I belive it's necessary as a last resort and nothing else. Abortion should be the last thing you should be thinking about when you have a baby. Correction: Abortion and giving your child up for research. In my opinion.

An embryo is just as sentient as any mother. It has just as much right to live and develop life. Infringement of that right is known as murder. Murder forfeits one's own right to live.

That is my reasoning.

The general idea is that life is sentience. Which a conceptual embryo has been proved to possess.

Quote:

If you had a strong opinion and did it for valid reasons, you should have no regrets.

Beliefs and opinions do not change the fact of whether an action is moral or not.

That is like saying that I have the right to murder someone who annoys me because I have the right to live the way I want, without annoyance.

It seems to me that only a qualified psychologist should be making assumptions like this.

I would like to leave on the note that I, too, go by an entirely secular mind. I use reason and logic to determine anything moral or immoral. And I see little to hint that abortion is anything but immoral.

If that was true, then society would operate on total individualistic convenience, with no laws active. If it is best for one to steal, he should do so. Likewise with all other acts designed to better the self with no regard for others' rights.

No. There is a concrete 'higher power', as such, in the form of morality formed by logical analysis of the rights of oneself and others, so that our argument against any sanction of murder, rape and tyranny is not simply 'I believe differently'. Each human has the capacity of reason to decide whether any act is moral or not, though there are a myriad of interpretations even within this philosophy. My interpretation is that abortion is wrong, but should you or anyone present logic that proves this false, I am ever ready to change.

Perhaps it was a weak analogy. Let me offer another one - I have the right to choose to live in a big and luxurious house, even if it is eternally impossible for me to muster the wealth to afford such a place. Therefore, I am entitled to eliminate its true owner and take over.

Yes, I know in that case, the fact of 'the owner is there by choice and not accident' applies, but how does this make his right any more stable? Even if it is not the embryo's choice, it is still sentient, and existing within the mother's body. Even if it had the choice whether to live or not, I suppose it would. Even if it was not supposed to exist, it does, and thus has its natural rights granted by the act of being.

The problem is that people with these 'opinions', should they come into a position of power, could have us living in quite the autocracy tomorrow, a result of the spread of their warped ethics.

And opinions require good foundation to be credibly accepted.

It is not a view. It is a fact that I have yet to see how the murder of an embryo is condonable. One can only treat this fact as unimportant by arguing that I am short of sight, which may be so. If so, I will need to be enlightened through progressing argument.

And it appears to me that the basis of your argument is the insinuation that the mother's rights to choice of life are somehow superior to that of the child's, along with some generalising theories about causing death before birth being more humane than allowing a child to grow up without parental contact, even if it is in a perfectly-comfortable environment. Any of this may be true, but I will need to be shown how. Until then, it befits me to assume that every being is equal in right to life.

EDIT:
Actually, that is kinda partly in effect already, with the ludicrous benefits our government is handing out to louts, which the achievers have to be taxed incondignly for. A very dark pit it is we descend into.

I think the true confusion in all of this is that people are assuming that a child and an embryo are the same thing and that an embryo is as sentinent as a human. This is an error. An embryo is a collection of cells that cannot think or feel and is no more alive than a virus in your body. If we can use antibodics to kill a virus in our body why not do so for a embryo?

Simply because it does exists it should exist? Hardly. There are many things in this world that exist that shouldn't and we eliminate it to make for a better society and a better life for the individual.

Point of the matter is that everyone has a different idea on almost everything. Nothing is as black and white as people often it as. Just because a person has a different opinion does not necessarily make them warped.

This harkens back to earlier in my post--the collection of cells is not the same thing as an actual human being who can think and feel. If this were true we shouldn't be allowed to kill animals or plants or even that flu that we've all had.

I consider myself of a higher importance than a flu.

You've either never been poor or you've forgotten what it is like. Unless the person is either lazy or deceiving donations to the needy is more than acceptable. Some people don't start off with a silver spoon in their mouth after all.

An embryo features sensory receptors, just as does any other living organism. Thought is a different matter, and is not often the matter referred to in consideration of rights.

Viruses threaten to kill or seriously hamper us. I have no renitence towards eliminating an embryo, or any other being, if it does that.

So an individual must be eliminated so that life may be better for the individual? Or do you mean, rather, 'individuals', suggesting that one person must be lost for the sake of many, an ochlocratic 'common good', as it were? Unless so, the logic in that seems paradoxical.

So you are saying that it is impossible for any viewpoint to be valid or invalid?

Which I do not if I can avoid it.

Well, no one can really avoid this. But rights and justice come to nothing when one does not have food on one's plate.

I consider myself of a higher importance than anything that actively seeks to harm me.

Nor does anyone automatically deserve a silver spoon in their mouth. Donations are only acceptable if they are granted willingly, no matter how great the need for them is.