Aw, finally a challenge.
Originally posted by bamthedoc
Science and Biology
Pro-Choice gives absolutely no scientific debate. They only present a logic that is so logical that it becomes it is illogical. This logic is the same that Stalin and Linnon used to kill more than 5 million Russians. It is the same logic that Hitler used to kill more than 2 million Jews. Pro-Choice also uses math that can never bring in Human Nature as it is incalculable. Who is to say what could become of something that is never given the chance to live beyond the fetal stage.
The debate on abortion is not a scientific one, but a moral and logical one. The only way science can play a part in it is if or when they ever conclusivly determine when life begins, until that, the point of science is moot on both sides.
How is it the same logic as Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.
What pro-choice arguements entail math? I can't really think of any.
And you're right, no one can say what can become of something that is never given a chance. It could become the next Einstien...or the next Hitler.
There is no presidence for abortion. In the natural world, there is no such thing as "force" abortion. Only humans are capable of such acts, which include murder. Abortion is the same as murder, period. Science has yet to determine when life begins, though many Christians believe it begins at conception. Science hasn't defined life, so how can Pro-Choice activists define it later and later in the pregnancy process?
Abortions have been going on for thousands of years. There are certain plants in South America that can conduce a miscarage, and are taken for the very reason.
Though granted there is no such thing as abortion in the wild (or at least none that I know of), that is because the species needs every child possible to ensure the survival of the race. But that is not true with humans, see how our population has doubled twice in the past century alone. Suffice it to say, we're over-populated, but unlike animals, we don't have genes that tell us to jump off cliffs to control the population.
When does life begin? I say, "At conception" as the simplest, and likely correct, answer. What does the Pro-Choice movement say? It says that it begins somewhere in the third trimester. They used to say that it began after, what, six weeks? They will get to the point where abortion covers the third trimester, as well. Where to after this? I'll give you the answer instead of waiting for one. The answer is simple, natal. The natal being, some believe, is alive but not human yet. When will it end? When the ignorant woman has 100% control over wether life continues or not!
But the truth isn't always so simple.
As I have said before, I am against any abortions after the third trimester, and also not really a fan of abortion is the second, as the brain and major organs are quite developed by then, but I'll get to that in the next paragraph. So I can not speak for all pro-choicers, as we are not all the same. And I only speak for myself in the matter.
Where is my science arguement, you are asking? The fact that the fetus, pre-natal, and natal beings are all in existance, and abortion laws deny that. What is Pro-Choice but denial? Hmm? I think that defines it best. Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion, and denial is abotion's best definition. It is a denial of culpibility and a denial of rights and a denial of choice!
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion, and just you saying that discredits your entire arguement and really makes you look like a fool. Thats basicly the same as saying that all pro-lifers support abortion clinic bombings, which as we all know, is far from the truth.
Ok, lets take an example. A guy gets shot in the head. Doctors manage to save his life, but, he can not live without machines pumping his blood and pumping air into his viens for him. He is
legally dead. Because if taken off the machines, he would die in minutes. Now, lets make this relivent. The baby/fetus/embryo is the guy, and the mother is the machines. In the first trimester at least, the baby would die in minutes without the mother's "life support". In the first trimester, the brain is not developed, and significant brain waves are detected until 6 months of pregnancy.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the embryo/fetus isn't living, because the cells are multipling and it is growing, I am just saying that I do not
believe that is is alive as a human. I don't believe that happens until the 2 or 3 month mark of pregnancy. Now whether or not the soul enters at conception, I do not know. Perhaps it does, and admittedly that is the simplest and easiest thing to believe. But, the guy that got shot in the head also still had his soul too.
I also believe in reincartation, and believe that, if in fact the soul does enter at conception, the soul simply passes on to another embryo. And seeing how the embryo doesn't feel pain until late in the second trimester, then I see no crime in it really, just terminating something before it ever really began.
As for the denial thing. It is the denail of right, yes. But to whom. When a fetus becomes a person, is when it is entitled the same rights as your or I, but when that happens is the debate. And we can only speculate on it.
Denyinng the rights to the father? Maybe. When in cases of rape, the "father" has no rights, as it was not consensual. When in cases of teen pregnancy, the father is a minor, and is the mother. And in your honest opinion, how many 15-17 year olds would take on that kinda responsibility? So in many of those cases, the father simply doesn't care, and in fact would prefer an abortion, as it is the easy way out for him. But, when it is between 2 married or not adults, then yes, I do believe the father should have a say in the matter.
Denial of the parents? Not really. The parents only play a part until 18, after that they play no part in the desicion.
Incest, a denail of rights? To who? The father? The parents? The very same ones that did that to her?
Presidence in biology is no where to be found. Men and Women share in the responsibility, and abortion is a denial of the man's role. Oh! Rape will follow under the pyscological category. In a perfect world, men and women would share the pregnancy.
There are many animals in the wild that the male does not share resonsibility in the upbringing of the offspring. And there are many men on the world that also don't care and want nothing to do with their offspring as well.
Let's look at that, specifically! I have recently watched an episode of Sliders that brought up this issue. Women would carry thier child to the begining of the third trimester. At that point, complications would force the removal of the fetus or cost both the expectant mother and her child thier lifes. The father, has to be the father, then carries the child for a week (yes, a week) to finish the trimester in an artificial womb. The society in that world of that episode had strict anti-abortion laws, from what I could tell. Also, I speculate that rape was much less of a concern (you can imagine why).
Is this science fiction? It has not only appeared in various series, it has appeared in the movie Junior. Scientists even speculate that men could be sharind in thier wive's pregnancies in the future (near or distant they dare not speculate). What will we do then? If ethics are dictated by the technologies of the day, I'd hope abortion would be much, much less of a concern.
I agree with that. It would be a good experiance if the father could experiance the prenancy, then ppl would give it a second thought before having kids. The abortion would most likely be lower. So I guess thats the only thing we agree on.
Psycology
Have I given you what you wanted Tempest Storm? An analysis using science and psycology is what you seem to be asking for. But what about human nature and intrinsic human morals. I do not try to push my beliefs on anyone. This is given as proof by CPCs who do not push Christian ideals on the women who come in, they simply try to releave the pain and guilt they feel. That is it, that is all. Abortion can be prevented by giving acceptance and a guilt free (and freeing) environment.
So basicly, your arguement is that all abortions are caused by guilt? Granted some of them are caused guilt, and many others have guilt as one of many factors, but there are many other abortions that are unrelated to guilt in any way or where guilt is a very minor player in the determination to have an abortion.
You argue that a guiltfree enviroment will lessen the ammount of abortions. Perhaps that is true in some cases. But there are many other cases where the woman just isn't ready to have a child. Either she is too young, or has other plans for her life, doesn't want to start a family, or doesn't have the financial resources to have a child. And in many of these cases, the father doesn't want a child either, and would prefer an abortion.
As for rape, you're right. The rape victims are often drug though the mud. But the women that get abortions because of rape don't get them because of guilt. Many of them get them because they just don't want a child concieved from violence, or a child that will remind them of the worst time of their lives, or one of the other reasons I gave above. There are many, many reasons why women get abortions, and assuming that all of them happen because of guilt is blind.
Continuted
|
|
|
|
\/
