Abortion right or wrong

Well Science was around long before we called it science.... and I was talking about safe medical abortions clearly.

No the sky is blue, just like a fetus is a fetus.

I'm not surprised that you still can't understand what I'm saying - your mental capacity is evidently limited.

Your two sentences were complete opposites. You wrote the sentences and can't even understand what you wrote? What the hell?

Did you say "why have sex then" or did you not? That assumes that sex is only for reproduction (and which is why you brought the whole me being homosexual aspect into this).

Don't turn your own words around because you can't answer simple questions.

If I'm thickead you're brickhead. Just be careful that you don't touch the wall cause you might colour it red.

Lol insults it's okay, that's the way it should be if you can't go about the truth I've said.

No it ain't "wth". Try fix that mentality of yours..

Thanks.

Oh my... signs of defeat already?

And wait... You called me "dickhead"/"thickhead" and even tried to use homosexuality against me. And you raise the point of insults for me? Hahaha you're making me laugh at your absolute silliness.

You're welcome.

Women should be allowed to have an abortion simply because it's there body and they have a right to do what they wish with there body.

What does the safety and existence of an abortion have to do with what a fetus is?

Also, a Fetus and human are not mutually exclusive.

Abortion should be subsided.

That.

Are you are basing your opinion on the fact that the embryo is carrying out the cellular functions?

Any cell does that, of course it's life. Your skin is life too. The sperm cell and the ovum are life too on their own, they are cells and therefore, they use up glucose as you said. Once they are together, the ovum becomes fertilised, and it's true that it is the first step to create a human.

However, I don't understand why so many people get obsessed over the idea that when those two cells are put together magic suddenly happens and the human is created. It's not like that simple. In my opinion, any woman should be able to choose whether to abort or not, no one has the power to choose over her, and force her to continue with the pregnancy for 9 months.

I think that the right thing would be to establish the limit in the month that the fetus starts to develop the nervous system, and therefore be a person. Of course, even if it's “too late”, but the mother is going to undergo a great risk, abortion should be accepted too.

Anyway, if you are against abortion because you state that the union of these 2 cells makes a person, are you also against artifitial reproduction (As In vitro techniques)? They create several embryos, in case one of them is not viable, and finally the only use one.

Should be... what? Should be subsidised? Or should subside?

Clearly you need to improve your reading comprehension. Science explains everything. Science is why we are here. That is all science. What I said was science was still science even before it was identified as science.

It may have been identified in the 16th century ( Butwhat about Plato and Aristotle, it was their theories scientists were begining to apply in the 16th century) but science existed way before it was identified.

Maybe you need to clean up your knowledge as you seem misinformed lol .

I meant subsidised.

In


Your experts and the BMA are clearly reading different journals. Please could you show me what these experts have said, so I can read it for myself? It would make for very interesting reading.

I agree with you that foetuses can feel pain after a certain point- twenty-four weeks is the agreed-upon point, which is why abortion after that point is illegal. I also agree with you *deep science voice* that humans... are not corn.

Look, this argument would be easier on both sides if you made it clear on what grounds you classify early foetuses as humans. DNA and respiration are obviously far too broad; sentience is under dispute- I await your quoted experts. Anything else?

Ah, right. Well, it sort of is, insofar as it is free on the NHS.

Maybe they don't want to adopt?

To most pro-lifer's adoption sounds like the 'perfect magical solution' and to that I say it's complete and utter BS, the adoption process is difficult firstly, so having your baby and then dropping it off to allow it to be adopted is going to be difficult for both parents and the child.

Secondly the child grows up knowing it's mother and father abandoned him/her.

Lastly, what if the adoptive parents finally have children of their own and don't want to adopt anymore, what if the child ends up in an abusive violent home, what if the child is sexually abused? what if it's open to risks it never would have been if an abortion had been carried out.

Don't say these things are unlikely, they certainly are not. They happen to children all over the world. I have read books on terrible things that have happened to adopted children and I have come to realise adoption isn't all as 'perfect' as people make it seem.