Abortion; Why?

This is the real deal.

That's semantics anyway.

it? what is it? calling something IT seems to rob "it" of humanity as well.

You're still ignoring the fact that making it LEGAL would help SAVE lives, as opposed to those "back alley" operations. You're argument makes no sense and you're not tackling the questions raised and instead trying to raise other ones in an attempt to steer the conversation away from the initial point. What does Gun Control have to do with Abortions? Seems like a straw man argument to me.

You're also attacking rep points because people from the other side disagree with you? Come on man.

Oh well.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

It isn't a child immediately after conception which is the anti abortion argument.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

1/3 pregnancies are a miscarriage in the first trimester anyways. I think it's reidicolous that some people say the minute the sperm hits the egg it's life. Some people even argue its life after ejaculation. I think after first tri-mester abortion should be illegal. Unless the mother is at risk of course. Back alley abortions are way more dangerous than a regular abortion. For the mother and baby. And it's nt ony about rape and incest. Social class is part of this two, not being able to supply for the baby.

Also I don't view abortion as killing a life but just delaying one, since most women will have a child later anyways. If you can ban abortion why not ban condoms? Or the pill?

__________________

Well, I could call it a child, but that was what got your ire up in the first place. The point remains that nothing is really argued by saying "I call it this."

It wouldn't save lives unless you start with the assumption that the children being aborted don't count.

I'm questioning your point. And I think I did it pretty plainly. But I'll certainly reiterate: the fact that people do something is not a good argument for making it legal. Why? Because every illegal thing is done in spite of it being illegal. People take heroine even though it's illegal. People murder people even though it's illegal. And people will continue to own certain guns even if they're banned. By itself, this isn't an argument for legalizing anything.

For disagreeing? Absolutely not. For praising a post with no argumentative content just because they agree with it? Yes. That's emblematic of how tribal and unproductive arguments about controversial topics like this often become. Do you disagree?

"...if someone can't tell me when it becomes a child, they shouldn't expect anyone to take their opinion seriously when they confidently declare when it isn't."

In the Catholic Church that is a Sin or something like that.

Then you disagree with virtually every pro-choice activist, the Supreme Court, and pretty much the entire Democratic party. Just FYI.

This happens in every conversation about abortion I see, by the way. Pro-choice people start by defending the law, but when actually asked what they believe and why they almost invariably offer up something far more moderate than what's actually permitted in practice.

And if a twin dies you've just got another one.

Geez, dude...biologically, this notion is completely whacked out. You don't have a DNA blueprint just waiting to imprint itself on whichever egg is kept past a certain date.

Out of all the semen flying toward the golden egg only one of them actually connects. The rest die off. So what makes the winner so special?

I can't take seriously the position the moment a sperm is fertitlized it is a child.

The sperm fertilizes the egg, but I know what you meant.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Freedom Of Choice. Want to get Abortion? it's your choice not the governments. We are democracy not a dictatorship.

__________________
no one else is dealing with your demons friend - tyler joseph.

As a first-blush reaction to the idea, that's somewhat understandable. But unless you then take that skepticism and use it to find a better line of delineation, and defend that position, this really doesn't mean much.

If you think the standard is ridiculous, produce a less ridiculous one. If you can't, then we're left with the inevitable conclusion that the standard of personhood is going to look a little ridiculous to some people.

The fact that it fertilizes the egg. But that really doesn't have anything to do with what we were just talking about. The point was that abortion does not "delay" a life--if a woman goes on to have a child later, that child will be completely different. A different person with different traits and DNA will be born.

It's quite difficult for the female get an abortion then get a baby years later. The egg was already fertilized. A woman can't just decide when and where she can have it. It happens. You can't time it.

An absolutist positon it is a child (and child is actually a higher standard than life) at the moment of conception strikes me as a more ridiclous position.

According to exit polls from the last election, well over half thought abortion should be legal in most instances.

More ridiculous than what? You've haven't even advanced any alternative position, let alone subjected it to scrutiny.

I guess it just wouldn't be a will post without a reference to the apparently authoritative power of opinion polls, which as we all know are metaphysical arbiters of truth.

Those polls also indicate that the overwhelming majority of voters think there should be restrictions. Public opinion routinely favors more regulation than is actually codified in law.

I believe it becomes a human at conception. Even, if you don't believe that and think it's just a blob of tissue or whatever, no one can deny that it is developing into a human, anyway.

To terminate that process is murder!

Nobody wants to hear your fringe scientific theories about how those little baby looking things are actually babies.