Bingowings said:
darth_ender said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that ultimately it all boils down to. Excluding rape/incest/mother's health, which inevitably only account for a relatively small portion of all abortions, they all seem to fall under the categories I described. Even a young pregnant teen has an abortion because of convenience...a child would interfere with her life, would be expensive, would be unloved and unwanted, would not have a father, or something else along those lines. In other words, inconvenient. If I'm wrong, I'd love some enlightenment.
I take it you include mental health under the health bracket?
Indeed I do, though I think such an argument is overused. Having a child is mentally and physically stressful on any parent. If mental health were enough of a reason to abort a child, then perhaps we should actually set our limit after birth. I mean, children are extremely stressful. Besides, they don't gain self-awareness for several months, and their deaths can be made utterly painless. Of course I don't believe any of this, but my point is that mental health should be limited in interpretation, otherwise it can be argued for any case. I make rape/incest my point of willing flexibility.
Not that some women who go through an abortion aren't traumatised by it but similarly some pregnant women are not emotionally mature enough to cope with trauma of child birth and the dilemma and the emotional fall out of letting go of the baby.
Perhaps not. But may I also state that few people are emotionally mature enough to have children. They just make do. It's physically and emotionally traumatic. It changes lives. People can and should seek mental health assistance liberally if necessary.
And besides it's not as if it's a human being when it's a just a bunch of cells.
If it's no more able to feel suffering than a prawn in a salad (which most of you guys would eat) why get so romantically attached to it that you intrude onto the rights of others?
While I understand your point, I respectfully disagree. Especially considering your respect of all animal life and not just humans, I would think you'd understand the value of preserving such life.
From a religious standpoint, I of course see it as a human with a spirit. But understanding that not everyone is religious, I appeal to a different argument, that of potential. If a human is in a coma with little brain activity, he/she too is little more than a bunch of cells. But if the doctors do believe there is any chance of recovery, it would certainly be unethical to "pull the plug" under any circumstances. Again I'm going to look at Mars. What if we found microscopic life there? What if we endangered that life? To what lengths would humanity go to preserve it? I imagine they'd do whatever possible. And why? For some sort of bacteria? It's not human. But it has potential! What could teach us? What could it evolve into? We would save it because of its potential. We'd have no other rationale. But it's a reasonable reason. But if we are willing to save a primitive life because of its potential, then we should be willing to save a bunch of cells termed a human embryo or fetus, because it has the potential to be a thinking, sentient human.
Don't get me wrong, when people who want children miscarry at that stage it's physically and emotionally traumatic for the parents and their family who have had their hopes dashed. But in that instance it's the parents who have suffered not the fetus because it can only be compared to a human baby with any degree of success quite a distance down the journey.
Clearly.
In an ideal world people would use successful contraception in the event of engaging in sex without intending to have children.
If they never intend on having children they should use surgical contraception.
Won't disagree.
Activities do have consequences and all options should presented as soon as possible but to demonise early abortions is daft.
The later the abortion the more difficult the decision and the worrying a moral maze it becomes.
Ultimately it should be scientists which draw up where the demarcation line is.
Not spiritual leaders? Not representative politicians? Not the general populace? Not that I agree with the general populace or the majority of our elected officials, but it's simply not so cut and dry. It is a moral maze, but only to those who do not see the extent of the loss of an unborn child, the loss of a human life, even if that life has only barely begun. If we truly value human life, then that value should not only begin when human life is capable of self-awareness or feeling pain or whatever. A human life is a human life, and in general we should do everything to protect it.