First off, forum lag is awful in debates.
I posted a fact that the statistics for pregnancy from rape are 4.7% earlier, and:
Where's the source? Putting quotes around a statement doesn't make it true.
I would assume the U.S. Census would be reliable, but here:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
OK, I looked it up, and responsiveness is the ability to respond to stimuli. And, as the cells in a zygote 'know' when and how to divide (an internal stimulus, but still a stimulus), yes, a zygote is alive. Either that, or a bacterium isn't.
However, one could argue that a zygote is on the same level of consciousness that a bacterium is. And no one mourns the death of bacteria; it is actually encouraged. And having a baby
does make a mother sick, like a bacterium. So, why are people so sure that a zygote has a soul, but a bacterium does not (or at least, I
think that's what you guys think. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
)?
I wanted to stop talking about souls, but why not. Let's look at this as logically as possible. Humans are given souls, according to various religions. A zygote is living, technically, and it is human. So, a living human gets a soul, a zygote gets a soul. There's little mention of bacteria getting souls, so we can only assume that they don't.
Of course, there are religions which assign importance to all life forms, so I don't see why the killing of bacteria isn't brought up as much...Hm.
Well, I remember you saying that if you don't want a baby don't have sex, so you should only have sex when you want a baby? What about married people? A sexless marriage is not a good one.
I think that a marriage shouldn't be sexless per se, I just think that if they want to have sex, they should be adult enough to think
"Hey, this could result in a baby, so let's weigh the options we have."
If they're in love, they should be willing to wait to have sex.
Consider the first argument, killing a foetus does not detract from society, the foetus is not fulfilling a necessary role in the community, nor is it a valued and loved individual. In short, nothing will suffer from its death. On the other hand the woman in danger will very likely be both a contributing member of society and a loved individual. Logically therefore we must assume that the mothers life takes precedence in this scenario. Therefore if the birth will endanger the mother we should take steps to abort the child.
Wrong in thinking it isn't loved or valued. Dead wrong.
This is where I get back on the fence about the issue: when the pregnancy endangers the woman. The issue isn't black and white, and there aren't any clear-cut answers. You're entirely right in that regard.
As for the second argument, well that works both ways. Logically whilst we attempt to continue the existence of 'good' genes, we should be attempting to eliminate 'bad' genes, so any babies that may be born with horrific ilnesses or deformities likely will not pass on 'good' genes. (Not that I'm advocating eugenics or anything) Not to mention that the genes of the mother will be preserved if any potentially dangerous birth were to be aborted, thus ensuring the survival of at least one set of genes.
We're not "attempting" anything. We just live, and nature works its magic.
If the child is born with a life-threatening deformity, then it has to die on its own. We can't say that it's all bad, either; consider sickle-cell anemia. This genetic disorder affects the tertiary structure of hemoglobin, the primary component in blood cells. When one has sickle-cell anemia, their red blood cells are sickle shaped, and don't carry oxygen well. This is a deformity. However, it was later realized that the people with sickle-cell are less likely to carry, if not completely immune to, malaria.
So see, nature has to decide if a trait is unfavorable. We can only do our best to survive.
We aren't really supposed to have a conscious part in it.
First of all, the fetus' life isn't developed either way. In the first trimester, it doesn't have a brain yet. It doesn't react to anything, care about anything, or even WANT to exist. Since it hasn't experienced life yet, it wouldn't be missing anything. I could say the same to you about being a multi-millionaire.
I think ??????? [did I put enough ? marks"] covered that it does have responsiveness, so it does react. If you're arguing the fact that it doesn't have a will to live, then I can say that a newborn infant has the same non-willingness to live.
Hopefully that's not a strawman argument, but as far as I know, neither of them will fight back if you kill them, but killing one's alright, but the other isn't.
Well, there are the 9 months of pain, sickness, grey hairs, and stretch marks that the woman has to suffer through. If it's a teen, she might be kicked out of school; if not, she would probably still miss a bunch of lessons. Either way, it can greatly screw up one's life.
I try really hard to feel sorry for them, but ultimately, about 95% of them should have known better. And also, a natural bodily function doesn't justify destroying life. [It's life, we've discussed it.]
Also, you mentioned adoption. The adoption system in the US simply doesn't work. Unless the baby is white and healthy, it has a VERY slim chance of being adopted. Even then, there is still no guarantee. Hell, more people adopt from out of country because of how annoying and difficult it is to adopt in the US.
Agreed, agreed out the wazoo. Here's me on the fence again. Abortion doesn't seem like the answer, but it's an answer, and it has to stay until a better option comes around. Like an improved adoption system.
I'm tired of the "they're the first step towards being a human" argument, it's no reason why they should be given the right to take away the rights of the women. Do you people also support giving babies guns and alcohol because they're "the first step towards being 18 and legal"?
And I'm tired of the "it's part of the woman, it's her choice" argument, but you're going to have to deal with it.
And you're going to have to deal with the fact that it
is an early-stage human.
You're right: A child doesn't have the development to handle the responsibility of a gun. However, its brain supports life, as does a fetus. As for a zygote, or an early stage, brainless fetus, there is no difference in their life. They are both living organisms, there's no gray area.
[haha, gray matter.]
nobody has demonstrated why a reason would even matter when it comes to doing something similar to cutting off my own arm.
I did, page 13. Arm=/=embryo.