Verified answer

The problem with the pro-lifer's argument is that it treats this 'little bunch of cells' as already a person, with no justification at all. The only difference between those cells and the egg and sperm only a few minutes or days before is that the egg and sperm have joined and started growing. How does that make it a person? Why pick that arbitrary point, fertilisation, as being the start of personhood?

You could just as easily extend the argument back and say that every time a woman has a period, or every time a man ejaculates without causing a pregnancy, they are killing a potential human life. So does that mean we should have sex as much and as often as possible, to make sure we're reducing the numbers of potential humans we don't create?

Well here's a big surprise, pro-life and pro-choice come out of the woodwork. How about we get all the poor people not to breed so much? That might take a bite of of crime. Oh, not a very popular viewpoint? Okay then, why do people call abortion "murder" but they never, never use that word when talking about innocent Iraqi lives as a result of a stupid, costly, unnecessary war. Then it's "collateral damage." Uh huh. Right. We "collateral damage" people all the time, every day, day in, day out, the news media doesn't even bother to report it, nobody cares. But a clump of cells in sombody ELSE's body is all of a sudden everybody else's business? Give me a break. Hypocrites!!!

The ends do not justify the means, otherwise we could solve all these problems right now. Just make me Emperor, I guarantee you that my means would effectively bring certain things to an abrupt end.

Alternatively we could just wait a few years, and science will figure out a way to incubate a fetus from the division of the first few cells all the way to term. Which then kills the argument that abortions are killing babies, and also gives all these pro-lifers who care so much about all the babies the opportunity to adopt them all so we all dont have to pay another 10% more in taxes to keep the government foster homes paid for, in order to warehouse another several million unwanted babies, because young people are too stupid and selfish and arrogant to keep their pants on.

About the only people that I believe are honestly victims of this whole stupid scenario, are women who have been raped, and the poor babies themselves. Everybody else pretty much is either part of the problem, or refuse to be part of the solution, which makes them just as guilty as those who caused the problem to begin with.

This is why I believe boys and girls should be forced to go to military academy between 8th and 12th grade, to be followed by a minimum of 2 years domestic military service, with EXTREMELY valuable rewards and bonuses available for those who opt for standard 4 year or elite 6 year enlistments, with healthy sign on bonuses for those who select to re-enlist.

This way our young people can be taught discipline and the hows and whys of having honor for something, and loyalty to something. Our society is in extreme decay at the moment, largely because of the roving bands of untended to youth running amok all over the place unchecked. Nobody wants to do anything about it, because we adults are all far to concerned with our own individual "politically correct" image. What does that say about us, that we are willing to abandon our children in this fashion for no other reason than, the obvious solution, that we are already tooled for, might be considered unpopular or otherwise draconian.

Call your senator or congressman and tell them you want this gang violence, teen pregnancy, drunk street racing, rampant drug use, street prostitution, and drug dealing solved, and you want it solved now. It seems like everyone wants to whine about the problems but when it comes time to fix it or clean up the mess, they are conveniently absent for muster. Its all hands on deck folks, be a part of the solution or step aside.

Considering that the work Einstein did potentially lead to the creation of the atomic bomb, one has to wonder whether bringing the next "Einstein" into the world is such a great idea after all. I think about Tolkien's "Even the very wise cannot see all ends", for all you know, you might be aborting the next Jeffrey Dahmer. It's one of those questions that cannot be answered, and is only used to trigger people's emotions.

Have you read the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner? In it they postulate that the drop in crime in the nineties was not due to actions such as "The Broken Window Prescription" but as a result of economically disadvantaged women having access to safe abortions following Roe v. Wade.

But what if they aborted the person who invented the dildo? That would have upset millions of men and women worldwide.

i dont know .. in a cold logical sense abortion controls population also which is a major world concern .. but its still not right to kill a baby theres got to be a better way like being more responsible about procreation behavior ....

A single violent criminal can become a single einstein.

A single einstein can become a violent criminal.

Potentiality is usually a close-minded viewpoint.

but how many kids who weren't aborted ended up being normal? not necessarily eisnstein or beethoven, but a normal citizen contributing to society?

The greatest odds are of that unique living set of cells growing up to be a productive member of society..