(hee hee hee SithLord)

How do you figure?

The fetus clearly has 46 chromosomes and different DNA than the mother, so I would classify it as a separate human life even before there is a neural system.

Ironically, many of you are proving yourselves to be not mature enough to have a discussion about Abortion.

I know that a chimp and a tobacco plant both have 48 chromosomes, and also that an alligator and an onion both have 32 chromosomes.
I can't think of anything else that has 46 chromosomes, but there probably is something. The number of chromosomes is not unique to what sort of organism it is.

Edit: and before anyone brings it up, it doesn't have anything to do with how complex an organism is either.

Aye, think about it, if species were dependent on number of chromosomes, there would be species with billions of chromosomes...

The fact is, regardless of whether or not you think Abortion is morally right, abortion is here to stay. Nothing you can do will prevent it from happening. If you take away people's rights to have it done, they will go to Mexico and risk their own lives by being operated on by someone who doesnt know nearly enough about what they are doing, nor has the appropriate (and sterile) tools to safely accomplish what he is doing.

What confuses me is why more people, faced with an unwanted pregnancy, dont simply give the child up for adoption- Many parents unable to concieve wait months or years for the chance to adopt a child. I guess it's probably because the mother is embarrassed about being pregnant, and wants as few people as possible to know about her pregnancy. It would seem then that perhaps we could reduce the number of abortions by removing societies stigmata's against "oops" children concieved without intention and out of wedlock. Saying things like "you had sex and concieved a child you can't afford to keep, but you should be forced to keep it anyways as punishment" isnt going to prevent people from having sex, safe or unsafe, its only going to make them more embarrassed and more likely to want to get rid of the child as quickly and quietly as possible after the fact.

I should hope that everyone would agree that Abortion is evil. The debate is whether or not it is a neccessary evil. Regardless of your personal views on the issue, I think that everyone should be working together to lower the abortion rates not through legislation and laws taking away a persons right to have it done, but through education about other alternatives, pregnancy prevention, and responsible sex.

I wanna adopt someone, so if any of you guys ever don't want your baby you know who to call :).

...unless of course you don't believe in 'evil' to begin with.

She's a minor, so it's not her legal decision. It's technically her parents'. HA! Sure, there've been lots of people who were absolutely thrilled to find out they were the end result of rape. *slaps forhead*
Last I checked, a human fetus 99.9% of the time "approaches" being human. It's called 'pregnancy.' You show me just one instance where a fetus with human DNA turns into something not human, and your argument will actually have some validity.


It's interesting how you apparently quit using "it's a woman's right" and are now resorting to "it's not really human yet."
OMG!
Probably for the same reason you shouldn't do anything else irresponsibly.
That has to be the worst argument I've heard yet.
You know, birthing the child doesn't mean you have to keep it. Nice strawman attempt, though.


What a load of chauvinistic BS. This is the kind of line guys have used in the past just to get into a woman's pants.
BS. It's not about the couple, it's about the child.


If it's the mother's right to abort, as many of you say, is it also the mother's right to, say... take drugs while pregnant and cause the child to have disabilities and/or mental problems?

If you examine his posts on a deeper level, no he doesn't.

...

I don't know about things that break the law like drugs, but I think the mother may well have the right to smoke, drink, eat unhealthily and generally do as she pleases whilst pregnant.

I don't. In fact, I think it's ridiculous to say something like that at all.

Although I emphatically despise that wicked practice known as abortion, DSettahr speaks truth. Much to my great chagrin, that practice will always continue. We overturn Roe v. Wade, and we will get the back-alley abortions. The way to eliminate this practice is to get the public to understand that SEX=BABY and that if you have sex you get baby. MANY people disregard this fact. They screw around and oops! I (got someone else) am pregnant! Demonstrates clear lack of responsibility. But we have abortions to make us feel good again. Not having to be responsible for a child.

It's the people who support the notion of abortions being the "oops" button that keep the problem still here. That kind of demeanor just further propogates the problem. It advocates that you can have sex all you want (carefree) and not have consequences. There will be a doctor who will suck the fetus from you and you can go on your merry way.

The issue I was addressing was that destroying a fetus is not murder.
Murder is the destruction of a human; if you destroy something other than a human, it isn't murder. Whether the fetus will become a human if left to develop is irrelevant. Preventing something from becoming human is not murder. In fact, preventing it from becoming human is exactly what we're trying to achieve in the first place.



Perhaps because it isn't an argument. It's a question.

Sex feels good, sex is enjoyable, sex is social and sex is fun. There is no changing that, so what is 'wrong' with having sex for the sole purpose of feeling good, enjoying it, having fun? That is what I want qualified. The issue isn't about any particular 'argument', it's about a lack of argument.



Except women desire sex just as much as men do. Well, perhaps not just as much, but certainly to an extent. It's just that the desire manifests itself differently.



I don't see any problem with putting it up for adoption, I consider that an equally valid choice. I don't see why it's any superior, though.
How well adoptive services actually work is certainly an issue.

I am curious as to why you think this.

Man, you certainly know how to not read the first post.

Clap clap clap.

If abortion isn't an oops button, then what is it? Also, your thinking is backward. Abortion isn't a problem, it is a solution to a problem. Uh, yeah. That's my point. You *can* have sex all you want (carefree) and not have consequences, thanks to abortion. Of course, there are consequences. Abortions aren't cheap, and a lot of insurance doesn't cover them. So sooner or later, people are going to learn the hard way, for the sake of their bank accounts, that it's better to use lots of protection. The couple may need to be prepared for the "after effects" of abortion which aren't pretty, and possibly some psychological repercussions, depending on the individual. I think we too often describe abortion in terms of being a "magic button" or a "wonder procedure", when in reality, it is a grueling physical and psychological endeavor.

First of all, like Mort, I don't believe in "evil". Why? Because evil is relative to the individual.

Second, I haven't been brainwashed by a religion into somehow thinking that abortions are messing with god's plan. e.g.: a bunch of god's children waiting up in heaven for a body, and abortion denying them a body, or something like that.

Again, quantify where exactly the 'bad' thing here is.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say I think it's odd that we think 13 is too young to be having sex yet old enough to have an abortion without parental consent. The movement wants children considered a mature, legal entity on one issue, while denying that they are so on others.

I'll stay away from the actual abortion issue.

Your obstinacy requires Matlocks.

Hey, Fastgamerr, stop spamming the thread. It's getting annoying.

Damn right.

You still haven't read the first post, Lancer Frigate.

Sure I have. He asked us to hold out as long as possible, and as Mort pointed out, it was a very long ten posts.

Say.. about that new title of yours...

Yeah, Matlock Moderator would sound better.

Or Miniature Matlock Moderator.

The M.M.M.

M.M now.

Though.

But don't forget Matlock.



/leaves the thread

Maybe it corrupts family and social values. Maybe people don't want their community to look like a wonderland for sex.

But I'm not taking sides. *shrug*

A. It's her choice, not yours, not people against abortion, if she wants to abort it, its her deicision and nobody elses.

B. Its not your life.


C. (to those that are against abortion but are for the war in iraq I quote) "Calling abortion murder in a medical building, but don't give a **** about bombing iraq'ui children".

Just like to point out that this is incorrect. Sexual drives vary from person to person, and for every man that has an "overactive" sexual drive, there is a woman who has an "overactive" sexual drive. It's simply popular society BS that imposes the belief that women are not/should not be as sexually eager as men.

And to pursue any further argumentation into the issue of abortion will prove to be as fruitless as a debate on the existence of alien intelligence. One side believes that a fetus, prior to birth (or up until a certain trimester) is no more than a grouping of cells, while another group believes that, at the coupling of a sperm and an egg, human life begins.

These gross differences in opinions aren't going to be resolved here.

if a fetus "approaching human" is not human yet, then what the hell is it?

...just not human yet.

Thankyou.


And yes, abortion is a problem in my opinion, especially when used as a way to dodge responsibility for ones own actions.

And yes, one could argue that abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions. However, in a way thats alot like playing hot potato.

My sollution is simple. If you make them both keep it, he won't want to have sex unprotected because he knows he might be forced into fatherhood. She'll stick to the pill, and demand the use of a condom, because she really doesn't want to flush her teen years down the toilet.

Bad parents you say? This is something I've always felt should result in jail time anyways. Granted, some kids are just beyond the reach of good parenting skills. However, in many cases there is just no excuse.

Thats one thing that always bothered me about this country. Theres no real punishment for being a bad parent. Granted, I don't think the government should tell people HOW to raise children, I think it should be able to tell people HOW NOT to raise children.

Thats another argument however.


Back to the one at hand.

The oops button method, is definately a problem in my opinion (Wow, see I said it. I'm not saying I'm right, I never do. So don't even go there. Because really, I'm tired of that kind of crap on this board.)

Though I do prefer adoption as a choice, if you reserved abortion for rape cases, you'd probably have to do the same for adoption. it'd just become the new oops button, and that would start the cycle again.


Apples to oranges, it isn't a problem ANY of us can solve, and NO amount of discussion is going to solve it either.

The sollution is... PEOPLE NEED TO STOP SUCKING AT LIFE SO MUCH.

How about this for abortion: Shoot the 13 year old girl in the head. The world could do with less stupid people.

I'd be inclined to agree, regarding shooting stupid people in the head.

However, I'd have to shoot more than half the people here, including myself.

You have to be cruel to be kind. Idiots everywhere! We must prevent them from breeding before it's too late!

That's not good enough. What is it?

...It's a fetus.

*holds back the dead baby jokes*

On another note--grow up guys.

I didnt mean evil in the sense of religion, I meant it more in the sense of it being "wrong," but perhaps a neccessary wrong.

Let me rephrase what I said- I should hope that everyone would agree that its a shame whenever a situation arises where someone has to make a decision whether or not to keep their child.