[Pants-of-dog]

Why not? Looks human to me.

Appearances can be deceiving.

[Rei Murasame]

The first paragraph that outlines some of the erm... economic arguments for aborting babies is quite fallacious; because these are not problems excessive population have created.

They are problems that it would create though.

And of course you put forward so many assumptions about these children; how do you know the babies that could be saved will go on to encounter problmes like unemployment for instance? I would suggest if these babies were adopted by two parent families, by and large they would not fall into these social traps.

Why, you assume that the economy will just expand infinitely to give them jobs, and that we can acquire resources in large enough quantities to manage sustaining them all?

The rest of the article is economically illiterate and full of the presumptions you outline at the very start of your post.

That's a neat attempt at a dismissal but it won't work.

And by the way how do you know I think human life is sacred?

Why would you be arguing with me if you didn't think so?

[tofu2011]

I will start with your last comment.

I think you have fallen into a trap here friend; as the Yanks say you have drunk the Kool-Aid. Not everyone who opposes Abortion does so on relgious grounds, or tosses the word sacred around like it has degree of importance to this debate. On the contray I have no reason to believe human life is more important than any other life form. I do however oppose ending life.

You didn't really answer my question about employment and abortion but anyway I will try to answer yours. I don't assume the economy would expand to cater for these say extra 180,000 people we would have lining the dole ques (in your world). But i do think you will need to know alot more about these babies before we make such predictions. Like how productive they are, how well they have been brought up and of course the number of people entering the workforce from outside the country (which in 2010 was 250,000). So my answer to your question is that the mere presence of these babies will not be the biggest factor in terms of how they will damage or enhance the economy, everything that happens afterwards will though.

[Jackal]

Abortion should not be government funded but some groups should be encouraged to exercise their right to abort their unborn children (like blacks).

[stalker]

What sort of logical hoops must one jump through to claim that an advanced fetus is not deserving of society's protection?

That it has the intellectual and emotional development of a rat?

[Arkady2009]

I see many people on this thread have next to no value of human life.

I imagine that most people who claim others have 'value of human life' are ardent supporters of the death penalty.

[Sephardi]

Abortion should not be government funded but some groups should be encouraged to exercise their right to abort their unborn children (like blacks).

LOL!

@Nets: Seriously, I don't think any of my bio professors would ever say that a fetus is a human, much less a life. This is an anti-scientific argument. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of stuff like the game theory, so you shouldn't pretend to know simple biology. It's not a life precisely because it's unborn and technically a parasite because it leeches off of the mother to survive, so just because you believe that it's a human life doesn't mean that you need to push this on others. If you don't like abortions, don't get them. Since you physically cannot get an abortion, that shouldn't be much of a problem, Jethro.

[wat0n]

I highly doubt any serious biologist would claim that a "clump of cells smaller than your pupils" is not life. Whether or not it is a human entitled to human rights is a philosophical question, IMO.

In the end the abortion debate reduces to answering what makes us human... And I personally cannot provide an accurate answer to that.

[Sephardi]

It's not a life because it's a parasite. It's the same thing with viruses.

[wat0n]

Is a newborn a parasite then?

[Paradigm]

I highly doubt any serious biologist would claim that a "clump of cells smaller than your pupils" is not life. Whether or not it is a human entitled to human rights is a philosophical question, IMO.

In the end the abortion debate reduces to answering what makes us human... And I personally cannot provide an accurate answer to that.

I think a lot of this discussion confuses the distinction between humanity and personhood.

[myrmeleo]

Seriously, I don't think any of my bio professors would ever say that a fetus is a human, much less a life. This is an anti-scientific argument...you shouldn't pretend to know simple biology. It's not a life precisely because it's unborn and technically a parasite because it leeches off of the mother to survive

I hope you're not a scientist-in-training.

If you don't like abortions, don't get them.

If you don't like slavery, don't have slaves, etc.

[wat0n]

I think a lot of this discussion confuses the distinction between humanity and personhood.

Good point, though I don't think that the human condition and personhood are easily separable.

[ness31]

It is convenient to ignore the fact that a blastocyst, embryo, fetus etc are all just different stages of growth. Like infant, toddler, teenager etc.

The only difference being that the 'growth' is dependent on the mother whilst in the womb. The irony of the whole situation is that the very mechanism (ie the mother) charged with protecting the defenseless mass of cells in it's earlier stages of growth, are the most vociferous agents in ensuring it doesn't receive such protection.

I don't actually care all that much how women choose to live their lives...But it does seem like intellectual dishonesty to pretend life isn't being ended when abortions are carried out. It appears we play down what really happens so that people can have clear consciences for their carelessness.

Tony Abbotts attitude is pretty much in line with mine..."safe, legal but rare".

[Far-Right Sage]

I see many people on this thread have next to no value of human life.

Many people on this thread have no concept of overpopulation and the destructive outcome of unwanted children for families and the state across the board.

[ness31]

No one is disputing that there should be more effort put into birth control. It is a preventative and responsible measure.
Abortion is after the fact. A 'fix' to a problem that never had to get to that point.

[Sephardi]

I hope you're not a scientist-in-training.

Parasites aren't considered to be living things in science. Look at viruses. Also, even if it's a human life, so what?

And I'm a Pharmacist-in-training. What are your credentials?

[myrmeleo]

Parasites aren't considered to be living things in science.

What?
Tapeworms, fleas, leaches, Giardia, Plasmodium, etc. aren't alive? Besides, if you're talking "science," parasites are not members of the same species.

Also, even if it's a human life, so what?

That's not depraved or anything.

[Sephardi]

Fair point with the parasites. I was thinking of how fetuses cannot survive without biologically linking themselves to the mother so it shouldn't really be given rights as a human life or really be considered a human life until its born.

[Far-Right Sage]

Abortion is after the fact. A 'fix' to a problem that never had to get to that point.

And why is the theoretical arrival at such a point inherently negative?