Abortion

Congnative ability of the fetus? This is iffy, we can't even implement that now.

Or do you mean cognative ability of the policy makers? I don't think that we can solve this problem until we perfect birth control, eliminate all danger associated with the birthing process, educate teens and end rape. Do that and we can ban it all together.

when does a person become a person?

Or do you mean cognative ability of the policy makers? I don't think that we can solve this problem until we perfect birth control, eliminate all danger associated with the birthing process, educate teens and end rape. Do that and we can ban it all together.

Why not potential conciousness? I would say because if you go by potential you have to preserve all sperm and eggs. Any better counters?

When it has a consciousness. I doubt we do when we are a not born yet.

We wont solve this until we eliminate any grouds for abortion such as rape, uneducated teens, imperfection of birth control ect. We just have to tackle these problems one at a time and the need for abortion will disappear. The toughest will be ending rape...maybe if all women wear these when going out alone at night? I hope they don't forget to take them out!:shocked:

Name one circumstance outside of possible health problems and unintended conception that would prompt abortion?

Changing one's mind halfway through? Would you take up the justification of changing one's mind? It is not really a part of the woman's body, it has different genetics, so it cannot be treated as such. Self determination ends once the choice is made to include a separate entity.

I am interested in hearing any other case which might call for an abortion.

I can't show you why anything is, it is quite an arbitrary set of social and intellectual constructs we are so often insisted to weave through as if it were some manner of holy jungle, when it would be much easier if we simply tore them down with violent overtaking and radical societal reshaping every some odd years such that we might rectify our web without being consumed by it. But I suppose that is not an option here.

Don't ask me why, it can't be answered; ask somthing which isn't nonsensical, maybe a how? That this must be a social compromise is the key, it cannot be ignored. There must be some limits to it, here are the ones I propose:

Since the fetus is not only the genetic property of the woman, but also of the man, if copulation was consensual, it must be only upon agreement between mother and father that the process be terminated. There is one possibility.

Here is another: I would argue that once the genetic identity is developed there is no going back. This means that we can still do the morning after pill, we can still do birth control, but there is no going back without very good reason, better than changing one's mind or inconvenience. Those who change their minds can put the child up for adoption, but not stop the process due to a later inconvenience.

You might respond by criticizing the adoption process. If you think it wastes money perhaps you should consider how many non citizens waste your money every year and push to remove all rights for illegal aliens. They take advantage of our health care among other things and its getting damn hard to deport them. There are enough instances of insane government waste that they could easily double the number of children that government care can support and give us all a check for five grand. Complain about those, they serve no purpose where this would.

I must say that an ignorant opinion canot hold wieght, and this applies to those ignorant of what it might actually be like to be given up, or wonder if you are not wanted, or to be abused. If you think that the children would be better off never having lived than they be subjected to abuse, why not take a poll? We can ask those who were abused as children, those who were given up for adoption, those who's mothers could not provide for them and were taken away from her, whether they would not have rather never been born. Simple as that. We can look at the problem objectively through statistical measures.

If we reason by genetic identity, rather than from some silly, ambiguous, aribtrary, point of complexity of organization such as life, we can remain much more objective.

If you want to remain 'objective', you must find the arbirary scientific grounds upon which everyone can agree to use, and go from there. Then you have built an objective construct that will hold for quite a while.

First off, even if this must be a compromise, it will not be an arbitrary compromise, and there must be arguments from each side.

You must have a reason that we should extend a right to the fetus to be born, or I have no reason to compromise, since otherwise it would seem you are holding a nonsensical opinion.
.

Compromise should never be made for expediency alone.

.

Never, unless the stipulations were established by contract before copulation, should this be the case. A woman should have absolute control over her body, and nothing outside of free contractual agreement (especially ejaculation), should grant another individual control over it.
.

Why genetic identity?

I would not complain about adoption.

This is hardly applicable. Asking people that exist if they would have rather not existed can tell us nothing about whether or not a mother can cease a pregnancy..

I find genetic identity to be rather silly and arbitrary. What is established with genetic identity?

The scientific grounds must not be arbitrary, they must be bound to those moral grounds we establish through agreement.