I am quite sick of abortion debates, so I'll write my three strongest arguments for abortion and let's see if any of you "pro-life" people can rebut them. While many people have formulated different arguments for abortion (some better than others), not all of them are grounded in the concept of sentience. Unlike them, all of my three arguments do, at least, relate to the concept of sentience.

1. The Sentience Argument

1. Only a being that is conscious and capable of experiencing pleasure and pain can be said to have interests.

2. A sentient, and therefore morally significant, being is one with an interest in continued life.

3. Ergo, only a sentient being can be said to perhaps have a right to life. (From (2) )

4. Normal human foetus begins to possess a rudimentary capacity for sentience in the second trimester.

5. Ergo, an early term foetus is NOT a being with an interest in its own continued life. (From (3) and (4) ) (Or, Only a human foetus from the second trimester on can perhaps be said to have a right to life)

6. Ergo, an early term human foetus (i.e. foetus in the first trimester) does not have a right to life (from (5) )

7. Ergo, an early term abortion is morally permissible (from (6) ).

2. The Utilitarian Argument

1. Different sentient beings experience differing degrees or intensities of experiences such as suffering.

2. The prospect of death and dying is a more intense experience for a sentient being that possesses capabilities such as foreknowledge, fear, anticipation, and fuller recognition of dangers and of their own interests.

3. Ergo, the principle of respect for the interests of sentient beings does not imply that all sentient beings have an equal right to life. (from (1) and (2) )

4. A foetus, sentient or otherwise, does not possess foreknowledge, fear, anticipation, and fuller recognition of dangers and of their own interests.

5. Ergo, a sentient foetus may be accorded lesser moral significance than the sentient adult human being in whose body it gestates. (from (3) and (4) )

6. Ergo, the suffering experienced by a sentient late term foetus terminated through abortion, would be less than the suffering experienced by the pregnant woman, a sentient being, were she forced to continue with the pregnancy. (from (1), (2) and (4) )

7. Ergo, a sentient pregnant woman has a greater right to life than a (sentient) foetus. (from (3) and (6) )

8. Ergo, a late term abortion is morally permissible (from (7) )

3. The Personhood Argument

1. Personhood is defined in terms of the possession of characteristics and capacities such as consciousness, ability to reason, self-motivated activity, communication, and possession of a concept of the self.

2. It is more seriously morally impermissible to kill a person than a non-person, even a sentient non-person.

3. An early-stage foetus possesses little, if anything, in the way of consciousness, self-conceptualisation, reasoning and communication abilities.

4. Ergo, focuses are not persons (from (1) and (3) )

5. Ergo, foetuses cannot possess interests or rights, including the right to life (from (4) )

6. Ergo, it is not morally impermissible to kill them (from (5) ).

You might have noticed that in all three of my arguments, my conclusions are not necessarily the same. I am not advocating for a convergence in conclusion when I posit these arguments. I am merely stating three (quite) good arguments for abortion.

If the mother's life is in danger or the mother was raped when the child was consieved.

Those are the certain points I think were abortion should be an option.

I actually believe that abortion should be allowed to be performed in at least the first trimester. I hate this issue though, because I'm fairly wishy-washy on it, considering this is more of a battle of morals and logic than anything.

If a child is going to grow up miserable, or die several days after, might as well just kill it before it has a chance to live in that short agony. And rape babies, nobody is going to want to keep. Incest is... gross, but I'm guessing if it's consensual, then whatever. They probably won't want to get rid of it.

What about an ectopic pregnancy? It happens when an egg is fertilised whilst still in a fallopian tube, and if left unaborted, will rupture the woman's internal organs, and kill the mother and the child. Surely, even if you take the (rather outdated) stance that abortion is equivalent to killing a baby, it is better to abort the foetus and save the mother than allow both baby and parent to die.

With so many excruciatingly painful situations throughout the world that need our immediate attentions, abortion is so far down the list as not to be anything for me to consider. One exception: I would favor legislating against abortion after the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. However, even in such cases, under certain circumstances and in timely fashion, such a law would be made circumventable.

I would suggest that we spend more time, effort, and resources looking after those humans we already have on board. Get behind the abolishment of war--or in more understandable terms--WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER!!

The abortion issue is for the most part a religious issue and I subscribe to no man's dogma much less its abject hypocrisy.

I'd also like to add..................

If as you declare your question to be specific to medical conditions, may I NSH suggest that you leave the matter to the physicians and the mother. I find it downright presumptuous of you and others to get involved. Surely your life consists of matters over which you legitimately do have control. This is NOT one of them.

Its okay in certain conditions... But i believe if you have unprotected sex and you get pregnant then you should keep the baby. But if you got raped.. then i say you should have the choice...