I am antiabortion because I am an atheist

[cyberateos]

Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Interesting. At what point can a brain be considered a brain? We don't go from sperm meeting egg to having a brain, after all. Does two cells of gray matter in the first trimester constitute a brain? Or perhaps the most basic brain functions during the second trimester? Or ability to move? Or ability to interact? This is not a simple matter.

Here in Latin America, an embryo is protected since the implantation of the blastocyst into the womb. Even "two cells of gray matter" are considered a brain.

But I am suggesting an international less extremist rule: a 13 month Fetal Civil Registration that would be imposed by UNO worldwide.

[Whitney]

Here we go again.  

[PipeBox]

What?  So many words just got put into my mouth.

No, I am not condoning the rape of babies.
No, an abortion at 3 months is not murder.  You murder people, and a fetus, this early, is decidedly not yet a person, by consensus (tyranny, if you prefer) of the majority.
No, I am not using extreme cases to justify the system as it stands.  Are you suggesting that you would keep abortion available for extreme circumstances?  Then who would dictate the circumstances?

You completely miss the point on any of my replies containing "Einstein."  Not only are most of us a lot closer to Einstein in neuron count than you seem to believe, so are most newborn babies.  Notice that neuron count doesn't count for much, as a dead brain may also have many, but they do assign an absolute ceiling for mental capacity, and for first trimester fetus, that ceiling is so low as to be non-respondent.  Having a more developed brain is not a license to kill, you seem to be trying to confuse the issue: the baby is, for all intents and purposes at this stage, a parasite that will become a person, and I believe women should retain reproductive freedom, lest you force a 13 year old to have daddy's baby.  It is intimately a part of the female reproductive tract, and as such, subject to her.  To be very crude, if women had the ability to expel unwanted pregnancies under their own power, would you still consider yourself to have any standing?  A pregnant woman can only abort her baby, take note, so there is no license to kill.  To abort anyone else would be acting against their will in the same capacity as me removing your kidneys.  The baby has yet to have a will for the mother to be against.

Despite all this, I would like a super-conservative limit on abortions, and I think it should be whenever a fetus can be demonstrated to perceive pain.  But I also know that's a very personal choice and is namely because I don't even like the idea of causing flies and spiders pain, and I'm a soft-hearted guy.  And, yes, I still eat meat and drink milk because it's still put on the shelf and one person boycotting in this day and age does nothing, and I'll take my guilty, dissonant pleasures.  But I'm something of a moral nihilist, in that if can't have morality declared by the majority, you cannot declare any morality but your own.  And you will come up against a wall if you try to fight man with your sole moral backing.

Again, I see NO reasonable way to outlaw abortions, because even questions of what extreme situations justify abortion entail subjective answers.  As such, I leave those subjective answers to those who are exercising their reproductive systems.

[Will]

Even "two cells of gray matter" are considered a brain.

So you'd have to be okay with abortion for the first 27-30 days. Before that, there's  no brain whatsoever. You're pro choice for the first 30 days after conception.

I don't condone raping babies either.

[curiosityandthecat]

Why, what's wrong with raping bab-- aaah, you almost got me! Clever, clever.  

[Whitney]

My position on this topic is that the line should be drawn at the point when higher brain function 'begins' since higher brain function is what gives us our personalities and personhood.  Obviously that is not a hard line so we'd have to figure out the earliest time it could develop and use that as the line.  However, I think any laws should include exceptions for medically necessary abortions after that line is crossed.  (based on research I have come across on fetal development) I think this would put the line at about 23 weeks (24 to 26 seems to be when they think higher brain function begins to form) or right at the beginning of the third trimester.  I believe a lot of places are already using the third trimester as the line.  I also think this is the least arbitrary line next to drawing it at conception.

[Hitsumei]

Science has not demonstrated that an only inmaterial soul exists.

Really, brain is the only "soul" that exists.

A human brain is similar one day before delivery and the day after delivery.

Then, delivery should not be considered birthday anymore.

For that reason, a Fetal Civil Registration should be established and abortionist mothers should be sent to jail.

WARNING:
English is not my mother language.

Well, not many abortions are had a day before birth, so I really think that this is a false dilemma, though I do understand that you are trying to say that "birth" is an arbitrary day for a cut off, but I think that if you believe that, then you have missed the point. The birth is the day that a baby becomes its own entity, and is no longer a contingent entity.

The cut of point is whatever is estimated to be the minimum time you can expect it to be possible for a foetus to survive outside of the mother. In all the "pro-life" analyzes of abortion, it seems to me that the woman involved is not even considered, she isn't mentioned, and a foetus being able to survive independently is implied to be a completely arbitrary place to start.

When you consider the welfare of the mother, then you will see the relevance.

[Hitsumei]

My position on this topic is that the line should be drawn at the point when higher brain function 'begins' since higher brain function is what gives us our personalities and personhood.  Obviously that is not a hard line so we'd have to figure out the earliest time it could develop and use that as the line.

Even a completely fully formed, and birthed infant is not emotionally or consciously as developed as an adult cow, or pig.

[karadan]

I've always found it strange that there are laws which tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. Euthanasia for instance. If someone wants to end themselves, who the hell is everyone else to tell them they can't? It's my body and if I want to kill myself, I should be allowed to do so by law. As far as I'm concerned (and this is probably going to be rather controversial) as long as a baby is inside its mother, it is part of the mother. She should be allowed to abort it, for whatever reason, at any time during the pregnancy. There should be lots of counselling on hand to support mothers going through some sort of crisis to help them deal with what they are going through and to support them after the birth should they be persuaded against the abortion option. Lots of counselling.

It should ultimately be the mother's choice no matter what any religious or moralistic outsiders say.

I heard a guy once say that masturbation was thousands of tiny instances of murder. That was his religious justification against the sin of masturbation. Taking it a little too far, methinks.

[curiosityandthecat]

I've always found it strange that there are laws which tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. Euthanasia for instance. If someone wants to end themselves, who the hell is everyone else to tell them they can't? It's my body and if I want to kill myself, I should be allowed to do so by law. As far as I'm concerned (and this is probably going to be rather controversial) as long as a baby is inside its mother, it is part of the mother. She should be allowed to abort it, for whatever reason, at any time during the pregnancy. There should be lots of counselling on hand to support mothers going through some sort of crisis to help them deal with what they are going through and to support them after the birth should they be persuaded against the abortion option. Lots of counselling.

It should ultimately be the mother's choice no matter what any religious or moralistic outsiders say.

I heard a guy once say that masturbation was thousands of tiny instances of murder. That was his religious justification against the sin of masturbation. Taking it a little too far, methinks.

Methinks it stems back to people wanting to save one another. Some people just have to save things. Doesn't matter if they're crap.

[rlrose328]

Mothers are not the abortionists... the doctors who perform the abortions are technically the abortionists. Should we jail them too? What about the father? The one who participated in the fertilization... jail him as well?

The doctor is a mercenary and should be punished too.

The father of the fetal baby should be punished only if he has knowledge about the abortion projects of his wife/girlfriend and does not report it to Police.

I'm done here... didn't take long to see that you are here to nitpick and twist words.  I have to play that game with my 9yo... I don't have to play it here.

Have a good conversation.

[VanReal]

I like the idea of some type of registry but I think it should actually be in reverse that you can only have a baby once you have been properly trained and licensed.  Much like getting married, practicing law, driving a card, cutting hair, and performing surgeries all require a license and proper qualifications so too should having a child.  So, it should be "no license = no baby".  And, if you don't want an abortion then you can pair up with couples or single people who have been properly licensed and you can give them your baby.

[cyberateos]

Pipe:

No, I am not condoning the rape of babies.

Perhaps not directly, but indirectly you are. If you accept that a premature baby who was conceived 8 month ago, may have its brain sucked, then implicitly you are accepting that a baby may be cruely battered, and a rape is a kind of cruel battering.

No, an abortion at 3 months is not murder.

We are not talking about a 3 month fetus, but about an 8 month healthy fetus whose mother is rich and healthy. Please let`s refer to that precise case.

You murder people, and a fetus, this early, is decidedly not yet a person, by consensus (tyranny, if you prefer) of the majority.

Argumentum ad populum.

If majority says that virgin women should have their heart pulled away to keep quiet the Son, does it imply that majority is OK?

No, I am not using extreme cases to justify the system as it stands. Are you suggesting that you would keep abortion available for extreme circumstances? Then who would dictate the circumstances?

Let`s change the word "abortion" for "kill" or "murder". Y

es, I would accept euthanasic "murders". Society, lawmakers, scientificists, etc., should help to determine the cases.

You completely miss the point on any of my replies containing "Einstein." Not only are most of us a lot closer to Einstein in neuron count than you seem to believe,

Ha, ha... Probably. But precisaly that is the problem: if I or other person could demonstrate that we have a brain more powerful than yours, should we have the right to kill you?

so are most newborn babies. Notice that neuron count doesn't count for much, as a dead brain may also have many, but they do assign an absolute ceiling for mental capacity, and for first trimester fetus, that ceiling is so low as to be non-respondent.

1) Are you sure? A 3 month fetus probably has more brain capacity you could believe
2) If a 3 month fetus is discriminated because of its low brain capacity, a newborn or even a born adult may be discriminated too.
3) You are referring constantly to 3 month fetuses, avoiding to discuss my example of a 8 month healthy fetus, with a healthy and rich mother.

Having a more developed brain is not a license to kill, you seem to be trying to confuse the issue:

No. I am not trying to confuse the issue, but to make it clear.

the baby is, for all intents and purposes at this stage, a parasite that will become a person,
Antiscientifical theist argument.

Imagine that your wife is pregnant and instead of a human being she has a tapeworm. Ha, ha, ha... That would be a fiction science argument.

and I believe women should retain reproductive freedom,

I believe that both, women and men should have that right and other right. Here the point is if those right should be focused with an extremist approach, or not.

lest you force a 13 year old to have daddy's baby.

Are you going to begin newly to search, desesperately, attenuating circumstances? Why are you avoiding to deal with the case of a healthy and reach 31 year old woman who kills her healthy 8 month fetus?

It is intimately a part of the female reproductive tract, and as such, subject to her.

I don`t understand you. If you are saying that a female fetus with her own genitalia is only a clytoris of its mother, really you need to buy a biology book. :crazy:

Despite all this, I would like a super-conservative limit on abortions, and I think it should be whenever a fetus can be demonstrated to perceive pain. But I also know that's a very personal choice and is namely because I don't even like the idea of causing flies and spiders pain, and I'm a soft-hearted guy.

Ha, ha... A soft-hearted guy that supports infanticides and pederastia...

Again, I see NO reasonable way to outlaw abortions, because even questions of what extreme situations justify abortion entail subjective answers. As such, I leave those subjective answers to those who are exercising their reproductive systems.

All murders may imply extreme situations that justify that acts. For example, the husband of Terry Schiavo is not considered an evil persons for lots or people. But to leave subjective answers to all husbands would not be supported for anybody.  

Men should not have a license to kill wives and mothers should not have a license to kill fetal babies. Exceptional cases should be ruled by the State to avoid abuses.

[cyberateos]

Even "two cells of gray matter" are considered a brain.

So you'd have to be okay with abortion for the first 27-30 days. Before that, there's  no brain whatsoever. You're pro choice for the first 30 days after conception.

I don't condone raping babies either.

I have suggested that a raped girl could take day after pill or even a RU486 very soon after she was raped. Only a blastocyst or an early embryo would be killed.

[cyberateos]

I think this would put the line at about 23 weeks (24 to 26 seems to be when they think higher brain function begins to form) or right at the beginning of the third trimester.  I believe a lot of places are already using the third trimester as the line.  I also think this is the least arbitrary line next to drawing it at conception.

Are you saying that a born 22 weeks baby could be legally ripped with an ax while resting into its artifitial incubator?