"Don't like abortion? Don't have one"

I think this picture pretty much sums up the facts here.

http://pigroll.com/img/abortion_not_a_difficult_concept.jpg

Yes it does. You made a claim that I claimed pro-life support death penalty on the innocent. I replied I said I know they do not support it, but innocents still get killed by the state....

You're making a point about capital punishment which doesn't have any bearing the discussion.

You know that the people we're talking about do not support executing innocent people.

Therefore your initial complaint that they are hypocrites for supporting capital punishment while simultaneously opposing abortion misses the point by failing to understand the entirely understandable distinction made by them between violent criminals and innocent babies.

It senses though. Hearing doesn't have to be with ears, you can feel sounds! (Irrelevant ish but)

Regardless, they're still living beings post (maybe even before) 9 weeks, so why should they be killed?

No scholars, even those who argue pro-life, have believe this since the 70s.

Do you eat meat?

Supporting capital punishment means you accept that an innocent will eventually get killed by the state as per the countless examples available from the all wise uncle google. that is my point...

It's not really a question of life though. It is a question of personhood. A foetus is most certainly alive, there isn't really much question about that. The question is really one of. Is it acceptable to end this life. Now almost anyone you ask would say that there isn't really anything wrong in ending the life of say a bacteria. But most would say it is wrong to end the life of a healthy adult human being.

The question here is not one of life, but one of the value of that life. It is almost universally considered wrong to end the life of an innocent person without their consent. So if the foetus can be considered a person. Then abortion is wrong.

Sorry for that long winded explanation, but I do feel that a debate on whether a foetus is alive is a) pointless (because it is alive) and b) doesn't actually answer the right question?

Sorry, just scraping in but tbh, if we saying different things have different values of life, we're going down a very odd route, because then we'll come to the conclusion that say, murderers do not have a high value of life, so we should kill them and my mum has a high value of life, so we should let her live? I think the value of the life is subjective to the woman and what she feels about it, I really don't think there should be a set ethical law regarding abortion, because it's her body and her life that is affected the most.

Then why have sex? Have sex, take the risks. People are still falling pregnant (unwillingly) with the numerous forms of contraception... Beyond me.

Well there wouldn't be a sudden increase, it'd be anticipated. If I didn't have the money, I'd go out there and find a way to get it. So no, I wouldn't take it out its pot. And that's a stupid comparison because the plant will never grow into a being like us.

Too many people having children at young ages just because they want sex. Do it safely or don't do it at all. And there are risks with condoms so do something more, it is selfish.

So your saying it's fine for a woman to commit suicide?

If no, then you are defying you're own statement that she can do what she wants with her own body.



There are scientists who push for earlier cur-off dates for abortion. I admit that I don't know much about it but considering these are scientists and assuming they hold evidence for such an opinion, it would be going against evidence to to conduct abortions after such a date.
(I believe they call is for 20 or 22 weeks, was on Panorama earlier this year.)

oh well



Yes

I respectfully disagree. Things do have different values of life. There are very few people who disagree with that (Jains for example).

Also. The mothers opinion should have absolutely no bearing on the value and personhood of a foetus.

Because sex is fun, relaxing and is a great way to connect with your partner? Aside from the fact there's less than a 1% chance of getting pregnant using a condom, and an even smaller chance with the pill. If you still manage to find yourself in that situation, that's what abortions are for. Stop the foetus before it becomes a human - it's as simple as that.

You wouldn't take out a plant that cost £1000 a year to maintain? Jeeze.
And it's not really a stupid comparison. It doesn't matter what it will become because the point is that you can prevent it becoming that either way. If you can't afford to maintain it, why would you keep it?

So killing fully grown animals is fine, but killing something that has no consciousness isn't?

Well abortions should be much earlier, the limit. Much earlier.

No, if I loved it that much, but I'm stubborn anyway.

Families who can't have children but want them. They can have them.

Why? What is your scientific reasoning for that? I can understand 20 weeks, because a small fraction of foetuses have become babies at the point, but "much earlier" has no basis. A foetus at 18 weeks is no more sentient than a foetus at 0 weeks.

So you want to continue putting the natural mother through another three months plus of knowing the baby they're carrying they'll likely never see again?
You can't force a woman to go through childbirth and it's as simple as that.

For families who want children but can't have them, there are plenty of unadopted children as it is.

Yup obviously this statement is missing the point of the debate. It's like saying "Don't like nuclear weapons? Don't make them."