A big flaw with anti-abortion logic

Now if you aren't a catholic and so judge that a person has a soul te moment the egg and sperm meet and therefore is considered a life, rather than the usual "ablity to think and self-awareness" shtick than this thread isn't for you. Or if you are a member of any other sect of any religion that considers even life that doesn't have thoughts/emotions/self-awareness is still a life then this thread isnt for you either. Yes, therefore this thread is for the people who believe that a fetus's worth is mainly/only as a future life where he will have self-awareness, thoughts and all that other stuff i mentioned.

Now, before I was also troubled by the fact that abortion essentially meant that a life wouldn't exist in the future. That was the only moral problem I had with abortion. But then i asked myself something important; that is, if I don't consider a fetus, at least in the form it is in during every abortion which isn't done for medical reasons as living or as thinking being/human then what the hell is it? I would have then considered it to be the genetic and organic foundation for a future life which is what gave me a bit of a pause when considering if abortion is moral.

But then I realised something extremely important; if a fetus is a genetic and organic foundation for a future human life, wouldn't that put it at thesame level as a sperm or egg. You know, sperm and egg; those extremely important foundations for future human life, that are either killed one at a time each month or millions at a time, possibly several times a day. I mean; a fetus is just the two of them put together which is not that hard to do (thanks to technology, you don't even need to have sex anymore to put them together.)

Now this realisation shocked me, because it meant that according to my own previous logic, I have personally "killed" billions of future lives. No wonder the catholic church made masturbation a sin. Now, I had two option at that point; I could write a book about my infanticide/genocide of my future offspring and turn myself in to the police (hey: a couple in Queensland in Australia were in a court case for having an abortion; my own case is not that far off.) Or I could just realise that having an abortion is much less of a crime against life/the future of humanity than my masturbation is.

Edit: i emphasise self-awareness and thoughts in the first paragraph because that's apparently what animals lack that makes it alright for us to kill and enslave countless animals. even though it has been proved that animals, primates in particular have rudimentary versions off. Not that I am against all this killing and enslaving of animals, I resort to the Darwinian "survival of the fittest (specie)" philosophy to clear any moral problems I might have with that.

No it's not on the same level. There is no potential life when only one of the organic material is present. It takes two. LJS9502_basic

obviously you did not get my point. it requires two, but the immense facility with which one could make it so that all of their organic material has a chance to be the basis of human life in modern society means that if you don't put all your sperm either into a sperm bank or for the use impregnation (or if you aren't always pregnant for women/freeze the zygotes/freeze the eggs?) then you will be voluntarily stopping a life from existing in the future because you can't be bothered to donate sperm or be pregnant/freeze or donate zygotes and eggs or if either gender uses contraception that wastes reproductive material such as condoms.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No it's not on the same level. There is no potential life when only one of the organic material is present. It takes two. lyeti

obviously you did not get my point. it requires two, but the immense facility with which one could make it so that all of their organic material has a chance to be the basis of human life in modern society means that if you don't put all your sperm either into a sperm bank or for the use impregnation (or if you aren't always pregnant for women/freeze the zygotes/freeze the eggs?) then you will be voluntarily stopping a life from existing in the future because you can't be bothered to donate sperm or be pregnant/freeze or donate zygotes and eggs or if either gender uses contraception that wastes reproductive material such as condoms.

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No it's not on the same level. There is no potential life when only one of the organic material is present. It takes two. LJS9502_basic

obviously you did not get my point. it requires two, but the immense facility with which one could make it so that all of their organic material has a chance to be the basis of human life in modern society means that if you don't put all your sperm either into a sperm bank or for the use impregnation (or if you aren't always pregnant for women/freeze the zygotes/freeze the eggs?) then you will be voluntarily stopping a life from existing in the future because you can't be bothered to donate sperm or be pregnant/freeze or donate zygotes and eggs or if either gender uses contraception that wastes reproductive material such as condoms.

sigh. but then, what is the difference between the logic that you use to compare a fetus and future life and a sperm and a fetus.

sperm+egg --> fetus --> life

if you get rid of an egg or a sperm you are also destroying a future life just as abortion does according to the "future life is the value of the fetus logic." You cant just selectively choose with no backing when this logic ceases to apply. you say that the difference between spem or egg and a fetus is organic; well isn't the difference between a fetus with no brain (which develops lat in womb) and a human with a working brain the exact same thing

I would say that your logic, while certainly thoughtout, is still a play on words. We can look at the placenta as say that is the foundation for future life, simply because it keeps the growing fetus alive and gives it nutrients and various other things from the mother. But the zygote (the fertilized egg) is a union between two potentials to create life. Life, as I have been learning in various bio classes in university, is simply more complex than we think. A single celled organism can be considered life (bacteria, protists, etc). If that is true, why do we have a hard time considering the fertilized egg life when it clearly has all the characteristic needed to create a future organism? Sperm and eggs cant do that alone. The fertilized egg is not a potential for new life, but the start of it.

I would say that your logic, while certainly thoughtout, is still a play on words. We can look at the placenta as say that is the foundation for future life, simply because it keeps the growing fetus alive and gives it nutrients and various other things from the mother. But the zygote (the fertilized egg) is a union between two potentials to create life. Life, as I have been learning in various bio classes in university, is simply more complex than we think. A single celled organism can be considered life (bacteria, protists, etc). If that is true, why do we have a hard time considering the fertilized egg life when it clearly has all the characteristic needed to create a future organism? Sperm and eggs cant do that alone. The fertilized egg is not a potential for new life, but the start of it.

peter1191

you are right about it being the start of a new life. But i just consider that were it not for the constituent parts, that is the sperm and the egg, life will simply not exist. A fetus is after all a practically unique combination of the practically unique genetic traits of the sperm and egg (there is genetic varation in sperms and eggs right?) and destroying it would also destroy the future life.

many times the question is asked to you by anti abortionists which basically goes alongs the line of what if your parents had an abortion? would you exist? Well i can counter that question with my logic by asking what if your dad jacked off the sperm that partly created you? the answer is the same; you wouldn't exist. sure the details are slightly different (eg: a fetus has a higher degree of genetic likeliness to you than a sperm,) but the end result is the same.

Morally there are differences between actively destroying and not actively creating.
I know you have a point, but I think you have to take it to that level.
Is there a rational difference between actively destroying and not actively creating?

Every sperm is sacred

If it needs a cord to its mother to stay alive, then i don't really consider it "alive". X360PS3AMD05

do you understand why death was changed from the ceasing of heart functions to a permanent ceasing of the brain's functions? Its because your body isn't you, its merely the physical vessel for your mind, which is the electrical and chemical impulses in your brain. your body is vessel for your brain which is vessel for your mind. fetus doesnt have a working brain therefore doesnt have mind, therefore is clinically dead.

Morally there are differences between actively destroying and not actively creating.
I know you have a point, but I think you have to take it to that level.
Is there a rational difference between actively destroying and not actively creating?

KungfuKitten

i think of things as what it is at the end of the process. what happens during the process doesn't matter much to me. if my parents weren't actively creatin me I wouldnt be here, if they actively destroyed me I wouldn't be here. same goes for everybody. the end result is the same in this case; which makes it in my moral opinion the exact same thing.

and its not like the difference between manslaughter and murder; because the end result of those two dramatically affect the murderer/manslaughterer's life. an abortion doesn't dramatically affect someone's life, just a jacking off or ovulation doesn't. so the only difference in that case would be what happened to the "victim" which in the end is the same thing.

I'd only count it a human life when it has independent DNA and chromosomes. That's conception. Before then, it's a pair of parental gametes without an independent biological identity.jimmyjammer69

basi biology here: meiosis creates genetically different offspring. therefore each sperm and egg is supposed to be unique. therefore whenever a sperm or egg is lost a possibility of a unique future life is lost. same thing as when a fetus is lost: a chance of unique future life is lost.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lyeti"]

obviously you did not get my point. it requires two, but the immense facility with which one could make it so that all of their organic material has a chance to be the basis of human life in modern society means that if you don't put all your sperm either into a sperm bank or for the use impregnation (or if you aren't always pregnant for women/freeze the zygotes/freeze the eggs?) then you will be voluntarily stopping a life from existing in the future because you can't be bothered to donate sperm or be pregnant/freeze or donate zygotes and eggs or if either gender uses contraception that wastes reproductive material such as condoms.

lyeti

sigh. but then, what is the difference between the logic that you use to compare a fetus and future life and a sperm and a fetus.

sperm+egg --> fetus --> life

if you get rid of an egg or a sperm you are also destroying a future life just as abortion does according to the "future life is the value of the fetus logic." You cant just selectively choose with no backing when this logic ceases to apply. you say that the difference between spem or egg and a fetus is organic; well isn't the difference between a fetus with no brain (which develops lat in womb) and a human with a working brain the exact same thing

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Donation is not natural and thus not bound by the morality.....in fact...such events didn't even exist. Nonetheless.....going by what is biologically possible...my answer stands. LJS9502_basic

sigh. but then, what is the difference between the logic that you use to compare a fetus and future life and a sperm and a fetus.

sperm+egg --> fetus --> life

if you get rid of an egg or a sperm you are also destroying a future life just as abortion does according to the "future life is the value of the fetus logic." You cant just selectively choose with no backing when this logic ceases to apply. you say that the difference between spem or egg and a fetus is organic; well isn't the difference between a fetus with no brain (which develops lat in womb) and a human with a working brain the exact same thing

well okay then, you make a fetus without using sperm or egg.

I can't believe i have to explain the logic behind this. If it is absolutely necessary for human development, it is part of human development. you can only make a fetus with a sperm and egg, both are unique. if either one of them is replace with another sperm or egg, then a different life is formed later.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lyeti"]

sigh. but then, what is the difference between the logic that you use to compare a fetus and future life and a sperm and a fetus.

sperm+egg --> fetus --> life

if you get rid of an egg or a sperm you are also destroying a future life just as abortion does according to the "future life is the value of the fetus logic." You cant just selectively choose with no backing when this logic ceases to apply. you say that the difference between spem or egg and a fetus is organic; well isn't the difference between a fetus with no brain (which develops lat in womb) and a human with a working brain the exact same thing

lyeti

well okay then, you make a fetus without using sperm or egg.

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Fetus is most definitely the early stage of human development. Neither the sperm nor egg are.LJS9502_basic

well okay then, you make a fetus without using sperm or egg.

but what i am saying is that without that steel the plane is never built. without the sperm and egg the fetus is not made. without that fetus life is not developed later. all an abortion does is stop the process later than a vasectomy would. its the exact same moral standard is what I am saying. The difference between the situation is inconsequent because the end result is the same.

i used the manslaughter and murder analogy earlier on because it fits. if i kill a man by accident or intentionally, to him the result is the same. Of course the difference between that analogy and abortion is that there is a difference between the actual murderer's and manslaughterer's lives. there is no difference between to someone jacking off/ovulation and someone having an abortion in respects to their lives (well abortion costs more i guess but really the difference is trivial.)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lyeti"]

well okay then, you make a fetus without using sperm or egg.

lyeti

but what i am saying is that without that steel the plane is never built. without the sperm and egg the fetus is not made. without that fetus life is not developed later. all an abortion does is stop the process later than a vasectomy would. its the exact same moral standard is what I am saying. The difference between the situation is inconsequent because the end result is the same.

i used the manslaughter and murder analogy earlier on because it fits. if i kill a man by accident or intentionally, to him the result is the same. Of course the difference between that analogy and abortion is that there is a difference between the actual murderer's and manslaughterer's lives. there is no difference between to someone jacking off/ovulation and someone having an abortion

If you had any understanding of life you would know a cell is also living...

I'm for abortion.

A if one dosn't want it then the child isn't going in the best place and just going become a problem.

B some people isn't ready for a child

C unable to take care of a child

D the mother life may be at harm

Shoot look at Utah and Georgia They are making a freaken miscarriage illegal. Why the hell can control a miscarriage? Then they making it even abortion illegal even if the mother life is at harm.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I'd only count it a human life when it has independent DNA and chromosomes. That's conception. Before then, it's a pair of parental gametes without an independent biological identity.lyeti

basi biology here: meiosis creates genetically different offspring. therefore each sperm and egg is supposed to be unique. therefore whenever a sperm or egg is lost a possibility of a unique future life is lost. same thing as when a fetus is lost: a chance of unique future life is lost.

I like Jon Stewarts spheel on this.. Specifically with the conservative birthers.. Where he points out that Obama was concieved on US soil.. So either life starts at conception and he is a US citizen.. Or life doesn't start at conception and he isn't a citizen.

I like Jon Stewarts spheel on this.. Specifically with the conservative birthers.. Where he points out that Obama was concieved on US soil.. So either life starts at conception and he is a US citizen.. Or life doesn't start at conception and he isn't a citizen.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I like Jon Stewarts spheel on this.. Specifically with the conservative birthers.. Where he points out that Obama was concieved on US soil.. So either life starts at conception and he is a US citizen.. Or life doesn't start at conception and he isn't a citizen.

LJS9502_basic

Actually they can.. She was married 3 months after conception.. She lived in there for over a year before that.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-8-2011/indecision-2012---indecision-edition---reagan-os-911

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I like Jon Stewarts spheel on this.. Specifically with the conservative birthers.. Where he points out that Obama was concieved on US soil.. So either life starts at conception and he is a US citizen.. Or life doesn't start at conception and he isn't a citizen.

sSubZerOo

Actually they can.. She was married 3 months after conception.. She lived in there for over a year before that.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well that doesn't actual work in regard to politics since birth needs a birth certificate. And I'd imagine one can't always pinpoint conception.;)LJS9502_basic

Actually they can.. She was married 3 months after conception.. She lived in there for over a year before that.

It is if your against abortion and think live starts at conception.. Meaning they are a citizen and it is seen as murder.. Either they are citizen and aboriton is a murder.. Or it isn't.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Actually they can.. She was married 3 months after conception.. She lived in there for over a year before that.

sSubZerOo

It is if your against abortion and think live starts at conception.. Meaning they are a citizen and it is seen as murder.. Either they are citizen and aboriton is a murder.. Or it isn't.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Morally there are differences between actively destroying and not actively creating.
I know you have a point, but I think you have to take it to that level.
Is there a rational difference between actively destroying and not actively creating?

lyeti

i think of things as what it is at the end of the process. what happens during the process doesn't matter much to me. if my parents weren't actively creatin me I wouldnt be here, if they actively destroyed me I wouldn't be here. same goes for everybody. the end result is the same in this case; which makes it in my moral opinion the exact same thing.

and its not like the difference between manslaughter and murder; because the end result of those two dramatically affect the murderer/manslaughterer's life. an abortion doesn't dramatically affect someone's life, just a jacking off or ovulation doesn't. so the only difference in that case would be what happened to the "victim" which in the end is the same thing.

If they want to force my girlfriend to have a child, then they better be there to pay everything.

What i find so funny, is that the same people who say that abortion should be illegal are the same who are against rising taxes. Very funn.y

If they want to force my girlfriend to have a child, then they better be there to pay everything.

What i find so funny, is that the same people who say that abortion should be illegal are the same who are against rising taxes. Very funn.y

Sandvichman

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

If they want to force my girlfriend to have a child, then they better be there to pay everything.

What i find so funny, is that the same people who say that abortion should be illegal are the same who are against rising taxes. Very funn.y

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

If they want to force my girlfriend to have a child, then they better be there to pay everything.

What i find so funny, is that the same people who say that abortion should be illegal are the same who are against rising taxes. Very funn.y

Sandvichman

If your criteria for defining human life is "self awareness" than infants and mentally handicapped people would not be classified as human under your definition.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"] No, but if something happens, 20 years of our lives should not be thrown away. jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then shouldn't that be considered first before the risk?LJS9502_basic

If your criteria for defining human life is "self awareness" than infants and mentally handicapped people would not be classified as human under your definition.

sonicare

Every sperm is sacred

RationalAtheist

First off I'm catholic, but I have the right to say what i want here. sorry :)

What I don't get, and is, infact a flaw in your logic, is that textbooks on animals say life begans at conception. That is the moment the sperm reaches the egg.

How are humans any different??? The fetus is, infact, alive. It requires nutrients, it expels waste, gives off energy, and is growing.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then shouldn't that be considered first before the risk?LJS9502_basic

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] You're not really unaware of the right to pleasure without consequence, are you? It's constitutionally protected, don't you know.Franklinstein

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

If your criteria for defining human life is "self awareness" than infants and mentally handicapped people would not be classified as human under your definition.

brandontwb

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] You're not really unaware of the right to pleasure without consequence, are you? It's constitutionally protected, don't you know.Franklinstein

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

And what should family B do if they don't want to keep the child???

give it up for adoption. Why kill the child when you can give it to a family who can't concieve on there own???

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

If your criteria for defining human life is "self awareness" than infants and mentally handicapped people would not be classified as human under your definition.

Franklinstein

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] You're not really unaware of the right to pleasure without consequence, are you? It's constitutionally protected, don't you know.Franklinstein

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What does that have to do with balancing the fact that it might happen? Again abortion should not be used as birth control. Speeding might provide pleasure but one should be aware that an accident can happen and thus potentially change one's life. If one is not able to adapt to the consequences should they occur...they shouldn't seek pleasure.

jimmyjammer69

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

Franklinstein

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What does that have to do with balancing the fact that it might happen? Again abortion should not be used as birth control. Speeding might provide pleasure but one should be aware that an accident can happen and thus potentially change one's life. If one is not able to adapt to the consequences should they occur...they shouldn't seek pleasure.

LJS9502_basic

Let's do an hypothetical experiment, just for fun.

Let's look at two completely made up families, family A, and family B.

Both families are around the same economic class, they both include a man and a woman, and both are in their late teens. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that both families get pregnant. Family A decides that they are going to keep the child. Family B decides that they aren't ready for the responsibility and get an abortion. Family B's child is dead(if you believe a fetus is a child).

Stay with me here, I promise I have a point to this story, fast forward about 10 years.

It would logically make sense that family A will have a harder economic time than family B, maybe even to the point that the child can't afford to participate in sports or have nice toys, and he might not even be able to afford to go to college. And when the time comes for him to have his own child, it is likely that he will have a child before he 20(Just speaking statistics here, if you'd like, I'll find a link).

All of this may seem irrelevant, but statistically people who have children before a certain age are much more likely to fall into poverty. And, children growing up in a impoverished home are also statistically likely to live in poverty when they are grown.

On the other hand, I see a fetus as the potential for human life. And human intellect is unrivaled, but considering the statistical economic opportunties(and therefore the educational opportunites), it is unclear where the moral line should be drawn, to me at least.

I'm not arguing that the best form of birth control is abstinence. Because I know that is true. However, most teenagers in the world are stupid and do not realize this. Abstinence is not a viable solution to this problem.

In other words, I'm trying to deal with the situation after pregnancy is already established, not before intercourse.

You can't stop people from having intercourse, it will happen. I don't plan on having any abortions, because I can control myself, but most young people in the world(and especially America) just can't.