Abortion

I Thank you for your final reply and I too have enjoyed this debate. To address your argument while furthering my own at the same time and work my way through using quotes when necessary. you are using emotive words to trigger an emotive response in people as they read it so they will disregard facts and logical analysis whereas I have only stated that you are oppressing people by taking away their right of free will which is oppression in one case there is a definite the other in ambiguous so please refrain from such partial language. Nice to see we agree that your sources are inaccurate because andy study that is bias will portray the results in such a way as to create a bias even when no such thing exists this is why we have peer reviews in academia to which your sources would/have all failed even the source you use to defend abortion"facts".com has a trust metre underneath this person which is quite low. to say my argument revolves around a mother's choice, you have mischaracterized my argument one aspect was mother's free will and the quality of her life another was the life of something that is unborn another was health another what the ethics of terminating a pregnancy. to say "we have no further argument on that point." is very patronising as yes there is an argument there as to whether or not the fetus is considered human life because of all the reasons I have covered and you have just ignored. also in your definition fetus is "more than eight weeks after conception." so what about before then are you backing off your baseless assertion that something is human life from conception. I don't feel targeted by you using murder just call it what it is, terminating a pregnancy, without trying to trick our voters. "we are fairly strong for the most part" I too believe woman are very strong but getting pregnant can knock anyone's psyche. Also just because the majority is strong doesn't mean that those who don't fit your generalisation must suffer because of what you are forcing them to do. your anecdotal example of your life is one circumstance of many and holds no weight here because A) your mother assumably had had children before you so was ready for parenthood and knew its struggles B) If she wanted to risk you haveing DS that was her choice but to someone who doesn't wish to roll the dice ill give them the choice to say no C) your mother again is one example of someone who was ready for having children and this is the state I want all mothers to be in before they have a child. I want them to be prepared for the workload of having a child so if they are not ready I want to give them the opportunity to say no and wait till they are ready. D) your sister is another anecdote and for every one person that is like your sister there is someone like Alanna(12) E) Government support in your country of origin might be good but in all countries, it is not as flash so "the government will save you" is not a proper reason and your anecdote doesn't support you in the slightest. "Women are not traumatised by giving birth" you should say most "Women are not traumatised by giving birth" because for those who are, despite what you say they do exist and I will treat them with the respect they deserve, those who deserve the right to not be forced into trauma as to follow your flawed absolutist "morality" "its mother won't be the only one in its life to supply love" the relationship between a child and his/her mother is infinitely important especially in the first few years as this is when the child is developing their understanding of love and social constructs. So no mothers are not the only supply of love but they are by far the most important and giving the chance for a mother to get to a point where she will love and neuter this child above all else is a point I wish to get these mothers too. I am not closing my mind but trying to open yours., Now your philosophical argument of Substantial Identity: I have problems with premise 2 and 4. starting with 4 you have created an equivalence problem for yourself by equating us or assumably a member of society whom adds to that society in some form or other to that of a zygote which doesn't have human for or thought functions is lacking in all things that make us "intrinsically valuable" So unless you are claiming that just because it shares DNA it is valuable I refer you back to organisms that we don't discern with rights because if we did we would be able to function. Premise 2 somewhat links onto what i had started talking about where just because something is "human" doesn't mean it has value as yes most human beings are valuable but that is because we work to further society or keep it running we don't passively sit by while society keeps us going or we don't push against the society with no rightful cause. humans who do push against society are called criminals and yes this is a bit tangental from our argument about zygotes but to say that every human deserves rights as though we already do this is a fallacy. also good to see you found a nice academic paper and were able to copy and paste (2) "repeat abortions? How many times can an "accident" happen" mistakes and accidents are based on chances and if one person is unlucky birth control can fail, sometimes multiple times, this is a weak justification as well as these are just a small majority and taking the right away from all women based on this minority is unjust. (3,4,5). these are just case studies and a couple of case studies won't represent the massive population of unwanted children you are forcing into the world that is already struggling, and you are forcing the people who are struggling to bear the burden even if they did all in their power to have birth control you will stop them at this arbitrary point because you feel like is wrong. that's all it is. you are forcing people to do what you feel is best. what you feel is right. but these are people too with their own beliefs and their own values who more often than not can make rational choices and that's what I will give them. Free Will, choice. my thought experiment is exactly that a thought experiment, not an analogy as you tried to make it because you refuse to engage with the argument present. From that, i can only assume one thing that to thought behind it was all too real and you could only attack the circumstances, not the idea. an idea that shows pro-life campaigners like you that your all for pro-life but free will be damned the world must bow to your self-righteous view. I won't say its parasitic but I will say that without the mother what would happen to this "life" and who are you to force the mother to stay hooked up. My closing statement: I will not try to convince you with emotive language and anecdotes but I have only shown you the facts. Abortion is safer than ever now it's legal and we are saving lives by keeping it that way not losing them to something they were going to do anyway. The quality of life will only decrease for not only the child but the mother and all those around them if your view is allowed to be pressed upon a nation or even the world. People are not haveing an abortion and then never having children so why not let them get to a place where they are ready for such a commitment as having a child. Pushing your viewpoint onto someone else is considered wrong so please voters this case cannot stand Vote Con 12)http://www.netmums.com...