foolthem:

the rest of the post developed the argument.

let me recycle it in shorter form. i do nto accept your analogy of abortion and infanticide.
there is no argument that you could make that would persuade me of its validity.
i take your position to be a political one dressed up in the discourse of morality.
and i reject the politics.

further, i think that even if one were to accept your positoni, it still would not follow that the existing law needs to be changed on accont of it. i do not think that fact that the procedure of abortion is safe and legal reduces the complexity of making the decision of whether or not to have one. the antichoice crowd in general assumes that the legality of the procedure obviates all ethical problems that individuals may wrestle with over the question of whether the procedure is something that they want to avail themselves of. i think that assumption absurd.

that is why i think the question simple: as one position amongst a range of positions that already functions to shape the ways in which the question "should i have an abortion" is framed, you already have the level of power appropriate to the status of your arguments.

so go ahead, argue against it--i would even wager that your arguments would be more persuasive now in individual cases than they would be were folk who share your politics to manage to change the law.

what i expect that you do not like is the simple fact that, in the present context, i am free to ignore your arguments because i reject the premises on which you make them.

more generally, this is, in the end, what antichoice people cannot abide--views that are not their own. and this is why they want to change existing law.

but think about it: the worst thing that could happen to the antichoice folk would be winning the power politics fight over the law. it would do to the credibility of your arguments what the bush administration has done to conservative politics in general---erase all credibility except in the eyes of a minority of the population.

and it would no doubt reduce the persuasive power of your arguments against abortion becuase it would erase any possibility of talking to folk who do not agree with you a priori. so you would loose in a much more profound way if you won politically. be happy where you are, and oppose abortion all you like. leave the rest of us to make up our own minds.

No point in going there, then. Thanks for saving me time.

We've been through this before. I think the assumption is absurd as well. But it does not follow that a complex ethical decision should have no legal consequences if it is the wrong decision.

Do you think you're any different?

This is where the "I don't accept your premises" thing goes both way. I don't accept yours, therefore the above statement is perfectly absurd in my view.

Even if you don't accept my premises, the premises still exist in the great debate. That's why your 'simple' argument settles nothing.

on this issue, absolutely.
think about it. it will become clear to you.

edit. This is my point.

You're saying that anti-choicers are intolerant of the pro-choice position on abortion? True, but not particularly noteworthy. You haven't established that the intolerance is wrong. I think I'm safe in assuming that you're, in fact, intolerant of the pro-choice position on infanticide. Think I'm comparing apples and oranges? Fantastic - welcome to the crux of the debate: apples/apples or apples/oranges?

This is what you're ignoring in favor of erroneous oversimplification. You're, of course, free to disagree with the premises. But if you pretend they don't exist, you will be called on it.

You realize, of course, that there's no reason to INclude either fetus, or embryo, in the definition of "human being"- nor is it currently included in any such definitions.

Not to mention that "human being" is a meaningless term- it just means "a human". "Human" doesn't indicate life, sentient capabilities, brain or brain activity, spine, hypothalamus, nervous system, etc., etc. The body of a dead human is just as much a "human" as a live body. Pointing to a corpse, you would similarly indicate it as being a human being as you would an embryo in early development. Therefore, saying that an embryo is "human" and insisting that means it's alive, sentient, or has any brain activity, is both foolish and incorrect.

Human is just the form. What's important is the life, and that's where people argue the point... just where it begins. Some would say that conception- the simple act of fertilizing an egg- is the beginning of life. They're basically saying that, from the onset, that tiny little bundle of replicating and dividing cells is a person. Scientifically, that's a ludicrous notion- just like when a person is declared clinically brain dead, they cease to be a live person. Machines can maintain the biological processes of the body, such as respiration and circulation, so that the body can be harvested for organs- but the person is dead. An embryo without a brain, or brain activity, is no more a "living person" than a body with clinical brain death.

I think most everyone agrees on a time during the pregnancy where there should be a cut-off, because it is a living creature capable and most plausibly engaged in brain activity which indicates true "life". For most, that's the point at which the brain is developed enough that the brain activities indicative of human sentient life are present. Prior to that, it's just a sac of cells and fluids, not a life.

Newborn infants don't display a lot of "characteristics of personhood" either, yet most people wouldn't kill them them casually in the modern western world. However, in other parts of the world and in the west not so long ago, infanticide is/was as accepted as abortion is today, when you inconveniently had a female child or twins.

Not that long ago, people (in the church, in the scientific community) claimed blacks were subhuman, were not persons, etc.

Scientifically, it's a tiny little bundle of replicating and dividing cells. That's what science tells us.

Your notion that it's absurd to label it a person is not scientific. It's philosophical at best and arbitrary at worst.

You're free to believe that. Don't pretend it's scientific.

Every stage of the z/e/f is a stage of the human being. The z/e/f is clearly a human being because of its potential to become what looks like a human being. To become sentinent, to become autonomous. It owns that potential. Nothing but a human being can - it's fallacious to call it a "potential human being". A corpse lacks that potential.

As for your 'person' distinction: it all depends on how you define it. If you define it as a "living human being", then you're flat-out wrong - it is a person. If you add more to the definition, then you could be right. But at that point, I'm no longer interested in limiting the protection of the law to persons.

Your 'science' is nothing but semantics. Science cannot tell us what deserves protection.

When it's in the body, the only way to get rid of it is by taking it out, which kills it. When it's already out of the body, you have much easier ways of removing it. I'll be pro-choice until someone comes up with a fetus teleportation system.

I hoped that I wouldn't need to go into racial personhood if I mentioned gendered personhood. please substitute the word "non-whites" for women in the second paragraph of my last post. Non-whites, disabled people, and women display characteristics of personhood.

Not than long ago, people (in the church, in the scientific community) claimed that the use of contraceptives was murder. *sings Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred*

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with that ...?

Sorry, I should have been more exact.

Perhaps the reason why we don't believe in killing already born babies is that if the mother doesn't want it anymore, it's easy to keep it alive and still get rid of it. But, if the baby isn't born, and the mother doesn't want it in her body, the only way to remove it (as of right now) is to kill it.

The last thing I want to do right now (other than having an abortion. I really don't think I ever would/could have one) would be having my genitalia torn apart by a kicking screaming mass of gooey flesh. If babies came out of penises instead of cervixes, I think there would be a lot more abortions, but I may be wrong.

Now I understand.

So. a hypothetical, for some perspective/comparison.

If someone held a gun to a person's head, and said they were going to kill said person, but you could save that person by, let's say, agreeing to break your arm (and subsequently have the arm cared for by top-notch doctors), would you let the person die?

I'd let them break my arm.

I wouldn't have the abortion myself, and I don't think that a fetus is a person.

I know we're not going to ever agree, and I respect your views despite never wanting my ability to choose be hindered by them.

I think your POV is interesting - not to choose it (abortion) for yourself yet subscribing to the thought that an unborn child is not a person.

Not trying to convince you of anything, just an interesting way of looking at things.

For us, my wife and I were both strongly pro-choice - until she got preggers (deliberately) and we learned more about the development of babies in the womb. Now, we take the opposite approach, and would prefer to see stricter controls placed on abortion (though not outlaw it completely, just limit it to first trimester and stop giving irresponsible people unlimited access to it as a means of birth control over and over again).

OKay at the risk of sounding like a conservative idiot I will say that abortion is wrong no matter what. That child did no choose to be born so why punish it for somebody elses mistake, crime, irresponsibility, and stupidity. With so many people unable to have children, you have a way to get out of being responsible for that child and it means that the child can live. I am sure all that are alive agree it is much better than not being alive. Remember that you are here because somebody decided that your life was worth not aborting. I think we may have to define alive. Remember that a fetus has a heart beat after 18 Days. Does that mke it alive. I think so. Consider that most people are pregnant for more than 18 days before they realize they are pregnant.

I would personally never have an abortion. I feel it's wrong, it is taking the _potential_ life of a child even if performed within days of conception. I'm not sure at what point it becomes actual murder, but I'm sure it _does_. I _have_ been in the position where carrying a child to term endagered my own health and I chose to allow that child a chance. (He's a beautiful 6yr old now - smart and artistic, stubborn and BEAUTIFUL.) Having said that, I'm pro-choice. Why? Because I don't feel it's the government's right to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her own body. Flip it around - how would I have felt if it were illegal for me to have carried my 6yr old to term because it endangered my health and possibly my life? What if I had NO choice in the matter and they had terminated that pregnancy? I had already lost his twin. I may not agree with the decision to abort a child - it horrifies and disgusts me. But so do the situations of the children I work with that have parents who never wanted them. I deal first hand with kids whose parents should never have had them, never really wanted them, have abused and damaged them and then thrown them away. I can't say that it would have been better if they'd never had them, because two of them in particular are about to join my family. But I can't tell those women how to make that decision for themselves...

I don't care if abortion is murder. Most rational people can understand the idea that there are some times where killing another person is actually in the best interests of everyone else. It is actually, in a general sense, in all of our best interests if there are less unwanted children with irresponsible parents out there.

Edit: not to say that i believe in infanticide. Clearly there must be some line drawn between acceptable termination and legal murder. If i were more christian i might presume that life begins as soon as god "breathes life" into a child, i.e. the kid's first breath. If i were more "christian that doesn't really read the bible" i might assume that life begins at conception. I'm not really christian, but i tend to prefer the former.

If it's in the best interests of everyone else, why not?

Hypothesis: You do care if abortion is murder. That's how you attempt to draw a distinction between the two.

False?

No, i don't care. I don't think abortion is murder; as far as i can tell, unborn fetuses don't have the kind of rights you need to actually be able to get murdered. I also don't care if antiabortionists use a looser definition of murder, because whatever you call it, murder, termination, abortion, birth control, biggest mistake ever, is wholly irrelevant to the debate. Abortions serve a good purpose. Thinking you can invalidate the practice of abortion simply by calling it murder misses the point because even if it does fit some loose definition of murder (depending on where you think life begins), it still serves a good purpose.

"Even if it does fit some loose definition of murder, infanticide still serves a good purpose."

Tell me the difference between those two statements.

You don't know the difference between infanticide and abortion? One kills and infant, the other kills a fetus.

Correct me if I get this wrong, but you're implicitly saying that it's okay to murder a fetus if it serves a good purpose and yet not okay to murder an infant if it serves a good purpose.

Why?

I suppose there is a theoretical difference depending on the time you consider abortion applicable, perhaps if the child is capable of surviving outside the womb we should induce labour/c-section instead and let the child develop outside the womb?

Doesn't really work - most very premature babies, though capable of surviving outside the womb - tend to have significant problems if born prior to 32 weeks - anything from physical handicaps such as blindness to mental disabilities (anything from slow learning to retardation).

How about people who get pregnant deliver a full term baby and give it up for adoption if they don't want children? Then get sterilized, maybe? Nobody gets killed using this method.

that's funny, i don't remember the embriyo/fetus contributing material (genetic or protein, or the energy to make use of those).

it's okay to have an abortion because a) it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want for 9-months, b) it is not a viable being yet, because it is an undeveloped group of cells. it's not okay to kill an infant (although according to a law signed by then gov. bush, there is a texas law that allows the hospital decide when to stop giving care to a child, parents wish's be damned) because a) it is a baby that the mother wished to carry to term and was born. because it is a living, breathing baby. because it is no longer analagous to a parasite on the womans body.

what exactly did you learn about the development of babies changed your mind?

1) do you realize how many different medical complications (life threatening and non) can come with preganancy? and that's not too mention the hormonal swings, physical discomforts, wierd food cravings, relationship complications, post-partum depression, etc, that a woman will go through (or may, depending on which thing). to force that on a woman who doesn't want it... you may as well lock her in a cell and torture her for 9 months. personally, i prefer my women to be incubators by choice, not force.

2) most people adopting want new borns. what happens when there are more new borns then people want to adopt? and then think about the older kids that people aren't taking. what about them? is brining kids up in the foster system really fair to the kids? and why should my taxes pay for your mistake for 18 years?

3) if you had them get sterilized after it, that's the same as murder. if they want to have kids one day, but are not ready yet (and that's why they'd have prefered an abortion to forced preganancy + adoption), then by sterilizing them you're pre-emptively killing any future children she planned on having.

Why wouldn't it be?

I'm not even sure why I'm jumping into this thread (or why it's even still going)... but I do want to say something here.

NOTE: I am pro-choice, and I will never support a political candidate whose platform is based on restricting women's choice. However, I do not ever see myself having an abortion, barring rape or extreme health complications.

Harry, your argument for abortion is based on the opinion that "forcing" a woman to have a child, if she doesn't want a child, is wrong. To me, that's like saying a woman is also "forced" to not use birth control (or to use it incorrectly) and that she is "forced" to choose to have unprotected sex.

Personally, I find that this opinion actually demeans women's reproductive choices. Women can and SHOULD be responsible for what happens to their bodies as a result of sex. If a woman doesn't want a child, no one (unless it's a rapist, or if they are very low-income and have ZERO access to birth control or condoms) can force a pregnancy on her. If she gets pregnant, well... sure, no one can actually force her to keep the child. But no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place; to believe that is to believe that woman cannot and should not be expected to take responsibility for their own bodies. Barring socioeconomic differences and education, it all comes down to choice and taking responsibility for one's decisions.

For me, I recognize that having an abortion is a valid way of taking responsibility for one's poor decisions. However, it's a responsibility I would clearly like to avoid, because I am just not emotionally able to handle doing something like that to myself. Therefore I take any and all precautions (short of abstinence) necessary to avoid getting pregnant. If I got pregnant, I would carry the child to term.

That is all there is to it, for me. Others can do what they wish; it is, after all, a free country. "Force" is not the right word to use in such an argument (again, unless we are talking rape).

we agree that aborting a pregnancy that you are not prepared to have is the responsible thing to do.

unless i'm reading this wrong, your only objection is my use of the word 'force.'

while it's true, barring rape/incest, no one held a gun to the womans head and forced her to have sex, if we made abortion illegal it would be legally forcing her to keep the pregnancy. what else would you call it? if your only options are 9th months of pregnancy, risking your health with a back alley abortion, or trying to force a miscarriage, with the latter two bringing possible adverse health consequences (including the mothers death) and criminal charges if found out, how would that not be being forced to carry the baby to term?

Well, we agree that it is one of the secondary choices that one should be free to make *after* getting pregnant. However, I would say that the really responsible thing to do would have been to not take the risk of getting pregnant in the first place.
Well, once again I am politically pro-choice, but let me think about this abstractly. If abortion was made illegal (I think that's what you meant, through you wrote "legal"), which I don't advocate precisely because of the reasons you cite (back-alley, whatnot), then yes it would be legally "forcing" a mother to carry a baby to term (or risk her health by having it done back-alley, etc).

However, I don't dispute you on that point. What I disagree with is the idea that a woman has no choice when getting pregnant in the first place. Women do have responsibility, they do have the power (again, unless poor/uneducated) to use birth control correctly, to ask their partner to use condoms, and to even practice abstinence if all else fails. To say that making abortion illegal would be forcing women to do something they don't want to do may be correct, but it ignores the logical precedence that a woman chose to take the risk of getting pregnant in the first place. I would guess that very few instances of abortion involve a woman feeling "forced" to have risky sex and get pregnant. It is still a choice.

I cannot logically be pro-choice about women getting rid of pregnancies without also being pro-choice about women preventing a pregnancy. That's all.

Oh well. Can't force you to give me a straight answer. I'll look at harry's instead.

A) It's not wrong to prohibit a means to a legitimate end when the means is insufficiently justified. You shouldn't thwart a pickpocketer by killing him, to use an extreme example. If a woman could escape a pregnancy without killing a human being, or if the justification was sufficient (i.e. saving her life), then it would be wrong to "force a woman to carry a child".

B) Yes, it's not a viable being yet. So?

It always amazes me how so many people choose to think of "the beginning of human life" as simply, "a group of insignificant cells."

Life is life.

Killing is killing.

It's not that cut and dry!

Life is not always life. Are vegetables still living a life as good as someone who isn't a vegetable?

Killing is not always killing -- what about animals? Is there killing the same as killing a human? If not, then you agree that there are degrees of life and degrees of killing.

Frankly, I don't see having an abortion as any worse than killing a cow for steak. Or a bug thats 'icky' or a plant that you need for food. Wherever you draw the line for killing, you draw it somewhere. They're lesser beings who don't have the same law-provided rights that we do. You just feel the need to protect vestigal cells from death, and not bugs. I do not. End of story.

Humans do not equal vegetables, cattle or birds.

We eat food out of necessity.

People abort out of convenience.

We eat many of the things we eat of of convenience. Unless you can abstain from eating everything but leafy vegetables (or your one food of choice) than you are no longer eating out of necessity.

So then, if you can't stop eating the convenient foods, how can you other people to stop doing things for THEIR convenience?

Gluttany and murder are two completely different sins.

I can't stop anybody from doing anything for their own convience.

I don't even try.

That's an ironic thing to say, considering you just disregarded my question to you. Maybe you could tell me the difference between an infant and a fetus.

I recall you 'answering' my question with a question. Tit for tat.

An infant is more developed than a fetus. An infant resides outside of the mother's body. An infant is more likely to survive without assistance.

You care to answer the question now?

what exactly did you learn about the development of babies changed your mind?

How the brain develops, the rate of growth, the physical transformation. It all happens much earlier than we previously thought.

1) do you realize how many different medical complications (life threatening and non) can come with preganancy? and that's not too mention the hormonal swings, physical discomforts, wierd food cravings, relationship complications, post-partum depression, etc, that a woman will go through (or may, depending on which thing). to force that on a woman who doesn't want it... you may as well lock her in a cell and torture her for 9 months. personally, i prefer my women to be incubators by choice, not force.

All of which is easily outweighed by the fact that taking the innocent life of a baby is about a million times worse than anything you just described.

2) most people adopting want new borns. what happens when there are more new borns then people want to adopt? and then think about the older kids that people aren't taking. what about them? is brining kids up in the foster system really fair to the kids? and why should my taxes pay for your mistake for 18 years?

I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it - right now there is a dearth of adoptable newborns, which is why people are going to China and Russia to adopt children.

3) if you had them get sterilized after it, that's the same as murder. if they want to have kids one day, but are not ready yet (and that's why they'd have prefered an abortion to forced preganancy + adoption), then by sterilizing them you're pre-emptively killing any future children she planned on having.

Not even close; no life was taken in this example you provide. That's like saying every time you jack off you're killing thousands of unborn children.

i agree with you here for the most part. the responsible thing to do is practice safe sex. make it so that the only times when an abotion should even need to be considered is when there's either a freak accident (if she's on the pill and he's wearing a condom, pregnancy should be rare) or when rape/incest occurs. but it almost sounds like you're talking about abstenance. which, while great in theory, it's a lot like communism, doesn't do so well in the real world.


i've never said women have no choice in getting pregnant. i highly doubt most woman having sex, whether with their boyfriend or a one night stand, are thinking "gee, i do sure hope i get preggers tonight!". both women and men have the responsibility of taking precautions. but shit happens, that's life.

any time you do anything, there can be unintended consequences. all we can ask is that people try to be smart and take precautions. not all of them do though... which is why we need to be teaching sex ed. there shouldn't be people out there who aren't educated about the risks of sex (std's and pregnancy). we as a society should be teaching safe sex, but not everyone gets it. but the ability to have an abortion needs to be an option for when an unwanted preganancy does occur.


a) if you are going to be prohibiting something, the onus is on you to justify the prohibition. you have to justify why a group of cells should have rights over the body of woman. why the incubated should have rights over the incubator. you have to justify turning a living, breathing, independent woman into a forced incubator.

b) so? so why should a non-viable group of undeveloped cells take precedence over a woman?




who says the cells are insignifcant? but that doesn't make them more important than the woman carrying them.



i think if you looked into abortion a bit beyond the superficial layer, you'd find woman abort for many, many reasons and most are not for 'convenience.'




thank you. i disagree with you as to whether abortion should be legal and easily accessable, but i respect your opinion.

here's part of the problem... you view it as 'taking the innocent life of a baby.' i view it as 'removing cells that one day could develop into a baby. which is probably the main reason this is such a horrible debate. there is no one frame of reference.


people are going to china and russia not because there aren't enough children looking to be adopted, it's because there aren't enough a) white kids to be adopted and b) adoption in america is a pain in the ass. it's a lot easier to go out of the country. i read an article a few months ago how not only were black kids in america being adopted by foreigners much more than americans are adopting them, but there has also been legislation (not sure if it was in the development stage or going through the system yet) to make that illegal. we have the kids, we just don't have people wanting to adopt our kids.



i'm sorry, but you're wrong. the only difference between an abortion and forced sterilization is that one is stopped pre-fertilization and the other post-fertilization. in both cases, left alone, a child would be born. if a woman wants to have 3 kids, and you sterilize her before she has any, you are keeping 3 kids from being born. if she got pregnant 3 times and you made her abort them, you are keeping three kids from being born. sterilization is just one logical step ahead of abortion. at least abortion has the benefit of allowing the woman to have a child at a later date when she's ready and wants one.

jerking off isn't murder because those sperm weren't intended to be used for making babies. sterilization keeps ovum (planned for fertilization) from being used to make babies. notice a difference in the intent?

You kind've just answered it for me. It's okay to kill a fetus because it isn't a viable human being yet. An infant generally is a viable human being.

And please, drop the cross examination bullshit. I answered a couple of your questions, the least you could do was answer one of mine without acting like i was trying to hide something from you.

I doubt many here would agree with my point of view. BUT I would not push my ideas on anyone either. That is one of the problems that I have with this issue.

When I first knew I was pregnant I did not go to my Dr until about 3 months along since we did not have good health insurance until then. My Dr asked if we'd planned this pregnancy and the answer was no. Then he asked if we wanted the baby and the answer was yes. Both my husband and I were working, I had a bachelors degree and a good job. We had an apartment in a good part of town and we had health insurance. We were in one of the best situations to have a baby. BUT - my Dr asked me repeatedly if I wanted to terminate. He asked me at more than one appointment. I don't know what his agenda was but I believe that if you've asked a person a question twice and they resolutely say NO you should not ask again. I felt like he WANTED me to abort.

I wish there were stronger restrictions on repeat abortions. I've known women who used it as a form of birth control. They didn't bother with condoms or pills and slept with every guy they could get ahold of. She didn't care about her body or her children that she DID have. She did not desire to protect her body. She was too lazy to deal with the consequences of her promiscuous irresponsible lifestyle. She had 4 repeat abortions and 4 other children in foster care. I wish there was some way at that point to have her sterilized. She was 30 and should have learned by then how to use birthcontrol.

that's the best answer to the question of abortion. have your opinion, but don't push it on others. if you want one, have one. if you don't want one, then don't.

and these are not the type of woman who should be having kids, period.

does anyone know if there's a safe, 100% reversable procedure to sterilize a woman? i know there's the tube tying thing, but i've always heard that's permanent, or close to it.

Why does viability matter?

A) Nature is what forced the woman to be an incubator. She's simply not allowed - shouldn't be allowed - to escape incubation by means of killing a human being. That isn't a sufficient justification. It's not a good thing that the mother would be forced to incubate. But it's the lesser of the two evils.

B) A non-viable group of undeveloped cells - a human being - should have no precedence over the mother. But its right to life should have precedence over the right to an unoccupied womb. You don't have that latter right without the right to life.

When it's right to life against right to life, the mother wins out. When your life is threatened, even unintentionally, you have every right to take every necessary measure in response to save your life.

No matter how many times I get into an abortion debate, that tired strawmen always seem to show up: "why is the z/e/f more important?" No one's arguing that. Give it up.

Tube tying is the only physical form of sterilization that is SOMEWHAT reversible. OTher forms that use implants, shots, or pills depend on the woman to be faithful in appointments yearly and responsible to take the pills, get the shots, or get new implants when necessary. Tube tying isn't even 100% effective as there is some risk of tubal pregnancy or the tubes not sealing completely. If the tubes are too thick to tie properly they have to cut them to be sure the sterilization will be effective. When the tubes are cut it reduces the possibility of reversal drastically. Tube tying can be reversed but it requires a surgery where the woman must be put under. There is sometimes too much scar tissue for things to go back functioning properly so it's not always worth the trouble. Insurance does not always pay for that type of procedure either.

You're preaching to the choir, man. For the record, I am not a proponent of abstinence-till-marriage (or I would be a hypocrite :) ), and I VERY much believe in thorough and relevant sex education. I do think that teenagers should be warned against having sex until they are emotionally, physically, and financially able to handle whatever comes their way (pregnancy, STDs, abortion)--abstinence-till-mature, I suppose? But, as I stated several times already, I agree that abortion always needs to be a legal option. My only point was to put more responsibility on the woman before getting pregnant (for exactly the example that Raeanna gave). So it appears we are in agreement, then. :)

and she's not killing a human being. she's removing cells that would grow into one. yes, that removal kills them. no, i don't care that it does. it is not a developed member of our species. once it can live outside the womb, i'm not big on abortion, but until then, there is absolutely no justification for forcing a woman to go through 9 months of hell.


what? first of all, there's no such thing as a right to life. the only 'right' to life is a social construct. second of all, an embryo/fetus has no right to an unoccupied womb. that womb is part of the mother. and you just said that it has no precedence over the mother.

and how threatened does that have to be? if i were pregnant right now, i'd abort it. why? because even though my health might not be at risk, my life would be. the life i want for myself would be threatened. is that enough of a risk for you?

give it up? give what up? there's no strawman there. your argument is that the rights of the z/e/f is more important than the womans rights. otherwise there would be no debate. generally, people who try to end debates by refusing to answer honest questions do so because they know their position doesn't hold any water. kinda like a non-pregnant woman. <zing!>

Forgive my somewhat redundant comments, but I feel the need to crystalize a few points:

People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to life. I offer no proof for this statement: it is simply wrong to kill human beings, with exceptions built in such as self-defense, war, etc. One can argue about legitimate exceptions, but I'm not sure how to interpret an outright rejection of the principle that you should not kill humans.

People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to autonomous decision. Because the fetus is totally unable to communicate, it is not possible for it to express its will. It is certainly possible that fetuses and even infants do not have any will to speak of. The mother, however, sometimes wills the destruction of the fetal life.

Fetuses are human beings... in the genetic sense. They contain a complete human genetic code that will automatically construct a human body within the confines of the womb. It does not necessarily follow, however, that this physical human being has the same rights as a morally significant human being.

Without offering an argument (again), I claim that it is wrong to murder healthy infants. If you disagree with me on this point, I will do my best to respond with a logical condemnation of infanticide.

The question: is there a morally significant difference between an infant human being and a third trimester fetus human being? My answer is that I have yet to find one. I do not deny the possibility that a meaningful difference exists, but I have not discovered one yet.

The second question: is there a morally significant difference between a third trimester fetus human being and a first/second trimester fetus human being? The obvious answer: viability!

Humans that are not yet able to live outside the womb have less moral worth than humans who can survive. An interesting claim, to be sure. It is hardly self-evident.

Suppose one were able to construct an oversized artificial womb. Further suppose that a middle-aged man contracted a terrible physical disease that caused his lungs to deteriorate until they were (like a premature fetus') unable to function properly outside the womb. Naturally, the man is put in the artificial womb and is then able to receive nutrients and oxygen through an artificial umbilical cord. Does the man lose moral worth when he is put in the artificial womb?

I believe:
1. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between fetuses with the same moral rights as infants and those who do not.
2. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between late-term fetuses and infants.
3. that infants should not be actively murdered.

Unsupported premise: A mother does not have the right to kill her newborn child even if that child will cause a significant amount of inconvenience to the mother.

Unsupported premise 2: two beings with the same moral worth should be afforded equal treatment in the same circumstances.

Conclusion: It is not moral for a mother to abort her fetus unless the fetus threatens the mother's life or health.

My post grows too long, so I will close by saying that, although I believe essentially all acts of abortion to be the immoral killings of morally significant human beings, the social consequences of banning abortions are too great. It is preferable to allow women to safely terminate the lives of the fetuses, rather than forcing them to seek back-alley abortions that risk the lives of mothers as well as those of fetuses.

As Bill Clinton once said: Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. - The goal of the government should be to reduce the number of abortions being performed to the greatest possible degree.

Because until an fetus can survive outside of the womb it isn't really alive in any kind of meaningful sense.

Do you have a point with all these questions?

If all these questions are trying to somehow get me to say something specific so you can launch into whatever defense of the "right to life" you currently subscribe to you might as well just come off it and explain why you think unborn children are entitled to a birthday.

Grows. Develops organs. Takes in nutrients. For crying out loud, there's three meaningful senses right off the top of my head. And now you get to say, "But they're not meaningful!" And then I get to respond, "Why not?" when I discover that that exclamation point is the end of your post.

You keep getting these questions because you fail to explain your answers adequately. It's okay because it's not viable? Without an explanation, that makes as much sense as "it's okay because it doesn't look human" or "it's okay because it can't fight off infection without the mother's antibodies".

Fyi, unborn children don't have a birthday because they haven't yet been born. Not sure where you were going with that, but I won't ask since questions irritate you.

She's killing a human being that would grow into a more developed human being. Enlighten me: I do not see any scientific reason to look at a fusing skullcap and say, "that is a stage of development in a human being", and yet to look at the development of the lungs and say, "that is a stage of development in a potential human being". I've searched long and wide and found no scientific reason for the distinction.

Politicophile dealt with this well.

If you own a cruise line, you have no right to throw a stowaway into the ocean to die. He had no right to steal your product through trespassing, but the solution of ejection is a greater evil than the problem of trespass.

It's not giving preference to the z/e/f, it's giving preference to a right with higher priority. Your inability to understand my position does not change it to an easier-to-understand, easier-to-attack position.

Of course not. Thwarted plans, no matter how thwarted, are not equal to the injury of losing your very life. Would you really argue this?

You're either not making a good-faith attempt to understand my words, unable to make such an attempt, or you're lying. That is not my position, and you cannot make it my position by saying that it is.

Metabolic processes and cellular division aren't senses. On a prioritized list of all the things "meaningful" about being a human, metabolic process come in pretty far down the list unless perhaps you happen to be a biologist.

One definition of viable: "Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn." Let me interpret what i said for you: I think that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus isn't viable. That's it. That's where i draw the line. If you want to keep playing the "but why" game that's fine. Eventually we'll get to a point where i say, "just because" because when you clear away all the rationalizations, "just because" is the basis for all philosophical reasoning. Somewhere deep down "just because" is the basis for every conviction you subscribe to.

I was asking you your opinion on why abortion is wrong.

Except that you didn't say 'human', you said 'alive'. Changing the question is one way to render an answer false, I guess, but I can't say I'm too impressed by it.

Glad it's fine. So, "but why"?

*shrug* I'm not sure I disagree with that, but we can still argue for the purpose of clarity.

Funny way of doing so. It's wrong because it's the insufficiently justified taking of a human life. And by the way, you can ask me questions about that if you desire. I don't mind.

i'm not going to reply to your post at the moment. i'm not sure how to do so, honestly. what is a 'morally signicant human being?' what is 'moral worth?' what are 'moral rights?' right now, my first reaction is that they're bullshit terms. they have no real meaning. they sound good, but they're really empty words. but i'm not sure. i'd like to hear what you mean by them and think about it a bit.

this part that i quoted though, a quick response. i disagree on the immoral part, but the rest i'm in agreement with.

i agree with this statement 100%.


and your point is?

no. he didn't. lets look at what he said.

he offers no proof that there is a right to life. he merely states it as though it were fact. and then he goes on to say that "it is simply wrong to kill human beings, with exceptions." i'm missing a proof of right to life. and considering the exceptions he lists, i fail to see how abortion is necissarily excluded from that list. he seems to feel that killing humans is a-okay depending on the justification. and that leaves a lot of room for abortion.


if you're going to try an analogy, it would be a squatter in an apartment building, using your utilities, stealing the neighbors packages, disrupting the neighbors (keeping them up late at night, being a nusciance at other times), etc.

either analogy you choose though, you have only two options. either let the perpetrator go scot free or throw him overboard/out in the cold. and since a fetus has no rights, nor in my opinion should it, and the woman does, choosing to 'throw it overboard' seems like an acceptable solution.

i understand your position. your position is that the z/e/f should have rights over the host. you can add however many words you want to flower it up, but that's what it boils down to.


i would definatly argue this. if someone tries to keep me from having the life i want, i will do anything and everything in my power to stop him. livilyhood is just as important, if not more important, than life itself. but i don't think this line of discussion really has a lot to do with whehter abortion should be legal, etc. i think this is on the edge of it at best, shows more towards attitudes we have.


i'm not lying. and i understand your position. how else would you say it? you've made your position clear a few times and each time it boils down to you believing that the z/e/f should have rights over the mother. "It's not giving preference to the z/e/f, it's giving preference to a right with higher priority. Your inability to understand my position does not change it to an easier-to-understand, easier-to-attack position." it's pretty clear. the z/e/f's rights should supercede the mothers. if you're really not saying that, then right here, right now, just quote this paragraph and underneath it, in plain english, state your position.

That's a good summary of this entire thread. Which is why I don't see the point of why some people are continuting to post things that their adversaries are certainly not open to listening to.

Not to say I didn't enjoy a healthy debate here, for a few posts... but this is getting outrageous. Is there a point here, beyond the expression of one's ego?

Well, by "morally significant human being", I mean a genetic human being with the same set of "moral rights" that all other humans possess. This category is intended to anticipate the response that not all genetic human beings are automatically entitled to the equal concern and respect to which morally significant human beings are entitled.

"Moral rights" are claims about good and evil (or right and wrong, if you prefer) that require certain conduct from individuals. For example, if a mother has a moral right to control her body, then her moral claims as a morally significant human being are being violated whenever her moral right to control her body is being violated.

As I said earlier, I believe that all morally significant human beings have a right to live. It is, admittedly, a very difficult position to argue in favor of: I will conclude by saying that I believe killing people who have never used their autonomous will to bring harm to you is always, always wrong... unless, of course, killing would prevent a greater number of deaths from occuring - you are also not expected to sacrifice your own life in order to avoid killing. Thus, we are in agreement that abortion to save the life of the mother is ok.

It's wrong to kill your neighbors, friends, coworkers, family, etc. - what's the moral difference between them and a fetus?

I'm wondering if our only disagreement here is whether the fetus has rights. IF you agreed that the fetus has rights, would you still view ejection as an acceptable option? Are we only disagreeing on the rights part?

Livelihood is not possible without life itself. It cannot be more important or equally important.

The z/e/f's right to life should supercede the mother's right to an empty womb. Changing "right to life" and "right to an empty womb" to " rights" is a distortion on your part.

I am not saying that the z/e/f's rights are more important than the mother's. I am saying that the z/e/f's right to life is more important than the mother's other rights besides the right to life. Similarly, the mother's right to life is also more important than the z/e/f's other rights.

It's not z/e/f > mother, it's right to life > all other rights.

I don't think I can put it any simpler. I'm not sure what to suspect here if it isn't a matter of density or dishonesty.

Completely off topic, I wonder how this little gem of a thread got bumped after being started almost three years ago to the day. I was very surprised to come across a three year old post of mine. I'm not sure now-me necessarily agrees with then-me.

Yay for kicking a cold, dead horse! Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. I will add to it by commenting that, regardless of feelings about the result, Roe v. Wade is a horrible horrible decision from a legal standpoint. Rules regarding social phenomena like gay rights and abortion should not be decided by courts on the basis of a wildly expansive reading of the 14th amendment, they should be decided by the people through constitutional amendments or state legislatures. The only reason no one has touched Roe v. Wade is because it's Roe v. Wade, not because it's a shining pinnacle of impervious legal excellence.

Fine, prepare to be impressed. Go back and mentally replace everywhere i said "human" with "alive". POW!

Because it is.

I have my clarity and it is this: discussions about controversial issues on internet message boards are generally useless. People actively engaged in these discussions fall into three camps: 1. Those who want their own opinions on above mentioned controversial issue validated; 2. Those who want their own opinions on the irrationality of anyone who doesn't agree with them validated; and 3. Those who pretend that they haven't made up their minds yet. The members of these groups will attempt to gain validation from each other through a process consisting of repeated reassertion of various rationalized and rephrased statements. These statements will be based on ultimately subjective underlying assumptions; despite this fact, statements often will be made as though they represent absolute truth/morality. Typical interactions occur. Side A starts by setting up a framework for the discussion. This framework is most often just rephrasing of one of the central themes of their position. Sometimes the initial framework is rejected by the opposing team. If Side B finds the framework acceptable it then works within this framework to try assert that, no, in fact Side A is wrong. Sometimes side B then sets of the framework for side A to try to dismantle. The sides repeat this process over and over and over again until one of them quits. No one is ever convinced of anything, but that's okay because the vast majority of the participants were just after some sort of validation and you don't need to convince the other side to feel validated, you just have to convince yourself that the only reason they don't agree with you is because they, in some remote way, suck.

Not really.

No thanks. No offense, but i kind of feel like it would be a waste of both of our time.

As an ongoing 'contraception' (for want of a better word), no.

But I am pro-choice. When we had our 8 week scan, it really hit home that this little baby, even at 8 weeks was moving and apart of us. However, there's too many neglected kids in the world that I think this needs to be a big deciding fact in the consideration of having an abortion. What's worse do you think - having an abortion, or bringing a child into a world that you are unable to care for?

Respectfully, you are on crack.

;)

An abortion is an active act of killing - people can argue whether it is "murder" or whether it is something else, but undeniably, a life is extinguished when an abortion occurs, and at some of the later stages of development, the infant feels pain before death. Nice.

Sterilization (although I was not seriously advocating its use, but lets go down that road anyway) kills no one.

Notice a difference?

Let's review: abortion kills. And the people who are vehemently pro-choice, who can only couch their meaning in terms like "it's just a bunch of cells, dude", are, IMO, in denial.

We used to practice infanticide in the West and not that long ago. We figured that such practices were barbaric and uncivilized and we now look with disgust on people in India and China and Nigeria who continue to kill excess children and call them savage.

IMO, a couple of generations from now, when we are more enlightened, we will look with disgust on abortion (at least after the first trimester or so) and call the people who did it savage and selfish, in this land of plenty.

We will in the future look with more understanding on the poor third world dirt farmer who kills the extra infant mouth than we will on virtually anyone in the Western world who killed their child in the womb because it would force them to buy a house in the suburbs, wreck their dress size or stop them from partying on a regular basis.

Has human DNA. Has underdeveloped human organ systems. POW!

And abortion should be illegal because God says so. (Crap! Hope analog doesn't see this.)

Nah, believe it or not, I don't think that way.

I kind of wonder why you came into this thread in the first place. Sounds like it's all a huge waste of time. (Not that you aren't, in some senses, right.)

This argument about abortion can and will go on for as long as women are getting pregnant and convienantly having abortions for whatever reason. I am sure that they can validate it to themselves. Fact of the matter is they could something that either was alive or would be some day. Who knows. Mom doesnt and we certainly don't. You will always have people for abortion and people against it. Pro Life= Anti-choice, Pro choice= Anti life yeah yeah whatever. I guarantee this thread is not going to convince any women to have their baby if they are considering abortion and it wont turn your average pro-lifer into a pro-choicer.
Fact of the matter is that this thread is dead and nothing new is being said. I have read the other abortiont hreads and nothing new is being said. Same stuff from mostly the same people. I think thread starter wanted to stir the pot a little and wish granted now can we all move on? HEHE And yeah I know I am a horrible typer and an ever worse speller but oh well. You'll live and thank god your mom didnt abort you.

Wow -- politicophile. I truly respect your rational/moralistic proof, and I actually stopped to read the entire thing because of the clarity of purpose it exhibited I agree with it for the most part, but our line of rationale diverges very early --

Agreed. I fear, however, that our definitions of human being are different.

And this, precisely, is where our opinions differ. You've clearly identified the very reason that I refuse to accept that fetuses are morally significant human beings. While I acknowledge and agree that they have human DNA (so does sperm, mind you -- and they aren't human beings), I define human being in a much more specific sense. You yourself clearly note that fetues are unable to communicate it's will or make an autonomous decision. Furthermore, you establish that it's unlikely they even have a will, and I agree. I define a morally significant human being as someone who can (a) make an autonomous decision, (b) communicate that decision.

A fetus can do neither a nor b, so I do not consider it a morally significant human being. You seemed to address this later with your response:

Yes. I wholeheartedly and earnestly believe that this being deserves less moral consideration than someone who contributes to human society in a symbiotic (rather than parasitic) manner. This is not to say that he is worthless -- only that on the scale of moral judgement, a living-breathing- "I can interact with" human deserves far more consideration than a shell of a being hooked to machines and artificial life preservation devices.

And with this, I totally agree. It's simultaneously responsible and compromising, without actively condoning.

Interesting distinction. This reminds of debates in church (when I used to go to church) about baptism... some churches want to do infant baptism, before the child can even decide for itself what it wants. Other churches insist that the child is of an age that it can decide for itself. I got both, heh... and then walked away from it all! (I guess people shouldn't be baptised twice, or they'll turn to the dark side.) :)

However, of interest here is why you draw the line of moral significance at autonomy and the ability to communicate. This pretty much excludes infants/toddlers who have not yet learned to speak, let alone self-actualize (which takes a couple more years) and express their "decisions." Does this mean you consider non-autonomous people who cannot communicate as being non-significant (regardless of whether or not they are in the womb, since you don't make that distinction)? How about a child who is born premature, even several months premature? Since it would die outside of an incubator (artificial womb), does that make it morally insignificant as well?

(Just testing your logic... I don't really care to get picky about abortion, but this is a gaping hole in your argument and I think you ought to modify your statement, at least for the hawks on this thread.) :)

I will grant, for the sake of argument, that you are correct in saying that fetuses can do neither a nor b. The natural response on my part is a reductio argument where I attempt to make you admit that your argument leads to absurd conclusions. To that end, consider which ones of the following can do neither a nor b:

-a newborn infant
-an adult in a persistent vegetative state
-an adult who is sleeping

Which, if any, of these three categories of people lack both a and b?
Which, if any, lack the moral status of a human being?


Would you say that a person hooked up to a respirator has less moral worth than someone who is not? Does a man who lives in an iron lung but continues to work from home have less moral worth than a perfectly healthy and independent deadbeat who contributes nothing to society?

Consider that being dependent on an outside apparatus for life and being an unproductive member of society are not the same thing.

I look forward to your response.

I'm sorry for being a bastard and walking away from this thread. I forgot to subscribe to it, and didn't see your reply until now. :(


You both raise the same (very good) points .. reductio absurdum indeed.

What IS the difference between a human adult who is sleeping and a fetus?

This question inspired a great deal of thought, and while I believed it implicit in the definition, I will explicitly specify a concept of "history."

This provides a structure for the differention between a sleeping human adult and a human fetus or young infant. Until such time as the organism has DONE a and b, I will consider it similarly to an organism who CANNOT do a or b. You'll note that this once again includes cases such as "an adult in a persistent vegetative state" as being a morally significant human.

It also does not include young human infants (those unable to make and articulate the autonomous decision) as being morally significant. At first, this may appear to be brash - it would seem to advocate the killing of human infants without any necessary moral consideration. Alas, it does not.

By refusing to include them as morally significant HUMANS, I only specify that they should not recieve the same moral consideration as a human being under a, b, and c. Any decision regarding the life or death of such an organism would be dependent on your definition of the lower levels of moral significance. My personal belief is that there are lower declarations of moral significance such as those for animals. Human fetuses and young adults belong to a level between those of animals and those of morally significant human beings. A primary example of using these levels for moral judgement is that in a case where a morally significant human being competes with a being from a lower level for life, the morally significant human should be perserved at the cost of the lower level organism. This provides for the case where an abortion is necessary for the survival of the host parent. Similarly, it allows us to believe that killing an animal to persist a human being is moral.

If you do indeed recognize my definition of a morally significant human above as being valid, then we have a construct to work from. Having established that those not explicitly included in the definition are not morally significant, we can specify that all persons above are morally significant. But where does that get us? By my definition, it only specifies what LEVEL of consideration is necessary. We should avoid the death of this organism at all costs, etc. However, within this level there certainly exists a stratification between highly significant and less significant organisms. I'd obviously not claim that a deadbeat contributing nothing to society is equal in significance to one actively contributing. For this, I provided the clause above:

In your hypothetical cases, someone who is hooked to an iron lug but continues to work from home is providing for society in a symbiotic manner. The lung persists his life, and his work persists society. Someone operating exclusively from welfare and not providing any economic or societal benefit would be operating in a much more parasitic manner. Therefore, while both being morally signifant humans in definition, the "deadbeat" belongs to a much lower class of human. He or she still deserves the consideration being a member of humanity, but not nearly the same as a providing member of humanity.

Personally, what someone does to their body or with their unborn child is none of my concern. I wont lose sleep tonight because of how someone else chooses to live their life. It is their karma and emotional well being that they have to be held accountable for, not mine.

I agree, killing "babies" may not be on everyone's Top 10, but people should be able to make that decision for themselves.

However, I do not think it should be just the woman's decision. Yes, it is her body but she did not make that baby by herself. If the father wants to keep and raise the child, he should be able to.

But that's just my two cents.

I don't fully understand why someone with the unexercised capability to do a and b has less worth than someone who has previously done a and b but is not now doing them. It certainly strikes me as counterintuitive to value a permanently vegitative adult more than a healthy infant with the potential to do future good. Why should the past history and non-existent potential of the disabled adult trump the non-existent past and rich future of the newborn? In my mind, this is a similar situation to deciding whether to give treatment to a terminally ill citizen with a distinguished record or a newborn infant: you just seem to get more bang for your buck with the infant.

Here is the fundamental problem your framework seems to present: both fetuses and newborn infants have a total lack of history of a and b and would therefore belong to the same moral level. However, I think we can conclude that killing an infant for reasons other than saving the life of an adult is wrong. But if we are willing to make this claim, how is it possible to continue defending abortion on demand?

I just found out something interesting that I want to share and I didn't want to start a new thread for it, so I did a search for abortion.....

My friend currently lives in Japan, and has recently learned that the theoric father has to sign an agreement paper at the clinic before any abortion!

In the facts, any man can sign it if the potential father is unknown or unavailable. I guess that if the guy disagree or is unaware, girls just ask a friend to do that.

It is just an administrative formality, they don't run any paternity tests. I guess this is a means to make the guy feel as responsible as the girl so he does not take this lightly: abortion is painful in Japan, the abortive pill is not used, and they don't make the girl sleep. But then again, there is a long way to go concerning women "rights" in Japan.

Apart from that, it is not a country where the culture comes from one of the three religions of the book, and abortion is not seen in the same way at all.
The common belief is that when it happens, what can be seen as the equivalent to the "soul" is sent back in some kind of limbo, waiting for another birth in the same family or another one. There are even some specific ceremonies that you can perform at some shinto shrine to apologize for not being able to welcome it yet. I think it changes a lot the way you can handle this issue.

I'm not really into euphemisms, so let's just call pro-choice what it is-- Murder of the unborn. Something strikes me as odd, though. When a woman has an abortion during her first trimester, no one considers what she just did murder, but if someone kills a pregnant woman who's in their first trimester, then that person can be charged with the murder of an unborn child. Well, I'm not the smartest person in the world, but isn't that a bit contradictory? Murder is murder, no matter who does it.

Anyway, I scoff at the "It's my body, so I'll do what I want!" notion because, unless there's been some sort of biological shift in women which I'm not aware of, they're not asexual and can't make a baby on their own. Since a woman isn't 100% responsible for making a baby, she shouldn't have 100% of the decision regarding abortion. A man should have some sort of say so since he's equally as responsible for making a baby as a woman is.

If a woman wants an abortion and the father doesn't, then the father should be able to prevent the woman from having an abortion but, in doing so, he assumes all responsibilities for the child and absolves the mother of any type of responsibility.

If both a woman and a man want to have an abortion because they're not ready to be parents well... To that I say "Tough luck!". Either use protection or don't have sex.

Only in instances of rape will I agree to abortions. Too bad the majority of abortions in America don't occur because of rape... For the most part abortions are just leading to an increase in irresponsible behaviour.

That's my $.02.

Edit: I was driving to Taco Bell and I saw this billboard on the road. I don't think that any of us here would have wanted to be aborted, so is it too much to assume that-- If a fetus could talk-- That they wouldn't want to be aborted either? Meh... That's a bit of a stretch, but it's just something to think about.

the reason someone can be charged with murder of the unborn when they kill a pregnant woman is because "pro-life" politicians pushed that law through in certain states (i'm not sure if there's a federal law about it). i'm curious though... how can you murder something that isn't born? oh yeah, btw, i'm not into euphamisms, so lets call pro-life what it really is... gender based slavery.

i scoff at the "it's a living thing and therefore you shouldn't be able to do what it wants with you, even if you don't want it in you" notion, because, unless there's been some sort of biological shift in women, they still have to house the fetus, feed the fetus, and have complications due to the presence of the fetus. since a man doesn't have to do 99% of the work in the creation of a baby, why should he have the right to have more than 1% of a say in what happens to it?

if a woman wants an abortion and the father doesn't, then the father should have found out her plans to deal with an unexpected pregnancy before unzipping his pants. if he really wants a kid and she doesn't, he can adopt.

if both a woman and a man want to have an abortion because they're not ready to be parents well... to that i say "have an abortion!" just make sure you still use protection to make abortion as a last resort if the other methods fail.

in all instances i agree to abortion. too bad the majority of people who shouldn't be having kids and don't want them don't take advantage of the choices available to them and have the child anyways. for the most part, lack of people having abortions are just leading to an increase in irresponsible people raising children irresponsibly.

[That's my $.02.[/quote]

we're up to $0.04.

i think that if i'd have been aborted, i wouldn't have cared. in fact, i think you could have probably murdered me anytime up to about the age of 3 and i probalby wouldn't have cared too much. sure, i might've been scared if i knew it was going to happen, but i don't think we have the cognitive abilities until sometime around 3 or 4 years to really have any real grasp of life and death and what it is to die or fear death.

I suppose I should be more direct in my question: Are you saying that someone who kills a pregnant woman should not also be charged will killing the unborn fetus? In my experience, I have found very people who agree with abortion who also agree with not giving those people who kill a pregnant woman a sentence for killing her unborn child.

I don't see why it matters who does the killing. Murder is murder.

Anyway, life usually entails growth, metabolic processes and responses to stimuli-- All of which occurs in an unborn fetus. "Life" doesn't begin at birth. The second a zygote forms and begins to split, it's alive.

A fetus is it's own organism, seperate of the woman. Yes, it does depend on the woman, but it is not for the woman to do to it as she pleases.

Biology states that a woman must house the fetus for any given number of months. You have a problem with that? Take it up with nature :thumbsup:

Anyway, as I stated in my previous post, in cases where a man wants to keep the child and a woman doesn't, I think that the woman carrying the child for 9 months is a fair trade off for the man spending the next 18+ years of his life in care of the child while the woman gets off free and easy.


I hate to break it to you, but a man does 50% of the work in creating a baby ;)

Semen + Egg = Zygote

No semen? No Zygote. No zygote? No baby.

Isn't it wonderful how that works?

No matter what way you slice it, a woman does NOT create a baby on her own, therefore she shouldn't have 100% of the say in what happens to it. That's a gross inequality; One that I'm sure that you recognize.

Human physiology says that a woman must carry the fetus for 9 months. We all know this, so there's no use in debating that much. However, simply because a woman carries a baby for 9 months, doesn't give her total control over what happens to it, especially when humans can't reproduce asexually.

So a woman can deny a man the right to be a father or even force him into fatherhood, but a man can't deny a woman the right to be a mother or force her into pregnancy? That's an extreme double standard.

If men are expected to "Keep his pants on" and to "Deal with whatever the woman decides", then woman should face the same stipulations.

You know as well as I do that that the majority of abortions are a matter of convenience, rather than necessity. Most people are irresponsible and look for the quickest and easy way out.

There are much better solutions than abortions. Adoption, for one.

The point is that no matter what you say, you wouldn't have chosen to be aborted. In fact, no one here would. Cognitive reasoning or not, everyone has the right-- And the desire-- To live (No matter what their age) and no one should be denied that right; Not even the unborn.

Simply because it "Inconveniences" a woman doesn't give them the right to kill another human being.

i'm a bit torn on whether or not someone who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with 2 counts of murder. on the one hand, if the woman was intending on having the child then the murderer has killed a woman and a potential human. i don't know if that potential and the intent to bring teh child to term should be enough to give the child protection under the law.

i do not believe that the unborn are deserving of legal rights and protections. but when a woman intends on bringing it to term... it is because of her intent i'm still up in the air on the issue. but i do believe that giving the unborn legal status as individuals can and likely will open a pandora's box. we start by adding them as victims of the mothers murder. but what if the woman trips and falls accidently and has a miscarriage? is that manslaughter? what if she does it purposefully? is that murder? if a pregnant woman is in a car and has a car accident and the airbag deploys and causes a miscarriage or developmental problems, is the auto company responsible? can she sue whomever caused the accident? what about if she smokes or drinks while pregnant? should she be charged with a crime? what about if she eats fatty foods or goes some place wehre there's lots of second hand smoke? i realize a lot of that sounds like a "slippery slope" argument. but we've had laws enacted before where there is an intent for their creation but authorities use them for reasons other than the intended reasons.

who does teh killing does matter. murder is, if i'm not mistaken, the unlawful killing of another person. so as it stands, to call abortion murder is, at least by definition, incorrect. it is lawful to perform an abortion. the unborn do not have legal standing as a person, and you can't murder some thing that isn't a person (or do you feel that meat is murder too?).

i never claimed that it isn't life from the moment of conception. it is life. but it's not a person. it is cells containing human dna that will, if nature allows, become a human baby. but until it passes through that birthing canal, it is not a person.

i disagree. the fetus is not its own organism. it is not seperate of the woman. if it were, we could easily remove it from the mother and hook it up to a nutrient tube and it'd go on developing just fine. to claim otherwise is to not understand biology or human development. to consider the fetus as anything but part of her is just inaccurate.



i've been trying, but ever since i did a dine and dash after a bad date with nature, she won't return my calls. :(

you really think that? do you realize the mortality rate of child birth? even if it's only 2%, would you be willing to risk your body for something you don't want but someone else does? add to that morning sickness, possible high blood pressure and diabetes brought on by bearing the child? the weight gain (which might not come off)? having to buy a whole new wardrobe, the changes in hormones that just make you seem crazy, the back pain, the swollen feet? and then the pain of child birth. i wouldn't go through all of that and child birth if you paid me $100k.


look at my paragraph above. what part of that does a man do? a man supplies 50% of the genetic material. he does not do 50% of the work. that's like saying that because i gave you half of your paint supplies, i did half of the work in creating your painting.


a woman does create a baby on her own. she has to to an outside source in order to get some of the material, but she does all the work in building the baby. your donation of half of the genetic blueprint does not give you 50% of the say in anything when you consder she also gave 50% and does all the work. there is no gross inequity. the only problem i see with the whole debate is that some people men feel that they have a right to treat women as property.

if it's in her body, it gives her control over it. because it is HER body.


it may be a double standard, but tough shit. that's life. we are not equal. biology dictates that we will never be equal. to try to make men and women equal legally in things that are not equal biologically is wrong. it does nothing more than turn women into incubators.

again, this isn't an equal situation. to try to force the same stipulations on both sexes goes against our basic biology. i believe that before you fuck someone, both the man and the woman should know what the other would want to do if a pregnancy occurs. if you don't want a baby, use protection, multiple layers if possible. but if you think that 2 minutes of fun should give you control over a womans body for the next 9 months just because she has some genetic material of yours in her, is wrong.



i think arbitrarily claiming that abortions are mainly a matter of convinience is the quick and easy way out. i'm sure there are women out there who have had abortions and don't think anything of it. but i'd bet for most women and girls who have one, it's not an easy decision. i'd bet most put a lot of thought into whether it is the right thing for them right now. there's a book i saw on amazon a couple years ago, i don't remember the name or the author (if i have time, i'll look for it and update if i find it)... anyways, the author talked with numerous women who had abortions about why they did it, what went through their decision making process, etc. i highly doubt for most women it's a "oh, if i'm pregnant i can't drink for 9 months, lets get an abortion" scenario.



eh. in the end there are two solutions. have the baby or don't. if you have the baby, then you also have the option of giving it up for adoption. what's the best one? i couldn't tell you. that's up to the person who has to make the decison to decide.

on a semi-aside, i don't really think adoption is all that great of an option. until we've got more people wanting to adopt than there are kids going into the system, it's not the best option. every kid should be given a chance to succeed, and (correct me if i'm wrong) most kids older than 4 or 5 don't have much of a chance of adoption. if the kid is black, he's got much less of chance of adoption (i heard a while back that canadians were adopting more of our black babies than americans, or at least enough that congress was talking about making a law to stop our kids from being adopted out of country). i'd actually love it if someone started a thread on adoption, we seem to talk about abortion a lot and never have a real discussion about adoption.


nope, i wouldn't have chosen to be aborted. but i doubt that a fetus who was aborted would care, one way or the other. neither would a fetus that is miscarried (aka natural abortion). and i could find lots of people who do not have the desire to be live but do. ask dr. kevorkian, he could point you to a few. or find a suicidal person. nor does everyone have the right to live. or else we would not have capital punishment.

just because you think women do it because it "inconveniences" them doesn't mean that's why they do it.

Muder also means to kill something brtually or inhumanely ;)

(But we won't get into semantics.)

The last time I checked, 28 states have fetal protection laws, so apparently someone considers them "Persons" (Does anyone remember the Laci Peterson case?).

And, as far as meat is concerned, we (People) generally hold human life in higher regards than we do animal life. Therefore, I don't see the point in you trying to relegate a fetus to a piece of meat makes.

So, in your own words, the difference between a person and a non-person is whether or not they're born? Never mind the fact that someone is essentially the same 30 seconds before they're born and 30 seconds after they're born, their birth status is the only thing that matters?

We generally describe a person as a human being, or anything which has the capacity to become a human being.

I have a fairly good understanding of biology and the developmental stages of a fetus.

A fetus is not like, say, an arm or a leg; It's more than just an extension of the female body. In fact, it's completely seperate of the female body. A fetus develops it's own vital systems, internal and external organs and, after a period of time, is fully capable of living without being attached to the female.

Can you say the same with an arm or a leg? No, you can't. A fetus isn't part of a females body.

Oh... And I just wanted to point out to you that there are cases where a fetus has been removed from a mother, hooked up to a nutrient tube and been saved.

*Radical thinking ahead!!!*

Then don't have sex if you don't want to assume the consequences. Men are forced to accept the consequences of their actions one way or another, so a woman should be, as well.

I believe you answered your own question: A man suplies 50% of the genetic material-- Same as a woman.

A woman creates a baby on her own? That's preposterous poppy cock! Last time I checked, humans weren't asexual-- It requires both a man AND a woman to create a baby. The last time I checked, a woman's body doesn't create anything. The only thing it does do is to provide nutrients to the fetus and place where it can develop; Nothing more and nothing less.

If I, as a man, donate 50% of the genetic blueprint to make a baby then I, as a man, should have 50% of the say so in what happens to that baby. I'll tell you what, though. If you can explain to me how any woman outside of the virgin Mary can have a baby in the absence of a man, then I'll concede my argument to you.

"In her body" and "Her body" are two totally different concepts. When a woman decides to have an abortion, she's not dealing with "Her body", but rather the fetus' body.

I'm just going to keep repeating this, but a woman isn't 100% responsible for making a baby, so she shouldn't get 100% of the decision.

~ Situation #1 ~

A woman tells a man that she doesn't want to have children. They end up having sex, the woman gets pregnant and later decides to keep the baby. What happens to the man? He gets fucked, as he has no say in the matter. He's becoming a father, simply because the woman says he is.

~ Situation #2 ~

A man and a woman both decide that they want children. They end up having sex, the woman gets pregnant but later decides that she wants to have an abortion. What happens to the man? He gets fucked yet again, as he has no say in the matter. He loses out on the chance to become a father, simply because the woman doesn't want to have a baby.

Why is it that a woman is never expected to bear any responsibility from her sexuality? If she doesn't want children then-- And I know this is a VERY hard concept for some people do understand-- She should keep her pants on. It's as simple as that. By dropping her pants and bouncing up and down on some guy's dick, then she assumes the risk that she's going to get pregnant. If she didn't want to get pregnant in the first place, then she shouldn't be having sex.

A man can't have sex, get a woman pregnant and then decide that he doesn't want to be a father, so neither should woman. Women should be held to the same standards as men.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

It's a nice little survey done around October of 2005 on abortions and the reasons given by women who've had them. I'm sure you'll notice that the most common answer among woman for having an abortion is/was "I don't want to have children right now".

If that's not a matter of convenience, then I don't know what is.

There is something interesting, however. If a man were ever to say that he shouldn't be forced into being a father because "He's not ready" or because he "Doesn't want children" or that he's not "Emotionally stable" to raise a child, he would be laughed at, told to keep his pants on and told to be a man and raise the child. Yet when a woman does it, no one even thinks twice about reprimanding them or telling them to accept the consequences of their actions.

Why is that?

For the most part, that simply isn't the case.

Here's something to think about. Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15 – 44 have an abortion (5%); 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion. That means that approximately 2.5 women out of 100 aged 15 - 44 who had an abortion last year had a previous one.

When I said "Everyone" I was speaking in general. There are always exceptions to the rule, but organism generally have the desire to live. Anyway, everyone has the right to live until you do something to forfeit it. In the case of those given the death penalty, they have usually done something to warrant it. A fetus has done nothing to forfeit that right.

In the United States, less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest and less than 1% of abortions are done due to medical complication. The majority of abortions are done simply because the woman doesn't want to have a baby. Tell me, if it's not inconvenience which makes them have an abortion, then what is it?

There was a perfectly good reason for this thread to get resurrected. Someone had something new and interesting to add to it (lindalove on #168).

Of course, a few posts later and it's worthless again. This is precisely one reason why I do not like the "search before posting" rule at times... because the "new posts" get completely bulldozed by 2 or 3 people fighting about the same old issue. What's the point? Where are the mods?

...Because some people weren't here 3 years ago when this thread started.

I'll admit, I didn't read the entire thing. I just added in my (Then) $.02.

Thanks. I think you're the only one who noticed. :)

No problem, lindalove. I do what I can. :D

But seriously, I do think it's fascinating to see the effect of different cultures' cosmologies on their perception of abortion, etc. I don't see anything wrong with the Japanese view, though I wonder at what point in pregnancy they believe the child gains a "soul" and should not be killed?

Comparing American views on abortion, gay marriage, and other controversial topics to other cultures' views can be very enlightening. Some people might take the chance to be judgemental, but most of those individuals are middle-class, modern-living Americans who could never dream of a situation where they had very limited options and resources.

Of course, I speak this as a cultural anthropologist... :D But seriously. Next to breast feeding, voluntary abortion was most likely humanity's most common form of population control for most of our evolutionary history. Medicine men/women were very educated on how to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy LONG before birth control was ever available, and especially when a woman simply could not provide for any more children (in other words, rape or obligatory sex was the order of the day for many women, and a secret visit to the medicine man/woman was often their only form of control over their lives... sometimes to prevent their own deaths, which happened often during the birth of a child).

Anyway, cross-cultural stuff is cool. Thanks for bringing it in! :thumbsup:

OK heres my Way of thinking here.... I am pro choice. But in the perfect world i would be prolife. However the world is far from perfect. Condoms break the pill isnt 100% rape happens and people are stupid. With health problems that can come from pregnancy or be passed on to the kid from genetic problems. Say you find out theres a good chance some real bad genetic defects will be passed on to the kid and most likely that kids life will be a living hell... is it fair to force that kid to live?

Personaly i have a cousin thats a dumb crackhead with three kids living in a state with a joke for child wellfair survaces so they dont take her kids away. These kids are abused by there father that should be in prison but... he has parents in high places that get him out of trouble no matter what. They live off food stamps and hand outs and mom sells the stamps to get money for drugs so the kids go to sleep hungry and wear the same clothes every day of the week and dont bathe. These kids are like 4 8 and 13 i think and none of them can read thanks to the worthless parents they have. the 13 year old boy has already been arrested a few times. He will be in prison shortly after he hits 18 if not before. The middle child a daughter i really doubt if she will be any diffrent. If she is she will end up in a trailor with 5 kids and a bad drug habit. And im still hoping the youngest has a chance if the state gets off there ass and takes the kids away from those people. But even then they need to count on adoption and thats like a 50/50 chance only.
There are far too many unwanted kids in the world as it is no reason to force people to drag more into the world even if its there own fault they got pregnant. I dont think a child is alive untill its mentaly developed enough to think for itself. Somehow i doubt the kid is pondering the meaning of life or what its going to do tomorrow when mom is only in the first couple months of pregnancy. the kid isnt alive untill it can live on its own. Kids born even a month or two early can have some real problems just breathing. However they do breath. Anything much more premature just isnt alive. It dosnt have any more life in it then a amputated limb.

Most prolife people seem to look at abortion like its wrong for the child. But not even stop to think maybe abortion is the best thing for it. Just maybe its not the best idea to have crack babies running around all over the place with sever birth defects or mental/physical problems throughout life. Or forcing a kid into life as a unwanted child with years of mental and physical abuse to look forward to.

Eh, I'm not a big fan of involuntary euthanasia. Too murder-ish for my tastes.

You wouldn't make this argument for someone already born, would you? Which says to me that this argument of yours is just a useless distraction from the two issues that really matter: (1)Is it a human being? (2)How far should the government's power extend in preventing its destruction?

The Roe Effect
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006913

Abortion is good for America.

That's an interesting article, but I had already come to a similiar conclusion (Though not as detailed).

I know that my mom-- Who is typically a staunch Democrate-- Voted for Bush over Kerry in the previous election due to their stances on abortion.

I wonder how many here have taken a life outside the womb? Doesn't someone who takes a life inside the womb feel the same remorse, necessary or not as the act may have been?

Abortion is murder, and murder is wrong. Should abortion be illegal? I don't know, but I think that the debate has us all so focused on the act we forget about what precipitates it. I'm a believer in preventative medicine. If you don't want pregnancy, wear a condom or keep your pants up.

As to the issue of rape or incest, would you execute the baby for the father's sins? Or would you provide counseling to the mother and help her understand that she can accept the baby because the baby is NOT the father?

I guess I don't have any answers. Mostly I just have questions.

I am pro-choice, but I also feel that some people out there have an abortion everytime they get pregnant, and in that case, i think that the law should draw the line. I also think that a person should learn their lesson and take the proper precautions when having sex thereafter.

I think abortion should be legal, especially retro-active abortion.

Wow really?! Retroactive abortion? Why is that?

After some people have been around for a while, it becomes apparent that perhaps the best thing would be if they hadn't. I'm still working on the procedure...

i see...

Just a bit of humor to lighten the thread. I mean, if you can't laugh at abortion, what can you laugh at.

Choice choice choice. Abortion is not a means of birth control though. I'm pro-choice, but it doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion either. It's none of my business what some other lady is going to do with her fetus. And that is all I consider it, a dot. I am really not one that is overly sensitive to things like children, especially when they are not developed. I mean I like kids and all, but I think I like puppies more. I am kidding, well for the most part. As for the religion aspect of it, that is also a choice. If it's against your personal religion, don't have an abortion. But just because it's against your personal religion does not mean you can dictate to another woman that she can't because it's against your beliefs. I dunno, I know the OP is old, but I had seen this has been bumped up so I thought I'd add my two cents, though I'm sure what I've said has been covered. Except maybe the puppy thing... haha! Hey, what do you have if you don't have humour?

I know this thread has been bumped more often than is really necessary, but seeing as the mods choose to keep it open (or have received no complaints over it) I see no reason to refrain from posting.

It seems to me like the real problem is that some people feel abortions are wrong, and are appalled that others get away with it, so to speak. That is, they receive no punishment for their actions. The emotional response of "don't force your opinion on me" that come from pro-choicers is fair, yes, but tends to bog the argument down. Yes, it sucks that someone is saying you can't do thing X. There are loads of things you can't do: steal, rape, hack into government websites. And I'm sure the pro-lifers realize making it illegal isn't going to prevent people from having abortions, just as we still have theft, rape, etc despite the laws set in place. [I'm not trying to argue anything here, just some observations.]

The other day I drove past some pro-life picketers who brought along their children. I found this rather disturbing, and not because I don't like being reminded of what abortions are killing. My concern is why are they using their children to advance a political stance? I am sure those children would rather be playing on swings, or a hundred other things. If your concern is the welfare of children or potential children, go play with your kids. They deserve your attention, seeing as you are so keen on making sure they get a chance to live.

Which sort of brings me to why I am posting here to being with. Why is everyone arguing about it? Some people think it's wrong, others think it isn't. Neither camp is going to convince any significant number of people to switch sides, so is in essence preaching to the choir. It would have been nice for this thread to be a non-argumentative display of why members did/did not/will/will not choose to have an abortions. And for those who don't wish to share why they made their own choice, maybe we should get off this thread and enjoy our children or lack thereof.

There is a guy, a lawyer, who is sued by a a women he had a one-night stand or something parental recognition. He is suing back because he says he had been tricked into paternity by a malicious women who had her own agenda. They say there is a growing number of cases like this, but it is the first time there is a lawsuit? I guess it would be interesting to wait for the result.

They said the mother only sued so that her kid can put a name on the father, but the court ruled more than that, and ordered child support which the father was not very happy with.

The kid seems ok according to the newspapers.

Here lies the difference, it is not really a soul. There is no self-conscience I think, for instance, more like a vital principal? Thus, it is not associate to any killing. And anyway, it is just back waiting.

Abortion is legal because fetuses, although recognized as being human in nature and living, are not recognized as persons and hence do not possess rights that must be protected. This leads to questions of personhood, and, more importantly, humanity.

Unprecedented advances in biotechnology demand that we re-examine not just what it means to be a person, but what it means to be human. For example, its not clear why a human clone, successfully delivered, would or would not be a person; is it simply by virtue of having a full complement of human DNA or is something else involved? Or, what if all the DNA is not human, as in a chimera, i.e. a genetic blend between species? What fraction of human DNA is necessary to legally qualify for personhood? Is DNA the issue? The answers will be determined by what we choose, as will the fate of many yet-to-be-created organisms, or persons, as the case may be.

In like manner, any point in fetal development selected to define personhood is, at best, arbitrary. Some hold that personhood begins at conception, while the law holds it is established at birth, whatever that means. With the advent of the modern c-section, our notions of what constitutes "birth" had to be revised. Note that in so called "partial birth" abortions, most of the fetus is actually outside the mother at the time the fetus is destroyed, although at 5 or 6 months, the fetus is not viable. But what if modern medicine learns how to keep a 3-month preemie alive until it is viable, what then?

Abortion is controversial because notions of personhood are either relative or absolute, and these are almost always mutually exclusive and deeply held moral convictions. Yet, history repeatedly shows that relativism regarding personhood can lead to dehumanization, which by definition, distinguishes an "us" from a "them". This distinction has always preceded killing on grand scales. (Hence, the argument that abortion is genocide.) Ironically, it is the perpetrators of genocide who are dehumanized, not their victims, by the self-induced alienation from humanity needed to perpetuate the psychological distinction between themselves and their victims. In the case of abortion, the fetus, person or not, has been distinguished from humanity to the extent that each year there are 1.25 million abortions in the US and 50 million worldwide.

The question here is not what a fetus is or is not, but rather, what "we" have become in order to kill so many of "them". The decision about personhood goes beyond abortion or choice. Our understanding of personhood determines not only who we are, but also what we will become. I hope that given a choice about what it means to be a person, those who currently qualify will choose wisely.

In the context of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, someone once asked “If killing an unborn baby by accident is manslaughter, what is killing it on purpose?" Clearly, intent is thought to be relevant.

But, this act is predicated on the notion that the mother alone has the right to determine the fate of the fetus. Under the law, a fetus has no rights because a fetus is not recognized as a person. To underscore the rights of the mother, specific provisions of the Act prevent prosecution of the mother in any case, even if the mother survives a suicide attempt, but the fetus does not.

What one person may call "hypocrisy" with respect to intent in the case of abortion, is more properly called "arbitrary" with respect to personhood. In order to resolve the controversy surrounding abortion, it will be necessary for us to reach consensus about what it means to be a person.

oooh boy... i couldnt resist this one

I am pro life. you made it, wanted or not, its living. I think you should deal with it. weather its soul comes now or later, or it can live outside its mother or not I dont care. weather you were all over your boyfriend/husband and fucked him silly or some guy dragged you into an alley and forced himself on you. its there. keep it, give it up, it's choice of the parent/parents. but its a baby in there as far as I'm concerned.

**********************************************************
***************************B U T **************************
**********************************************************

What I think and I believe and how I act is no one's business unless it hurts or affects them. What someone else believes or does with their body and its issue or potential issue is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I don't have to like it, I don't have to approve. Pro Lifers - get out your bibles or what have you and READ - Right or wrong - we have one thing NO ONE should be able to take away from us. FREE WILL. You do not and should not control me, Nor should I you when it concerns the one thing in life that is our own to control. our own body.

Pro-Life
 

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
Voltaire

My daughter got pregnant at age 15, by the time she told me, she was 8 months pregnant, and I wondered if she had told me sooner would I have suggested an abortion. Luckily I never had to make that choice, for if I had encouraged an abortion I would have never met my beautiful grandson. That said, I know that not all situations are the same for every unexpected and unwanted pregnancy. I do believe that abortion is evil, but I would never accuse a person seeking one as evil themselves. The act of abortion is a necessary evil in our society and should not be criminalized. There is no "right or wrong" in this debate, both sides have legitamate opinions and proofs and as the previous poster noted... we were given Free Will by our creator. It's up to the individual to decide what's best for themselves.

So far I think one of the best comments made in this thread was made by Midnight

When I was 15 I was a victim of sexual abuse - in blunt terms I was raped. There is no way in the world I could have carried any child that could have resulted from that to term, I had not been on birth control prior to the incident as I was not sexually active and those of you that work in medicine or look at the facts know that the morning after pill which is what I was given in the emergency room is not 100% effective. Until my next period after the attack I was terrified that I might have been pregnant, I cried pretty much every day, every time I looked at myself I felt ill thinking that I might have been infested with some parasite that was fathered by that man / boy. That's honestly how I felt about it, to me it wasn't a child it was a parasite, it was the ends of all my hopes for life, if I had been pregnant I would most likely have been kicked out of school (I went to a religiously based school) and I would have major problems going back and doing anything that I had planned for my life with a young child in tow.

If I had been pregnant from that attack every day would be like living the act over again. Would I have gotten an abortion - without a second thought. You can tell me that child has every right to live and that it is just as important as I am and I will admit a big part of me agrees with you but I would have still gone and done it anyway and I still would today.

After having made that decision and facing a part of me that I don't like very much I find I can't judge anyone else on making a similar decision for their own individual reasons.

Doesn't that big "BUT" make you essentially pro-choice, then? I mean, I feel the same way that you do about conception... and I myself could never imagine getting an abortion. But I fully support an individual's right to choose what's best for her in a situation like that (including Hyacinthe's very sensitive situation... I most likely would have done the same thing, and nearly did, in a related situation of my own), which is what makes me pro-choice, at least politically. Nothing about the idea of abortion is pleasant to me... the entire thing makes me rather nauseous when I think about it too much. But that doesn't mean that it's morally "wrong," just that it's a real tough decision that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Nah, it's not a very good comment. It completely avoids the most basic assumption of the pro-life viewpoint: abortion affects two bodies and is never harmless. The comment's a good sermon for the choir, but pretty irrelevant to any two-sided debate of the issue.

Few things are black and white, but I have trouble imagining a worldview in which abortion is nauseating, yet not immoral. (Unless you mean that it's nauseating like an appendectomy.)

My take:

Somehow we assign value to a life that hasn't even started yet (a fetus) more so than one in progress (our own).

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13.../wire_coat.jpg

I'm all about the desire to spread my genetics, but only when the $$$ is more stable.

THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SILENT BROTHERS FOR BABIES ON SPIKES PARTY.

Just one more boring rehash of a response, but... of course most pro-lifers, myself included, would challenge the idea that a fetus isn't a life in progress.

And there's really little to no basis for suggesting that pro-lifers ascribe more value to the unborn than to the born. You might have a case with the pro-lifers who would criminalize even life-saving abortions, but otherwise the claim is just not true.

Well, hey... here is an even MORE boring rehash:

I define life as someone who has to pay bills and put food on the table.

That's a life in progress. A fetus, a newborn, a toddler? Mindless human luggage.

Cute but useless.

If we took better care of ourselves, we could take better of our diaper-filling baggage.

YOUR life is in progress. What is more valuable? You or some translucent Cheeto-shaped fetus that hasn't done anything yet?


...

I know it isn't necessarily related, but what the hell is with the divine human superiority complex? We spay/neuter/castrate/butcher every other species on a whim without thought. We club baby seals, eat veal, etc.

How are humans worth more than any other creature?

We're all bits of skin.