know what world you are living in, but it is clearly not reality ....you can't attack and kill people who pass germs along....gee, that's not very "Pro-Life"
A human embryo/fetus is human.

It is not legally a "person" until birth and NO, THAT argument does not fall to scientists, it falls to the law.

 

Yup, sometimes spouses die and the living pregnant one can't afford another kid on one or none salaries... so she has an abortion..........everyone's situations are different....

not just yours...

 

AGAIN, NO ONE has the right to end an innocent life.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Well, ya, humans do that all the time in war.

And a fetus is neither innocent nor not innocent....and it is not a person.

 

I most certainly do have the right to end any life, innocent or not, that is inside of and attached to my body.

 

I don't think any biologist would disagree that human life begins at conception. The greater questions is "what protections should be given to the developing life?"

Firstly, I don't think anyone would disagree that society shouldn't concern itself with protecting a fertilized egg.
How many fertilized eggs are flushed out monthly?
Is it tragic that fertilized eggs are not protected?
Nature itself loses most fertilized eggs and can't protect them.
Therefore, for living persons to concern themselves with protecting a fertilized egg seems unreasonable.
What if a living person helps the flushing process as to avoid pregnancy? Would it be killing something living?
If a living person helps with the flushing process is it more tragic to lose a developing human life than when it occurs naturally?

Secondly, should society concern itself with protecting implanted fertilized eggs?
A fertilized egg can implant but not grow, or it can grow but then stop developing. How many blastocysts are lost?
Are these losses a tragic end to a human life and a concern for society to protect?
What if a living person intentionally prevents the further development of a blastocyst so that pregnancy is ended and a child will not develop?

50% of all fertilized eggs (human life) are lost by nature.

Embryonic development reaches the fetal stage at 11th week of gestation.
The fetal stage is when development of major organs begin to take shape.
The first trimester ends at 13th week of gestation.
Should society concern itself with protecting a fetus?

The latest statistics from the CDC show that there were 700,000 abortions perfomed 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/pdfs/ss6512.pdf
91.6% of all abortions take place by 13th week gestation.
7.1% of all abortions take place in the second trimester.
1.3% of all abortions take place in the third trimester.
Who are these people choosing abortions?
What are their motivations?
What are their morals? What is their reasoning?

My view is that if abortion is legal, it should be performed earlier in gestational age as possible.
I agree with the concept of unborn child. It is in fact the most innocent among us. Its life was begun by no cause of its own and can possibly be selected for termination by no choice of its own.
Should the reasons for termination (ie, because a woman isn't ready) be determined by society? No.
Should time limitations (first trimestest, second, third trimester, etc) be placed when a woman can decide to terminate? Yes.
The developing embryo increases its likelihood of becoming a living person exponentially as development occurs.
Its potentiality increases exponentially over time. This is not a new or unusual concept. Science uses it quite often to describe processes that involve development.

When you take the data of the CDC in to consideration, it seems to me that most women have similar morality as how I described my own.
Most women seem to choose to terminate her pregnancy as early as possible to fertilization.
It is within the time frame that nature also most often terminates pregnancies.

If a choice by a woman to terminate her pregnancy early in pregnancy is a tragedy, then why would it not stand to reason that loss of all other naturally terminated pregnancies are a tragedy?