abortion is mainly an issue if you believe a human is more than a bag of water. As for adopting orphans, that really does not address the problem directly, rather indirectly. A good idea but not a solution to elective, legal abortion. It is truly amzing where people can argue for killing babies because the babies, when born into this world, would be treated in an inhuman way.
we are more than bags of water... we are made of skin, blood, fat, muscle, bone etc. so ya, not just water. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For me, it's an issue of individual willpower. An unborn child doesn't have a choice in the matter, which to me is wrong. Everyone deserves that chance to make something out of themselves. Criminals who end up on death row get that only for the most heinous crimes. They had their chance at life and they chose to do what they did. The unborn never got the chance.
Watch a sonogram of an abortion where the fetus is moving away from the vaccume tube, or read the info on fetuses heartrates responding to hearing the voices of their parents and then you can come back to that one. I've also seen fetuses touch their bodies and curiously explore themselves the way all children do when they are very little. They react to stimuli of just about any kind just like anyone else does. The problem with your argument is that the fetus is simply not in a position to display some of the behaviors of self-awareness behaviors (like staring in the mirror) because of it's circumstances during conception and development. Once a baby is born it can cry in distress and display it's wants and needs non-verbally, grab it's toes, and stare in the mirror. Thus, your argument is completely circumstantial and has nothing to do with the mental capabilities of the unborn. Of course you could also get into the stages of development idom, but self awareness has been proven definiatively in lesser developed life forms such as the Gurilla, Orca, Elephant, Dolphin, Chimpanzee, and other lesser mammals. Thus, at what point IS the fetus "human" by your standards? Clearly it would be by the time of birth and thus by extention for some time before that, while the brain is functional and aware. If that is indeed your precidence for personhood it's highly disturbing. By your definition anyone who gets knocked into a coma, or gets brain damaged by an unforseen accident isn't a person anymore. If you want to begin that kind of eugenics you're in for a freaking bloodbath. Hitler tried it. The Scandinavians and much of Europe does it passively. There were plenty of disabled and mentally incompetents in the Holocaust (not to mention forced abortions based on race or genetic defect). Abortion is a way of life throughout Europe... and in the same conferences they applaude the decrese of the "surplus" population they lamate that there aren't enough people in their countries to support their tax base and take all the jobs they have. In America, we're panicing over the fact that generaion X has a population replacement ratio of 1.5 and that Social Security is collapsing beacuse the tax base isn't big enough to support it anymore. Indeed... when I fill out my tax forms there are deductions and discounts I do not get simply because I was born after 1977. The writing is on the walls, guys... the way I see it Abortion has sapped the strength in numbers that civilization needs to keep going. You watch it. I predict that within 20 years as babyboomers retire and the tax burdon increases on Generation X, the younger ones are going to apply the same rationality that the elderly can't take care of themselves as a reason to deny them personhood and wipe them out.
I personally liked to say that I am against abortion, but I am still pro-choice. However I dreamed that I was pregnant once and the first thought that came to my mind was abortion no questions asked. I know it was just a dream, but my choice and thought process felt so real. I think its truly hard to know where you stand until you are in said situation. After working with women who chose to have abortions or who were otherwised forced to it definatley opened my eyes. I would be an openly cruel and uncaring person to deny a lot of those women abortions. I don't support the death penalty not because I think what criminals did is justifiable or whatever (sometimes it is I suppose), but to me it doesn't seem like the death penalty changes anything. It won't make your pain go away, it won't bring back the people you cared about, and to me it seems like the person who did the crime isn't even being punished. I mean they're dead. Its the friends and family of the criminal who are being punished. So in the end you just end up with two groups of people who are suffering from the loss of someone dear to them. Like a woman I go to school with said after a man was convicted of killing both of her sons, "I don't want him to be put to death, I know that my boys would not want someone else's mother to feel the way that I do. Besides if he's dead he can't sit and think about what he did for the rest of eternity, the mind deals out the best punishments." And I agree with her.
Personal choices often are. But it's not for me to deny a woman the rights over her womb or tell her she is forced to have a child she either does not want or cannot have (for a range of reasons). And some women are bravely able to convince their doctors to let them die and save their child. In the majority of instances, the mother's life is the one that will be saved, regardless of her wishes at the time. But you are right. It is not up to you to "play God" over the wombs of other women. Here's the thing. It is not for me, nor is it my business, to have an issue with what women do with their uterus. It is up to the woman to decide for herself and she should be allowed to decide either way without pressure or force from society. Any issues I may have with abortion are my own and it is not for me to impose my personal wishes or desires upon other women. No you do not. Nor would you appreciate if that choice is taken from you entirely. I agree with you and I understand where you are coming from. I'm just trying to make sure this stays somewhat on topic.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or if they find out their mother had considered an abortion while pregnant with them. Christmas family gatherings would never be the same again..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Really? Wow! I never knew when I watched the ultrasounds of both my children at 6, 8, 12, 18 weeks that they were that aware. I mean wow! At 6 weeks it was just a little sack with some cells plonked in the middle of it and its heartbeat remained steady during the whole thing, regardless of my voice. The same for other weeks. So please, which ultrasounds did you happen to watch when the child reacted that strongly at such an early age? I know when I had 36 week ultrasounds both were reactive and would move when tickled, but before 24 weeks? No. You are talking about 3rd trimester. Not when the majority of women have abortions. Third trimester abortions are usually performed if something very wrong is discovered in the foetus and is no longer viable. First and second trimester fetuses are not self aware as you claim. A person knocked into a coma or gets brain damaged is still a person because they are alive.. ie.. have been born already.
An unconscious child is not self aware, does it make it alright to kill it? A comatose person is also not self aware anymore. Why should having been born already be a mitigating factor? After all, the fetus may not be self aware but I bet having an arm or a leg pulled off does not require self awareness.
SAM: I think you need to realise that the child's interests are not the only ones that need to be considered when thinking about abortion.
Sure, because a child's interests are secondary to the mothers. Even if it means tearing off their body parts to achieve them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Frankly, while I do not object to an D&C done the morning after or even in the first month, most of the "products of conception" I have seen have little arms and legs that are easily recognisable as a child. Somehow, I cannot be convinced that its moral to do that to a child. While I can understand a womans decision not to have a child, I think beyond a certain point of time, its just not right. I can see why a woman would want to abort the product of a rape or incest, but would you despise a person if you found out they were the product of a rape or incest? Is it their fault?
SAM: It may not be in a child's interest to grow up in an environment where it cannot be supported properly, either. Nobody is asking you to do it.
And whose decision is that to make? Should we start killing children who are mentally retarded? In poor countries? When there are too many to a family? No, and I am not speaking for anyone else either.
I don't think the future condition of the child is the heart of the matter. The child/foetus is a part of the mother. These women get to decide what happens to their body, even when it becomes this more complicated body with two sets of DNA. It is not like the baby is in her car. She is not merely a container for something that is not her.
The person or people who will be primarily responsible for the child at birth - i.e. the mother and possibly the father. As long as they are capable of making the decision. No, I don't think so.
