The abortion clinic down the street from me...

[Drake Dun]

Well, yes. Even a single cell is alive in the ordinary understanding of the word. As are plants and fungi. Viruses are borderline. The point is that there is no scientific answer to the cutoff line for abortion.

[AngelikDemonik]

I find viruses to be very interesting. They're not really living but they aren't dead.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

They arent alive they are just complex molecules..left over parts of a cell. Just like plasmids which can also be parasitic but not alive.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I repeat. Science has nothing to say about when a fetus technically becomes a human, or becomes "alive", because those are fuzzy categories that do not read onto the real world well enough to be dealt with in science. Science can tell you when a fetus becomes viable, or when it has a well developed nervous system, or when it becomes capable of reacting to pain, or whatever. That's it.

So based not on science but simple logic, at what point during a pregnancy does abortion become unacceptable, do you think?

[raggedyanne]

Originally Posted by AngelikDemonik

A lot of pro-lifers seem to live in this happy world where everything is peachy keen and full of sunshine and rainbows. It's not.


I would like to give you an example: A good friend of mine, age 21, had an abortion last year. She is a full-time college student (pays for college herself), lives at home, works part-time at place that does not offer health insurance for part-timer workers and is also 20 miles away from her house, her health insurance is from her father's work and has a car that is in her father's name (including the insurance).

She was on BC, but ended up getting pregnant. She told her parents, and they gave her the choice of having an abortion or keeping the child, but being kicked out of her house, being taken off of her father's health insurance and having her car taken away from her. If her car was taken away from her, she would not be able to get to school or work, therefore she would not be able to provide for the baby or have a place to live at, or one day, have a good paying job. She has no family here, so she had no place to safely live. Her boyfriend, lives an hour away with his parents, makes $7.85/h working part-time with no benefits. He too would not be able to provide for a child, and his parents did not want a pregnant girl living with them.

So it was either keep the baby and have no place to live (you can only stay at women's shelters for a certain amount of time due to over-crowding), lose her car, drop out of college since she wouldn't be able to get there without car (which would then prevent her from getting a better job one day), lose her job since she would have no way of getting there, have no health insurance in which she wouldn't be able to receive prenatal care or health care for herself and the baby once it's born, losing all ties with her family, and in the end, living and raising her child in a life of poverty. All of the above would have happen (minus raising the child if she chose adoption, as well) had she decided to keep the baby.

There is no organization out there that will provide a pregnant woman with safe housing, a running car, car insurance, healthy food, healthcare for mom and baby, or day-care for working mothers until they are able to care for the child themselves.

I'm willing to bet she is not the only girl out there in that type of situation.

And some people would have her give up everything to give birth to a child she can't take care of. That's sick. Abortion is an option that should be available. Not everyone may agree with it, but if they don't like it, they don't have to do it.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

A fetus is always alive just like how my intestine cells are alive and how E coli is alive. All react to touch.

But will your intestine cells or E. coli one day develop into a fully functional sentient human being? Or even, for that matter, a partially functional, brain-dead one?

[raggedyanne]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

A fetus is always alive just like how my intestine cells are alive and how E coli is alive. All react to touch.

Which is why something that reacts to touch and is "alive" is not necessarily a living breathing human capable of living on it's own. I may be able to feel my baby kicking, but if it was found to have a life threatening disease or if adoption wasn't an option, I would abort it. Because at this time I can't take care of a child, especially one with disabilities, and it's not fair to the baby to be born into that situation.

And abortion never becomes unacceptable at any point during the pregnancy. If there is a reason - medical, financial, or emotional - that the child should not come into this world, than abortion is an acceptable option. It just reaches a point where if you aborted or induced labor it would have the same effect and you might as well just have the damn thing.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

But will your intestine cells or E. coli one day develop into a fully functional sentient human being? Or even, for that matter, a partially functional, brain-dead one?

Im not arguing a view Im just the fact gal.

[Tea and Cake or Death]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Can you write what the youtube link is for people who have run out of fast internet.

[Tea and Cake or Death]

George Carlin and his views on abortion. I have to say that I agree.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

But it's not really a contradiction - the Bible states that murderers (as well as rapists, gays, and kids who cuss at their parents) should be put to death.

Which Bible are you reading? The Old Testament does say that. The Book Of Mathew Jesus then tells us about forgiveness. He also goes into great length about getting rid of 'eye-for-an-eye' and other Old Testament ideas in favour of forgiveness. Jesus gave his life as to atone for the sins of man - the New Testament does away with the whole stoning of people for this and that, animal sacrifice, and those sort of things because the teachings of Jesus, and his eventual death, made those practices obsolete.

It's fair enough to say that not adhering to religious doctrine gives you more freedom to pick and choose your opinions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a baby has more of a right to life (through adoption, for example, if it's purely an economic decision) than a murderer - someone who has taken life.

Again, you have to base that on something. You can't say you value one life more than another, without any qualifying statements. There is something religious or spiritual that is driving that statement whether you want to admit it or not.

I assure you, they're cast-iron atheists. I can't speak for both, but one bases her decision on the fact that abortion shouldn't take place after the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb (I think this was discussed earlier in the thread). She also thinks adoption should be used as an alternative.

So your friend believes 'abortion shouldn't take place after the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb' - thats not pro-life then. She still thinks early abortions and the morning after pill is fine by your assertion there. She would still be pro-choice.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by viscus

So based not on science but simple logic, at what point during a pregnancy does abortion become unacceptable, do you think?

There is no answer based on simple logic. That's the point I've been trying to make. You have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere.

[raggedyanne]

The problem with this whole argument is that people's opinions on the topic aren't necessarily based on logic, but on emotion.

[TopHaggardDoll]

Raggedyanne just hit the nail on the head.

When you say "murdering babies" you're putting a very strong emotion and image in a persons head.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Which Bible are you reading? The Old Testament does say that. The Book Of Mathew Jesus then tells us about forgiveness. He also goes into great length about getting rid of 'eye-for-an-eye' and other Old Testament ideas in favour of forgiveness. Jesus gave his life as to atone for the sins of man - the New Testament does away with the whole stoning of people for this and that, animal sacrifice, and those sort of things because the teachings of Jesus, and his eventual death, made those practices obsolete.

Sure, in theory. But it is in there if you're a Christian who's looking for justification. Just like some people claim to be all about Jesus then quote Leviticus on the subject of homosexuality.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Again, you have to base that on something. You can't say you value one life more than another, without any qualifying statements. There is something religious or spiritual that is driving that statement whether you want to admit it or not.

No, it's based on how they perceive the crimes of the killer as opposed to the innocence of the newborn. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't subscribe to this view myself, but I don't see what's so complicated about it.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So your friend believes 'abortion shouldn't take place after the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb' - thats not pro-life then. She still thinks early abortions and the morning after pill is fine by your assertion there. She would still be pro-choice.

Nah, just bad explanation on my part. She doesn't believe in abortion, period, and thinks adoption should be used as an alternative. However, she makes some concessions to science, viewing it as even more morally reprehensible once the baby can survive outside the womb. But that doesn't mean she's okay with it the rest of the time. My bad, I didn't make that clear enough.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

There is no answer based on simple logic. That's the point I've been trying to make. You have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere.

Given that a fetus less than six months old is inextricably linked to a woman's body, it is therefore part of her body and hers to do with as she pleases, so abortion is acceptable during that period. It makes perfect sense to me, but I suppose my premise would be arbitrary.

[raggedyanne]

Originally Posted by viscus

Given that a fetus less than six months old is inextricably linked to a woman's body, it is therefore part of her body and hers to do with as she pleases, so abortion is acceptable during that period. It makes perfect sense to me, but I suppose my premise would be arbitrary.

I agree with you. After six months abortions are really only practical when the child is horribly ill, deformed (spinal or neural), or already dead.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by viscus

Given that a fetus less than six months old is inextricably linked to a woman's body, it is therefore part of her body and hers to do with as she pleases, so abortion is acceptable during that period. It makes perfect sense to me, but I suppose my premise would be arbitrary.

Would you grant a siamese twin the right to kill his brother?

[viscus]

In doing so would he not kill himself? Is it okay for a siamese twin to commit suicide if it means his brothers death as well?

I'll have to mull that one over. But my opinion of abortion stands.