Originally posted by crazylozer
Perhaps on every page, someone should be designated to repeat the facts of the argument, thus limiting the amount of stupidity that enters the debate when they don't realize that their point has probably been repeated and refuted at some point in the previous...393 pages. Something generic like this:"Abortion is not murder, and cannot be defined as such. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion, as of yet, is not unlawful.
A foetus, which if you are unaware is what is aborted, may or may not be considered to be a human being. Because the exact definition of human is ambiguous, one must consider other factors, instead of thinking of this argument by itself. While conclusive proof either way on this point would indeed provide a strong argument towards either pro-life or pro-choice stances, none has been provided yet.
Banning abortion could be a slippery slope. If it is inconclusive as to whether or not abortion is the equivalent of killing a human being, what shall be outlawed next? Would fast food companies be charged with mass murder for giving young children fatty foods that could one day kill them?
Potentiality is not a strong enough argument to go on. Yes, you could say that one day, that child could grow up to be a great painter, or scientist or whatnot, but there is an equal, if not greater, chance that the child will simply be average or even considered to be a bad person. Looking further upon potentiality, sperm that are not used during a male's lifetime could have created thousands more children. Does that make him a killer by negligence? No one would think that way. Or if a man dies in a car accident, do the thousands of children he could have spawned also die with him? I think not.
Good and bad are defined by morals. Each person's set of morals varies, but there are some actions that are commonly believed to be wrong. Stealing, rape, murder, etc. are commonly believed to do so, because they harm another human being. Do you see how strongly the debate hangs upon the point of whether the foetus is human or not? Morals change over time though. It used to be that disagreeing with the Church made you a sinner, deserving of death. Looking different, or being of a different race made it alright for you to be treated badly, or even killed.
On that note, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It is perfectly possible for someone to believe that it is alright for a woman to have an abortion, but not support their choice. Something along the lines that Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Of course, it is widely supported on both sides the use of abortion if it threatens the mother's life. Hmm, does that mean the mother is more important, because she is already alive? Wait, that would imply that the unborn was not yet a full person! That's just my pro-choice bias, but think about that.
And of course, one must consider the consequences of outlawing abortion. Some women who have abortions feel, and rightly so, that they cannot support themselves and their child. That is not always the case, but surely those who value life so much can see that forcing young women and children to undergo hardships day after day is cruel. But oh wait, because they did not die, it's fine, right? Here's another fact: thousands of children die everyday. While some relief is provided, it still happens. If there really were so many homes for adoption, as some pro-lifers claimed (they believe that adoption is a viable alternative to abortion) why are they not used presently to save the lifes of children in poorer countries?"
Quoting myself out of laziness. Forgot to add something there:
People are constantly referring to fetuses as humans. They are human, but the use of that term is used more as a possesive adjective, much like one would refer to a human heart, or a human trait.
I am a human being. I am aware, I think, and I am easily identified as human.
So I ask you all, what is comprises a human being? Is it the number of chromosomes in the DNA, each containing a unique combination of genes? Is it the basic physical form i.e. opposable thumbs, upright carriage, two legs and two arms?
All of those above traits can be reproduced by other species, or unfulfilled by actual humans because of disease/injury/etc.
So what seperates homo sapiens from any other species, making it so wrong to kill one of our own rather than other animals?
All I can think of is intelligence: the ability to form conscious thought and the like.
Does a fetus think? No.
After a while, the case can strongly be made that the fetus may be able to form thoughts, but that is much later on in the prenancy.
Incidentally, I don't support third-trimester abortions.
Elaborating on the slippery slope, Adam Poe mentioned a few pages back the legalization of the morning after pill. So now what, pro-lifers? The stance that life begins at conception is now disagreed with by national courts.
But what if it had been shot down, and abortion outlawed, much as you would like? Well, if it was, then abortion would indeed be murder. Plain and simple. If the reason for the outlawing of abortion would be because zygotes and fetuses and the like are full-fledged human beings, anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. They go to jail for life, because it surely must be wrong to kill them.
But wait! Preventing pregnancy would be much like attempted murder!
Thus contraceptives would be outlawed.
So to avoid pregnancy, abstinence would be the safest choice. Hmm, doesn't a large contingent of Churches in the US support abstinence? Thus, the seperation between Church and State becomes nearly nil. What next? No freedom of speech, for fear of hearsay? No freedom of choice, because of sinning? Indeed, a slippery slope.