Abortion
Posted 39 weeks 4 days ago byWhat do you think about it? I know its a human being, and therefore, it cannot be acceptable to kill a person, no matter how little we know about the person, and how convient it would be to kill them! Remember that the definition of a human is 46 chromosomes, 23 from the father, 23 from the mother, so basically once the egg is fertelized, 'it' becomes human! There is no other moment! And if your parents had aborted you, would you be here? NO! So logically, its not acceptable! Murder isn't, nor is abortion!
Thoughts
While I can see where you
Submitted on February 18th, 2008 by ReneeWhile I can see where you are coming from, your logic is flawed. Forty-six chromosomes does not necessarily make an organism human. For example, a hare also has forty-six chromosomes, while a person with Down syndrome (aka trisomy 21) has forty-seven chromosomes. By your definition, the hare is more human than the individual with down syndrome. Just a thought...
I think that KansasGirl hit the nail on the head with her point that supporting choice really is less about abortion and more about not wanting government control over the issue.
I haven't got this one figured out yet.
Submitted on February 16th, 2008 by KansasGirlI don't know what I would do, if put in that position. What I do know is, whatever I would decide, my decision is personal. It should be up to only me. The flip side of that coin is, I don't get to tell anyone else what they should do, either. Remember that, depending on who's in charge, a decision to legislate against choice could go either way. Just like I wouldn't want someone telling me I couldn't keep a baby, I don't want someone telling me I have to. Supporting choice is less about abortion, and more about the fact that there are certain things no government should control. Family planning is one of them.
That's interesting. My
Submitted on February 16th, 2008 by AnonymousThat's interesting. My definition of a human is a being that can breathe on its own, separate from another. Chromosomes aren't enough -- you need to have gestation, meaning 9 months or so of a woman giving of her body in order to make a baby. Forced pregnancy is such an extreme form of servitude I don't see it as being a reasonable solution.
What about birth control? What about preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than criminalizing women who don't want to serve as state-governed breeders? That would do more to reduce abortion of pregnancies than abstract "definitions" of what is human.
Do we want the government occupying the uterus? Do we want the government controlling human reproduction? Where do we draw the line? When the woman actively seeks to abort her pregnancy? When she has an (unhealthy) drink? When she eats the wrong food? When she does the wrong activity?
What about when she uses birth control? Some would criminalize that, too. What about when she says "no"? That goes against the natural dominion of man, doesn't it?
At what point to the leg-irons get slapped onto her ankles? At what point does she become ward of the state?
What about the woman's own personhood?
First I would like to point
Submitted on February 16th, 2008 by bubblesFirst I would like to point out that a very small percentage of abortions are because of rape/incest! Secondly, two wrongs don't make a right! Just because the act that brought the child into the world was wrong, doesn't mean that the baby will be! Now don't get me wrong, I feel really really really sorry for any women who gets raped, and even worse, then becomes pregant, but there is adoption! And again, only a very small fraction of abortions are because of rape or incest.
What about in cases of
Submitted on February 16th, 2008 by AnonymousWhat about in cases of rape/incest?