Abortion

First of all, I would like to establish where I stand on abortion so we have an understanding of where I"m coming from. I don"t personally believe that abortion is either always the right or wrong way to go about things, but I am for it up to a point until there is legitimate pain involved. Meaning, my stance is dependent on the notion of whether the being in question can legitimately feel pain and if it is sentient. Now then, let"s get to replying to your points. You begin by arguing that abortion is wrong because it goes against the law. The problem with this first argument is that the legality of something speaks very little for the validity of it being illegal or legal. For example, at a time slavery was okay, and women would have to marry their rapists. In some countries, I think they even still do. Simply put, it becomes quite clear that the law isn't always right. So on this matter, what the law has to say is actually quite irrelevant. Your next argument is that a fetus is a human being and very alive. On the matter of it existing as a human being, all we"ve got are these subjective arguments of when a something is considered a human being. I consider this misdirection, because such notions on when something should be considered "human" aren"t something any one particular person should be able to decide due to personal biases and their own logical perception. Furthermore, I would also like to argue that in its earlier stages, a human fetus looks quite indistinguishable from that of any other fetus. And while I for one don"t believe something being human or animal warrants one to be treated better than the other, I"m simply appealing to the petty short - sighted notion of human worth. There doesn"t seem to be much that separates a human fetus in its earlier stages from that of numerous other animals. As for fetuses being alive, I would argue that something being alive is ultimately unimportant. It"s not life that matters, but sentience. Plants and flowers for example are alive, but they aren"t capable of either complex thought or feeling. Meanwhile Cows, chickens, and human beings are sentient and even while most of us eat meat; most of us still all want to cause less suffering towards other animals. So, I would propose that what matters here aren"t these subjective short sighted notions of what constitutes humanity or whether it"s living, but instead if the being in question can actually feel pain; something which I"m sure we can all agree is objectively unwanted in our existence. You next argue that killing a human being is against the law, I would like to once again redirect you to my two arguments I previously made. The first one being that subjective notions of what constitutes humanity being ultimately pointless (I for one choose to believe it"s not a human, and I do this as a compassionate radical vegetarian that feels empathy towards non-human sentient life) and my second one being yet again that it has no distinguishable traits. This time, I"m going to go ahead and quote you. "It also goes against basic rights and responsibilities. It is the woman's right to engage in intercourse and it is her responsibility to take care of the child." You argue from a stance of responsibility. I will not say that it isn"t irresponsible for someone to have sex unprotected (I"m not going to get into the classic "what if she is raped?" because I"m sure I can handle this without delving into that) and not expect actual consequence or responsibility from it, but I would like to argue that it"s no less irresponsible to enforce someone against their will to have a child which they"re not prepared to have. In fact, even if someone was completely willing to have a child after they were impregnated but they happened to be ill prepared I would actually argue that this is far more irresponsible than having an abortion. In short,, I am proposing that abortion is a responsible solution to an outcome of irresponsibility. "It also takes away the child's rights." Look at a child and then look at a fetus. Try and communicate to a child and then try and communicate to a fetus. I am hopeful that it becomes quite clear very soon from this point that a child and a fetus are not the same thing. A fetus cannot have "child"s rights" because it is simply not a child. Your final argument is that abortion can be a regretful procedure which causes depression. It certainly is a serious procedure and I can imagine someone will not be too happy with having to undergo it, but if someone is compelled enough to have an abortion I have no reason to assume that they"re capable of providing for a child, and I simply wouldn"t want a child in that environment if it can be avoided. Furthermore, I"m quite sure women who had an abortion would feel a lot better if we didn"t equate them with child murderers and just continued gnawing and poking at the wound. Take for example what you said earlier, on how nullifying a fetus is legitimately murdering another human being. So there, I"ve finally responded to all your arguments. Now allow me to propose some points for abortion. While I"ve probably made it clear that I haven"t focused much on the woman"s rights side of the issue, this is certainly one reason we need to keep abortion; because women should have the right to control their own bodies. And if a fetus in its earliest stages cannot feel anything, I do not quite understand where any harm has been done if there is no victim being legitimately harmed. I"ve done a search on Duckduckgo (I use duckduckgo instead of Google because the latter shows results based around our own browsing history to show us resources which reaffirms our own biases) and here are two sites and what they"ve got to say on fetuses: Firstly, I would like to give you a link to a website called National Centre for Biotechnological Information which is a branch of the National Library of Medicine. I"m not the brightest guy out there, but I"m sure that we can both agree that it certainly has a credible name. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Since I wouldn"t expect you to spend all your time reading through everything since you"re no doubt a busy man, here is a summary. I would like to post more, but I'm running short on space. "The neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete by 26 weeks' gestation A developed neuroanatomical system is necessary but not sufficient for pain experience Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain Development of the mind occurs outside the womb through the actions of the infant and mutual adjustment with primary caregivers The absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the morality of abortion but does argue against legal and clinical efforts to prevent such pain during an abortion" Now, I notice that the website argues that just because a fetus cannot feel pain it doesn"t mean that abortion isn"t immoral, but keep in mind that the heart of "my" argument (and indeed around 80% of my stance on this issue) is based around whether or not a fetus can feel pain. Here"s the next site. http://news.discovery.com... A very short article, but regardless here"s a part which intrigued me: "Through different interpretations of accumulating evidence, various scientists have estimated that pain becomes possible anywhere from 18 to 29 weeks into gestation, maybe later." And finally I would like to propose my final argument - that abortion helps in controlling our population. And unlike that of sterilizing or neutering an animal against their will when they're a nuisance at absolute worst, abortion is a choice that's a person chooses, and it's one that helps slightly against any huge problem which our gigantic population contributes to. (Unfortunately I had to edit out a lot due to limit)