You raise valid points, and are rather good at getting your point across. Sorry about putting your quotes in code brackets, I don't know how to quote when replying.
Has it ever occurred to you that not every married couple wants to go forth and multiply? Yeah, it happens. Some couples find that they just aren't cut out to be parents. Whether for financial reasons, health problems, they just wouldn't be able to give the kid the love and devotion they need, or the woman simply doesn't want to go through the agony of pregnancy and childbirth (or any combination of the above). What are they going to do on those long evenings for the rest of their married lives? Sit around and twiddle their thumbs?
This is a valid reason for them not to keep the baby, I agree. These babies could be put up for adoption instead of aborted though. In fact, adoption is the solution to nearly every mother thinking of abortion. Pregnancy isn't a fun time, but it's no excuse to cut a life short.
Your counter arguments did change my position slightly; abortion in rape cases is still wrong. I still hold that if the mothers life is in danger, abortion is not wrong.
No. The mother is responsible for the zygote/fetus. And whether the fetus is born or not is her choice and her responsibility
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. As I've said before, I believe life begins when, if nothing is done to stop it, it will continue to grow. murder is when someone plans and succeeds in ending the life of someone else. I believe every life has a right to defend its existence. If, in the case of a child, this life is unable to protect itself, it is the mothers duty to do so. And when I said the woman was responsible for her child, I meant responsible to protect the child. When I said responsibility I didn't mean having authority over it, killing it if it was an inconvienience.
Because a baby is it's own person, and doesn't necessarily need the mother that birthed it to survive. And I wouldn't say people don't care about abortion OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE A HUGE SOCIAL ISSUE. Or maybe you missed that. The reason why it's an issue is because people are trying to figure out if a zygote/fetus is its own person when it's growing inside the mother, surviving off of her much like a parasite survives in its host.
The fetus has the potential to become an individual life, and abortion prevents that. I think that the fetus is an individual that depends on the mother. And yes that is possible. Does a mother tell the child when to kick? No. The child acts independantly, but depends on the mother for his/her life.
does the baby only have rights when he/she is born?
Yup! You guessed it. Otherwise, it's the mother's rights that matter since she's the one who's body is where the the fetus is growing.
So the act of plopping out of a woman bestows the baby with all his rights? That just seems strange. I'm going to compare your view of abortion with a different scenario. A farmer is working on land which is not his own. The landowner supplies the environment which the farmer needs to survive. One day the landowner kills the farmer. Your saying the farmer has no rights, and the landowner essentially 'owned' the farmer, because the farmer depends on him? When I say 'owned' I mean have complete authority over, even to end his life, just like the case of abortion. The only way I can see you justifing your position is if you view a fetus as property, livestock, slaves, or worst of all...nothing.
And just think of all the lives that could have been saved if someone had aborted Hitler...
Hmm, let's count how many hitlers there have been....I think It's one. You have to admit that the vast majority of people benifet, or do not change society. Very few people actually make it worse.
Clearly you've never kept mice that done gone and had little micelings. Tons of mammals EAT THEIR YOUNG. And if you want to talk about unnatural, what the heck are you typing on? A computer. Certainly not a common natural phenomenon.
And you want the human race to be compared to mammals that eat their young? seems barbaric to me. Not all of nature follows the rule of protecting their children, but obviously the majority does. Otherwise there would be no life on earth, because we keep eating our frickin babies.
Who is the victim of an abortion? What are they thinking? What are their hopes and dreams? What do they want to do with their life? What do they like doing? There's no answer to any of these questions. There is no 'they'. There's no person to die, no mind to extinguish. No personality, no feelings, nothing. The 'soul', persona, living being, whatever you want to call it, is there when there is a brain capable of producing one. That is why, after a certain stage of development, abortions are not allowed.
Another point I believe we'll have to agree to disagree about. The beggining of life is the beggining of a soul, at least in the case of humans. Even if your point was absolutely true, Ending a life capable of having a soul is the same as ending a life that has one. I'd say it's crueler actually. Sure, If you 'abort' a child , of course it won't feel a thing, won't have had a life to miss. But that child has been refused that experience by someone who doesn't have the right to do so, and the child couldn't defend itself.
