• Contrary to popular belief

    What we have learned so far in the branches of Psychology and Neurology, the sciences that deal with consciousness, among other topics, do support the basis of pro-choice. I will now substantiate my statement.

    The debate of abortion is mainly focused on whether abortion is eliminating a conscious human being, or merely an embryo/fetus undergoing development via the mother to eventually become conscious.

    To discuss this topic, we must first understand what exactly consciousness is. For some, consciousness comes from your soul. For science, consciousness is an advanced result of the processes in your brain. Although we do not have a complete understanding of consciousness, we have known for quite some time that souls do not exist, and they are merely an outdated placeholder for what we now know to be the brain. There is simply no evidence for the existence of souls, so the idea is therefore not accepted in the scientific community. That is how the scientific method operates.

    So, consciousness occurs within the brain. Now, at what point does the brain begin the processes that result in consciousness? When we study fetal growth, we observe that critical development of the brain does not occur until about week 28, give or take two weeks. Therefore, we can logically conclude that consciousness is not occurring prior to this period. The most common limit for abortion is week 20. Now we can conclude that, in fact, abortion is not eliminating a conscious being. Without consciousness, there is no ability to perceive any emotions, such as pain. This is why we use anesthetics for surgical procedures.

    Although others have brought up ad hominems, I will not refute them, as it is not relevant to science, which is the topic of this post. When speaking on such heavy topics, it is important to remain unbiased, in order to accurately separate fact from fallacy. Truth is found only in objectivity.

  • Bundle of Cells

    The aborted "human" is actually a bundle of cells. If this fetus relies on the female for all nutrition and life, it is almost like her own organ, which she has the right over. While it cannot survive outside of the womb, it is a part of the mother. That's why that laws classify an unborn fetus as a "homo sapien". And according to a paper written by economist Stephen Levitt, the legalization of abortion has reduced crime rates in the USA, providing a economic support for abortion. And, abortion does not hurt women, as a birth could hurt a young girl or teenager more.

  • Murder is wrong

    You might s that: "Science neither supports nor opposes abortion. That is a question of values and of practical implementation. Science does show that at conception the person is alive. Whether merely being alive is enough to confer rights is another question." (MasturDbtor)

    But I wouldn't go killing someone because they were only 'just alive'. Where do you draw the line? Should killing the elderly be legal too?

  • Science is neither for or against abortion

    Just as noted by Thegreatdebate98, on the "No" side.

    Science does not pronounce on the morality of things, all the "good/bad/right/wrongs" in the ethical realm.

    All the "shoulds" and "should nots" of morality come from the mind, from valuations made in sentient minds. It all goes to desire, and in this case, if one more wants the unborn life to continue, then one will say that abortion is "bad" and should be illegal, and if one more wants the woman to be able to decide for herself, then one will disagree, and say that abortion should be legal.

    I don't think that society needs more people for the sake of "more people," certainly not to the extent that we would take away the rights and freedoms that women now have. I'm also fine with the restrictions on late-term abortions - I do see "someone" being there, as far as the unborn, after a point in gestation.

    Most zygotes and embryos die, without conscious intent or notice on the part of the woman or anybody else. This is due to genetic deficiencies, fail to implant, or other problems in the makeup of the zygote, etc. I've seen researchers/doctors say it's as high as 80%. In any event, from what I've read, it's certainly a large majority.

    I don't think the physical facts are at issue here - yes, it's a living organism, it's human, and it has unique DNA. To say that at conception, "it's a new human life," is fine by me.

    Society goes on just fine, with all the spontaneous abortions and failures to implant, and if there is another death due to the woman not wanting to be pregnant, I think it's no big deal for society, at all, there too, and thus I'm pro-choice.

    That said, I think preventing unwanted pregnancies is certainly better than having abortions.

  • Science tells us what is not what ought

    Science neither supports nor opposes abortion. That is a question of values and of practical implementation. Science does show that at conception the person is alive. Whether merely being alive is enough to confer rights is another question.

    There is also the question of whether the fetus's right to life is enough to revoke the mother's right of autonomy over her own body. Banning abortion requires the mother to give nutrients to the fetus against her will and to hull around the fetus against her will and even to assume somewhat of an increased risk of death (even when no problems are apparent) against her will. If it was possible to remove the fetus and keep the fetus alive outside of the womb then I'd be in favor of banning abortion but since that's not possible I support legal abortion so that she can have autonomy over her body.

  • Abortion hurts women

    With or without science, deep down we all know that the little organ called womb in a woman's tummy is where we come from. By the moment of conception, you've already come to this world. You can't "evolve" from "a clump of cells" or "a blob of tissues" into a human being in just a few months. It is the common sense confirmed by science.

    The "pro-choicers", on the other hand, are actually anti-women. Those who against this simple fact are all for political gains. The only "choice" they offer to a woman is abortion. No other alternatives from them. They would never inform you of the dangers and risks of abortion, which include permanent damage on the cervix, internal bleeding, preterm birth in future pregnancies, potential sterilization, and even suicidal thoughts. The deep regret could last for a lifetime. If a woman really cherishes her own body, she should never have an abortion. Even if unexpected, pregnancy is NOT a disease that needs to be fixed. It may be frightening for a while, but in the long run, it's greatly beneficial to women's health - both physically and mentally, proven by science.

    What the pro-choicers really want is control. Not only population control - which can be achieved by mass vasectomy, but the power to decide who gets to live. For this goal, they even greenlight murder babies that are born in failed abortions. Such barbaric act must be stopped.

  • Science supports life at conception.

    First off this is a touchy subject I do not intend to insult or hurt anyone who ma have had an abortion. I would also like everyone to be respectful of rather and leave religion out of the conversation being that we are talking about the science.

    Given that when a embryo is fertilized it meets all qualifications to be considered a unique life form that is genetically human there doesn't seem to be a scientific argument that supports abortion. The only arguments I have heard are philosophical like consciousness and viability both of which are difficult to prove and contradictory to many other moral standards and philosophical ideas.

    I think many believe that the pro choice argument is the scientific argument but I have never heard a scientific argument for it. Just arbitrary names for physiological stages of development. Or milestones that have no scientific basis.

    Personally it seems to me that the scientific community has been irresponsible in there refusal to define both the beginning of a human life and the end. In my opinion it should be when we become a genetically distinct organism and end officially when none of our cells are living this should of course not prevent orgasm donation as it is that person's choice to donate.

  • Nnn nnn nnn

    I think that scientist just see unborn children and a science experiment bjknjk kjkkmn kkkm kmkm m m m m m m m m m m m m m n b b v c b n m m n b b v v b n mn m n n n

  • Science is neither for or against abortion

    There is scientific evidence that people use to back up both sides of the abortion debate. Now, I'd say that you can interpret any which way you'd like. Many will use the argument that it is scientifically proven that life begins at conception. Yes, it does, but is that life valuable? That's the real question, that science simply cannot disapprove or prove. Science only goes so far.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.