Correction: they said they were parasites. Big difference, really.
There's not really a big difference. A parasite is an organism that is in a relationship with another organism where one organism(parasite) benefits at the expense of the other(host). A virus is an "infectious agent" that carries out only one life process-to reproduce, which it must have a host to do. Therefore, a virus is a parasite because one organism benefits at the expense of the other- the virus must destroy the host's cells in order to take over. A virus isn't alive.
I suppose that's sort of beside the point. The elderly and the mentally handicapped are capable of things that humans can do, like communicate and make decisions for themselves, even if it's rather basic. An embryo cannot do that, and I guess it's debatable that a fetus cannot either.
Usually an abortion takes place when the mother is 10-12 weeks into the pregnancy. At this point, the fetus has a beating heart. Any human that is alive has a beating heart, any human that isn't alive doesn't have a beating heart for obvious reasons. It is impossible for humans to live without a beating heart.
Life:1. existence in physical world: the quality that makes living animals and plants different from dead organisms and inorganic matter.
Its functions include the ability to take in food, adapt to the environment, and grow.
A fetus takes in food through the mother, adapts to the environment, and grows, therefore it has the quality of life.
My car has the potential to run over a duck--does that make my car a duck-murdering machine?
I suppose that was a crappy argument on my part- as stated before, since abortions take place usually after 5 months of pregnancy, the fetus has the qualities of life and therefore aborting it would be murder.
The point I'm making--and that I've made in this thread before--is that the potential for life is not equivalent to life itself. Just because something can become a life doesn't mean it should be treated like a life. And the point that the potential baby could "be the next Hitler/Einstein" or could "change the world" is not exactly a debate point. Yes, he or she could have changed the world. No matter how small, they would have changed something on the earth. They could have easily done something very good for the world, but they could have just as easily done something very awful for the world. Since there's no way of knowing if the child would have grown to be a saint or a sinner, there's no point in trying to use that to gain leverage in a debate, because it's a meaningless point.
Well, for one thing, we don't view the child as a baby, or a living thing at all. It's an embryo, without feelings or thoughts or, arguably, rights. However, the mother--who is bearing this embryo--has the right to her own body. If the baby is an intrusion on her life--if she cannot keep it for any reason at all--then she should have the right to abort the embryo and to go about with her life. What if she's a model? What if she's an actress? What if her livelihood depends on her figure and her body? If she gets pregnant and loses her figure, her income is now gone. What if she simply cannot afford a child, and doesn't want to go through the pain of childbirth if she isn't going to be able to keep the child?
By the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the fetus has a heartbeat, brain waves, and all major body parts. Therefore, it can be considered a living being, and not just any living being, but technically a human.
EVERY human has certain natural rights.
Look at the first few words of the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are
LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Therefore, both the mother and the living fetus have these rights. The fetus has the right to live and the mother has the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Since these rights are naturally equivelant, a compromise is necessary. This compromise is, in my opinion, foster care/adoption. The mother exercises her right to the pursuit of happiness and the fetus exercises his/her right to life.
There are a lot of situations where the mother can't just "deal with it" and bear a child. Adoption systems aren't foolproof in the least, and some children are never adopted. Lots of pro-life advocates state that abortions shouldn't just be the answer to an unwanted pregnancy, but how is it any less cruel to dump a child in a foster home, where they have no guarantee of ever having a real family?
Sure, adoption systems may not be the best. However, they're a compromise.
If you're buying a necklace from a pawn shop, the pawn shop may want $1000 for it, and you may only be willing to pay $500. Therefore, you compromise on $750. Did you walk away spending more than you wanted to? Yeah, you did. Did the pawn shop get less than it wanted to? Yeah, it did. Therefore, neither party was extremely happy about the deal they got, though both were somewhat pleased. It's the same with adoption- the kid might have wanted biological, caring parents, but gotten foster, caring parents. The mother may have wanted to abort him and never see him again, but instead, let him survive and put him up for adoption. Both the mother and child made a sacrafice, but both parties got away with at least part of what they wanted.
In any case, it's unfair to claim that not a single pro-choice advocate has brought up a good enough point to justify an abortion. There are many, many reasons why abortions would be preferred and necessary. Even in what seems to be the most popular abortion situation here: what if the mother was raped? (I hate using this point, but it's necessary here.) If you answer that abortions are OK for a mother who is raped, then you yourself have admitted that there is a good reason for abortion of the circumstances are poor enough.
I, in fact, do believe that if the circumstances are poor enough and there is no other option at all, such as if both the mother and child will die if the child is kept, abortion should be an alternative. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and even then I would be against it if the abortion is later than 4 weeks into the pregnancy. Once again, if the mother is raped, then there is only a 4 week span in which I personally deem it ok, even though I am still reluctant to support this kind of abortion.
Beyond that, pro-choice advocates don't feel that they have the right to dictate if a mother is able to control her own life make choices for herself. Many (not all) pro-life advocates, consciously or subconsciously, seem to feel that they
do have the right to dictate. Due to this, I could easily make a claim that no pro-life advocate has really presented any justification for why they feel that the mother cannot make her own choices. It wouldn't be fair to make this claim, so it'd be best if those on your side didn't, either.[/QUOTE]
I said "I see no reason why a baby should be killed for any of the arguments you people brought up."
Never did I say that there were no arguments, I simply stated that I didn't find any arguments that I, personally, found to sway my view on abortion. Don't twist words.
