Reply To: Abortion Ftw.

[Vicelin]

irawk said: My two cents: The major argument pro-Abortionists use is that women who got pregnant from rape shouldn’t be forced to carry their child. Serious cases such as rape or serious threat to the mother’s health make up LESS THAN TWO PERCENT of all abortions. Therefore you CANNOT base an argument FOR abortion SOLELY on *serious* cases.

Please don’t confuse pro-abortion with pro-choice ._. there is a huge difference between the two, and it’s kind of insulting when you mesh them together like that.

Also, yes, you have a point. But since my argument isn’t based solely on those serious cases, your point is moot. You are also excluding the percentage of women who get abortions because dispite using contraception, pregnancy happened. They tried their best to have protective sex, but accidents happen because contraceptives aren’t full-proof. Do you think they shouldn’t count because they still don’t have a medical condition or weren’t raped?

Chameleon said: I think one of the main sticking points is where to define “life”… some people say that it’s as soon as the fetus “exists”, and other people don’t define life as starting until the third trimester… :/

I think that it is a “life” as soon as it reaches the embryonic stage, but then even bacteria and cancer have “life”. “Life” doesn’t concern me as much as “conciousness”. Abortions that happen after the fetal stage tend to irk me. Abortions beyond the second and third trimester upset me unless the mother developed a serious medical condition or some other life-changing factor has appeared.

tarheel91 said: This argument only works if you feel the fetus isn’t a living human (and thus has no rights). However, if you think the fetus is a living human, then saying WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ignores the fundamental right to life the fetus has (trumps right to choose, sorry).

Seriously people, discuss whether or not a fetus is living. That’s the assumption everything hinges on. Everything else is irrelevant.

First, yea, I totally misread the last post, sorry about that xD…

Anyway, down to buisness. I completely disagree that the fetus “right to life” trumps the womans “right to choose”. I find this logic completely irrational. The fetus has no conciousness, comprehensible thought or any idea at all of what is going on. It doesn’t think, it doesn’t feel, and is 100% dependent on the mother carrying it. It is literally attached to her, sharing her body, her food, nutrients, pretty much everything but her pain. Whereas the mother is a concious human being with thoughts, feelings (both physical and mental), a very good idea of what is going on, and get this: her right to life, which includes her right to terminate pregnancy in favor of maintaining the life she currently has. It’s her life, her choice. And until that fetus is no longer 100% dependent on her body and hers alone, that life is connected to her and thus belongs to her.

As for the second part, of course a fetus is alive. Anyone who claims otherwise is in serious denial or is just plain stupid. But like I said to Chameleon, even bacteria and cancer are alive. It sounds like the main argument seems to be concerning the idea of “potential” life, which I think is complete bull. Every living being has “potential” life. Hell, I have “potential” life tomorrow. And the next day, and the next day. Because what am I doing? Living. And what does each day have? Potential, because I could die at any given minute. Most likely at the hands of, guess what? Another human being.