>>339
"It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester"
Whether or not an abortion at a given point in fetal/embryonic development should be allowed or not should be dependant upon when you think life begins. If you think that life begins when it is 'conscious' then up until this point, abortions would possibly be reasonable. If not, they wouldn't be.
"Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped."
It is present, and consciousness has been attained. What are you asking for now, the ability to kill already-born babies on the grounds that their brains are 'still highly undeveloped'? Considering the position of many liberals, this wouldn't surprise me.
"Well, then that is settled, and this shows that most pro-lifers value an uncommonly complicated and intricate facility of cells over a human with a MIND"
Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition. From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified.
"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being',"
But if it is a human 'life', it is the proper function of government to protect it.
"Rights pertain to what is already here, living and breathing. Like you or me."
The USA was founded upon a few principles and ideas; one of which was that the proper function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Those who advocate the government fullfills these roles in their entirely are advocating good government. Whether or not the 'life' is inside, or outside of the woman, is completely redundant.
"My skin cells have the same genetical complexity of an entire foetus, so I would not be able to scratch myself if life begins at conception."
Irrelevant. Skin cells don't = developing human lives with consciousness.
"Saying that the foetus is a leech of nutrients, not giving anything to society or not having advanced faculties is not sufficient, because if you universalized that we would have to kill the mentally challenged and all hobos we can find."
This has been discussed as well. You are wrong. The facts are that the actions of the woman put the fetus in the situation it is in in which it cannot be removed from her body without dieing. Saying you can remove or abort it before it can survive on its own is like saying I should be able to drag a friend of mine onto a ship against his will, sail off into the ocean, and then throw him off my ship.
"Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long."
Thank you!
"On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers."
Simply because they are scarce does not mean they are unattainable. I don't care how scarce abortion clinics are. There have been many opportunities to prevent this situation. If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner. If you were irresponsible enough to screw around and put yourself in jeopardy of becoming pregnant due to not using adequate contraceptives, you put yourself in that situation... and then to further suggest that there is any justification AT ALL in allowing women late-term abortions as they please even after the fetus has become sentient is just ridiculous to me. They have been given so many opportunities to handle the situation up until that point, and if she didn't do it by then, tough shit.
"Maybe we could raise the minimum wages?"
Inconsistant with the ideas of proper government and liberty.
"The vast majority (93%) of abortions occur during the embryo stage before it becomes a fetus (at 23 weeks). An embryo is indeed no more than a lump of flesh."
This depends on when 'life' begins.
"I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself..."
Agreed.
"But I too think that nulling it is vile and stupid, because that is collective punishment,"
You offered the situation - all abortions or none, and in the same way collectively punishing women is wrong, collectively punishing live fetuses is wrong as well. I went with the protection-of-fetuses route because the fetus had no choice whether to be there or not. The woman did. So thus, while collectively punishing the women is wrong as well, collectively punishing the fetuses by allowing all abortions is worse, since the fetuses had no say in their situation and the women did. For clarity, I am not advocating this, nor is it my actual position on abortion. This has been discussed already, and this is my response to a *hypothetical situation* offered me by Xel, unless I'm mistaken.
"7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized."
I fail to see how you can say it is better to kill a huge number of human lives than to 'partially dehumanize' a segment of the US population.
"Especially when these 7 % occur in a nation where men have the upper hand,"
We have equal rights in the USA.
"and most conservatives make decisions that make pregnancies, getting an abortion at embryonic/pre-cerebrum stages and the task of motherhood harder."
Irrelevant.