[KillerGremlin]

Abortion is such a crazy topic to discuss. Abortion becomes, in my opinion, dumb to talk about from a religious platform. Here is why:

(foetus aka fetus - The medical term for the baby from eight weeks after conception until the birth.)

biological definition of an "abortion":

1. (Science: obstetrics) The premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception of the embryo or of a nonviable foetus. The four classic symptoms, usually present in each type of abortion, are uterine contractions, uterine hemorrhage, softening and dilatation of the cervix and presentation or expulsion of all or part of the products of conception.

The expulsion or removal of an embryo or foetus from the mother prematurely, this can be done as an artificial procedure, but it often happens naturally when the mothers body expels the foetus because it has died, has genetic or developmental defects, or because of infection or illness in the mother. Natural abortions are typically called miscarriages. Medically-induced abortions, which can be completed with surgery or with hormone drugs, are performed because the foetus is unwanted, deformed, not likely to live, or endangers the mothers life or health.

and, a simpler definition of an abortion:

1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

and, here is wikipedia's quick summary of an embryo:

An embryo (from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full") is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of fertilisation until the end of the 8th week, whereafter it is instead called a fetus.

The development of the embryo is called embryogenesis. In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has all the DNA of two parents. The resulting embryo derives 50 percent of its genetic makeup from each parent. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The result of this process is an embryo.

I figure these are important, factual biological terms that need to be understood to have this argument.

I bring up what science defines as an "abortion" for two reasons. One, abortions occur in nature, a lot. It's a natural thing and in many cases a good thing. There are reasons why a woman's body might expel a fetus, and many of them involve reasons like she is not prepared to have a child or the fetus is not in an environment that would promote healthy and good growth.

Then, there's the birth control pill. It seems, to me, that where people stand on the pill plays a fairly important roll in determining where they stand on the subject of abortion. In some regards, the pill does induce "natural" abortion effects. At least, one could argue, the pill could cause an abortion. Long story short, one thing the pill does is change hormonal levels in a female so that implantation cannot occur aka the fertilized egg never implants and it gets aborted via her period. Or, it can cause the fertilized egg to immediately be expelled after implantation, sort of like a "natural" miscarriage controlled by a change in hormone level induced by the pill. Of course, that is if the pill fails to accomplish step 1 and step 2, which is to suppress ovulation and to thicken the woman's cervical muscles so that sperm cannot reach the egg.

The only logical way to tackle abortion is to lay down some moral guidelines and to go from there. It's not a political issue at all; it is a science thing.

Some questions to ask are;
"when does life start? at DNA fertilization? when the embryo becomes a fetus?"
"what about nature causing natural abortions?"
"if you believe the pill is not morally reprehensible, can you logically oppose abortion?"

I'm going to try to tackle these in reverse order, and then offer my overall opinion on the subject. I don't believe there is an answer for the abortion question. I think people are complacent about birth control, and that's good enough for me. However, I think if more people knew that the pill could theoretically induce an abortion in the biological sense, I wonder if they would continue to use the pill. Asking this very question to a Christian-America strongly conflicts with my beliefs; there are enough stupid people breeding, we do not need any more. The pill is the answer and solution to teenagers and sex. It works. However, I wonder if some of the more intelligent people would draw the connection to nature and go, "well nature is a cruel thing, and if abortions occur on a pretty regular basis naturally, why not risk using the pill which has 2 steps before it which would prevent a "natural" induced abortion."

Personally, I do not feel that using the birth control pill is morally reprehensible. To me it does not really violate any moral guidelines (save for pseudo-ones invoked by the religious establishments). The odds of the pill inducing an abortion are very slim. Furthermore, the abortion induced would be very similar to the ones that occur naturally. A religious person might argue that there is no "natural" abortion, and that it is at the mercy of God, and by taking the pill we begin to play God. I always want to ask, "where does the naturally aborted embryo go, heaven?" I would like someone here to answer me this, according to Christianity, when does life begin? Or, I should say, when are we born into original sin. See, I always figured you couldn't go to Heaven if you didn't have original sin and if you didn't except God and Jesus. That's what they preach at my church. So, I figured in order to "be born" into original sin you need to be born to begin with. I don't understand what happens to a mesh of DNA that doesn't make it because nature didn't feel the woman was healthy enough for implantation.

That's all I will touch on for question one right now, I would like some info on the religion thing and maybe some feedback.

I guess I sort of answered question two as well. By the biological definition of an abortion, nature delves out a lot of abortions. However, the definition of abortion that biology gives does not preceed the one that we traditionally think of; which is some sort of medically induced procedure that goes on during pregnancy. At what point do I think abortion is morally permissible? Only when it occurs when a woman is taking the pill. I believe that while using birth control a woman is doing no more than tapping into something that occurs naturally. If a woman premeditates having an abortion during the first trimester it is still premeditated and wrong. She is taking the potential for life and destroying it. In my own mind, life begins at DNA fertilization, and I believe once implantation has occurred that embryo or fetus has the right to life.

To question number three..I believe life begins at DNA fertilization. After that point it doesn't matter what scientific term you want to describe the baby as. Yes, the baby. It will develop into a baby...from an embry to a fetus to a baby it is a living thing at that point.

So, I think that permitting the use of the pill is okay and actually great, because it essentially does what nature does if it has to; which it shouldn't, because it has 2 steps in place to prevent having to worry about it.

And actually, to cement the goodness of the pill, I read some studies that say that a fertilized egg does not implant 30%-60% of the time; so, if a woman was on the pill it would be hard to determine if it was nature or the pill preventing implantation.

However, once a girl is pregnant she knows she is pregnant and there is a living thing in there. And, if she decides to get an abortion, technically she is taking the potential for life away from someone.

Now, I am pro-choice. Why? Because I'm not a woman. Also, because if my girlfriend got pregnant I would be very conflicted. I don't know if I would want to have to worry about 9 months of pregnancy. I do believe that we should only allow first trimester abortions, particularly up to 8 weeks into pregnancy. After that the developing fetus starts to have brain impulses and it can feel pain. So, not only does abortion become murder but it kind of becomes cruel. I wish we could set up a system where if a woman does not abort in the first 8 weeks she gets locked into an adoption. You see, adoption is really a great solution to an unwanted pregnancy. What a lot of people don't know is that there are parents out there who do want kids but they can't have them. Making babies in a lab has a crazy failure rate. It is very difficult to have successful implantation of an egg into a woman who is having birth problems and have that egg stay planted.

There are exceptions, of course. If the health of the mother is compromised I feel that we should offer her the chance to have an abortion during later trimesters. Please note I said offer. I believe that choice should be up to the woman. I did read a heartwarming story about a mother who gave birth and died during birth to save her babies life. Now that's the type of mom that deserves admiration. Unfortunately, there is no way to set up a system that won't be abused that only allows first trimester abortions for everyone, and second and third trimester abortions for people who need it for reasons that are undeniable.

However, premeditated, unnatural abortion = morally reprehensible.
But, I am pro choice.

Weird, huh?

I hope I gave you guys some new perspectives and some new thoughts to wrap your mind around. I've taken a few philosophy classes and a few biology classes, and I'm actually intrigued by abortion. It is one of the few topics worth debating but one that I avoid debating because so many people are either uneducated or ignorant to different viewpoints on the subject.