At 10/29/12 12:56 AM, T3XT wrote:
What's bad/good about abortion Newgrounds?
Well there's really nothing "good" about abortion and there's nothing good about a woman being in a situation where she needs to choose between abortion and childbirth. Whether an unintentionally pregnant woman chooses to abort a fetus or give her child up for adoption, she'll be judged by most of society as a slut. What most people and unfortunately most women forget is that an abortion is a birth control procedure. If all other forms of birth control were taken prior, pregnancy would surely have been avoided.
Instead of dividing abortion into "good" and "bad" segments, I'll divide the things typically associated with being pro-life or pro-choice.
-Generally, the entire principal of being pro-life is based on ethics, religion, and what a person decides what a child is defined as.
-For an individual to label abortion as murder, he/she has to argue that a single-cell embryo is a whole human being. Some pro-life advocates go as far to say that haploid eggs and sperm are considered humans or children. Therefore, any destruction of an embryo or an undeveloped fetus is murder, since these things would theoretically be classified as children. For obvious reasons, pro-life advocates do not back up this belief with scientific reasoning, but with religious reasoning.
-In order to consider yourself as pro-life, you have to vigorously defend the idea that an embryo is a child and destroying it in any fashion is murder. That means no matter the circumstances of abortion, you must believe it is murder and therefore should be illegal.
-First off, to consider yourself as pro-choice, you need to know what is considered by science as an individual human being.
-An individual human being should be capable of sustaining his/herself outside of the womb (with the exclusion of feeding his/herself).
-A human being's cells should all be fully differentiated or fully developed into their separate functions. Also continuing along the subject of differentiation, a developing embryo goes through multiple developmental checkpoints to ensure that it is viable. If the developing embryo fails anyone of these biological "checkpoints" it will effectively self-terminate in what we call "spontaneous abortion" This self-evaluation process is embedded within our genes along with all other internally fertilizing organisms in order to prevent the development of mutated and unviable offspring.
-So what does spontaneous abortion have to do with our medical procedural variant? Well both involve early termination of development of a fetus. In one case, the body naturally determines the fetus as genetically or physically unviable and terminates the potential offspring, which we label as a miscarriage. On the other hand, the decision to medically abort a fetus labels the developing fetus as unviable for many throughly discussed personal reasons.
-So by this point a pro-life individual argues for and stands by what science classifies as an individual human being and is capable of discerning between human being and life in a broad sense.
-Now that all of the science is out of the way, we can now dive into the ethics or choice portion of being pro-choice.
-No man has the power to force a woman what or what not to do with her body. A first amendment right, pretty simple.
So you can see why the majority of ignorant men and women tend to sway towards being pro-life. They find actual human development boring or too complicated (and it is very complicated) and find that believing what their pastor says to be much easier.
All we can do in the science community is keep researching and teaching until the majority of our population has a vague understanding of human development. We are already shifting into this direction and soon the notion of "pro-life" will only be held by a few ignorant religious extremists in the south, much like the kkk today.