Abortion is evil? WHY?

well like all you are entitled to your opinion, but what it boils down to is the perception of what constitutes 'birth control', for you that seems to include interruption of education, loss of job, monetary issues and other dependents, for me they are valid reasons.

Personally one thing I feel both sides should be able to agree on is the need to reduce the need for abortion . .the disagreement tends to come on how to achieve that, most pro-lifers feel it can be achieved through legislation, though all the evidence points to this being a fools errand. Pro-choicers on the other hand feel education and contraception are the best methods, and again the evidence supports this.

I believe that if pro-lifers got off the morality/religion bandwagon and actually started to look at practical ways to, at least, reduce abortions they would find they have a lot more in common with pro-choice people than they think they do and it can be achieved without the requirement for a woman to lose her body autonomy.

 

Why do you want to reduce the need for abortion? I could understand why a pro-lifer would want to reduce the need for abortion, but why would a pro-choice person support that?

 

I think it's more about reducing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. No woman ever wants to or should have to face an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. It causes for extreme stress to the woman and ultimately to those in her life as well, if she already has children it will affect them too.

Once unwanted and unplanned pregnancies are reduced through proper birth control use and education then abortion will also be reduced.

 

That's true, but abortion is a totally different situation than giving medical care to somebody in a car accident. Giving medical care to somebody in a car accident doesn't harm any innocent people who didn't chose to take a risk.

If giving medical care to an injured person who got into a car accident, caused somebody to to die in order to treat the person's injuries, then a lot of people would argue that that shouldn't be legal, even though consent to risk isn't consent to injury.

 

Pretty stupid question really .. oh I forgot you are indoctrinated into the belief that pro-choicers want abortions to happen.

Here is a little potted reality for you.

Pro-choice is about the right of individual choice for women, making decisions about their own body without the interference of the government or others.

Pro-choicers support the decision of a woman whether she chooses to have an abortion or not, it in no way implies that we do not want to reduce abortions, the opposite is true .. however, pro-choice people do not believe it can be achieved through legislation that basically turns a woman into a breeding machine. All the evidence supports that comprehensive sex education and free contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions. It is a case of treating the source of the problem not the result.

 

Precedence has already been set where a submissive Chimera twin can be removed, thus ending it's life even though it has no intent to cause injury, and given that the majority of submissive Chimera are not threatening the life of the dominant for what reason is it done?

It is done all the time, when co-joined twins are sperated.

 

Actually, it isn't legal to kill conjoined twins.

 

Better tell that to the doctors that separate them then.

 

It was in the case of Manar Maged and her unnamed parasitic head (unofficially referred to Islaam by hospital staff). They determined that it was acceptable to remove the unformed (but clearly moving and thinking) parasitic twin in order to save the life of the other twin. Removing the second head would ultimately kill that unformed infant.

[video=youtube;BnWaF7txmnE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnWaF7txmnE[/video]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/maged.asp

Unfortunately Manar died several days after surgery from complications/infection.

 

What's the difference between a conjoined twin and a Chimera Twin?

 

Unwanted pregnancies have reached 52% in this country despite readily available birth control despite the fact we have adopted sex eduction in schools and condoms have leaped from the back of the druggist counter to vending machines. If one wants to thwart unplanned pregnancies it seems to me this is not the way to do it. Something is missing.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

 

Only 22 states require their schools to teach sex education, so actually, we haven't "adopted" sex education in schools. What good are condom vending machines when kids don't know about STDs or what to do when condoms break or slip? Only recently the decision was made for Plan B to be made available without age restrictions. Even so, many teens will not have the money for it. Universal health care would help tremendously, but Republicans are desperately trying to block that, and oppose insurance coverage for contraception. What better way do you have to reduce unplanned pregnancies?

Let me guess. Instruct women to hold a quarter between their knees?

 

How about teaching girls and boys about the sanctity of life and that life begins at with conception? That would be a good start.

Why is it you pro-choicers always have to throw in insulting comments?

 

"Sanctity of life" and "life begins at conception" are religious concepts, and there is no scientific consensus that life begins at conception, so that doesn't belong in public schools. Since the US is one of the most religious countries in the world, however, I'm sure many kids are getting that message, and it doesn't seem to be helping.

I didn't insult you, I was pointing out a well known conservative "solution" for avoiding pregnancy. It would help if conservatives would face reality and promote proven solutions.

 

Conception is the beginning of a human being's life. Without conception there is no human life whether you believe in a 'consensus' or a religious concept. Sanctity: " the quality or state of being holy, very important, or valuable" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctity I see nothing wrong with teaching kids that human life is valuable, important and should be thought of as holy. You don't have to evoke religious dogma to teach that.

That is a euphemism meant to teach little girls that not allowing a penis into their vagina is the best form of contraception as opposed to giving them a vaginal spreader which is my euphemism of what pro-choicers teach little girls.

 

Lots of things not quite correct in your comment above.

The figure is not 52%, 52% is the number of intended pregnancies. Only 19% are unintended with 29% being mistimed.

Readily available birth control is birth control that is free.

You have not adopted sex education is schools, only 18 of the states are required to provide sex education, that is 36% of the total 50 states, and even some of those 18 states are not required to teach contraception.

http://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/State_Sex_Education_Laws.htm

 

Funny how you know that's a fact when philosophers, doctors, and scholars for all of time have not been able to establish that. From the Devbio online biology textbook:

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

Without either the sperm or the egg, there is no conception. If your great great great grandmother had feigned a headache on one fateful occasion, you wouldn't be here.

Carl Sagan: “Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that
stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is
an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago.”
(Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium, chapter 15)

Please. If you really thought human life were that valuable, you would promote universal health care, environmental protections, and other quality of life policies.

And now you're defending it as an alternative to comprehensive sex ed and easily accessible contraception.

 

Chimera twins fuse at a different time from co-joined twins.

Co-joined twins are usually identical, but have fused back together after the initial separation that caused the twins in the first place, the refusing usually occurs at the zygote stage.

Chimera twins fuse after fertilization but before implantation, hence why one of the twins can be completely contained within the other, or only some parts of one of the twins develop.

If you adhere to the person at conception ideology then the chimera twins are two people regardless of the amount of development incurred, at fertilization they were separate.

 

If a human being does not begin at conception then where?

That is correct.

Talk about moving the goalposts!! LOL That proves absolutely nothing.

There is a difference between forced to give $$$$ to government programs that inefficiently support socialist programs. I am just suggesting we teach our children that a human being starts with conception and it is not a good thing for a girl to become pregnant before she is ready and then kill that life or deliver a life she can't support.



And now you're defending it as an alternative to comprehensive sex ed and easily accessible contraception.[/QUOTE]

 

We all agree that life began a billion years ago, but the question is-when does a zygote become an organism? At conception. duh.

 

already debunked, a fertilized egg does not meet the criteria for an organism.

organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis

 

Infants cannot reproduce. Does that mean that infants aren't organisms?

 

I suggest we teach our children a full range of items in sex education (and yes I include abstinence) .. somehow most pro-lifers don't seem to want their children to know how to stop a pregnancy.

 

That is just one of the criteria it does not meet.

Does a newly fertilized egg react to stimuli?
does a newly fertilized egg maintain homeostasis?

Funny thing is your rebuttal is pretty inane anyway as a fertilized egg reproduces asexual.

 

If it reproduces asexually, then why isn't it an organism (since it can reproduce)?