Abortion

"as long as conception has begun it has become a HUMAN," Personhood at conception is a strictly religious notion and has absolutely no backing whatsoever in science. For one thing, the fact that it is an undeniable fact that brain death and actual death are synonymous, means that it is a flat non-sequiter to claim a totally unrelated beginning point to life having nothing whatsoever to do with brain activity. Modern neuroscience tells us that you *are* your brain, or at least that it creates whatever 'you' are. Even disregarding that, it is self-evidently more reasonable to claim a related starting point to the undeniable end point, using presence of meaningful brain activity as a benchmark for whether someone is 'alive' or not. Else we would be forced to conclude that, so long as even a single cell with your DNA still exists, 'you' are still alive in the same sense you are now, and that keeping a culture of your cells and then shooting you in the head thus does not count as 'murder'. Claiming that this standard is false and that 'you' begin existing well before your brain has even begun to form, let alone demonstrate the activity that we associate with being a 'living person', is an extraordinary claim and I simply will not accept your word for it. Please provide evidence for this claim. This is also ignoring that, as I have already stated, sperm cells and unfertilised eggs are also 'human' in the sense of having human DNA which differs from that of the person they came from. That they are haploid is irrelevant; that's discriminatory, by your own standards of treating non-persons as though they were. This also disregards utter nonsensicalities shown with even a cursory examination of "HUMAN means you have unique DNA, and that's it" argument; identical twins share literally identical DNA, but you are flatly wrong if you go on to claim that this makes them 'the same person' as each other. This literally isn't even a debateable point. "...also I'm sayin abortion shouldn't be used simply as a form of birth control," For one thing, most people do not use abortion 'just' as a form of birth control because previous birth control failed; most women use it because it is simply not possible, whether physically, financially or emotionally, for them to be pregnant or to have & raise a child at that time. You are assuming that giving birth is the 'responsible' choice to make when pregnant, but that is literally just your opinion. If the woman will not be able to effectively care for the life she would be bringing into the world, it is completely irresponsible for her to do so, or for you to force her to. Contemporary data shows that legality does not affect abortion rates, and that increased access to birth control (something that 'pro-life' organisations are strictly against at the highest level, demonstrating clear lack of respect for rights and lack of effort to actually prevent abortions from occurring, instead focusing on punishing women for having sex) invariably results in a notable drop in abortion rates (1). On that note, many people do not have easy access to contraception, and forcing them to remain pregnant and give birth for not having used it is simply punishing them for their socio-economic status. As well, contraception is not '100%' effective even in the most ideal circumstances; claiming that merely by choosing to have sex, women become 'responsible' for having a child, has nothing at all to do with the value of life and everything to do with your personal opinion on the woman's behavior. Even leaving this out.... Why? Why should pregnant women not be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control? Forcing them to remain pregnant and to give birth is a clear violation of their bodily rights. Even if we *did* assume that foetuses had a 'right to life', this does not and cannnot imply a 'right to use someone else's body against their will', else it would be perfectly acceptable to kidnap random people off the street, steal their organs and sell them to sick people who need them. Unless you are going to argue that there is nothing wrong with this, it is a non-sequiter to claim that foetuses are different just because you say so. Or that pregnant women somehow don't have a right to their own body. "it is wrong and can have dangerous effects." Why is it 'wrong'? You must substantiate your claim that foetuses are 'persons' who have rights, your claim that any such 'right' they have allows them to lay claim to someone else's body and organs against their will, and your claim that life does, in fact, objectively and verifiably begin at conception (the science behind the issue simply does not back this religious belief up, FYI), in order to be making such a claim with any real weight behind it. As for the 'dangerous effects' abortion has, would you care to go a bit deeper than that? Abortion has been demonstrated to have no adverse psychological effects in and of itself (quite the opposite, in a large majority of cases), has not been shown to have any correlation with breast cancer (as often claimed, but never substantiated), and even the most dangerous abortion is at least 13 times safer than even the 'safest' full-term pregnancy. For that matter, literally every pregnancy and instance of childbirth carries a significant and real threat of death, in terms of the 'mother's' life. It is the sixth most common cause of death in women aged 20-34 in the US (2). Why should pregnant women not be allowed to refuse to consent to serious risk of *dying*? "..abortions should ONLY be used in a matter of safety if neither the mother or child would survive the birth." Why? You have not yet demonstrated any reason for ANY restriction on access to abortion, merely claims that foetuses are HUMAN and so shouldn't be 'killed' despite the fact that you have not substantiated the claim that they are 'alive' in the same sense living persons are, or the claim that they are or should be protected by rights, OR the claim that any such rights they did have would override the rights of the pregnant woman herself. Why should it be used only when *both* of them are going to die? If the foetus is not going to survive anyway, it is completely nonsensical to force the woman to have to carry it anyway; if the mother is going to die, you are literally forcing her to *DIE* in order to save the 'life' of someone who does not yet even have one. Why should pregnant women not be allowed to not give their consent to *dying*? What right do you, or anyone else, have to force them to *die* for the sake of someone else who is not yet alive themselves? You harp on about abortion being 'murder' whilst completely disregarding that forcing a woman to be pregnant and give birth when you know that doing so will kill her is itself literally murder. You should also take not that, as stated above, literally every instance of pregnancy and childbirth carries a very real and significant risk of death to both the pregnant woman and the foetus. "..it should never be used as a form of revenge against the man who got the woman pregnant." Pregnant women do not use abortion as a form of 'revenge', and it is simply insulting to claim that they do. Please substantiate this statement. "as long as it has Human DNA, Has been conceived and is in any form of development it is human and subject to protection." No, only persons have rights and as such can be subject to legitimate legal protection as though they had them. Your claim is simply not backed up by science whatsoever. Life beginning at conception is a religious belief which is not substantiated anywhere by real evidence. Whereas the belief that life begins when meaningful brain activity begins is substantiated by current understanding of neuroscience. Unless you are willing to claim that brain activity is irrelevant to human life, and that 'brain death' is not a real phenomenon, you are simply wrong on this point. Please also see my statements regarding the fact that sperm cells and unfertilised eggs also have human DNA differing from the person they came from. Please address that point. "having an abortion is no different than taking a child you already have and snapping its neck." Yes it is. This is a non-sequiter and an unsubstantiated claim. Please provide evidence proving that foetuses at all stages of pregnancy are qualitatively identical to born children. "but anyway as I said it should never be used simply because a child is unwanted. I think anyone who has an abortion should never be allowed to have any children whatsoever especially if they use the abortion simply for Convenience" Personal opinion based on unsubstantiated claims. And vitriolic bile aimed at anyone who has ever had an abortion for any reason, at that. Why should a woman who had an abortion to save her own life not be 'allowed' to have children later on, when she's ready and when doing so won't end her life? That's ridiculous. Please see: every argument regarding 'abortion as contraception' and 'risk of death w/regards to pregnancy' above. 1. http://www.womenscenter.com... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...