Originally Posted by MegaCash

For me, my opinion would depend on the situation. If your past the age of 24 with a steady income, why get an abortion? Why of just start a family. But if you're 19 or under still living off/with your parents, jobless and in school, barely able to take care of yourself, you're not ready to take care of a child

Originally Posted by hey12

Abortion isnt really killing, it's just killing a egg growing in a womans womb

Originally Posted by Redundant

uh, because you don't want to?
A child is gonna require hard work and most of your free time so don't you dare to just say “just get it because you can”.
Unless you are rich you will be stripped off most of your income. You won't have much fun unless you enjoy being a parent.
Many women chose to give their babies away, most of them probably want to get it abortet because it is easier and won't affect them too much. Yes, that can be considered egoistic, but there is no reason to hate on them. There are enough people.

Originally Posted by RayA75

I will present my own argument:
When debating whether abortion is ethical or not, we need not argue about when life begins; but the process by which life comes about; and how abortion interferes with said process.
That is to say, abortion ceases the fetus' process to become. Murder ceases the human's being.
Allow me to define my terms.
A sperm in itself is in the process of being a sperm. Over its existence it will continue to be a sperm, unchanged, not becoming something else. This is overlooked when proponents of abortion talk rhetoric such as "Are you gonna say masturbation is as bad as abortion?" A sperm will not become a human being. A sperm will not gain person hood if left to its natural processes. When you kill sperm, you are killing sperm, because in itself, it is only being.
A fertilized egg, or fetus in itself is in the process of becoming a person. If left to its natural processes, it will become a baby, and then a person. A fetus is in the process of becoming. When you perform abortion on a fetus, you are ending the process to become whatever the fetus is becoming, namely a human. When you commit abortion, you are then infringing on the right to become. I will touch upon becoming later again, and how important the right to become is as well.
A human in itself is in the process of being a human, a person. When you muder a person, you kill that person. The person is not becoming something in that a fetus is becoming a person. When you kill a person, then you are infringing on the right to life.

Originally Posted by RayA75

I will present my own argument:
When debating whether abortion is ethical or not, we need not argue about when life begins; but the process by which life comes about; and how abortion interferes with said process.
That is to say, abortion ceases the fetus' process to become. Murder ceases the human's being.
Allow me to define my terms.
A sperm in itself is in the process of being a sperm. Over its existence it will continue to be a sperm, unchanged, not becoming something else. This is overlooked when proponents of abortion talk rhetoric such as "Are you gonna say masturbation is as bad as abortion?" A sperm will not become a human being. A sperm will not gain person hood if left to its natural processes. When you kill sperm, you are killing sperm, because in itself, it is only being.
A fertilized egg, or fetus in itself is in the process of becoming a person. If left to its natural processes, it will become a baby, and then a person. A fetus is in the process of becoming. When you perform abortion on a fetus, you are ending the process to become whatever the fetus is becoming, namely a human. When you commit abortion, you are then infringing on the right to become. I will touch upon becoming later again, and how important the right to become is as well.
A human in itself is in the process of being a human, a person. When you murder a person, you kill that person. The person is not becoming something in that a fetus is becoming a person. When you kill a person, then you are infringing on the right to life.

Ok, so those rights I mentioned:
In America, and through our common western ethics, particularly the Nicomachean Ethics presented by Aristotle, our right to life is held in extreme regard. That right to life is derived from the right to become. One cannot live without becoming into a living being, as a fetus is.
We can now reasonably infer that the right to become is, or atleast almost as, important as the right to life.

Now, why is abortion legal? Our legality of abortion shows us, who have done such an analysis of our natural human rights, see that our right to become has been infringed on. What is the right on the other side of the argument? Sometimes, it is the mother's right to life. In cases like that, I think the cease of the right to become is justifiable. In other cases like that of rape, it is the trauma of the mother that should come into account.

We see that we put the apparent, near sighted, immediate good of convenience in front of a right as simple, as important, as universal, and as human as the right to become. We cannot afford to think this way, and I will challenge anyone to tell me otherwise.

Originally Posted by RayA75

The argument boils down to how we come to have life. Also, fetuses are not persons. I know. They do not have life. They do not need to have life to have the right to become. They should be endowed with the right to become because through the fetus' processes, we get life. We need the to become to have life. Since we protect life, we must then protect the process by which we get life, the development of the fetus.

P1 A is indispensable for B
P2 B is regarded as important and is protected
C A also must then be important and protected

Originally Posted by RayA75

Putting convenience in front of life is unethical, and misvalued. Without life, all other rights, including that of convenience. As a culture, we value the satisfaction of our desires, our convenience, our freedom, our wants, over more objective concerns such as that of the becoming. To become is an objective concern. To want is subjective.

Originally Posted by RayA75

Not quite sure what you mean by brood maidens. As for the termination of that process, that deals with the legality of abortion. Entrusting the responsibility of terminating the process to the mothers in question I think is a serious liability that will more often than not, be exploited for convenience.

No, it is not the same. Being against abortion does not mean that one wants more people in the world.

Life would be the objective goal for the fetus. No, a fetus does not have a subjective concern. It does not concern. But the ends which fetal development is a means to is life.

Wants are something we experience, like the want for convenience, the want for freedom, the want for happiness, and hell the want for grape juice, are not as important as objective natural ends, such as life, consciousness, person hood, and birth. I don't think it's a stretch to say that life is more important than freedom.