|user created polls & quizzes|
But only if the woman was raped or the pregnancy will endanger her health as in she has ovarian cancer and the womb must be removed right away, baby and all.
^That's if she WISHES for the abortion. The woman might opt to carry the baby to term anyway, or to complete he pregnancy although it means she dies from cancer. It is still her choice.
Voted : ...until they take their first breath. (full term)"
anytime till it is fetus
Should we ask the baby in the womb what its choice would be?
^adopted any children?
Voted : Comment
I'm not sure. Somewhere between the stage at which the fetus/unborn baby could survive outside the womb--and the point at which the human is born and becomes individuated. IMO the ethics of abortion will always be somewhat ambiguous.
Let's talk days instead of tri-mesters, shall we? If you say that up until 90 days is acceptable, does that mean 91 days is not acceptable? What's the difference? If you say 60 days is OK, are you saying is 61 not? Why not? 30 days vs. 31? Has the baby developed so much in one day that you wouldn't consider killing him or her?
...should killing the second after the point of conception be concidered murder?
Voted : Comment
Theoretically, At conception it becomes a sanctioned Human lifeform with a recognizable legal right to life (at the discretion of the Mother of course). Even the highest court cannot order the termination of a baby.
Be it as it may, the lifeform is far from a perfect human, but who's to argue any of us are anywhere near close to perfect humans.
The fact is, scientifically, it is living (breathing or not), it has life, develops and before it dies a natural death, it gets as close to perfect as it ever will.
So if one believes it's not murder to take the life of an animal, be it human or not, then by all means kill the under developed mutant critter before it has a chance to screw the world up more then it already is.
And do it in good conscience.
From a legal perspective, if a person can be charged and convicted with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman, then it should also apply to abortion. For some illogical reason it isn't. But whoever said the law made any sense?
I believe that most reasonable people do recognize that killing any living thing, not in self defense, is immoral and constitutes murder, be it an animal or another person.
To the extreme, technically, even killing pests like insects and rodents, or food and non food animals for processing are consider murder to some.
So, IMHO, If killing a cow to eat or a seal for a pair of gloves isn't murder, then killing an unborn fetus after conception also isn't murder. Why should a human life be an exception? Because we're reasonable, we're the top of the food chain and do a better job keeping the ecology in order?
"Reason is not cutting edge science, it's a double edged sword. We may have a reason for the things we do, but we should have science to make sure our reason is universally reasonable".
In other words, you can't have your steak and kill an unborn child too. No lifeform supercedes anothers right to exist.
I screwed up that last line should read,
In other words, you can have your steak and kill an unborn child too. No lifeform supercedes anothers right to exist.
"So, IMHO, If killing a cow to eat or a seal for a pair of gloves isn't murder, then killing an unborn fetus after conception also isn't murder." ....."No lifeform supercedes anothers right to exist."
You really think there's no difference between a cow or a seal and a baby? I feel sorry for you. You must have had some upbringing.