I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortion?

[OKgrannie]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

Just search by state in the index, most abortions from the 60's till it was made legal were around 30% per state.


Abortion statistics and other data

30% of pregnancies were illegally aborted? That's more than today, since approximately half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and half of the unplanned pregnancies are aborted.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

How is it evident that I'm young? Some things don't change with age.

This is not intended to be insulting, but your moral arguments are prone to childish simplicity and absolutism with a strong belief-- not borne out by history-- that simply changing the law will have a profound effect on people's attitudes and behavior.

If I were to guess, I'd say that you're in your early to mid teens. Smart for your age with a strong vocabulary, but in need of considerably more experience in debate and possibly instruction in logic and ethics. Which isn't to say that you should change your mind, or hold any opinion whatsoever save that which suits you, but your moral reasoning and your rhetoric are painfully unsophisticated and it would behoove you to seek out every opportunity to improve them.

I'll step down off my soapbox now.

If abortion is made illegal there is an option do wipe it from the future generation of doctors by removing it from the textbooks. Soon, the old doctors will retire and the new doctors will come around not knowing a thing about abortion or what instruments are needed. There are ways to get this law passed and keep this country financially safe.

You do realize that the procedure used for abortion is the same procedure that is medically necessary for the health of the mother after a miscarriage occurs? It's a necessary medical procedure that can't just be willed out of existence.

And you seem to be forgetting that the procedure would still be necessary for those cases that you would be willing to grant-- medical necessity, and in blatant contradiction of your "pro-life" views, in cases of rape or incest.

Besides, it's a simple surgery that any third-rate veterinarian can perform and any third-rate doctor can learn by watching it performed once or twice. It's a surgery I could perform, if I brushed up on it beforehand and had a textbook nearby for reference.

It's the principle of the thing. It is un-moral to get cosmetic surgery because you are being vain and that is bad.

How do you reach this conclusion, that vanity is bad and that acts performed in service of vanity are automatically immoral?

And cosmetic surgery that is performed after a serious car accident is rarely about "vanity", it's about reconstruction-- trying to restore a person's appearance to what it was before the accident, or at least to as much of a "normal" appearance as possible. That is not vanity.

However, by repairing your car or healing yourself, you are taking responsibility for what needs to be done, which is good, and is moral.

Likewise, by getting an abortion, the woman is taking responsibility for what needs to be done for her family. If her family is not prepared for another child, then abortion is the responsible and honorable course of action-- though I will, of course, never speak ill against those who choose to provide children for other loving families, it is nobody's moral obligation to do so.

Besides, you don't need to live a long life to realize the concept of morality. But if you believe that's so, then it goes right in hand with my argument that 16 year old pregnant pro-abortion girls know nothing of what's morally right or wrong like so many pro-choicers believe they do, simply because they are to young to realize morality and the government needs to take care of them! :roll:

And how does that apply to older pro-choice speakers, like myself or OKgrannie? Do we "know nothing of what's morally right or wrong", too, and if so, what's our excuse?

Until you can demonstrate some source of your morality and the ability to logically defend your conclusions, you're in no position to be making blanket statements about what other people may or may not know about morality. Morality is not "realized", can never be "realized"; it is either assumed or declared, or at most, deduced on the basis of existing facts and already-accepted moral statements.

You keep using words like "responsibility" and "principle", but you never establish who pregnant women should be responsible to or why. You don't tell us what your principles are, so we have no way of knowing if your stance against abortion fits them, and nothing to argue about except your conclusion itself. You are not leaving any ground upon which to debate, nor establishing any criteria by which to appraise your argument.

So tell us what you believe in. Why do unborn children need legal protection? How is abortion irresponsible, and why is it immoral, especially when compared to giving birth to an unwanted child? What alternatives to abortion should be practiced, and what should the government's role be in encouraging them?

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

=OKgrannie;1058131354]30% of pregnancies were illegally aborted? That's more than today, since approximately half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and half of the unplanned pregnancies are aborted.

That was actually a round up to the tens place. Both statistics are inaccurate, I'm not getting your point, abortions only decreased 5% from the rounded up number, and who knows what from the regular number. What is your point?

 

[Gwendoline]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

It's not the subject really, it's the debating part. I like to share opinions and viewpoints and debate whether they're what I perceive them to be. I don't like mud flinging, disrespect or anything like that. What's wrong with just having a peaceful debate?

A peaceful debate about abortion? You mean a peaceful debate about abortion, at the same time while you're throwing your ludicrous claims around?

Abortion is a serious subject that impacts heavily on women. You jump in with your immature and far-fetched generalisations, dismissing women, making silly claims, and then you expect what? Respect and peacefullness?

Lift your game.

 

[OKgrannie]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

That was actually a round up to the tens place. Both statistics are inaccurate, I'm not getting your point, abortions only decreased 5% from the rounded up number, and who knows what from the regular number. What is your point?

The point is that MORE abortions took place when they were illegal. That is what YOU said. And yet you claim that criminalizing abortion will reduce the number. Your thinking is a bit foggy....that's supposed to happen with age.

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

This is not intended to be insulting, but your moral arguments are prone to childish simplicity and absolutism with a strong belief-- not borne out by history-- that simply changing the law will have a profound effect on people's attitudes and behavior.

"'Tis a shame that wisdom is wasted on the young, and squandered by the old."

If I were to guess, I'd say that you're in your early to mid teens. Smart for your age with a strong vocabulary, but in need of considerably more experience in debate and possibly instruction in logic and ethics. Which isn't to say that you should change your mind, or hold any opinion whatsoever save that which suits you, but your moral reasoning and your rhetoric are painfully unsophisticated and it would behoove you to seek out every opportunity to improve them.

Thanks for the guess, there was no point to it though.

I'll step down off my soapbox now.

You do realize that the procedure used for abortion is the same procedure that is medically necessary for the health of the mother after a miscarriage occurs? It's a necessary medical procedure that can't just be willed out of existence.

And you seem to be forgetting that the procedure would still be necessary for those cases that you would be willing to grant-- medical necessity, and in blatant contradiction of your "pro-life" views, in cases of rape or incest.

Besides, it's a simple surgery that any third-rate veterinarian can perform and any third-rate doctor can learn by watching it performed once or twice. It's a surgery I could perform, if I brushed up on it beforehand and had a textbook nearby for reference.

I was being sarcastic to the person I was saying it to. I don't know how to make it appear that way online but this is how it turned out. I have sincere doubts that our economy will fall into financial ruins. When abortion was illegal last after the 50's and so, there was no doctoral economy crash.

How do you reach this conclusion, that vanity is bad and that acts performed in service of vanity are automatically immoral?

Vanity corrupts lives, actors become so subdued by their own appearances that they fall by the way-side on their personal road to life. Vanity effects ignorance, which in turn effects pride, which in turn effects etc. etc. Until you become pompous and unreasonable. You begin to see nothing but yourself, you forget your family, friends, humiliation, and become very self-absorbed. And that is how you spend the rest of your miserable existence.

And cosmetic surgery that is performed after a serious car accident is rarely about "vanity", it's about reconstruction-- trying to restore a person's appearance to what it was before the accident, or at least to as much of a "normal" appearance as possible. That is not vanity.

No it is not. Vanity is to be prideful of your appearance. You cannot be proud after a head-on crash where you have to get surgery done to your face, so that when you look in the mirror you see a disfigured un-personal face staring back at you. There's no way to be vain in that situation.

Likewise, by getting an abortion, the woman is taking responsibility for what needs to be done for her family. If her family is not prepared for another child, then abortion is the responsible and honorable course of action-- though I will, of course, never speak ill against those who choose to provide children for other loving families, it is nobody's moral obligation to do so.

I believe that if a woman didn't want another child, she shouldn't have obtained that risk by having sex.

We will always be arguing about this till someone finds out when a baby is actually a being, but, she had a baby and can not kill it because it is too a human being.

And how does that apply to older pro-choice speakers, like myself or OKgrannie? Do we "know nothing of what's morally right or wrong", too, and if so, what's our excuse?

Using the logic of the person I was replying to, you have a lot of morality!

But I believe that mortality is not something you can pass on, it is an intellect that each person is equipped with, though some may be stronger then others.

Until you can demonstrate some source of your morality and the ability to logically defend your conclusions, you're in no position to be making blanket statements about what other people may or may not know about morality. Morality is not "realized", can never be "realized"; it is either assumed or declared, or at most, deduced on the basis of existing facts and already-accepted moral statements.

Morality is nothing you can learn about, it is something you are born with, (if you are ever born). I do not judge peoples morality, and I do not succumber to a moral examination. I just draw the whole of abortion onto the basis of morality so that we can cast light on it and see if it really is black and white.

You keep using words like "responsibility" and "principle", but you never establish who pregnant women should be responsible to or why. You don't tell us what your principles are, so we have no way of knowing if your stance against abortion fits them, and nothing to argue about except your conclusion itself. You are not leaving any ground upon which to debate, nor establishing any criteria by which to appraise your argument.

I believe that the para-mount of feminist groups have been using the un-fair card way to long.

"It's my body!" they say, making any argument sound communistic.
It's true, they should act responsible and it is their body. But in my sight, I'd say that they weren't acting very responsible with their bodies on the night they gave them so freely.

It is only my opinion that they should have to deal with the moral consequences, and not put up to debate with America, that the freedom it gave to them didn't help and that they demand a way to scour away any child inside of them so that they can't feel the liberty and prosper the woman did and the woman doesn't have to put up with the consequences of her foolish actions. These are just my thoughts, please don't harass my opinion as it will not change.

So tell us what you believe in. Why do unborn children need legal protection? How is abortion irresponsible, and why is it immoral, especially when compared to giving birth to an unwanted child? What alternatives to abortion should be practiced, and what should the government's role be in enc


The difference is massive and the implications are incredible. It is my discovery that any attempt to define a human based on some function that is actualized in the subject at the present, is ultimately an arbitrary selection from among countless other possibilities. One will say that a fetus is not “human” in the moral sense until “quickening,” heartbeat, brain waves, certain development of features, self-consciousness, etc. All suppose their view is the self-evident and compelling one. Such a selective process based on second-level functions is doomed to failure and results in defining away the very principle that is considered “self-evident,” viz., “It is wrong to take innocent human life.” The only other alternative is to conclude that human life has intrinsic worth and that evaluation is given to the presence of the “first-level” act of the human substance.

One struggles to find a real ground for morality itself, let alone a ground for specific moral injunctions. Are we to envisage computers acting “morally” towards each other? When the computer’s plug is pulled, do we then discontinue considering it a moral agent? When humans are sleeping do we consider them less than human? Is it because they can or most likely will wake up and begin to exercise their human powers that we do not consider it morally acceptable to murder people in their sleep? If so, the same kind of argumentation can be applied to the fetus in the womb.

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

The point is that MORE abortions took place when they were illegal. That is what YOU said. And yet you claim that criminalizing abortion will reduce the number. Your thinking is a bit foggy....that's supposed to happen with age.

I never said that more abortions took place when they were illegal. I was rounding them up to the tens or the average. Some states only had an 8% of illegal abortions. Your statistics were not rounded or averaged so far as I can tell. And both of our statistics are slightly inaccurate so this is not the logic to debate with.

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

A peaceful debate about abortion? You mean a peaceful debate about abortion, at the same time while you're throwing your ludicrous claims around?

I am not trying to change a thing with my arguments, I am trying to obtain the spirit of this forum by just taking a debate with out pushing views. I am not flinging mud or cussing like some people do, I just want to enjoy something this summer.

Abortion is a serious subject that impacts heavily on women. You jump in with your immature and far-fetched generalisations, dismissing women, making silly claims, and then you expect what? Respect and peacefullness?

At least I have been talking about abortion. If it's so serious why haven't you brought up a thing about abortion yet?

Lift your game.

Are you even playing?

 

[Gwendoline]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

I am not flinging mud or cussing like some people do, I just want to enjoy something this summer.

So you enjoy summer by starting a thread on abortion. Right.

I take abortion seriously, and the welfare of women, I take seriously too. It's not a summer enjoyment to me.

The subject of abortion carries brevity - reflect on that, and perhaps your summer enjoyment may be better suited to a less serious and important issue such as abortion is.

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

=Gwendoline;1058131415]So you enjoy summer by starting a thread on abortion. Right.

No, like I said, I enjoy summer by debating.

I take abortion seriously, and the welfare of women, I take seriously too. It's not a summer enjoyment to me.

I take it seriously too, but think realistically, It's not like anything you say on here is going to an overnight phenomenon, and once again, it's debating that's the summer enjoyment.

The subject of abortion carries brevity - reflect on that, and perhaps your summer enjoyment may be better suited to a less serious and important issue such as abortion is.

If you care so much about abortion why don't we debate about it? You haven't brought up anything relevant to the conversation since you started this thread. This is really boring getting this pep talk from you, if you want to rant to someone about how you feel, please do it on another thread.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

I believe that if a woman didn't want another child, she shouldn't have obtained that risk by having sex.

That doesn't really answer the question. Why shouldn't she have sex unless she's planning on having a baby? Why should she have a baby whether she wants one or not?

We will always be arguing about this till someone finds out when a baby is actually a being, but, she had a baby and can not kill it because it is too a human being.

It's not an answer to be found. It's a decision to be made. I've made mine, and I can argue for it. Can you tell me why we should protect an unborn child from the moment of conception? Can you tell me why being "a human being" is so important, compared to being conscious (like some favor), or compared to having a name and a family, like I believe?

But I believe that morality is not something you can pass on, it is an intellect that each person is equipped with, though some may be stronger then others.

And, of course, the strength of a person's morality is in direct proportion to their agreement with you...

I do not believe that you can know morality. You can only feel it, and since each person feels it differently, it is up to us-- and only us-- to impose it and enforce it and control it. We are not archaeologists of morality, trying to find the complete meaning of different pieces of ancient parchment; we are politicians of morality, fighting for control by attempting to persuade others to see it our way. And that is why our reasoning and our arguments must be sophisticated-- in order to convince people that we know what we're talking about, and that our way is best.

Can you imagine if a candidate for office-- any office-- answered a debate question with "because I said so"?

Morality is nothing you can learn about, it is something you are born with, (if you are ever born). I do not judge peoples morality, and I do not succumber to a moral examination. I just draw the whole of abortion onto the basis of morality so that we can cast light on it and see if it really is black and white.

And, of course, since you do not succumb to moral examination you do not understand that the assumptions upon which you base your black and white judgment are open to question. You don't even understand that you are making assumptions, because you have never examined or attempted to deconstruct your system of morality. You believe-- incorrectly-- that you were born with them, and that other people were born with the same assumptions, and that people who do not agree with your conclusions must be applying faulty logic to your assumptions, instead of applying (more or less) sound logic to their own assumptions.

Of course, since you don't even realize that your moral beliefs are assumptions, and that other people do not share them, you're not capable of discussing them. They're as invisible to you as air or gravity.

These are just my thoughts, please don't harass my opinion as it will not change.

Fat chance. Learn to defend yourself or I'll eat you.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

I only posted one link, and you only asked for the general information. The APA is a well known information site, it has been used by millions of pregnant women and doctors agree to it's information. However, "Wikepedia" is very easily hacked, you can't expect me to have no doubt in it?

lol "hacked." People don't even need to hack them, they can be edited unless they are protected or semi-protected, which controversial ones usually are. And I've never seen evidence of those being hacked, and I use wikipedia many times a day.

But, you should learn about Wikipedia because it can be a useful tool. When you see an article, check the sources to see if they are legit. Also, you can view the editing history to see if anybody put anything weird recently (see the History tab near the top of an article). All that said, Wikipedia's accuracy is close to regular encyclopedias, but having those skills make it better than regular ones.

Yes, it has been around since the beginning of time, but that doesn't make it right. By making it illegal you can cut the number of abortions into small fractions, most girls are very law-abiding and will just leave their baby to adoption.

Incorrect, abortions are very common in most countries where they are illegal.

It is evident that you're young. You don't back up your (wild) claims. I'll say it once more: you DON'T know most young girls. Where is the link to show that most young girls would give their baby to adoption? Your claim is absurd, unfounded, and you're just pulling words out of the air.

I don't think being "young" necessarily makes one prone to make wild claims or be incapable of critical thought. I'm sure the national chapions of high school debating are more intelligent than 98% of Americans.

This is not intended to be insulting, but your moral arguments are prone to childish simplicity and absolutism with a strong belief-- not borne out by history-- that simply changing the law will have a profound effect on people's attitudes and behavior.

That sounds more indicative of religious conservatism than youngness.

One struggles to find a real ground for morality itself, let alone a ground for specific moral injunctions. Are we to envisage computers acting “morally” towards each other? When the computer’s plug is pulled, do we then discontinue considering it a moral agent? When humans are sleeping do we consider them less than human? Is it because they can or most likely will wake up and begin to exercise their human powers that we do not consider it morally acceptable to murder people in their sleep? If so, the same kind of argumentation can be applied to the fetus in the womb.

Religion gets in the way of realizing that morality is primarily about preventing the suffering of others. I am unsure if machines will ever have the capacity to suffer, but they currently do not even if they could someday so their treatment has nothing to do with morality. Similarly, I am unsure why you are unable to realize that a fetus, prior to a certain point, is not a being at all but unthinking unfeeling tissue.

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

lol "hacked." People don't even need to hack them, they can be edited unless they are protected or semi-protected,

which controversial ones usually are. And I've never seen evidence of those being hacked, and I use wikipedia many times a day.

But, you should learn about Wikipedia because it can be a useful tool. When you see an article, check the sources to see if they are legit. Also, you can view the editing history to see if anybody put anything weird recently (see the History tab near the top of an article). All that said, Wikipedia's accuracy is close to regular encyclopedias, but having those skills make it better than regular ones.

Thank you for the tip!

Incorrect, abortions are very common in most countries where they are illegal.

I am talking about America. As much as abortion concerns me in other countries, I have no right to be messing around in their politics. In America, abortions still happened even while it was illegal. But that percentage is relatively small to the number who didn't have abortions.

I don't think being "young" necessarily makes one prone to make wild claims or be incapable of critical thought. I'm sure the national chapions of high school debating are more intelligent than 98% of Americans.

"It's a shame that wisdom is wasted on the young, and squandered by the old."

That sounds more indicative of religious conservatism than youngness.

I am not religious nor am I a conservative. I believe in what's right and I do not affiliate it with a certain party or group, I think America is wrong with it's decision and I'M trying to prove it.

Religion gets in the way of realizing that morality is primarily about preventing the suffering of others. I am unsure if machines will ever have the capacity to suffer, but they currently do not even if they could someday so their treatment has nothing to do with morality. Similarly, I am unsure why you are unable to realize that a fetus, prior to a certain point, is not a being at all but unthinking unfeeling tissue.

It has a beating heart on it's eighth day, it has 46 human chromosomes.

We are debating abortion using your definition of a being, giving you the uper-hand. My definition is a human that is conceived by a human, and born a human. No matter what life cycle it is in at the time, it will always be a human.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

It has a beating heart on it's eighth day, it has 46 human chromosomes.

We are debating abortion using your definition of a being, giving you the uper-hand. My definition is a human that is conceived by a human, and born a human. No matter what life cycle it is in at the time, it will always be a human.

Why does it matter if it's human? How does that DNA sequence differentiate it from a tetse fly and make it so 'wrong' to kill it?

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

Why does it matter if it's human? How does that DNA sequence differentiate it from a tetse fly and make it so 'wrong' to kill it?

If you read my description. A tetse fly will never turn into human being even if it, and a fetus start out quite alike.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

If you read my description. A tetse fly will never turn into human being even if it, and a fetus start out quite alike.

And what's so special about the DNA of a human? What makes it so 'wrong' to kill a human?

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

And what's so special about the DNA of a human? What makes it so 'wrong' to kill a human?

Because if you give it the benefit of a doubt, my definition of a human being will soon turn into your definition of a human being. It has the ability and will too.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

Because if you give it the benefit of a doubt, my definition of a human being will soon turn into your definition of a human being. It has the ability and will too.

It's already human at conception. It's human all the while in the womb. It's human when it's born.

What I'm asking is, why is that special?

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

It's already human at conception. It's human all the while in the womb. It's human when it's born.

What I'm asking is, why is that special?

Because it has the ability to become a human being.

When it's born it has become your definition of a human being, so it BETTER matter if you don't want to contradict yourself.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

Because it has the ability to become a human being.

When it's born it has become your definition of a human being, so it BETTER matter if you don't want to contradict yourself.

That doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't have the "ability" to be human, it IS human. I just don't get what's so special about that.

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

That doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't have the "ability" to be human, it IS human. I just don't get what's so special about that.

I was using your definition. It has the ability to become a human BEING.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

I was using your definition. It has the ability to become a human BEING.

I said nothing about human 'beings', but I did state that they are not persons.

So, you place value ONLY in potential? There is no actual value in the embryo or fetus at that point in time prior to having the ability of consciousness? The value is ONLY the POSSIBILITY of developing into something that might have value at some point in the future?

You value possibility more than a current human person's individual rights?
You value possibility more than a current family of human persons who would be greatly disadvantaged by that possibility?
You value possibility more than a current human persons health and wellbeing and ability to work and provide for oneself?
All things should come to a screeching halt against everyone's will to accommodate this "possibility"?

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

I said nothing about human 'beings', but I did state that they are not persons.

So, you place value ONLY in potential? There is no actual value in the embryo or fetus at that point in time prior to having the ability of consciousness? The value is ONLY the POSSIBILITY of developing into something that might have value at some point in the future?

You value possibility more than a current human person's individual rights?
You value possibility more than a current family of human persons who would be greatly disadvantaged by that possibility?
You value possibility more than a current human persons health and wellbeing and ability to work and provide for oneself?
All things should come to a screeching halt against everyone's will to accommodate this "possibility"?

I never said anything about "possibility."

I was talking about ABILITY. A fetus that has come from an egg has just gained the ability to become a child of which it will probably come. I never once said anything about possibility, a possibility is if you have a 50/50 chance of something. To have the ability, it means that you can succeed in the task you put at hand without worrying about the small chance it will fail. Please, differentiate those two before replying.

Example: Jack has the ability to fetch water, he CAN fetch water

Example: Jack has the possibility of fetching water, He may or may not be able to do it

 

[rivrrat]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

I never said anything about "possibility."

I was talking about ABILITY. A fetus that has come from an egg has just gained the ability to become a child of which it will probably come. I never once said anything about possibility, a possibility is if you have a 50/50 chance of something. To have the ability, it means that you can succeed in the task you put at hand without worrying about the small chance it will fail. Please, differentiate those two before replying.

Example: Jack has the ability to fetch water, he CAN fetch water

Example: Jack has the possibility of fetching water, He may or may not be able to do it

I am aware of what possibility means. I used it appropriately. The embryo/fetus has the possibility of surviving long enough to be born. Not all of them make it that far.

You are dodging my question.

 

[anti-abiding]

Re: I'm kind of new here, but this is my question: What is your reasoning FOR abortio

I am aware of what possibility means. I used it appropriately. The embryo/fetus has the possibility of surviving long enough to be born. Not all of them make it that far.

You are dodging my question.

I am not dodging any question. I am not talking about possibility, I'm talking ability. But to humor you, why should they put everything on the line for something they don't want? It's because the thing they don't want is a human being, an innocent soul. They can always put it up for adoption if they don't want it and get back to their regular lives. That's why they should outlaw abortion.