What are some good anti-abortion/abortion points?

[Adron]

Yeah, and abortion is convenient birth control; if you don't want to limit births, ban all forms of preventatives and make sex mandatory for all fertile citizens...

Wait a second, who said anything about limiting births?  This debate IMO has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of either or both parents; it exclusively has to do with the right of the unborn child.  Individually, neither a sperm nor an egg has enough genetic material to constitute a human being; once combined however, it does.

IMO, the unborn child has very few rights. Just like a cat, dog, or horse has very few rights. And this debate, which hasn't started yet, is going to be a lot about viewpoints on whether life is sacred or not, and if so, which life is sacred. Some religious speakers prohibit all preventatives. That viewpoint should be taken into account, and you should be prepared to explain why certain potential is more protected than other potential. It is also a lot about obligations - what obligations a pregnant female has, and which she can be allowed to release. And if you bring up genetic material, it is also about the rights of a drop of blood, or the rights of a hair follicle.

[MyndFyre]

Does a drop of blood contain enough activated DNA to cause the entire range of cells in the human body to form?  Does a hair follicle?

I'm not going to debate on the side of (for example, Catholics) which do not allow birth control.  It is not my viewpoint, and I will not defend it, and it has no bearing whatsoever on mine.  So you can debate at it all day long why it's wrong -- I really don't care.

IMO the only obligation a pregnant woman has is to carry her pregnancy to term (unless it without a doubt threatens her ability to live through the term of the pregnancy and delivery -- not her livelihood).  At that point, in Arizona, we have a law that allows mothers to drop their babies off at several "safe drop zones" including firehouses and hospitals, no questions asked.  The child is given up for adoption.

In cases of consensual sex, the woman made a choice with the understanding that there is an amount of risk involved regardless of whether she's on the pill and/or they use a condom.  A life that results from that choice should be protected, as that is one of the purposes of government -- to protect the rights of those who cannot defend their own rights. 

[CrAz3D]

IMO, the unborn child has very few rights. Just like a cat, dog, or horse has very few rights. And this debate, which hasn't started yet, is going to be a lot about viewpoints on whether life is sacred or not, and if so, which life is sacred. Some religious speakers prohibit all preventatives. That viewpoint should be taken into account, and you should be prepared to explain why certain potential is more protected than other potential. It is also a lot about obligations - what obligations a pregnant female has, and which she can be allowed to release. And if you bring up genetic material, it is also about the rights of a drop of blood, or the rights of a hair follicle.

Why does the unborn child have as few rights as a dog/cat/horse?

A drop of blood is not a forming human, it does not have the same potential, blood drops & a fetus cannot be compared.

[Adron]

Does a drop of blood contain enough activated DNA to cause the entire range of cells in the human body to form?  Does a hair follicle?

Whether it is activated or not, it contains enough DNA. With activation, it could form a human body. Just like a foetus can form a human body under the right conditions only.

IMO the only obligation a pregnant woman has is to carry her pregnancy to term (unless it without a doubt threatens her ability to live through the term of the pregnancy and delivery -- not her livelihood).  At that point, in Arizona, we have a law that allows mothers to drop their babies off at several "safe drop zones" including firehouses and hospitals, no questions asked.  The child is given up for adoption.

In cases of consensual sex, the woman made a choice with the understanding that there is an amount of risk involved regardless of whether she's on the pill and/or they use a condom.  A life that results from that choice should be protected, as that is one of the purposes of government -- to protect the rights of those who cannot defend their own rights. 

My viewpoint is that life resulting from that choice should be given the same protection all other life is given. And that a woman can have consensual sex, knowing that should an unintended process similar to cancer or a wart be started, then that process can be aborted.

[CrAz3D]

The fetus already has the right conditions, the blood is just sitting there idle until something intervenes

[Adron]

The fetus already has the right conditions, the blood is just sitting there idle until something intervenes

See, change is just change. And there are no static "right conditions" - a fetus requires constant nurturing or it will die. Stopping everything around the fetus right where it is, for example, no longer intervening to remove carbondioxide from its blood, would mean that it does not develop into a human being.

[CrAz3D]

The fetus already has the right conditions, the blood is just sitting there idle until something intervenes

See, change is just change. And there are no static "right conditions" - a fetus requires constant nurturing or it will die. Stopping everything around the fetus right where it is, for example, no longer intervening to remove carbondioxide from its blood, would mean that it does not develop into a human being.

Wouldn't "intervention" be interrupting a smething that is already going on?  Since the fetus is already developing, intervention would be something like abortion/c-section, no?

[Adron]

Wouldn't "intervention" be interrupting a smething that is already going on?  Since the fetus is already developing, intervention would be something like abortion/c-section, no?

That probably depends on how you want to view things. Intervention is not a good term to assign value to. From a different viewpoint, the fetus is about to die at each second, but saved by another heartbeat.

[CrAz3D]

But that heart beat is apart of the natural process, not an outside interrupting process.

[Arta]

I thought I'd just dip into this thread to offer my perspective.

I am pro-choice. Personally, I rather dislike abortion. I think that the lines people draw between a foetus being or not being human are arbitrary. I do not think that abortion is equivalent to murder, but equally as much, to abort a pregnancy is not an innocuous act. A life is ended.

Nonetheless, I am firmly pro-choice, and this thread perfectly demonstrates my reasoning: abortion is a terribly complicated isssue, no matter what the pro-life lobby says. There are equally as compelling arguments for and against it. There is no clear correct path and no possibility for compromise. For that reason, I think that to legislate on the issue -- beyond setting the basic limits that currentely exist in most nations where abortion is legal -- is not appropriate. Whether or not to abort a pregnancy must be a decision for indivduals to make, according to their own conscience.

It is my hope that, one day, humanity's continually evolving sense of morality will deem abortion to be unacceptable, and that this will be reflected by people's choices. However, to force people along that path would be wrong in my view, and as such, I feel that abortion should enjoy the same status as the rest of healthcare: it should be legal, widely and easily accessible by all, and free at the point of need.