Abortions.

^ Yes, but can you really say that it isn't alive?
Like, even if it isn't conscious of itself, is it really that different from say, a 2 year old, who in a couple years, will not remember any of its experiences from that time?

Absolutely. A two year old is building memories. You probably don't remember exactly when and how you started learning basic math, but you did at one point or another. A conscious mind is always learning, whether it remembers it or not, each consecutive experience builds knowledge. You may not remember learning it, but you do. Even in early infancy children build on previous experiences and expand upon them; a baby will wiggle, then roll to one side, then roll on their stomach, then roll all the way over. They aren't born with the ability to do that, but they will do each step to eventually roll over on their own.

A fetus, on the other hand, is only a potential life. It may become conscious, it may not. As a zygote, it may attach to the uterine wall and become viable, or it may be flushed out in the next menstrual cycle. It may grow properly, or it may have a genetic defect that renders it alive on only the most basic of interpretations; it will breathe, blink, and have a beating heart but the brain does not function. It could be twins that form correctly, or born conjoined in such a way that they both die.

The argument both for and against adoption has been made; there is no easy answer. There isn't a perfect home for every child placed for adoption. There are many different women with many different ideas. The point is that only the woman can decide for herself what she is able to do.

^Yes. It's vastly different from a 2-year-old. A two-year-old can walk, run, feed themselves, knows when they need to use the toilet, can talk, can say 'I love you, Mummy', and is very conscious of themselves, their surroundings, and while they may not remember these things when they are older, they definitely have memories and thoughts and feelings. My 18-month-old may not remember what she got for her birthday, but she remembers that if she touches the oven door when it's turned on, she will get hurt.
A fetus has no such consciousness during the stage where abortions are able to be performed. Nobody has an abortion when the baby is nearly full-term and is viable outside the womb. Abortions are performed before a 'baby' exists - it is nothing more human than a brain tumour.

I see.

But how is, say, a 12-week-old fetus only as human as a brain tumor?
Given enough time, it will turn into that two-year-old. But a brain tumor just grows; it doesn't develop like a baby would.

^ But *I*, as a living, breathing, feeling and thinking human being, have the right to decide whether I *want* to give that clump of cells the time to develop into a 2-year-old. That is my choice and mine alone. Of course a brain tumour doesn't just develop into its own entity - but just like a brain tumour will kill a person if left unchecked, there are many cases where allowing a pregnancy to continue could do great harm to either mother, or child, or both. Even if it's not a life and death situation, I, being an adult, have the right to decide whether I *want* to be the incubator for this potential human.

But an abortion would be killing that, and what makes it not human?
What makes an abortion different from killing a mentally disabled child who is dependent on you?

^ Because a mentally disabled child who has already been birthed is *alive*. They are now legally a human being. A first-trimester fetus is not legally a human being, and as such its mother, who IS legally a human, has more right to decide what happens to her than it does. In Australia, at least, a fetus is not recognised as a human, and therefore has no rights at all, until it is 20 or 24 weeks gestation. That is, even if the fetus is stillborn or dies in utero after that point, its birth must be legally registered, it must have a proper funeral/cremation and its remains must be disposed of as if it were an adult. Before then, though, it is legally recognised as a part of the mother's body and as such she gets to decide what happens to it - a bit like being able to go and have your tonsils removed if they get infected often.

An oft-touted argument against abortion is the logic of 'the child didn't ask to be conceived' or 'it's not the child's fault the mother was raped/didn't use protection/the condom broke', so 'why should the child be punished by being aborted?'
I get that spin on it, but maybe pro-lifers should look at it this way: being pregnant, bearing a child, and then raising that child are not the relatively easy processes they are portrayed as in movies, or promised by people who love their kids and do the right thing by them. Perhaps the argument should be looked at as this: Maybe bringing an unwanted child into the world would be more of a punishment, a life sentence, on both mother and child, and therefore a termination would be easier for everybody involved, because sex is not a bad thing and does not deserve a punishment, no matter what the consequences. In essence, why should a child who didn't ask to be conceived, who has not made a mistake, have to pay the price for their entire lives due to circumstances beyond their control? Why should a woman who has taken all precautions, or who has been violated, or who simply is not in a position to raise a child, be 'held responsible' for the outcomes of those situations and be forced into something she doesn't want? I don't think that's fair, at all. Abortion is already a difficult enough choice for women who know they are not capable of caring for an innocent child, why make it harder on them by removing that choice and then *doubling* the suffering by making said innocent child a victim as well?

As others have said, pregnancy is not a walk in the park. I personally don't know why any right-minded person would go through it unless they really wanted a child at the end of it. From things as insignificant as constipation and indigestion, to things as serious as gestational diabetes and eclampsia, pregnancy is fraught with danger, and it's downright terrifying unless you are in the position to really want to wade through it and have a child at the end.

ashes:

Maybe for the mother, but not necessarily for the fetus.

That's not necessarily true. Ever heard of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? The actions of a mother during pregnancy can vastly affect a child. Pregnant women basically have to put their lives on hold to protect the child they are carrying - they can't eat certain food, they can't take most medication (even something as simple as a paracetamol or an antihistamine, and even certain vitamins, can do great damage), and the simple fact is that if a woman does not want to be pregnant, does not want the child, chances are she will not care for its welfare enough to do the 'right thing', and the child could be born with great physical or mental defects.
Then there's birthing a child - definitely not as easy as a quick trip to the hospital to push it out, then go home with a little bundle of joy. Even in this day and age, complications can arise and lead to stillbirth, neonatal death, maternal death, and disabilities in both mother and child. I'm a perfectly healthy woman who had a perfectly healthy pregnancy, and yet giving birth to my daughter very nearly killed me. Nobody had a crystal ball telling them I would suddenly hemorrhage and I would lose so much blood that my heart stopped beating before the doctor could even get into the room to order a blood transfusion. A close friend of mine has a little sister who was born after a very difficult labour, and because of the labour she is now autistic, epileptic, and in a wheelchair. It isn't a perfect process, nor an easy one, and I don't think it's right to expect a woman to go through all that trauma and pain if she does not want to. Simple as that.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

It isn't a perfect process, nor an easy one, and I don't think it's right to expect a woman to go through all that trauma and pain if she does not want to. Simple as that.

I don't either, but is it any less wrong to abort- kill- a baby because the mother does not want to go through that?

^ I personally don't see anything wrong with it. As I've said, at the stage an abortion is performed, the fetus is nothing more than an unconscious clump of cells and knows no better. Knows no different. Knows nothing, to be quite honest. Therefore, to me, having an abortion simply because you don't want to have the child, regardless of the circumstances under which it was conceived or the mother's financial, emotional and physical position, is a perfectly acceptable option. Obviously not everybody agrees with me, and that's their prerogative - but the fact is, if they CHOOSE NOT to ever consider an abortion, that's fine, the law doesn't have to be changed to suit them. Why should people who believe differently to me be allowed to take away my rights and impinge on my personal beliefs simply because they differ from theirs? We are not all made the same, we do not all share the same beliefs, thoughts and opinions. Just because abortions are legal does not mean people who don't believe in abortion will ever have to have one - it simply leaves the option open to women who DO believe that abortion is an option for them.

Cudos for your patience Cigarettes and suicide. Feels like some of the arguments are being adressed, yet they return just slightly reworded.

Some of you may say that "It is not just a clump of cells, look 10 weeks and it looks like a tiny baby". First, there's loads of missdated anti abortion propaganda out there. Pictures showing featuses, stating that they are much younger than they are. And secondly, the most important part, a functional brain with connection to the body with nerves, is not there.

^ Agreed

I think the thing is some people see it as killing and as a separate organism, and others see it as a woman's choice and her body. Either way, it's a firm belief for most people, and because they think it's killing, those arguments return because they haven't been answered to their satisfaction. Like, what makes it different from killing-- to them, a fetus is more than an unconsious clump of cells, and they equate it with murder.

requiem for a dream.:

I used to be so against abortions it wasn't even funny, but now I look at it more differently. It's a woman's choice. Who are we to step into other's lives and tell them what to do? It's their body. It's their choice. Not ours. If we don't agree with it, then we don't have an abortion, but other people's decisions are for them to make and for us not to interfere.

I respect you so much for that That's all pro-choice is: exactly what it sounds like. There is no such thing as pro-abortion.

i really don't think it's fair to completely abolish abortions. apart from the obvious cases who could need it, rape victims etc, it's a woman's choice to do what they want with their body.

^ But how in God' sname would a rule like that work? Does the doctor want video-taped, time-stamped evidence that you were forced? Does the rapist have to be convicted of raping you before you're allowed to access an abortion? What's to stop people who just forgot to use a condom, or people who are on the Pill but forgot they were taking antibiotics and needed extra protection, claiming they were raped in order to get an abortion?

There can be no discrimination. Either everybody is allowed to have an abortion, or nobody is. Simple as that.

^ i never said that they were the only ones who should be allowed have an abortion, i merely used them as an example of people who would need an abortion. i think anyone should be able to.

^ Sorry, I just assumed from your wording that you believe only certain situations should warrant termination of a pregnancy. Surely you can see how I came to that conclusion? I mean... language like 'apart from obvious cases like rape' and 'used that as an example of women who would need an abortion'... it implies that you think there has to be a 'valid reason' for terminating a pregnancy.

Wow... I haven't been on here for ages. Anyway.

^ Exactly. I don't exactly believe in abortions, but if they are made illegal everywhere, more women will be putting themselves at risk having shady abortions in alleyways.

I personally think that it is wrong, but it should be legal. It will be done wether legal or not, and better for it to be performed in a clean hospital than by a sleazy guy in some alley.