theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
death penalty for aborters! |
Well it does make sense from the pro life stance. Not shooting pregnant women though.
The largest issue in the abortion debate is that neither side is even having the same arguement. It's really a two part arugement.
You don't see many pro choice advocates with a clear cut definition of when they think human life begins.
(I'd say when the brain develops brain waives myself.)
Then once a pretty solid consensus on when human life begins is established, there needs to be the woman's choice arguement. At that point that it is human, does it make sense for a woman to be forced to keep the child? Afterall, we are still talking about forcing someone to take care of another person against their will.
Is there a point where it's probably a person but it's still, it's parasitic nature an nonviability makes it to where it can be ethically aborted?
There are a LOT of intersting arguments that never get had because people are trying to argue two completely different arguements.
|
Well, it's not really two arguments, it's just that one preempts the other. And pro-lifers are doing everything they can to prevent any and all discussion about science, because the science sides with the women's rights.
|
Actually as far as I can tell the science doesn't actully side with anyone... afterall, the current abortion precedent isn't set by researched science, but applied sciecne.
At the moment, abortion is legal until "A baby has a chance to survive on it's own." Which is just a peculiar situation. A woman shouldn't be forced to have a kid, unless it gets to the point where the kid has a chance to survive by itself? Doesn't that sound... backwords if anything?
Additionally, if anything i'd think the "When is a fetus considered human life" the arguement that would hold the most importance.
