I have yet to hear a good argument for abortion...

1. Basic science tells us a fetus (embryo, zygote, etc) is alive.

2. Genetics (the basis of Mordern Biology) tells us a fetus is human.

3. Common senses tell us a fetus has not commited a capital crime.

So, why is abortion not illegal?

bcuz democrats are for special interest groups. yes the arguement is it is infanticide, and it isnt the mother that is commiting murder, it is the doctor.

Another hot debate topic.

I agree with you. I have yet to hear a good argument for abortion also.

For practice sake I have heard these bad arguments:

1. Fetuses are part of the woman's body because the fetus depends on it's mother.

2. Fetuses aren't conscious so they can't be alive.

3. Horror stories of rape, incest, etc.

Screemin says:
bcuz democrats are for special interest groups. yes the arguement is it is infanticide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This democrat does not support abortion. However, I think that some Republicans are sort of hypocritical ... They are against abortion because it is murder and the child has a right to life . Yet a lot of Rep. are against welfare and programs that would insure that these children would get a good start in life. Many, if not most, abortions are performed on poor women who need help.

You may not have heard a good debate for legal abortions but I haven't heard one for it being illegal. It's part of a woman's body so why shouldn't she be able do do with it what she wants?

I meant all political democrats on national level.

It is not part of the womens body, it is just connected.

One good arguement is in the 'Declaration of Independence'. It is a human, and all humans are entitled to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. And it cannot be comprised to do so before birth in anyway, it is still a person and all have 'certain unalienable rights'.

Is a fetus a human in the first few months? If the fetus were removed the from the woman it would not survive. It is not viable on its in own in the first trimester, so then I would see a fetus as being part of the woman.

Once you get past that first trimester, however, the issue changes. In rare instances, fetuses have lived outside the womb, finishing their development with many months spent in NICU. So it is obviously human life at that point.

Just thought I'd add those thoughts to the fire.

As far as my opinion goes, I see it like this: I would never take risks that would put myself in a situtation where I would need an abortion. However, we can not foresee everything. God forbid I were raped and to become pregnant, why should it be illegal for me to destroy it? Why should I be forced to carry such trauma?

I'm surprised at you Limpubus...you wouldn't spank a child, but you would kill a baby? So what if it's
part of a womans body?

Good point, madtown! Well if you want to get technical, go and look what turnea said up there. But like I said it isnt about banning it, it is about letting the state vote whether they want it or not. I believe it shouldnt even go that far, it should be available from the government but very restricted. So if in the unlikely event that you are raped and impregnated, it could be done. Or if you got accidently pregnant once, say a condom broke or something ... I would think one abortion limit, you had one pregnancy as a scare. Now dont make the same mistake twice, and if she does ... her fault. Deal with it like everyone did before abortions were available.

All right, it seems a lot of you are against abortion (I am iffy about it) but I do see a good reason why abortion should be here. If a woman is poor and she can hardly afford anything would you want a child to live under those conditions? I mean look at all the commercials we have today about sending money to other countries for poor, hungry children. You want a child to live like that? I think abortion should only be performed under extreme cases. Not because they just "don't want to have a child." I understand I might get bombarded by this post. Anyone want to back me up on this?

Here's the bottom line on abortion... when is the fetus considered to be a human?

Conception? First trimester? After the umbilical cord is cut?

The answer to this question is the crux. It's not about woman's choice on what to do with her own body.

As for viability for determining if something is human, it's not a valid test. Heck, a lot of 17 years old can't make it in the real world without their daddy and mommy.

Does a fetus' human status really determine whether we can kill it or not?

I absolutely think it does. If it is viable life then it should not be killed (on the presumtion that the life is innocent and we should not kill innocents). If it is not, then it is no more than "removing a growth." I know that the coldness/clinical attitude I have will *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** many of you off, but it's true. If it can't survive outside of the womb on it's own, it's not officially a human.

As far as it being "a woman's choice." That is a whole new can of worms. This could be best determined by the circumstance. There have been instances where a woman had an abortion simply because she did not want the baby, despite the father stepping up and offering to take full responsibilty once it is born. That seems wrong. But why should we stop a crack using prostitute from abortion when she doesn't know the father and has likely poisoned the fetus anyway?

Abortion is a nasty business but it should remain legal.

The worms have gotten out!

First off, I'm all for woman's right to choose. They can do anything they want. But, they have to also pay the consequences of their actions. (Same for men also)

If they choose to use crack, they'll have to suffer for it. If they choose to party hardy on Fridays and pick up the hunks for some hanky panky, then they were the ones to choose to engage in sex. And one minor potential consequence of sex is being pregnant. They had the choice in engaging in sex, so you have consequences for that.

Now, as for the legality of abortion, it all depends again on how you answer the question, "when does life begin?" And killing a human life should be illegal on all counts, even when it's done through abortion. So, the main question is, "when is the baby a human". Again, choice has nothing to do with it.

From Biology's standpoint, life begins at conception

Turnea- I don't understand your last post. Please explain how "biology" has set a standard that life begins at conception.

In science there are a set of characteristic which all life and only life has.
1.Metabolism (converting energy to a usable form)
2. Responding to stimuli.
3. Cellular Structure.
4. Grow at some point in the organism's development.
By these standards life begins at conception.
Furthermore through genetics we know the embryo is it's own seperate organism.

Thank you turnea. I agree with your definitions. Which is why, in practice, I would not have an abortion unless raped. And even in that instance, I could only do it in the first trimester. I know it is appalling to some that my decision is weighed by "viable" life rather than your definition of life. But I can't get past the fact that it would be as equally appalling to carry a rapist's child.

Perhaps it's emotionally disturbing, but in the rational sense, killing that rapist's child is still murder.

I don't see it as murder. Murder needs to be done to a human. While the groups of cells that are working to become human in the first trimester are life, they are not yet fully human. Therefore, it is not murder. I believe it becomes murder after the first trimester. As our medical technology gets better, this definition will likely change and I will be forced to deal with that issue.

Why is the critical period the first trimester?

I think I best explained it in my previous post in this topic on Oct 4 2002, 12:17 AM.

This is really complicated. If one believes that abortion is wrong (murder) then one cannot agree with Screemin
it's allowable to have one abortion ie; commit murder once.

Rape? Crack babies? Those are hard ones, and what about aborting a badly deformed fetus? Each case should be considered
seperately? Even that wouldn't work if abortion is considered murder. If it isn't , then the government should not
be involved at all.

You are right Mega, many of these children we "save" will live miserable lives and end up in prison. They will end up costing
society money anyway you look at it. If we insist on them being born, we must assume some responsibility for their well being.

I tend to think life starts at conception. I don't see how it could be otherwise. I just don't know.

One more thing, there is always the option of adoption for those who just don't want to be bothered with another child and for those who can't afford any more children.

I agree with Jaime that a fetus is not a human until it is capable of functioning outside of the mother's body.

I don't believe that abortion should be used as a habitual form of birth control, but I do believe that it should be legal. Accidents happen even to people who have been careful and taken the proper precautions. If a woman isn't financially, physically, or emotionally able to take care of a child, than she shouldn't be forced to have a baby. It's not good for her or the child.

There is the option of adoption, and many women take that option, but it's not appropriate for everyone. It takes time, money, and the right state of mind to carry a baby and then give it up not to mention the physical state that the fetus may be in.

Abortion itself is a very emotionally scarring and difficult decision for most women to make. For those women who do come to that conclusion, I want to see them handled properly, and not in some back alley abortion clinic.

Returning to reason (as I usually do), a fetus is human by scientific standards. This is determined by genetics. I don't believe a person should be killed just because his/her life may turn out to be hard. The money involved in putting a child up for adoption is easily avoidable, the child should be given a chance to live no matter what "stress" it causes on the parents. Stress is no reason to murder.
It seems to me that destroying "inviable" human life is still dstroying human life and therefore, murder.

Who would have ever thought - semantics becomes the difference between life and death.

Best to err on the side of life, I always say.

Sorry, I couldn't resist

By scientific standards the DNA is human, but the fetus still requires the mother for survival. Additionally, a fetus begins to respond to stimulii after the first trimester, and it does not exhibit normal human brainwaves until the beginning of the third. A fetus in the first trimester is not a sentient being.

You are correct that the money aspect of putting a baby up for adoption is easily avoidable, but there is still an issue of time and emotional trauma. In addition to that, the world is plagued by a population problem, and an excess of 30,000 children die everyday because they don't have access to food or proper medical care. These children have already been born and are sentient, and there are many adoption programs to help save these children, but there are not enough people to adopt all of the available children. What is more important: a potential life that is not sentient or a life that is already in existence? Why should we force women to give birth to unwanted babies and add to the problem?

1. Whether or not the fetus depends on it's mother has no bearing on whether it is human life.

2. A fetus responds to stimuli throughout it's development, just not all stimuli, it's still alive.

3. Wheter or not it is sentient doesn't matter either it's still human and alive.

4. At least children put up for adoption have a CHANCE at a good life, many do just fine.

5. Abortion will never reach a high enough rate to make any difference in the population problem.

6. All life is important.

I disagree. At this stage, it is merely a potential human life, because it is not sentient. It doesn't think or emote as a human does. It is not even aware of its own existence.



Alive in the lowest sense, but not sentient.



I disagree. Sentience does matter. The degree of sentience is the way in which humans classify lifeforms.



True, but adoption is not the problem. There are a plentiful amount of children that need to be adopted.



Every unwanted child that is born makes a difference in the problem.



Are you a vegetarian?

1. Yes, I'm a vegetarian.

2. If one is to be reasonable, a fetus is human (determined through genetics) and alive as you have already admitted.
4. Even children which are not adopted have a chance at life.

So a fetus in a living human, killing a living human is murder.

Being that you are a vegetarian, it gives more weight to your personal argument, because you don't believe in killing any life regardless of its status. I can respect that. It's all about symantics and personal belief. I don't feel that a human fetus is sentient and therefore, I place it below all lifeforms that are aware of their own existence. It may sound cold, but to me, until the second trimester, aborting a fetus is equivalent to ridding oneself of a parasite.

Cyan: A human parasite?

I suppose the best thing would be to outline my belief. I believe the legal definiton of human life should be based on science, this avoids mere public opinion as well as religious definitions.
Thoughts?

Parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Until that baby is accepted by the mother as something more, it is in essence a parasite.



Turnea, even scientists can't come to a simple, conclusive agreement on this. That is part of the reason why it has been a hot topic for so long. Science, religion, philosopy...They all have an integral role to play. That's why I believe that abortion should remain legal. Each person within their own ideology can make a choice, and if that choice happens to be abortion than it will be a safe procedure with available counciling to help the mother through the trauma.

My question was whether or not the fetus is human. Any honest biologist should be able to tell you a fetus is human and alive. It is true that it is a parasite, but I believe being a living human should be enough to ensure that if you killed, it will be looked into legally and the killer prosecuted.

For you and I, this is a circular argument. Yes, a fetus is human. Yes, it is alive, but it is not yet a sentient being, and therefore, abortion is not equivalent to murder. You may not think that this is a viable argument, but within my ideology, it is. We could argue about it until the end of time, and we would always come to the same conclusions. We are at an impasse unless new evidence is presented.

One thing I want to add is that it's not possible to argue for abortion by the fact that a fetus is a parasite.

By your definition of a parasite, even a baby is a parasite. A baby outside of the womb is totally dependent on it's mother for growth, nourishment, sheltor, etc. A baby contributes nothing to the survival of the mother.

And what about old people with Alzheimer's? Quadraplegics? Mentally challenged? They can all be classified as parasites too.

Human life is valuable simply cause they are alive. The value of human life has nothing to do with it's contribution to other people. It also has nothing to do with how well it can survive on it's own.

As I said before, a fetus in the first trimester is not a sentient being. A baby outside of the womb, a person with Alzheimers, Quadraplegics, Mentally Challenged...they are all established lifeforms. That's where the difference lies. Perhaps parasite is not the proper word to use, but my argument remains the same. Abortions should remain safe and legal.

If life begins at the first trimester, then abortion would be acceptable before then.

There has got to be some consensus as to when life begins, it can't be up to personal opinion. I'm not sure what the medical establishment officially declares life to start. But, I think that should be deciding factor to the legality of abortion.

turnea I don't mean to veer off too much here but I just found this today, and I would like to note you said you were a vegetarian (as I quoted...hopefully I am still getting used to the quoter). But do you realize that vegetables are living when you eat them? So in fact when you boil a vegetable or chop it up, your killing a life. So it's not OK to kill of cells still in development, but it's OK to kill and fully grown cells on a plant? I apologize if I have went off course too much.

Not a problem , like all people, I delegate life to different levels. However a fetus is no more "cells in development " than you are (Thousands of your cells are developing at any one time). A fetus is a living, individual, multicelllar organism. I feel it's okay to kill plants (I'd starve otherwise) I don't feel it's okay to kill a LIVING HUMAN which a fetus, by scientific standards, is.

So the fact that abortion is killing a fetus or "cells in development" has been established. But some part of the argument seems to be missing. [I]Why[I] is it being killed? In most cases. it's a person who doesn't want and can't handle a child. If they didn't have an abortion, what kind of life would that kid be living? Most likely, a crappy one. This is a simple form of euthanasia, which of course, is illegal because of illogically thinking conservatives. Abortion saves a kid from a ###### life. The earth is already becoming overpopulated - why add to the problem?

Let's rephrase to this question, "Are there circumstances where it's acceptable to kill someone?" I don't think being simply unwanted is an acceptable circumstance.

Any child who enters this world has the potential of having a miserable life. Sure, some more likely than others. But, should potential misery be the decision if someone lives or not? I don't think so.

As for the world becoming overpopulated, how can you support this claim?

Ok so the overpopulation argument was slightly off unless everyone pregnant in China got an abortion...but there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill a person. And in this circumstance, it isn't even a person yet. The fetus obviously cannot think for itself, and it is fully dependent. A fetus is techinally alive, but is it really [I]living[I]? What's wrong with killing something that is an insanely premature form of life? It can't think...it can't do [I]anything[I] at all. Why is abortion considered so wrong?

otseng.
potential.....sort of like bombing a country because they have the potential of assembeling WMD.

Kill innocent life just in case.

I read all of your thoughts on abortion. The problem is whether or not you consider a fetus a living human or a parasite. We will never agree on this matter. That's why in America you have that choice. Just as you choose to be Rep. or Dem or Independent. To have that choice is one of the great things America is all about. I think I cannot say to anyone who to vote for as that is their decision just as abortion is. Thoughts on this will be appreciated.

A baby that is 1 second old cannot think for itself and it's also fully dependent. With your argument, why not kill a baby that is 1 second old?

Yep, others can also use the same argument against the US. We certainly have the biggest potential in all the world to wipe out everyone out of existance.

You can't wipe someone out just because of "potential".

The ability to choose is an important positive aspect of American life. For example, one can choose to practice one's own religion. However, if that religion involves human sacrifice, it is not lawful, because it is taking away the inalienable right of the victim to life.
Abortion involves the ending of a life, so if the fetus is human, it is definitely not lawful. As turnea reported, there is no scientific basis for the argument against the fetus' humanity.
Also, considering sentience is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is not necessary for the right to life. Humanity is the only requirement.

Hi Shild - welcome to the forum.

Since you brought up the Constitution, I had to jump in (again). The Constitution does grant us the pursuit of life. But it also grants the pursuit of happiness. Based on that, sentience does come into play. A fetus can not understand happiness, therefore the right would be bestowed upon the mother, would it not?

I'm not sure where I stand on abortion in relation to Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that high school students do not have the full freedoms the Constitution provides adults, so it seems unlikely fetuses have those rights.