Modern technology allows us to determine whether an embryo exists or not?How is it measurable and verifiable?
Modern technology allows us to determine whether an embryo exists or not?How is it measurable and verifiable?
I was more asking about the measurability/quantifiability of "personhood".Is there a fertilized egg or isn't there?
Most of arguments about 25 weeks, 26 weeks etc. are really unconvincing. They all seem like arbitrary cut offs. I suppose supporters of "choice" would find less public support if they didn't compromise on only allowing abortions up until a certain point.
i thought you were pro making babies.....if she is on the pillFor the record I'm not pro choice. I'm pro killing babies.
But that is not an easy option. Abortions are seen as necessary by many people in certain circumstances. I do think that everything should be done to avoid abortions due to unwanted pregnancy (ie prevention) but deformities, pregnancy due to rape, incest, octuplets , extreme young age, those are all very complex issues and not everyone can go through with them without destroying the mothers life in the process.Quite. Abortion would be pretty fantastic if there was some accurate way of pinpointing when something was or was not a human. There is not. It is therefore not safe to actively terminate a pregnancy at any point throughout the pregnancy. I think this law is good. ^_^
I think you'd find the number of pregnancies that are aborted due to " rape, incest, octuplets , extreme young age" to be a very small proportion of all abortions performed annually in Australia.But that is not an easy option. Abortions are seen as necessary by many people in certain circumstances. I do think that everything should be done to avoid abortions due to unwanted pregnancy (ie prevention) but deformities, pregnancy due to rape, incest, octuplets , extreme young age, those are all very complex issues and not everyone can go through with them without destroying the mothers life in the process.
So someone deciding that conception is a good point to rule the line at, is naive and ignorant to say the least.
you left out deformities. Also i do think that young age pregnancies are not that rare. If you are in high school and get pregnant, you have a small chance of living a comfortable life after that , unless your parents are already loaded with cash and will support the girl.I think you'd find the number of pregnancies that are aborted due to " rape, incest, octuplets , extreme young age" to be a very small proportion of all abortions performed annually in Australia.
Perhaps naively when he referred to "young age" pregnancies I imagined he was referring to 12 or 13 year olds getting knocked up. Pregnant 16 year olds could do something really crazy like adopt the baby out rather then aborting it. There's no shortage of good adoptive parents in Australia. Why do you think there are so man overseas adoptions? Because Australian women abort unwanted pregrancies at very high rates.you left out deformities. Also i do think that young age pregnancies are not that rare. If you are in high school and get pregnant, you have a small chance of living a comfortable life after that , unless your parents are already loaded with cash and will support the girl.
No, i am not arguing that life is diminished due to those circumstances. i do not hold to the premise that life starts at conception, i am agnostic in that regard.Rubbish. Why is the life diminished because of the circumstances in which it was created? It's irrelevant to the debate
A conceived child is when the sperm enters and fertilises the egg. Now do the quick math on that sentence and add up the number of cells. Here I'll do it for you:wait wait so by this, when it is a single cell it is considers a person/human
i was taught humans are multicellular, they lied to me
[citation needed]I think you'd find the number of pregnancies that are aborted due to " rape, incest, octuplets , extreme young age" to be a very small proportion of all abortions performed annually in Australia.
Scarcity.What makes a life valuable?
I don't think that anyone disagrees with that. Life is life. I think the distinction we're trying to make is when "personhood", to use the phrase of the ND bill, begins, if ever.Again, this is not to the point. If we agree that a life begins at conception
So the consumerfoetus has no knowledge of his/her life and therefore does not demand it.Scarcity.
Everyone will eventually end up owning their very own copy of death. But to own this, they have to trade in their copy of life. Of course, this is a mandatory system with no refunds given (except one notable case nearly 2,000 years ago), so the value of life is measured by the fact that ownership of it is temporary, and that most people fight tooth and claw to keep their copy as long as possible.
It's just simple supply and demand forces, really.