I used to be somewhat anti-abortion - my reasoning was that if we kill an unborn fetus we might be killing off a future Einstein or someone. I now find that a bit silly - we might be killing a future terrorist also for all we know.

I am now pro-abortion, it is our choice and a fetus cannot think for itself, and so it doesn't qualify as a person IMO.

I'm pro-life and pro-abortion at the same time. I feel it all depends on the circumstances. It should also be the woman's choice and no one else's.

I'm not sure really if I would consider an unborn fetus a human, but using the same reasoning you could also say that if you kill a person, you are killing off any potential children the person could have later in life. So that means the murder of one person also is the murder of other potential future humans. Which doesn't make that much sense because you can't know how many children a person will have in the future.

Hm... I dont really like the tought of unborn children dying, but I mean, women do get the right to do want they want. I say its the woman's choice, even tough I dont really apporve of abortion.

[quote=LtPaint][quote=noor]I'm not sure really if I would consider an unborn fetus a human, but using the same reasoning you could also say that if you kill a person, you are killing off any potential children the person could have later in life. So that means the murder of one person also is the murder of other potential future humans. Which doesn't make that much sense because you can't know how many children a person will have in the future.[/quote]
The Law of Biogensis states an animal or any members of the same species can only produce member of their own species. So if a fetus is not a human, then what is it?
Knowing that, we know that all abortions are, by law, murder because it is the killing of a human. It can not be the murder of future humans because those humans will now never exist. [/quote]

They may be humans, but the thing that mainly seperates us from animals is that humans are self-aware.
Are fetus' self-aware?

[quote=patches][quote=LtPaint][quote=noor]I'm not sure really if I would consider an unborn fetus a human, but using the same reasoning you could also say that if you kill a person, you are killing off any potential children the person could have later in life. So that means the murder of one person also is the murder of other potential future humans. Which doesn't make that much sense because you can't know how many children a person will have in the future.[/quote]
The Law of Biogensis states an animal or any members of the same species can only produce member of their own species. So if a fetus is not a human, then what is it?
Knowing that, we know that all abortions are, by law, murder because it is the killing of a human. It can not be the murder of future humans because those humans will now never exist. [/quote]

They may be humans, but the thing that mainly seperates us from animals is that humans are self-aware.
Are fetus' self-aware?[/quote]
That's not really known. It is impossible to ask a fetus if they are "self-aware." I'll try to find something on this.

[quote=LtPaint][quote=patches][quote=LtPaint]The Law of Biogensis states an animal or any members of the same species can only produce member of their own species. So if a fetus is not a human, then what is it?
Knowing that, we know that all abortions are, by law, murder because it is the killing of a human. It can not be the murder of future humans because those humans will now never exist. [/quote]

They may be humans, but the thing that mainly seperates us from animals is that humans are self-aware.
Are fetus' self-aware?[/quote]
That's not really known. It is impossible to ask a fetus if they are "self-aware." I'll try to find something on this.[/quote]

An animal is not self-aware (the way humans are), in neither the present nor the future.
A fetus is not self-aware either in the present but it will be in the future.
So in that sense a fetus is half-way between.

That may be awkward, but it is logic and that is a logical conclusion. If anyone can find anything scientifical against fetus being self-aware, please post.

[quote=LtPaint]Alright, I'm going to use logic.

A Fetus is a Human (Law of Biogenesis)
Humans are self-aware [quote=patches]They may be humans, but the thing that mainly seperates us from animals is that humans are self-aware.[/quote]
Therefore, A Fetus is self-aware[/quote]

Can a fetus work out a math problem? Or read and write? Fetus's are embroys, yes they're humans, but they are not self aware of their enviroment.

[quote=KCahill][quote=LtPaint]Alright, I'm going to use logic.

A Fetus is a Human (Law of Biogenesis)
Humans are self-aware [quote=patches]They may be humans, but the thing that mainly seperates us from animals is that humans are self-aware.[/quote]
Therefore, A Fetus is self-aware[/quote]

Can a fetus work out a math problem? Or read and write? Fetus's are embroys, yes they're humans, but they are not self aware of their enviroment.[/quote]
Could you work out a math problem or read/write when you were born? As for being self-aware, what about partial-birth abortion. Killed while being born? At that time I would assume the child is self-aware or else you would not be self-aware when you were born.

[quote]Could you work out a math problem or read/write when you were born? As for being self-aware, what about partial-birth abortion. Killed while being born? At that time I would assume the child is self-aware or else you would not be self-aware when you were born.[/quote]

Are you saying a child being killed after being born or still in the womb?

[quote=patches][quote=KCahill][quote]Could you work out a math problem or read/write when you were born? As for being self-aware, what about partial-birth abortion. Killed while being born? At that time I would assume the child is self-aware or else you would not be self-aware when you were born.[/quote]

Are you saying a child being killed after being born or still in the womb?[/quote]

partial birth- delivering the baby half way then killing it.[/quote]

Oh, okay. Late-term abortion. Thats illegal in 16 states, but the exception is in 4 states its allowed if it threatens the womens physical, mental, etc condition.

Wiki has a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_aware]topic[/url] on self awareness.

A fetus is not capable of being self-aware either in the present but it will be in the future.

A mentally handicapped person is capable of being self-aware in the present and the future. (I'm using capable in the sense that if the person's brain was normal, the person would be self-aware.)

[quote=Derek C]Here are my views on abortion. First of all, since the woman is carrying the child within her, I.E. the child is technically part of her body, it is basically her right to choose. This does not mean that I am entirely in favor of abortion, merely that the decision really isn't mine or anyone else's to make besides the would-be mother in question.
Now we come to the second part of the issue, the one of the embryo's self-awareness. Until the fetus's cells begin to specialize, there are no nerve cells, and therefore no way that the embryo could possibly be self-aware. I don't know how long it takes for nerve cells to develop in an embryo, but I think it's quite some time, where quite some time is defined as certainly enough time for the woman to realize her pregnancy, and decide what to do about it. It should be noted that nerve cells don't necessarily equal self-awareness either (consider the nerves that control our breathing, heart-rate, etc.).
During the times where we can say for certain that the fetus is not self-aware, there should be no moral problems with abortion in my opinion. The embryo, at this point, is merely a group of cells that are a part of the woman's body. Yet some would consider these cells to be another separate human life, and an abortion murder at this point. Using this spurious logic, a woman who becomes pregnant and has a miscarriage would be committing manslaughter. No one in their right mind would make such a claim, but the destroying of a bunch of nonspecialized cells is still considered murder by some.
Once the embryo begins to resemble an infant, in both appearance and cognition, the moral dilemma appears. The fetus is still inside the woman's body, and the woman is still supporting the fetus with her own resources, but the fetus is becoming more independent, and beginning to live as its own entity. I don't think that I would support an abortion at this point, but still I feel that the woman should have the right to make that choice. As for partial birth abortion, the infant is inarguably its own entity now, and killing at that stage would be murder.[/quote]

I totally agree with you.

[quote=noor]A mentally handicapped person [/quote]

This is what I meant when I said Shivo, which is the misspelling of Schiavo. Think Terry.

AND BY NO MEANS DOES THIS MEAN YOUR STANDARD MENTALLY HADDICAPPED PERSON. ONLY THE SCHIAVOS.

Good point on the rape thing. But there are other exceptions, like incest, which don't apply to your line of reasoning. Yes, I will say that physically and mentally retarded people (life- long Schiavos) are worth less. The value in humans is in our brains. Our ability to think and feel is what makes us who we are. And when that is gone, so is the human.

I don't know if the moron church comment was intentional, but I got a kick out of it.

When I was a Christian evangelical I went along with the anti-abortion party-line. I was STRONGLY Anti-Abortion. But since becoming a deistic freethinker I've altered my view.
For awhile after my apostasy I bought the far left P.C. party line of beeing ok with abortion period, and the empty emotional herd rhetoric of "my body, my choice{woman}" and "it's not a person", abortion on demand thing.

I realized awhile back that I was buying the the mindless herd rhetoric of the far-left like I did of the far-right fundies when I was one.

Now, I am moderate on the issue- leaning left.
What I mean is that I do not oppose abortion in the zygote or embryonic stages,and for the most part would support it also i the very early stage sof fetus-hood{before nerves are formed, before brain and heart and brainwaves and heartbeat,etc are formed}.

I outright oppose partial birth, and for the most poart oppose late-term abortions{except for in VERY rare cases of life and eath where both mother and child are likely to die but the mother can be saved if abortion is done,etc}. I'm iffy on 2nd term or late first term abortions-it all depends on the circumstaces and context of the individual case.

But since most abortions do take place within the first 3/4 of the the first trimester, I am pro-choice in this case; allthough I have problems with the excessive rhetoric of the abortion on demand types. Though I would not want to legally oppose abortion on demand in the first trimester- I would like to see their ideoalogy and rhetoric challenged.
I also have issue with "multiple abortions" if done for merely conveniences sake{of course, some of the convenience concerns are valid, but many are excessive and a show of no concept of responsibility or maturity- which of course then it is probbaly better that such idiots don't raise children- but the children could be given for adoption in the case of such people.}

[Quote/]"my body, my choice{woman}; "it's not a person"[Unquote/]

This is emtpy emotional rhetoric, kinda like the empty emotiona rhetoric of the far-right fundamentalist types wen they say "biblegod places a soul in the child at conception when sperm hits egg"; both arguments are contradicted by the evidence,the facts, and sound reasoning.
If a woman says this rhetoric, she s denying -along with the abortion on demand far left types- that it is a complete set of different dna growing inside her- and once that dna has a human form and has organs and brain/brainwaves, heart/heartbeat,senses for pain/pleaure,etc- IT IS AT THAT POINT MOST CERTAINLY A SEPERATE HUMAN BEIENG; it may be dependent on the mother as is is growing in her and needs he to survive- but it also reqires such help to survive after birth- but no one would deny that a minute old born childis ahuman person- and if they have to remove the fetus for surgery early- whereas if they didnt it woule be NOT A PERSON- it becomes labelled a human person/child if this is done, rather hypocritical and contradictory isn't it?}.
It isn't a person, and the oman is right to say it is her body whilst in zygote/embryo stages, but even then.... it is a different set of Dna in her- not actually an extension of her OWN BODY, though NOT a "person/human" yet either}.

My view is that the far-left Abortion on demand types, along wqith the far-right religious types, are both addicted to their own unreasonable,contrary to evidence, emotionally based false rhetoric; evidence,facts,and reason do not matter to either.

It should be clear from the above that I support most abortions; I also think abortion is indeed even NEEDED to keep the human species alive and lessen our species damage to the planet,nature, and other species; due to the problem of overpopulation of the planet with our species and our species creations/habits.
But, indeed there are also abortions and excuses for such that exist in our culture that I find unjustifiable as well{few; but they exist}.
I am pro-choice,pro-life, and support abortion for the most part- but not ALL; and I have issue with the empty rhetoric of the far left "on demand" types just as I do with the far-right fundy types.

I think it's hight time that the isue be examined and legislated through means of sound reasoning, and evidence and facts; rather than stupid empty contrary to the facts/reason -RHETORIC.

...and that, ladies and gentelmen, is Icono's View.

In Reason:
Iconoclastithon

let me use your argument ... if a fetus' brain was fully developed it too would be capable ...

i was replying to an earlier post in the forum ... mentally handicapped people's brains are not always developed ... does that mean they have no rights? some are not self aware or in touch with reality at all ...

same with a fetus ... they react to sound waves ... so obviously they are somewhat aware

I would think that animals are semi-self aware... but the rights (I think) lie with the ability to reason

[quote=tey]same with a fetus ... they react to sound waves ... so obviously they are somewhat aware [/quote]

If I shot a fog-horn into anything they will react. Does that mean their self-aware?

[quote=Guruite][quote]so that would mean you think a fetus has no rights? and possibly deserves to die if the mother chooses?[/quote]

Deserve to die? well, no.... just that it has no rights. A fetus (I see) as like a baby animal (non human)... it has no real rights... until it actually comes out.

However, you should realize that this is the government preventing the woman from having an abortion. I think that doctors and anyone who would do an abortion should have some sort of principle against abortion. Abortion is icky - It is as close to a moral wrong as you can get. I think that most abortions are wrong, however the government does nto have a right to interfere. I think that we should use birth control and if someone needs an abortion, they should get it done as soon as possible, as abortion gets more wrong with every second that passes.
[/quote]

why birth?(just wondering, cuz I put it at the neuron connections)