NationStates Jolt Archive

If murdering a pregnant woman has been considered double murder for so long, why is abortion even in question?

If murdering a pregnant woman has been considered double murder for so long, why is abortion even in question?because abortion raises a whole different issue, the right of a woman to contrrol her own body. Admittedly it has become far more than that, but the orignial legal basis was more along the lines of you cannot force a woman to use her womb against her will to nurture another person. It would be like making organ donation mandatory (and not just post-humous donation), where you could force some to give up a kidney to keep someone else alive.

At this point in technology doctors could remove some fetuses from the womb and gestate them in machines, thus meeeting the requirements of abortion rights while preserving the fetus's rights. Also the mother (and father) would be responsible for the cost of gestating the child ex vitero. I think I said earlier that there is more to abortion now than the original legal basis, but mandating aborted fetuses be aborted in a non-terminating manner and that the fetuses be raised ex vitero at the parents expense would meet the legal requirements for a right to an abortion. Hmm.

I'm not aware of the exact reasoning used in the laws, but it would seem to me abortion is the woman's right. Meaning, she can choose to abort her child - but a complete stranger cannot. In aborting a child forcibly, without her consent, he has prevented her from bringing the child to term as was intended.

It's sort of like how I can sell my car if I want to, but I can't sell your car without your permission. Your car was never mine to sell, their fetus was never the perpetrators to abort.

This is only true in certain states, and I believe has only recently been made into actual law. There may have been precedent, but I've only heard recently about states coding it into law. Speaking of which, there is a state that claims that life starts at conception. Thus, if you go to that state, you are actually 9 months older than you are in every other state! =)

The whole state's rights things causes some interesting issues.

The fetus is no one's property to terminate.

Say Yes to overturning Roe V Wade. The woman that brought that ruling to trial has since converted to Pro Life stance. She at least understands now that the fetus is a human being and has rights to be born and live outside the womb.

The mother doesn't give herself an abortion, she has strangers doing their evil procedures to her. And if the fetus to formulate a thought and state it aloud, I bet all fetuses would say "don't kill me mommy".

If murdering a pregnant woman has been considered double murder for so long, why is abortion even in question?

it hasn't. laws that specifically designate such crimes as double homicide are relatively new in most states, and these laws were passed as transparent attempts to build legal foundation for outlawing abortion. most choice advocates strongly oppose such laws...i know i do.

And if the fetus to formulate a thought and state it aloud, I bet all fetuses would say "don't kill me mommy".
if the fetus could form a thought and say it out loud then it would probably qualify as human and the debate would be over. however, since the fetus can do neither, and is not a human person, it has no rights that can trump the (human) mother's right to her own body.

hell, even if it IS human we still cannot force one person to let their body be used to support another against their will. we can't legally require a compatible organ donor to give a kidney, even if they are the ONLY person who can do so and the patient will die without it. no matter what life, human or otherwise, is at stake, no person can be forced to co-opt their body against their will. that's rape, in every philosophical sense.

And if the fetus to formulate a thought and state it aloud, I bet all fetuses would say "don't kill me mommy".


ha! ha! that's the awesomest statement ever.

awesome in a completely retarded way. but who am i to get picky?

Are Fetus' smarter than Babies? I am assuming sadly that babies can't speak right away... maybe that particular fetus was practicing?

abortion is not about a woman and her body. it is about a woman and her childs body. what will she do with it? I think that the childs rights are seriosuly hampered by roe v. wade. If a mother's life is in question thats one thing. but, can it actualy be denied that a healthy fetus becomes a healthy baby? no. so why should a woman have the right to bring that future normal human into existance and then kill it? i can never understand this. 55% of america thinks life starts at conception and yet 90% of abortions are done for reasons other than health issues....

i repeat: the argument that it is a woman and her body is silly. why is it her body? isnt it the fetus's future existance at stake not the mothers' body's existance at stake?

abortion is not about a woman and her body. it is about a woman and her childs body. what will she do with it? I think that the childs rights are seriosuly hampered by roe v. wade. If a mother's life is in question thats one thing. but, can it actualy be denied that a healthy fetus becomes a healthy baby? no. so why should a woman have the right to bring that future normal human into existance and then kill it? i can never understand this. 55% of america thinks life starts at conception and yet 90% of abortions are done for reasons other than health issues....
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that a clump of cells could think...

No woman has the right to kill...that's all it comes down to. Murder isn't allowed...so why is abortion?

Also, since killing really young people is legal...how bout we kill everyone over the age of 90 too...? See how little sense that makes?

i repeat: the argument that it is a woman and her body is silly. why is it her body? isnt it the fetus's future existance at stake not the mothers' body's existance at stake?
You mean a Woman and her parasite? Its nothing but a parasite as a fetus, the defination of a parasite may surprise you.

No woman has the right to kill...that's all it comes down to. Murder isn't allowed...so why is abortion?

Also, since killing really young people is legal...how bout we kill everyone over the age of 90 too...? See how little sense that makes?
Have you forgotten that the Govt sponsors murder in the form of executions so yes some murders are allowed. Reallly young? Yes kill them at -1 year old, is okay as you can kill anyone over 200.

i was speaking of abortion. it is legal right where i am up to 6 months.
here is a picture of what the mass of cells that can' t think looks like at that point.
http://members.aol.com/drfeelgd12/adopt/month6.jpg

it can not only think it can grab things, breath if brought out of the womb, kick, punch, its heart beats, it can hear and feel. very interesting "clump of cells" take a good luck at the link before a reply is added everyone.

i was speaking of abortion. it is legal right where i am up to 6 months.
here is a picture of what the mass of cells that can' t think looks like at that point.
http://members.aol.com/drfeelgd12/adopt/month6.jpg

it can not only think it can grab things, breath if brought out of the womb, kick, punch, its heart beats, it can hear and feel. very interesting "clump of cells" take a good luck at the link before a reply is added everyone.
I'm not referring to that stage, I'm referring to the 1-4 month stage. Most abortions are done far before then, for obvious reasons. Tell me why a clump of cells should be considered human life and I'll concede that abortion at any time is wrong.

so when two people have sex and a fetus is created, right through birth, its a 'parasite'. that is somthing else. a parasite. my grandfather was a parasite too i guess after his stroke, I loved him. we did not kill him for gods sake. and same with a fetus, tell the parents that tried for years to have a baby that the mother is infected with a parasite. the dad will beat you down. i mean, that is baffling logic, the human race only exists because our dads infect our mothers with us, with all due respect, i disagree.

now you are talking about one to four months. i see. we have changed subjects. ok, im cool to that.
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch03/plate3.jpg

here is a fetus at four months sucking its thumb. some clump of cells. would you like to modify the discussion farther csw?

now you are talking about one to four months. i see. we have changed subjects. ok, im cool to that.
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch03/plate3.jpg

here is a fetus at four months sucking its thumb. some clump of cells. would you like to modify the discussion farther?

no really, even now i am but a clump of cells. so are you. every person is a clump of cells. this debate is not about semantics. it is about abortion.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that a clump of cells could think...

youre just a clump of cells too...

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that a clump of cells could think...

So, after about 4-8 weeks, abortion should be illegal? An embryo is a clump of cells, a foetus is much further along in developement. The argument of it being the woman's body is important, but shouldn't she have taken better care of it? OK, there's an argument for abortion in the case of rape, but adoption is surely a better option- Sins of the father is a rather barbaric morality.

Now, I believe that things like the mornig-after pill are acceptable, but after a certain point, when the brain and such are developing, the baby should be brought to term. I'm not saying the mother should be forced to look after it, I'm saying that it should be put up for adoption. We waste so much money and stress on IVF treatments and sperm donors because there's a shortage of new-borns available for adoption. This is especially a concern for me as I'm British and we're wasting NHS money by performing IVF and abortions when we could just have a few hundred more pen-pushers and carers. Also I'm queer, so having enough new-borns available for adoption is almost as important as gay marriage to me.

yes csw is speaking of one to four months. look at the picture at four months. the kid has nails for christs sake.

just look at the pictures. are you thinking blob of random flesh or baby?

yes csw is speaking of one to four months. look at the picture at four months. the kid has nails for christs sake.

who tupping cares? if you can't take care of it, you shouldn't have it. kids are like pets but with really really long-term responsibilities.

only a human has 46 chromosomes. so when the egg and sperm combine to form a zygote which has 46 chromosomes, it is human.

yes, that is where responsibility comes in to play. i know younger people dont learn that word any more but yet a use it. r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y
think about it. also, i cannot justify not letting someone live their entire life because i might have an attitude of " oh poor me, i cant do it! boo hoo."

who tupping cares? if you can't take care of it, you shouldn't have it. kids are like pets but with really really long-term responsibilities.

Not neccessarily, you only need to look after it for 9 months, then put it up for adoption.

excellent point

yes, that is where responsibility comes in to play. i know younger people dont learn that word any more but yet a use it. r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y
think about it. also, i cannot justify not letting someone live their entire life because i might have an attitude of " oh poor me, i cant do it! boo hoo."

hey, why don't you grow a vagina, pop out a baby, and then try to raise it? and document it on video so we can see your misery.

I agree with all you say on thsi subject 100%. I am a protestant by the way. This side of the argument knows no religious boundary.

Not neccessarily, you only need to look after it for 9 months, then put it up for adoption.

nine months is an awful long time and an awful lot of money. yes, for some people that's the right choice. for others it's just not viable.

So, after about 4-8 weeks, abortion should be illegal? An embryo is a clump of cells, a foetus is much further along in developement. The argument of it being the woman's body is important, but shouldn't she have taken better care of it? OK, there's an argument for abortion in the case of rape, but adoption is surely a better option- Sins of the father is a rather barbaric morality.

Now, I believe that things like the mornig-after pill are acceptable, but after a certain point, when the brain and such are developing, the baby should be brought to term. I'm not saying the mother should be forced to look after it, I'm saying that it should be put up for adoption. We waste so much money and stress on IVF treatments and sperm donors because there's a shortage of new-borns available for adoption. This is especially a concern for me as I'm British and we're wasting NHS money by performing IVF and abortions when we could just have a few hundred more pen-pushers and carers. Also I'm queer, so having enough new-borns available for adoption is almost as important as gay marriage to me.


Sure, I don't mind, I just don't enjoy the irrationality of those saying that an embryo is a human being, its not, it is just a clump of cells...

When the fetus is considered a full human, it makes it difficult to argue for abortion. However, there is another approach, considering modern technology. The best contraception we have has a rate of failure of 1/1000 (according to the FDA). This is even for 'permanent' sterilization, which can fail. What this means is that under lab conditions, a woman would get pregnant once every 1000 years. Under average use, the rate is still once in 300+ years. I personally find it abhorrent that one would force a woman through a pregnancy simply for being so unlucky.

Given a more neutral stance, this argument, coupled with health danger, emotional damage, and cost considerations for the mother, and the mother's right to not be used as an incubator pose a strong defense for the mother's right to choose.

hes right, it shows absolutely no resbonsibility on the woman's part. what does it tell our children that if they have a child, they can jsut abort it. its not taking resbonsibility for their actions. if you have sex youre going to be at risk to have a child, so if they dont want a child they should just abstain.

now you resort to rediculous semantics instead of facts and opinions. is this a sign of weakness? by the way, associating the birth of a baby with misery is an interesting concept. i suppose that is a great reason to have an abortion, it might hurt to have a baby! boo hoo. what great new justifacations people dream up. of course it hurts. i bet it hurts more to have your limbs cut off and your brains vacumed out through your nose though..........check out that 4 month pic again.............then picture it being killed. atrocity at its finest.

Sure, I don't mind, I just don't enjoy the irrationality of those saying that an embryo is a human being, its not, it is just a clump of cells...

but you are just a clump of cells too....are you saying your life isnt worth anyhting or neither is mine...because im just a clump of cells also...?

here is your freaking clump of cells again at 4 MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch03/plate3.jpg

hes right, it shows absolutely no resbonsibility on the woman's part. what does it tell our children that if they have a child, they can jsut abort it. its not taking resbonsibility for their actions. if you have sex youre going to be at risk to have a child, so if they dont want a child they should just abstain.

it takes two to make a child. if you're arguing irresponsibility don't make the woman shoulder all the blame. you know, eggs AND sperm are necessary! unless you're saying that women are like sponges, and just bud.

woman carry the baby pal

now you resort to rediculous semantics instead of facts and opinions. is this a sign of weakness? by the way, associating the birth of a baby with misery is an interesting concept. i suppose that is a great reason to have an abortion, it might hurt to have a baby! boo hoo. what great new justifacations people dream up. of course it hurts. i bet it hurts more to have your limbs cut off and your brains vacumed out through your nose though..........check out that 4 month pic again.............then picture it being killed. atrocity at its finest.

"it might hurt" is not a reason. epidural exists for a reason. "it might kill me" or "i was raped" or "i can't financially support this" are.

woman carry the baby pal
yeah, we do. and you guys fucking put it in us. WE DON'T BUD. YOU ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE.

"it might hurt" is not a reason. epidural exists for a reason. "it might kill me" or "i was raped" or "i can't financially support this" are.

"i cant financially support this" so is money more important than human life?

yes men are also responsible. so, three people are in question huh
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch03/plate3.jpg
him, the dad, and the mom "woman's body"

"i cant financially support this" so is money more important than human life?

Remember the precedents you set. If you follow that, then you're obligated to live at a minimum comfort level and give the rest of all you own to starving people.

ok, i cant afford my dog. i think i will kill it. thanks for the "logic"

Remember the precedents you set. If you follow that, then you're obligated to live at a minimum comfort level and give the rest of all you own to starving people.

kaziganthis speaks the truth.

Remember the precedents you set. If you follow that, then you're obligated to live at a minimum comfort level and give the rest of all you own to starving people.

but im not going out and killing poor people jsut so i dont have to support them...with an abortion youre killing it so you dont have to support it

only a human has 46 chromosomes. so when the egg and sperm combine to form a zygote which has 46 chromosomes, it is human.

Umm, no, that's not true at all. Many living things have 46 chromosomes. And some humans with defects (many non-fatal and not even really detrimental; others terrible) do not have that number. Guppy fish have 46 chromosomes.

I support all abortions. In fact I support post-birth abortions, of course only under the circumstances of my having the authority to choose who to post-birth abort. I would abort everyone who is pro-life and then all christian extremists who also happen to be pro-life i would also abort you for reading this.

yes men are also responsible. so, three people are in question huh
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch03/plate3.jpg
him, the dad, and the mom "woman's body"

Please stop with the baby pictures. It's highly subjective when a fetus is a person. Philosophy/ethics professors often default to allowing the fetus to be a person in order to further their argument and bypass that first argument.

Umm, no, that's not true at all. Many living things have 46 chromosomes. And some humans with defects (many non-fatal and not even really detrimental; others terrible) do not have that number. Guppy fish have 46 chromosomes.

back it up

Okay, I am for abortion. I believe that any woman should be able to make her own choice about what to do with her body. If she made the choice to have sex and create something, then why can't she have the choice to destroy it? It's her property and hers only- as it has not left her body and entered society to become a member of it. I'm not going to preach about this and change your minds because it won't happen. but that is a little of what I believe...

And to the person that said there is a lack of new borns available at adoption... Go take a trip to a little country in Asia called China. I'm sure you'll be able to find one for adoption there, there being a very high overpopulation and all, where they are killing babies that are not needed. And if you say that you don't want a chinese baby because it's not american looking or whatever you happen to be.. well then why are you worrying about a lack of adoption here, because ya know, the baby you get here isn't going to have your traits and characteristics- same as the chinese baby...

People with down syndrome have an extra chromosome, are they not human?

ok, i cant afford my dog. i think i will kill it. thanks for the "logic"

You misunderstand. I was relating to your apposition, not the quote itself. In fact you would have to pay for your dog if you believe that financial gain is not worth life. You would have to continue to pay in order to stop as much death as possible until you yourself were at the minimum in which to sustain yourself.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/freedom.jpg

i am leaving now. take a close look at this web page

People with down syndrome have an extra chromosome, are they not human?

they start with 46 but then lose one or two later on.

back it up

Ever hear of Kleinfelters syndrome, AKA 47 xxy syndrome?

but im not going out and killing poor people jsut so i dont have to support them...with an abortion youre killing it so you dont have to support it

It's not killing poor people. You're supporting the belief that money is not worth life. Therefore, if you have money, you must spend it to save lives. Hence, you need to spend all your extra money to save starving people to maintain that moral.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/freedom.jpg

i am leaving now. take a close look at this web page

wow, someone found out about photshop. what a surprise.

Wow that picture has moved me to no longer believe in abortion... not. Honestly, poons go on guilt trips. Tool.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/more9.jpg
thank god ( and my mom) that wasnt me!
peace out my friends. and you abprtion people. check out the links i sent. these are 4 weeks.......they had beating hearts, functioning brain stems, the used to grab with those hands, have hair, have nails, and can even hear. too bad we cant hear what they want in those little developing heads. again. if you want to justify abortion fine.just check out those last two links.

Ever hear of Kleinfelters syndrome, AKA 47 xxy syndrome?

i mean the fact that guppy fish have 46 chromosomes and so do other animals.

they start with 46 but then lose one or two later on.
Actually trisomy-21 is usually from the begining, even before the begining. It occurs most frequently before fertilization (although later occurances are possible, the next most common being at the time of fertilization).

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/freedom.jpg
i am leaving now. take a close look at this web page

Oh goodie, dead baby pictures. Do you feel it is okay to display dead people for the sake of political gain? Let's say your father was killed in a war, do you find it acceptable to parade his head in a jar for all to see in order to stop that war? I think most would find that very disrespectful and inhumane treatment of your father.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/more9.jpg
thank god ( and my mom) that wasnt me!
peace out my friends. and you abprtion people. check out the links i sent. these are 4 weeks.......they had beating hearts, functioning brain stems, the used to grab with those hands, have hair, have nails, and can even hear. too bad we cant hear what they want in those little developing heads. again. if you want to justify abortion fine.just check out those last two links.

oh, how precious, more photoshop!

Again with the aborted fetus pics... I'm looking at the whole website. AND I AM NOT DISGUSTED AND I DON'T CARE!

edit: there is however a picture of a tiny aborted fetus on someone's hand next to a dime to show size... I really think that is sick and hope I never get a dime like that.

and if they're real, the only reason i would be sad is that you're sick enough to exploit pictures of the dead for your self-righteousness.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/freedom.jpg

i am leaving now. take a close look at this web page

ahh yes, the "it's wrong because it's icky" argument. perhaps i should post my pictures of an apendectomy...they are, by far, more gross than those images, so i guess that means we should outlaw apendectomies...

...hell, the video of my cousin's birth is grosser than those pix. i guess childbirth should be illegal, seeing as how it is really really gross and bloody.

Actually trisomy-21 is usually from the begining, even before the begining. It occurs most frequently before fertilization (although later occurances are possible, the next most common being at the time of fertilization).

not so, it happens during cell division, or meiosis, when cells begin dividing.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/10week/03_10.jpg

I'm fine with abortions, but that dime right there... that is wrong.. that is what should be illegal... putting dimes in aborted fetus juice. I have to use those to buy stuff.

This is what passes for intellectual debate? With the exception of a few, the majority of what I've read so far has struck me as little more than subjective and emotive spoutings of drivel.

Before you attempt to say whether abortion is or isn't killing, or who has a right to it, or any other such issues, you've all missed one very important point.

What is life? What is living? What things constitute the necessary criteria to determine whether something is actually alive? You can't really say whether you're killing something if you can't even be sure if its alive to begin with.

Settle on a common definition of what it is to be alive, then apply those criteria to a fetus and see whether they match.

For example, is being alive brain activity? Is it the ability to breath? The pumping of the heart? Is it a certain level of awareness? Or is it something else?

Then, if you're all feeling particularly daring, also keep in mind that we also consider things such as tree's alive, yet they have no brain activity, no heart yet it takes in Carbon Dioxide and releases oxygen, which may possibly be considered a form of respiratory system. Do we make a distinction between humans and plants, or humans and animals or even some other form of distinction to answer that question in turn?

But I'm sorry, I interrupted your general mudflinging and for the most part flagrantly disgraceful behaviour which had nothing to do with debate and everything to do with pushing an agenda. Please, continue.

This is what passes for intellectual debate? With the exception of a few, the majority of what I've read so far has struck me as little more than subjective and emotive spoutings of drivel.

Before you attempt to say whether abortion is or isn't killing, or who has a right to it, or any other such issues, you've all missed one very important point.

What is life? What is living? What things constitute the necessary criteria to determine whether something is actually alive? You can't really say whether you're killing something if you can't even be sure if its alive to begin with.

Settle on a common definition of what it is to be alive, then apply those criteria to a fetus and see whether they match.

For example, is being alive brain activity? Is it the ability to breath? The pumping of the heart? Is it a certain level of awareness? Or is it something else?

Then, if you're all feeling particularly daring, also keep in mind that we also consider things such as tree's alive, yet they have no brain activity, no heart yet it takes in Carbon Dioxide and releases oxygen, which may possibly be considered a form of respiratory system. Do we make a distinction between humans and plants, or humans and animals or even some other form of distinction to answer that question in turn?

But I'm sorry, I interrupted your general mudflinging and for the most part flagrantly disgraceful behaviour which had nothing to do with debate and everything to do with pushing an agenda. Please, continue.

when you've seen this topic so many times you stop caring about debate etiquette and you just want to close it as soon as possible.

This is what passes for intellectual debate? With the exception of a few, the majority of what I've read so far has struck me as little more than subjective and emotive spoutings of drivel.
...
But I'm sorry, I interrupted your general mudflinging and for the most part flagrantly disgraceful behaviour which had nothing to do with debate and everything to do with pushing an agenda. Please, continue.

I like to avoid that quagmire by just assuming the fetus has life for the sake of argument.

Haha, I've got a reason to help in the fight for abortion...

It's just going to end up dying anyways.

Just messin, thats a horrible reason, and thats not the reason of my belief towards it.

I abort millions of possible humans every day when I masturbate

I abort millions of possible humans every day when I masturbate
Monster.

Monster.

what, you don't jack off?

and i kill babies when i have my period! oh no, eggs are going to waste! sweet jesus, stop the bleeding and put that egg back in there!

what, you don't jack off?

and i kill babies when i have my period! oh no, eggs are going to waste! sweet jesus, stop the bleeding and put that egg back in there!
I couldn't stand to have all the weight of my dead children over my head when I ascend to heaven. None of this 'mastrubation' for me.

Besides, its against what the Bible says, and I go by the Bible.

back it up

Don't trust me?

Well, I suppose I wouldn't trust many claims on the Internet. My source is a text which I will not dig up to reference because I do not believe you will look it up. The Internet appears unusually useless in this task, since I can find quickly the numbers for humans, horses, dogs, and just a few other common animals.

Before you tell me that I have failed, you back your assertion up. You made the claim that only humans have 46 chromosomes.

I have had little success coming up with that assertion on the Internet either. I found a couple of sites from non-reputable sources claiming that, just as I found a couple of non-reputable sites supporting me.

http://www.seps.org/oracle/oracle.archive/Life_Science.Cell/2002.12/001037584167.6366.html

Not the best source, but I'm tired, it is 2:20 AM. Since this is a trivial point, I think I shall just let it go from here.

Oh snap! a 7th graders report prooved you wrong! hahahahaha!

I don't like abortion, I'd rather never have a situation where a woman has to make that choice. But whether or not I like it, isn't the issue. The issue is: Is it a woman's right to have an abortion, and I beleive it is.

Roe v. Wade obviously protects a woman's right to an abortion. I don't want to hear how Ms. 'Roe' has changed her position to pro-life, that's immaterial and a stupid arguement. Her position now is immaterial. The decision protects everyone's choice to an abortion. Ms. 'Roe' is obviously only exercising her right to chose.

Also I hate it when I hear how abortion is used as a contrecption, as opposed to other forms like codoms or the pill. This is simply not the case. It is not an easy descion for a woman to make. I lived next door to a woman, she was friends with my mother, and she had 2 young sons. They were about 10 and 12 at the time. She became pregnant with her husband agian, but she learned some terrible news: If she took the baby to term there was a good chance that she, and the baby, would die. Now she didn't want to have an abortion, she wanted this new baby, but she had to think of her sons. The decsion tortured this poor woman, but in the end she had to be there for her sons. Now I ask the pro-life people out there: What are you supposed to do in that situation?

Now in the case of say a young woman who gets pregnant through the traditional way, perhaps through consenual unprotected sex, perhaps through some failure of a contraceptive device, I agree the best outcome to this situation is to bring the baby to term and place the child up for adoption, but it isn't that simply. Pregnancy truly changes a woman's body. It is a very trying thing on a woman, in ways that many of us do not understand. Now in these circumstances is it right for the woman to have an abortion? Probably not, but do I, or you, or does the state have the right to force this woman to go to pregnancy? No. To forbid the abortion is akin to punishment for having sex, only having sex is not a crime. There is no due process, there is no trial, there is no commision of a crime and the state would be depriving this woman of the rights to her person.

What about the rights of the 'child'? I place child in quotation marks because i want to make it clear that I'm not talking about a new born or an infant, I am talking about something that is in utero. Does a fertalized egg qualify as a human? No, I don't think so. There is a very obvious difference between a real living, breathing human being, and something no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Is a zygote a human being? Agian, the answer is no. This is a mass of cells, agian very, very small, and there is an obvious differenc between a human and this zygote. What about a fetus then? Well this become more complicated. There is a certian point, about the time goind into the 3rd trimester, where it becomes wrong, or rather requires exceptional circumstance, to terminate this lifeform. Is it human? I'll reserve my judgment, but by that time the woman has had sufficent time to exercise her rights. Up to that 3rd trimester though, I believe the woman still has the right to terminate the fetus.

What is human then? This is really the heart of the issue right? Is something human if it has a heart and lungs and a brain? No, because pigs have those, yet we do not consider them human. Is to be capable of complexe thought make something human? No, because there a many species of monkeys that are capable of such thought, yet they are not human. Is a human something that has 23 pairs of chromosomes? I can artificially create a cell that has 46 chromosomes, and yet not have a strand of DNA from a human being. And there are people who have stray extra chromosomes, and they are human, so it appears that having 23 pairs of chromosomes is not defining of a human being. I'm not sure it's possible to completely define what is and isn't human, but in the words of Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."

I know that I've taken up a large chunk of space already and I thank you for taking the time to read this. I do not like abortion, nobody likes abortion. In a perfect world there would be no need to ever consider this issue. There would be no health problems to force a choice, there would be no life changing pregnancy, there would be no rape, and there would never be a lack of responsiblity in people. But we do not live in a perfect world, we live in this world. And whether or not I like it, the State has no right to tell you what to do with your body, esspecially when no crime has been commited.

that was a damn good first post. my hat off to you, sir.

I don't like abortion, I'd rather never have a situation where a woman has to make that choice.

I do not like abortion, nobody likes abortion. In a perfect world there would be no need to ever consider this issue.

I like abortion.

http://biol1.bio.nagoya-u.ac.jp:8000/Oryzias3.html

Here. Search "46" and you should get a plant that has that number of chromosomes.

Also...look at the thing linked to in the 7th graders report, bud. He listed a source.

I know that I've taken up a large chunk of space already and I thank you for taking the time to read this. I do not like abortion, nobody likes abortion. In a perfect world there would be no need to ever consider this issue. There would be no health problems to force a choice, there would be no life changing pregnancy, there would be no rape, and there would never be a lack of responsiblity in people. But we do not live in a perfect world, we live in this world. And whether or not I like it, the State has no right to tell you what to do with your body, esspecially when no crime has been commited.

Thanks for going into that, it saved me a bit of typing. It's true that it would be 'nice and benevolent' thing to do to bring the baby to term. For me, It's not a question of making abortion pretty and commonplace or horrid and disgusting, it's a question of whether the abortion itself is objectionable enough to forfeit the mother's right.

If you care so much about the unborn child, take it out of the unwilling mother's body and care for it yourself. [50th time I posted this]

I smoke crack; forgive me

The morning-after pill will terminate the pregnancy in it's early stages, while it's still a clump of cells. The physical effect that pregnancy has does not equal the trauma the foetus goes through being aborted, and it's not as if you can argue that the woman didn't know. The argument that the woman brought it into life, so she can destroy is simply disgusting. The risks of sex are known beforehand, the couple should surely have decided on taking that risk beforehand. You can argue for abortion in the case of rape(including statutory), but the woman should be made aware of the option of adoption and offered counselling or financial help if neccessary.

There's also the issue that if a child has some disability it can be aborted at any point before birth(At least that's the state of law here in the UK)- surely that can't be right.

As for comparing early foeti to livestock, livestock are killed by a bolt to the head or having their throat slit, not by being cut to pieces(without anasthetic, that would be admiting it was human) or sucked out and left to die. The methods of abortion are not humane by any stretch of the imagination.

Rainbow-Butt Monkeys, I suggest you wait until you reach at least puberty before you attempt to make an argument about anything your diminutive consciousness cannot yet grasp the faintest glimpse of, such as the sanctity of innocent human life. Filth such as you, though I agree you are entitled to life yourself, should never under any circumstances attempt to reproduce. Your view of children, transposed and conveyed to your child, would produce a bitter, evil person. People like you do it all the time. It is a fact I pray you never confirm for yourself. There are more than enough of you to do it for you.

Kaziganthis and Kernlandia, as an eighteen-year-old male virgin who has had multiple opportunities to have sex over the course of his life, I can tell you that I have never had to ask anyone to have an abortion so she or I could stay comfortable financially, emotionally, or otherwise. I am closely related to someone who has had an abortion. She regrets it every day of her life. Unless you yourself have been pregnant, had at least one child, had at least one abortion, and have had several years pass since everything, to be perfectly honest, you have absolutely no bearing on the subject of emotional, financial, or other insecurity caused by carrying a child to term. All of that vanishes when you hold your own child, a part of you yet completely different, for the very first time. Frankly, your case for abortion has no backing beyond your own inexperienced, unlearned, immature position on a subject you have quite apparently had no part in.
My time for abortion is during the process of unzipping my fly. I have never had a child, nor have I had sex of any kind. I won't until marriage, and only a person's lack of self-discipline and love for himself/herself and his/her future spouse, whoever he/she may be, will keep that person from abstinence.
If you'd like to debate rape, incest, or complications, I'll talk. But as was stated earlier, over 90% of abortions are for non-medical reasons. I'd rather fight for the lives of the other 4300+ babies aborted each day than a mere fifty. (Not to belittle the fifty... Any one of them could have been the one to write the most beautiful piece of music ever recorded, or to find the cure for cancer, but that's okay. It's the woman's right to choose.)

Blinktonia, I applaud you on the reserved, mature tone you took to your stance. However thoughtful, I must disagree. "Anything you say or do can be used against you..." It's in your Miranda Rights, and it applies to all aspects of life, not just criminal behavior.


And now for my general argument against no one in particular...
A few posts have stated that since the clump of cells is smaller than they are, they are obviously less human than the poster. I'm most likely considerably larger than the prepubescent chimps grunting their opinions toward this point, and I have millions of not billions more cells. They are less human, so if it comes down to them or me, they must die by their own logic.
But the baby isn't born either. It's still just a fetus until it "pops out," as was so eloquently put by a particular female among us. At this desk with NationStates running, I am a gamer. If I went to the airport, I would be a passenger. At college, I am a student. Is any one of those places changing WHO I AM? If hundreds and hundreds of miles don't change me one bit, how can six inches down a canal change a fetus to a child?
But the child is a parasite! It needs the mother to live. If you're asthmatic, you may need an inhaler to live. If you're diabetic, you may need insulin shots to live. Since I am in good health and need only the bare necessities to live, you are parasitic and I am merely a member of society. You ARE less human.


Since it's after three in the morning and I'm not feeling entirely competent to deliver further backing for my argument tonight, I'll most likely continue tomorrow.

not so, it happens during cell division, or meiosis, when cells begin dividing.For most trisomy the error occurs in meiosis, mostly maternal meiosis but paternal meiossis is not unknown, only about 5% occurs in embryonic mitosis. Meiosis is the process of cell division resulting in gamytes (sperm and ova), Mitosis is the process of cell division resulting in more cells. If you have difficulty understanding this I sugest a refesher course in oogeneis , paying attention to when MI and MII occur relative to fertilization.

**note excuse my poor phrasology in prior post, trisomy 21 does not occur before fertilization, that would be silly since usually gamyetes have only one of each chromosome pair. While trisomy 21 can only (qualified, theoretically with severe problems a trisometric gamyte can occur) when fertilization occurs, what is the most frequent cause is combining a 23 chromosone gamyte with a 24 chromosome gamyte resulting in a 47 chromosome fertilized ova - I should have stated that the total chromosmes of the gamytes equaled 47 before fertilization.**
***note 2. excuse my spelling of gamyte, but it's been years since I've used the word and I don't feel like looking it up and I never could spell it.****

I try to base my arguments on logic as often as possible. You haven't challenged that aspect of my posts. My arguments including financial and emotional pain were never the base for my positions, merely support. Emotional response is a poor guide for what's right and wrong. I find it insultingly presumptuous that you hold yourself at a higher moral understanding because you know someone who had an abortion. My motives are for preserving rights and allowing individuals to choose their morality concerning abortion. Allowing a person to have an abortion is not the same as forcing them to have one. It's well known that abortions are often regretted. It's naive to assume that pregnant women are unaware of the emotional consequences to such an extent that you must force their decision. An argument involving a big brother stance of 'you'll thank me later' doesn't hold much water. Are you willing to assert that the pain of an abortion is greater than the pain giving the child for adoption? It's a very large step to say that enough people who decide to have an abortion would then not give them up for adoption so that you can warrant removing their right to choose.

I have further issues with your puritanical views on love and affection, but I do not wish to go more off topic.

Unless you yourself have been pregnant, had at least one child, had at least one abortion, and have had several years pass since everything, to be perfectly honest, you have absolutely no bearing on the subject of emotional, financial, or other insecurity caused by carrying a child to term.

And you as a man will never be pregnant. You could never know what it's like to have the condom break, to be uninformed, to be impoverished, to have your boyfriend leave you, to be raped, and be left with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. It is you who "have absolutely no bearing on the subject of emotional, financial, or other insecurity caused by carrying a child to term." So it is not up to you to judge the women who do.

And you as a man will never be pregnant. You could never know what it's like to have the condom break, to be uninformed, to be impoverished, to have your boyfriend leave you, to be raped, and be left with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. It is you who "have absolutely no bearing on the subject of emotional, financial, or other insecurity caused by carrying a child to term." So it is not up to you to judge the women who do.

Men like it when the condom breaks.

*rolls eyes*

they start with 46 but then lose one or two later on.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

See! This is why all you reasonably intelligent pro-life people don't get taken seriously! People who have no idea what they're talking about.

You cannot 'lose' choromosomes 'later on', you idiot. Go take a highschool biology course.

Now, I'd also like to address the other photos used
Firstly, using emotional attacks to sway people to your cause is a sign that you have no actual points, and are arguing simply off your own moral code

Second, the photos of 6 month and 4 months were close-ups. Fetuses at those ages are tiny, and truly are much closer to 'a clump of cells' rather than a 'human being'. I also personally doubt the accuracy of aging, since I've seen a 4 month old fetus in real life, and it looked nothing like the photo provided.

Thirdly - that baby of 16 weeks? It had hair. Either it wasn't 16 weeks, or the photo was edited, or you are a moron. Or all three (and even if I misread and it said 16 months, hair would still not be present).

Lastly - humans resemble many other creatures at the embroic stage. So by the logic of your arguments 'look, it looks like a human now, so it is one!', before humans become humans they are also fish/bird/mammal-like creatures. Well done with that point.

Life begins at conception. Human life begins at birth. (or C-section)

I would agree with that at a certain stage of the fetus. But I am pro choice considering a woman's body is her own. You can't come and start taking organs out of my body, no, because it's my body. If if it were to save another person's life, they are mine and it's my choice what to do with them.

So, I'm going to lay out my position on this issue, and I'll probably get some attacks from both sides. That's fine, just do so politely, please. There is no need to get into a screaming match over an issue that people feel very strongly about.

Ok, so my position basically comes from two viewpoints. As a religious person, I believe that every person has a soul - and that is part of what makes them special. I do not know when this soul is acquired, whiether it is at conception, birth, etc. Because of this, I do no believe that I would ever have an abortion. I don't think I could handle it.

However, as a scientist, I realize that the existence of a soul has not, and probably will not every be proved. And I refuse to try and force someone else to live up to my religious view just because I said so. That's not what religious freedom is all about. I believe that faith is used in matters where science does not or cannot prove the issue one way or another, but everyone has faith in something different.

So, from a scientific viewpoint. Technically, a human being does not demonstrate all of the aspects necessary to call something an organism until puberty, and some can never reproduce at all. Obviously, we aren't going to kill anyone who can't reproduce, so this exact viewpoint cannot be used. Before that, there is the issue of being able to take in nutrients and get rid of wastes. Until birth, the mother's body does this for the fetus, so many can argue (and hold a personal belief) that the fetus does not become fully human until birth.

Personally, I would go back to the point at which the fetus can detect and respond to stimuli (ie. when the nervous system is developed enough). As closely as we can tell, this happens around the time of "quickening" when the fetus begins to move on its own. Nearly every state law allows abortions after this point, only if continuing the pregnancy causes health concerns for the mother. Why? Because many people feel that a fetus that can feel and respond to stimuli is now alive.

My personal view is very similar to the original Roe v. Wade decision, although I think we could make it a little more scientific. I think that, before fetus has a nervous system that is well-developed enough to provide feeling and movement, the decision on whether or not it is a separate human life is a purely relgious one. Therefore, the state has absolutley no business saying that a woman cannot do as she wishes, according to her own religious views of the matter.

There should be tests (or we should develop them) to determine whether or not a fetus can respond to its environment. At this point (around the end of the first trimester), I believe that abortions should only be performed if continuing the pregnancy will cause a serious health risk to the mother. At this point (as most state laws hold), "I can't afford it" or "I don't want to get fat" are not issues that will be considered.

The final stage is the point at which the fetus can possibly be viable outside the mother's womb. At this point, I believe that an abortion can only be performed if the mother's life is in danger. Even so, I believe that all possible efforts to preserve the fetus intact and alive should be made, as gestation in an incubator might allow the fetus to finish developing.

And basically, this opinion is what was laid out in Roe v. Wade.

On a final note, from a legal standpoint, we cannot give a fetus the full rights of a human being. Doing so would turn every human female into nothing but an incubator. She could never drink alcohol, she could never drive a car, she could never do heavy labor. After all, doing so *might* endanger the life of a *possible* fetus, and then she could be charged with murder. Any woman shown to have had a miscarriage could be charged with neglect or murder. Obviously, this is not something we wish to have in our laws.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

See! This is why all you reasonably intelligent pro-life people don't get taken seriously! People who have no idea what they're talking about.

You cannot 'lose' choromosomes 'later on', you idiot. Go take a highschool biology course..
Careful with the absolutes, people do lose and gain chromosomes "later on", at least at a cellular level. Cells losing or gaining chromosomes or portions of chromosomes is considered a mechanism for cancer, for instance. While most anuploidy (?sp, having an "incorrect" number of chromonsomes) is considered to have it's origin pre-fertilization, anuploidy in cells of full grown adult humans has been identified. As for the instantaneous issue (trisomy 21) about 1 in 20 children who are born with trisomy 21 have apparently "contracted" the extra chromosome at some point in mitotic division. Although considered rare (even that is questionable, since most anuploidic cells are non-viable , they may actually by common but unobserved) the gaining or losing of chromosomes "later on" is not impossible.

i was speaking of abortion. it is legal right where i am up to 6 months.
here is a picture of what the mass of cells that can' t think looks like at that point.
http://members.aol.com/drfeelgd12/adopt/month6.jpg

it can not only think it can grab things, breath if brought out of the womb, kick, punch, its heart beats, it can hear and feel. very interesting "clump of cells" take a good luck at the link before a reply is added everyone.

i agree, and also why have a baby in the first place if your just gunna kill it?

i agree, and also why have a baby in the first place if your just gunna kill it?
Yes, I'm sure that everyone plans to have a child...

Yes, I'm sure that everyone plans to have a child...
sorry, i am in the wrong thing, oops!

This question is for the anti-abortionists:

Do you really think that making abortions illegal will stop them? Who will end up taking care of and paying for all of the unwanted children?

Ah Darien, forgive me but I could not help but notice something that puzzled me in your arguments. Specifically, the personal form of attack you used to used to discredit Kaziganthis and Kernlandia. Ah, if I may, I would like to point out something.

Unless you yourself have been pregnant, had at least one child, had at least one abortion, and have had several years pass since everything, to be perfectly honest, you have absolutely no bearing on the subject of emotional, financial, or other insecurity caused by carrying a child to term. All of that vanishes when you hold your own child, a part of you yet completely different, for the very first time. Frankly, your case for abortion has no backing beyond your own inexperienced, unlearned, immature position on a subject you have quite apparently had no part in.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your criteria for having an opinion is the following:

a) Have been pregnant
b) Had at least one child
c) Had at least one abortion
d) It has been several years since a,b and/or c have occured.

Now, while I applaud the fact that you have attempted to set criteria for who's opinion has any bearing and who hasn't in an attempt to refine the discussion, I encountered a slight problem trying to apply the above criteria to yourself when I attempted to determine a value for your opinion based on your own criteria. Specifically, these two quotes left me puzzled.

....as an eighteen-year-old male virgin who has had multiple opportunities to have sex over the course of his life, I can tell you that I have never had to ask anyone to have an abortion so she or I could stay comfortable financially, emotionally, or otherwise.

My time for abortion is during the process of unzipping my fly. I have never had a child, nor have I had sex of any kind. I won't until marriage, and only a person's lack of self-discipline and love for himself/herself and his/her future spouse, whoever he/she may be, will keep that person from abstinence.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong which I admit I very well could be, but I encounter a problem here. You state that your personal experience with sex is non-existant, and that you have never had to ask anyone to have an abortion, so therefore would it be fair to assume that you have never had to care for a child beyond immediate relatives?

Now, taking these assumptions into account, which I would like to make clear are assumptions as I very well could be quite mistaken, I find a discrepancy with your previous criteria. That is, due to your lack of sex, you have:

a) Never been pregnant (Or impregnated another)
b) Never had a child (Assuming of course you have never adopted)
c) Never had an abortion (Or even asked another to have one)
d) No years have passed because a, b and/or c have never occured

Granted, you did have an interesting statement that made me pause for a moment, specifically it was this.

I am closely related to someone who has had an abortion. She regrets it every day of her life.

Unless I missed something while reading your post, being related to someone who satisfied some of the criteria, specifically a and c, possibly d, does not mean that you actually satisfied any of the criteria because you stressed personal experience, which you have professed to have absolutely none.

Keeping this in mind, it seems that you have declared that you yourself have no opinion on the matter whatsoever. In fact, I believe at this time it would be opportune to restate what you had to say about anyone who satisfied none of your criteria.

Frankly, your case for abortion has no backing beyond your own inexperienced, unlearned, immature position on a subject you have quite apparently had no part in.

I have to admit, you do make a compelling case there. Due to your complete lack of experience in the matter, perhaps your opinion should be disregarded altogether. I'm glad that you were able to help me come to this conclusion in a quick, efficient and logical fashion. Thank you very much Darien Fawkes for your insightful, learned and well thought out input, as I am sure many others such as Kaziganthis and Kernlandia appreciate your time and effort.


Blinktonia, I liked the distinction you made there with human life, that was rather neatly done. I do have a question for you, which I'll admit is a bit of a bastard, and is probably impossible to answer absolutely, but I'm more interested in personal opinion. At what stage during the fetal development do you think, if you had to pick a moment, would the termination of a fetus become wrong? I know you said by the time it reaches third trimester it is definently wrong, but on the otherhand you seemed to be reserving your judgement. I'm just interested if you could pick out at least one specific criteria which could help with the issue. I know I'm struggling to settle on anything in particular.


Dempublicents that was nicely put, and I've got a question for you as well. Do you think it'd be possible to come up with an objective scientific criteria to determine whether or not a fetus is 'alive' before its nervous system is developed well enough for movement and feeling? Another question just came to mind actually. Are there any other indicators that could be used instead of the nervous system developed well enough for movement and feeling that could be used to serve as criteria to determine if a fetus is alive? Any other major form of development with the fetus that could be used as a milestone for example.

hes right, it shows absolutely no resbonsibility on the woman's part. what does it tell our children that if they have a child, they can jsut abort it. its not taking resbonsibility for their actions. if you have sex youre going to be at risk to have a child, so if they dont want a child they should just abstain.

ever heard of condoms? or pills?

I find it hilarious that when I said look at defination of a parasite and consider that fetus follows in the womb: the guy said that their dad would beat me up for telling the truth.
Look if you can't prove why a fetus isn't a parasite then you are admitting defeat. Violence is a last resort after all in a debate or should be.
Parasite: 1. a plant or animal living in, with, or on another organism (sometimes causing harm)
2. one dependant on another and not making adequate return.

And seeing as Childbirth is dangerous for a woman ie causes death sometimes, it fits both 1 and 2 definations.

Dempublicents that was nicely put, and I've got a question for you as well. Do you think it'd be possible to come up with an objective scientific criteria to determine whether or not a fetus is 'alive' before its nervous system is developed well enough for movement and feeling? Another question just came to mind actually. Are there any other indicators that could be used instead of the nervous system developed well enough for movement and feeling that could be used to serve as criteria to determine if a fetus is alive? Any other major form of development with the fetus that could be used as a milestone for example.

I'm sure there are other points at which we could place the cutoff, but it may be harder to be objective about it (even the nervous system criteria is somewhat subjective). We could, for instance, place it at the development of the first organ (the heart). However, having a heart does not necessarily make the fetus "alive" by any scientific terms. And you would run into all types of questions about when the heart and circulation system is truly fully developed (especially since the cirulation system iself is still dependent on the mother until birth).

I've thought over this for quite some time, and the best I've been able to come up with is the nervous system criteria. For one, the nervous system of the fetus is separate from that of the mother. At this point, it can detect and respond to stimuli and move independently of the mother. For another, I think a test for this could be developed if we didn't just want to go with time-point bans (like most states use). I am pretty sure that a test could be developed to provide some stimulus to the fetus and see if it is able to react. This way, we could get objective scientific data to back up the claim that it had reached the proper point in development to be afforded some rights.

My time for abortion is during the process of unzipping my fly. I have never had a child, nor have I had sex of any kind. I won't until marriage, and only a person's lack of self-discipline and love for himself/herself and his/her future spouse, whoever he/she may be, will keep that person from abstinence.
Ah. So you don't like sex outside of marriage. How...archaic and quite frankly, wrong-headed. Y'see, sexual compatibility ranks up on the scale for a good relationship, and if you wait until marriage to find out if you are sexually compatible, then you could be in for some pretty serious problems.

If you'd like to debate rape, incest, or complications, I'll talk. But as was stated earlier, over 90% of abortions are for non-medical reasons. I'd rather fight for the lives of the other 4300+ babies aborted each day than a mere fifty. (Not to belittle the fifty... Any one of them could have been the one to write the most beautiful piece of music ever recorded, or to find the cure for cancer, but that's okay. It's the woman's right to choose.)
Or they could be the next Hitler or Stalin, if you want to go down that emotive plea road. Want to continue it?

And now for my general argument against no one in particular...
A few posts have stated that since the clump of cells is smaller than they are, they are obviously less human than the poster. I'm most likely considerably larger than the prepubescent chimps grunting their opinions toward this point, and I have millions of not billions more cells. They are less human, so if it comes down to them or me, they must die by their own logic.
But the baby isn't born either. It's still just a fetus until it "pops out," as was so eloquently put by a particular female among us. At this desk with NationStates running, I am a gamer. If I went to the airport, I would be a passenger. At college, I am a student. Is any one of those places changing WHO I AM? If hundreds and hundreds of miles don't change me one bit, how can six inches down a canal change a fetus to a child?
You've never studied Aristotle, have you? Actual vs potential?

But the child is a parasite! It needs the mother to live. If you're asthmatic, you may need an inhaler to live.
False analogy. The inhaler provides you only with one specific medication. The mother provides the fetus with ALL nourishment.

Do try to compare apples to apples, will you?

but im not going out and killing poor people jsut so i dont have to support them...with an abortion youre killing it so you dont have to support it
Hasty generalization, ad hominem fallacy and strawman.

hes right, it shows absolutely no resbonsibility on the woman's part. what does it tell our children that if they have a child, they can jsut abort it. its not taking resbonsibility for their actions. if you have sex youre going to be at risk to have a child, so if they dont want a child they should just abstain.
Are we using the same definition of responsible and responsibility?

Responsibility: (n) 1. the state or position of being responsible. 2. a
person or thing for which one is responsible.

Responsible: (adj) 1. having control or authority over. 2. being
accountable for one's actions and decisions. 3. involving decision and
accountability. 4. being the agent or cause (of some action). 5.
rational and accountable for one's own actions.

Now, how is abortion not taking responsibility, unless you're just trying to re-define responsibility to NOT include abortions, in which case you're special pleading.

so when two people have sex and a fetus is created, right through birth, its a 'parasite'. that is somthing else. a parasite. my grandfather was a parasite too i guess after his stroke, I loved him. we did not kill him for gods sake. and same with a fetus, tell the parents that tried for years to have a baby that the mother is infected with a parasite. the dad will beat you down. i mean, that is baffling logic, the human race only exists because our dads infect our mothers with us, with all due respect, i disagree.
It is an endobiological parasite. If you feel that is improper, take it up with medical science. Good luck.