But that's probably an incomplete description of your thoughts, because I'm betting that you'd require a better reason than "I can't take care of him" to kill a toddler, no?

Cute, useless, and deserving of the law's protection.

It absolutely should be legal. I don't want the government forcing their ideals and morals on my body.

The fallacy of this anti-choice position is the attempt to impose the morality of "life begins at conception" as the only valid moral position.

As a liberal, I'm rather alone in that I believe that abortion shouldn't be regarded any different than infanticide, and the distinction drawn between 1 second before and after passing through the birth canal is truly arbitrary and carries with it a frightening reality about the perception of life by some people.

"Where life begins" isn't a philosophical question. It's a scientific question and then proceeding that a moral question. There are right and wrong answers for these questions. Sperm and ovum are not alive, but become a living organism upon fertilization and then incubation. In that period between fertilization and incubation is where the tissue and cells go from being not alive to being alive. As soon as it becomes human, it becomes a part of a species that can achieve homeostasis, can metabolize, can grow, can adapt, can respond to stimuli, and can reproduce.

Aside from that, abortions, except in cases of rape, are a supreme act of irresponsibility and cowardice. If you don't want or have the ability to raise a child, don't have sex without protection (I'd never use less than three: pill, condom, spermacide). Pretty simple, right? Apparently not.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/new...nancy-6239.htm

People need to learn to be responsible. That's the lesson to take away from most abortions.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult for the mother to abort, of course, but why do you think it's difficult? Aside from the physical pain, it stands to reason that it may be guilt. In my HS, there were several abortions, and each of them felt extreme guilt over aborting the child. I did a paper back in school where I remember speaking to several women who had abortions who explained that they wished they either hadn't aborted the child or wish they had been responsible in the first place.

Totally, but the point still remains.

I updated/edited my original post while you were posting this one.

Slow down, killer. My brain operates at like... 386 speed. ;)

will...its absolutely a personal philosophical and moral question. There is no scientific or medical consensus that a sentient human life begins at conception or fertilization or incubation.

I agree with DC. Absolutely. Life isn't a heartbeat. Life is a state of mind, something that only the individual can define.

I have a very... heartless... idea of the value of human life.

My idea of human life is different than many who perhaps don't really stop to think about it in a practical sense. I believe that middle-of-life adults are worth more than children. My thoughts are such that I believe people aren't people until they're walking around outside the womanhole.

I'm not wrong because there is no right. I'm not wrong because I'm alive.

I'd suggest that abortion is a part of freedom. The freedom to not bring a life into the world that one doesn't desire.

The only reason there is no consensus is the same reason that religion is listed as an exception to delusion in the DSM IV, it's science giving in to faith. The reality is really, really simple. Sperm and egg are not alive because they are not of a species that can:
The fetus is human. That's the only statement necessary in the whole debate. The fetus is human, and is therefore a member of a species that can
And I realize I just lumped in pro life with religion. That's how I roll.

From the online medical dictionary:

fetus -->
foetus

<biology, embryology, obstetrics> A developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young (as opposed to laying eggs).

From approximately three months after conception the offspring take on a recognisable form (all parts in place, etc.). In human development, the period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy is the foetal period.

or:

Fetus
The unborn offspring of any viviparous mammals, in the postembryonic period, after the major structures have been outlined.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary...md.asp?q=fetus

or:

fe·tus (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

will...if you believe a living organism is a fetus at conception/fertilization, I would suggest that the medical consensus does not agree with you.

You'll have to go into some detail on why that's a fallacy. I don't think it is.

IMO its a fallacy to impose one moral standard as the only moral position that can or should be considered in the discussion.

In the discussion? Well, that's different. There's no sense in blocking an entire group of viewpoints from entering a discussion. I don't share this fallacy.

I don't understand why you associate it with the pro-life viewpoint, though. There's plenty of "la-la-la, I can't hear you" on both sides.

But not so much for scientific/medical reasons as for arbitrary definitional reasons. It's not science that's in opposition to will here. How does one use the scientific process to determine that a thing must have attributes X, Y, and Z in order to be considered a living organism?

Or, to cut right to the chase, why do these attributes need to exist before the organism becomes worthy of legal protection?

When it comes right down to it, science can only clarify facts. We get the values elsewhere.

I used the term "incubation".

It's only a moral case after you've established a consensus about when life is life. It's not fallacious in the least either way. I'd say the only real fallacies in this thread are the various appeals to emotion and false choices made by both sides.

So, what is a person?
 

A person has rights, a parasite does not.

What's the difference?

Do you mean why do humans have rights that animals don't?

I mean what is the difference between when a human fetus is considered a parasite (as some have said) and when it is considered a person such that it is endowed with legal rights?

On what basis is this distinction made?

For example, if location with respect to the birth canal is the determining factor, i.e. being "born", then consider the so called "partial birth abortion" in which most of the fetus is actually outside the mother's body, and the brains are sucked out while the head is still inside. From this, one might infer that it is the location of the head with respect to the birth canal that is the determining factor, not the rest of the body.

Is this how we determine personhood or is there something less dependent on circumstances involved?

Grow men and women are parasites on other people (remember Kato Kaelin?). That doesn't stop them from being human. It just describes their current method of deriving something while harming the host, be it food or fame. In actuality, I would suggest that the relationship between mother an unborn child is commensalistic (sp?), meaning that both host and guest eat together without harming one another, and aegistic, meaning that the guest is protected by the host without the host being harmed. They live in a relationship where one isn't really harmed. There are processes of change in both organisms, of course, but calling them harmful is tricky.
Because one can be a parasite and human, a distinction cannot be certain.
? What?

you said "...men and women are parasites on other people...That doesn't stop them from being human."

No one is asserting that fetuses are not living or not human. The question is about them being persons with legal rights.

In this age of genetic engineering, a chimera might contain mostly human DNA, blended with some other species, but will it be a person? Is the DNA complement the issue? Is so, how is the humanness of that DNA determined so the person-ness can be ascribed?

As for the issue of having "birth" be the issue, as the law seems to dictate, what exactly does it mean to be "born" and is this really the issue that should determine if a fetus changes into a person at that point?

That's rather surprising. Normally in a conversation about whether a fetus should or shouldn't be aborted comes down to whether the fetus is alive. The question of whether an alive person does or doesn't have rights is so obvious that it's not even brought up. It's naturally assumed.
There are two classifications for living human being as far as levels of rights: adult (usually 18+) or child (usually less than 18). Assuming you believe a fetus is alive, it is a living human being under the age of 18, therefore it seems reasonable to be that a fetus gets the same rights as any other child. They can't vote, but you can't kill them.

IMHO. (btw, to DC, all the above is IMHO. I hope that you know the above is what makes perfect sense, to me).
Monkeys share most DNA with humans, but that doesn't make them human in any way. They have animal right because they aren't of the species homo sapiens. Scientists at the University of Rochester recently discovered a copy of the genome of a bacterial parasite residing inside the genome of its host species. That doesn't mean they're the same species, though.
Birth is the passing of the fetus through the vaginal cavity or through an incision, alive. The fetus turns into an infant. They are a living member of our species before and after that process (unless something goes wrong).

I would recommend reading this article , to anyone seriously interested in figuring out what this debate boils down to. Though I admit a Bias because of the author, I find the arguments compelling and fair.

A small Excerpt:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

And my favorite part:

That's a good read, Tec. Also, the author is a genius!

Using brain capability as a marker as to what is or isn't human, I would wonder how certain individuals who are mentally disabled would measure up to a child at around 30 weeks. I would suggest that it is moral not to kill people who are mentally disabled, but I wonder how they might relate to this discussion.

Thats one of the finer points the debate brings out...Lets Call it " the Terry Shivo argument". It seems to me there are two differing pieces involved here, One focused on the Fetus, and another on the ability to think. Both aspects are best dealt with by allowing a guardian to make decisions. But must of course be tempered by societal laws placed to forbid going to extremes. Once an agreed upon baseline for thought has been established, I would hope we could clarify the vast majority of cases and allow for uniform implementation of a standard for care. There will however, always be exceptions to any law created by man...it should be expected.

We must also consider the actual wiring required in the first place, as I would think a mentally challenged individual has at least managed to form the connections to the brain, and has some measurable activity within the organ. Damage to the brain may however, make these connections pointless in the context of thought.

Willtravel,

You said "Normally in a conversation about whether a fetus should or shouldn't be aborted comes down to whether the fetus is alive. The question of whether an alive person does or doesn't have rights is so obvious that it's not even brought up. It's naturally assumed."

You are using the terms "fetus" and "person" interchangeably, and this is precisely the point of under consideration. "Fetus" is a medical term, "person" is a legal term. A fetus is not a person until it is legally recognized as such.

You said "There are two classifications for living human being as far as levels of rights: adult (usually 18+) or child (usually less than 18). Assuming you believe a fetus is alive, it is a living human being under the age of 18, therefore it seems reasonable to be that a fetus gets the same rights as any other child. They can't vote, but you can't kill them."

This brings up the other term that comes up, "child". Legally, a "child" has already been born. Some like to use the term "unborn child", but in the legal context of the word "child", "unborn child" is an oxymoron. That's like saying "un-mature adult".

As for DNA, from your comment I infer that you would agree that DNA is not the basis on which to determine "personhood", is that correct?

Lets say 30 weeks is when your brain 'kicks in'.

So what.

My son was born at 26 weeks. I suppose I had the right to kill him for the next four?

Ustwo,

You said "Lets say 30 weeks is when your brain 'kicks in'. So what."

Exactly. Why should brain development be a factor in determining the legal status of personhood? I infer from your remark that you would not endorse any arbitrary stage in fetal development as the criteria for establishing "personhood" under the law. Is that correct?

If so, what criteria do you suggest?

Of course. I think that the same rules applied to poor Terry should be applied to the fetus. If it's in pain and it's going to die, then it can be aborted. I don't think anyone would argue that point.
Yeah. I'm not a medical expert of any kind, so I can't compare developmental points of a fetus' brain to that of any level of individual who was born with a mental disability.

I don't see intellect as a qualifier for the right to live. And I do believe that humans have a right to live.
Willravel. :D
I thought you were using person in a philosophical or moral sense. My mistake.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1516&bold=||||

The American legal term is either homo sapiens (derived from definition 1) or a corporation. As a fetus is homo sapiens, it is a person, legally.
Actually, I made another mistake. It's adult and minor, so far as the law goes. A minor is quite literally anyone under the age of 18. A fetus is under the age of 18. That is not incorrect. "Fetus" does not have a legal meaning.
Apples and oranges.

BTW, if you're interested in using the quote feature, one only needs to end with [/QUOTE] and begin with [QUOTE]

I might be me misinterpreting your position, but the only way one could consider a fetus a 'parasite' would be in the cases of rape and, last I checked, less than .03% of all abortions done were due to rape. The overwhelming majority are done because of "Unreadiness to be a parent", to which I say they shouldn't be having sex if they can't handle the consequences.

...But that's just too hard of a concept for people to understand :orly:.

I enjoy agreeing with those I don't usually agree with. I couldn't agree more.

Yeah...it does seem we humans have a genetic perpensity to try to reproduce....as do all creatures. Unfortunately (Or fortunately) we also like to practice quite a bit.

Its hardwired into our brains dude....can't really change that.

So is killing to eat. We manage to avoid that for the most part. I mean I've only killed a few fish, and it bored me stupid.

Also, you can have sex with protection and greatly reduce the probability of pregnancy. The reality is that some people simple aren't responsible.

The majority of abortions (over 90%) are done in the first trimester and most of those in the first 8 week before fetal development.

It still gets down to when life begins and that is a moral issue and since there is no medical consensus, IMO, should be left to the woman.

To anti-choice folks, I would still ask why your belief on when life begins should be imposed on those who believe otherwise.

Sure you can. I like to call it 'self-control'. What really irks me the most, though, is this: In 2005, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15 – 44 had an abortion (5%) and 48% of those women had at least one previous abortion. That means that approximately 1 women out of 100 aged 15 - 44 who had an abortion in 2005 also had a previous one. Put another way, nearly half of all women who had an abortion done in 2005 had at least one previous abortion.

(Taken from the previous page, because I don't think anyone read it.)

Link to abortion statistics for 2005.

Run through that link. You'll find that the two most popular responses given for having abortions are "Can't afford a baby right now", "Having a baby would change my life", "I'm mentally unready for a baby" and/or "I have too many children already". Since when did it become okay to be irresponsible?

Furthermore, if a man would try to use any of the above responses, he would be laughed at and be told that he should have kept his pants on. So why not hold women to the same standards?

Maybe the standards would rightfully be the same when men can get pregnant :)
'
And you still havent answered why your moral belief on when life begins should be imposed on women who have a different belief.

If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one.

Also, if you are willing to force a woman to have a child, you should be first in line to adopt that baby once it is born.

No, the imposition really is a matter of perspective. It's an imposition when a police officer pulls me over for going 120 on hwy 101. I'm not likely to crash. I don't do it when there's other traffic, and it's my car (my car, my choice). Still, they pull me over and no one questions it. No one calls it an imposition, which really is the reality. The majority of those who speed don't get in accidents, too.

The thing is: it's my perspective. When I start driving fast, it's actually me who's imposing my perspective on others who might be around me or who love me (if I do crash, they get sad... hopefully).

Relating that to abortion, the mother is forcing her perspective on the fetus who can't defend him or herself, by killing it. I recognize this is a catch-22. I do have to say the "my body my choice thing" is rather weak, though. Just because something is living inside you doesn't mean it's your property. That's a completely unreasonable statement. If it were reasonable, I'd walk into a very nice jewelry shop, ask to see the finest platinum, 4 karat rings, turn around, put them in a condom, and eat them. It's in my body, after all.

Done.

will....you are ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions are pre-fetal.

It still comes down to when the collection of cells becomes a living sentient being with rights and that is a moral choice.

Here's a better question which no one answered: Why are they having sex if they can't deal with the consequences? Didn't we all learn that life is full of choices, and there are always consequences-- Good or bad-- For those choices?

Whereas it comes to children, men are held far more accountable than their female counterparts. Can you imagine what would happen if a man showed up in court and said "I shouldn't have to take care of that baby, as I'm just not ready to be a father!"?

I'll support abortion the day men can willingly decide to NOT pay child support without being hounded by the government.

Sorry, but I dont see how that is a better question, but rather an attempt to ignore the question of why your moral belief on when life begins should be imposed on society as a whole.

Which is why we're still at zero on this one.

And I misused the word fetus. Apologies. I intended to say unborn child, meaning the human life form that exists between fertilization (zygote) and birth. That's including but not limited to fetus.

As IL pointed out, though the irresponsible behavior is the cause of the whole issue (except in .03% of the cases).

How about it's immoral to have intercourse someone without adequate protection when you aren't willing or able to raise a child? Wouldn't you call that immoral behavior?

So....back to the male perspective of domination over every situation. Ever think about what this means to the women that must carry a child?

And I wouldnt accept "unborn child" as a proper characterization. :)

Which is why we're still at zero.

BTW, I think abortion is wrong in many instances and I would counsel a woman against it, but I wont force my morals on others who bear the burden (no pun intended) of making that most difficult moral choice.

I'm pretty sure I've said this three times now but... Women should be held to the same standards that men are when it comes to parenthood. You make it, you take care of it. Simple :)

Don't have sex if you're not willing to suffer the consequences. We, as men, have to abide by this code so why not women? What do you think would happen if a man tried to argue that he's mentally unprepared to raise a child? He'd be laughed at and ridiculed. Yet, if a women says it, then suddenly it's an acceptable reason to forego parenthood?

Surely you see something wrong with that situation.

Lets start with pay equity for woman and perhaps some women may take the issue of affordability of having a child out of the equation in making that moral decision. Simple :)

So you're saying that it's easier to raise a child as a man than it is as a woman because you'll make more? Really, I can't begin to tell you how faulty such an assumption is.

Regardless of how much you make (Or don't make), one should be responsible for his/her actions. You're not ready to be a parent? Then either buy protection or don't have sex. It's not a hard concept to understand and I'll continue to repeat it for as long as it takes.

A woman shouldn't be able to shun her parental duties simply because she's a woman. Like I said, I'll agree with abortion when men don't have to pay child support. Of course, most of the abortion rights activists will argue that giving men the option to not pay child support would increase reckless behavior. Of course, said people also ignore the fact that a good chunk of people who've had an abortion done also had one or more in the past.

...Oh well for that whole 'reckless behavior' crap.

And yet you still havent explained why your moral position on when life begins (when there is no medical consensus) should be imposed on others.

She had sex, too. The man wasn't the only party being irresponsible (except in .03%, of course).
Pre-born human life form?
Early developing person?
Dennis Franz?
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...owicz-head.jpg
The law is society forcing people to make the moral choice.
You got it. I'd support that 1000%.
It's reasonable to me. I still see the real imposition as that of the mother on the *as yet to be named preborn*. That's the imposition.

will...do you think the morning after pill is taking the life of a "yet to be named preborn"?

Simply because there is no 'medical consensus' doesn't mean that people should be able to do what they want willy nilly. I mean, I'd LOVE for that position to be applied elsewhere in life. I'd be a very happy person indeed :thumbsup:

A woman isn't 100% responsible for making a child and she isn't just dealing with 'her body', so she shouldn't get absolute say.

ahhhh...."elsewhere in life"

You see thats the difference. There is consensus on "life" outside the womb.

Nice way to twist around what I was saying :no:.

The point I was making is that 'No consensus' =/= 'Right'. You still haven't explained to me why women shouldn't have to be responsible for the choices they make.

There was no twist.

It still comes down to the core issue of when life begins.

It prevents the egg from even sticking to the wall. That means within the 6 or so days it takes for fertilization to take, the thing just slips right out. No reproduction has occurred. I don't think it makes sense to go back too far, otherwise masturbation would be abortion.

This logic applies to a TV show you don't like, but not to life.

IF you think that human life starts at conception then abortion is in fact murder at any time. You wouldn't tolerate people killing each other in the supermarket anymore than you would at the unplanned parenthood clinic.

I personally don't really care that much. Abortion is evolution in action. If a mother doesn't have the natural desire to have children, her gene's should be flushed out of the gene pool.

(masturbates furiously)

Oh, look! I just performed an abortion! I killed 50% of a new life!

That assumes that the woman doesn't ever reproduce again after an abortion. Many do when they're old enough to be responsible.

Everytime some guy spills his seed or a woman menstruates, thats life down the drain. Both sperm & ovum are alive, so lets all become catholic or fundamentalist christians and have numerous children we cant support.

The days of being fruitful & multiplying & covering the face of the earth are over. Time for a more realistic approach.

Dave: am I crazy or am I a pro life atheist and you a pro choice Christian?

I don't believe in "populating god's army" or whatever they call it.

if someone isn't ready to be a parent, or if they are too irresponsible to handle the consequences of having sex, are they really someone you think is going to be responsible enough to raise a child?

do you think it's moral for someone to raise a child when they aren't responsible enough to raise? is it moral to have a child if you can't give it the care, love and attention, the emotional support, the education, etc, to be a productive and good member of society?


since when does the law have anything to do with morality?

you seem to be making an arbitrary choice here... why is taking a pill that prevents implantation (after fertilization) any different than a procedure or pill that removes the implanted cells?

if you think making an arbitrary goalpost for when halting a pregnancy is okay and when it isn't, why should your stopping point take precedence over mine?

and if you think that abortion should never be allowed, that your goal post is set at the beginning, you do need to go all the way back, at least to the moment of fertilization. the only reason i'd say you can't go so far back to call masterbation "abortion" (hey, any one of those sperms could be a potential person you're killing) is because women ovulate monthly and you can't really call that killing a potential person because they're not doing it by choice.

You're not crazy, isn't life strange???:)

This is a joke? Or are you being cynical? I'm sorry, but it's tough to pick up on without nonverbal communication.
Neither a sperm nor an egg is a homo sapiens. When they converge and start dividing, they cease to be ovum and sperm and become a homo sapiens. I'd hardly call that arbitrary. Birth, on the other hand, is simply the difference between developmental stages. I don't see it as being much different than a girl getting her first period.
Mine represents the change between two non-living entities and one living entity. Assuming your arbitrary goal post is birth, the kid is a human before and after birth. They're just in a bigger room and they eat through their mouths.
There is ovum and sperm, then they combine, and as I understand it it takes something like 6 days for the egg to become fertilized and start into the process of turning into you or me. It's in that transition period that things like the morning after pill works, so it makes sense to use them. It's not about a *potential* person*, it's about a human being, meaning a living member of the species homo sapiens.

I've got the perfect solution to this problem: t's called "Stop having sex". Shocking, I know. But maybe if I say it enough times, it'll start to sink in

I'd use the term Christian very losely.

cynical more than joking... and while yes, sometimes laws are attempts at forced morality, in my opinion, rarely is the law about what's "moral."

unless what i remember from biology class is a bit rusty, i believe you just described fertilization. which you previously said that until implanted, it's okay to abort through plan b.

we shall probably have to agree to disagree.


according to what you said earlier, your arbitrary point does not represent the change from two non-living to one living entity. you said implantation. either i'm reading you wrong, you said it wrong, or...?

i'm personally pro-abortion. and until a the fetus is viable, i think abortion should be legal. (just letting you know my arbitrary point of no return.)

i think we understand fertilizaton differently. my understanding is that fertilization is when the sperm and the egg combine. it takes just an instant. it may take another 6 days for implantation, but what difference does that make? they've combined into one cell, and the process has started. to say it's okay to wait 6 more days seems to me to be as arbitrary as saying the process can go on for 6 more weeks or 6 more months. it's still arbitrary. why should your arbitrary point take precedence over mine?

until birth, it's only a potential person... until it can successfully survive outside the womb, it's still only has potential. yes, it's a stage in the development of a homo sapian, it is a member of our species, but it's not a person (legally, morally or philosopically imo).

anyway, i'm about to hit the movies, i'm out for the night!

happy friday!

in a perfect world... but this one ain't perfect!


why do you get to define what is and isn't christian?

Maybe I should say, "In an ideal world, laws are agreed on morality that society and government supports and even enforces."
Right, so when fertilization is complete, you no longer have egg and sperm; you've got a human being.
I probably said it wrong. I remember a lot from human biology (4-5 years ago), but not everything. I hope the above makes it more clear. If my biology is still lacking, I might still have my textbook.
I guess that would make me "anti-choice". No surprise there.
I'll have to crack open that book, I guess.
Legally, it's not defined. Morally and philosophically, it's up to the individual, as of right now.
Balls of Fury? Me too!

Hi-ho!

Is anybody happy that they weren't aborted while only potential?

-just curious. I know I am.

Jeez... What a well thought out response. Yes, I know the world isn't perfect. I don't see what that has to do with being accountable for one's own actions. Explain, plz.

Joke? >.>

Read my comment, then read the comment I commented on.

the meaning of "anyone"
 

While it is true that a fetus is under the age of 18, it is not established that a fetus qualifies as "anyone". Any "one". "One" in this usages means "person", when recognized as a legal entity endowed with rights.

Thanks I_L :) , I don't care for that term anyway, as far as describing myself. As I already stated in the 'We Are God' thread, some may consider me a non-denominational Christian, but that really doesn't cover it.

There are already laws regarding the number of children you can have in China, and although they're loosely enforced, they will no doubt become more strict. India may follow soon, who knows. This planet has a limited amount of resources and laws governing child birth will have to be considered every where.

Adult = homo sapiens 18 or over
Minor = homo sapiens under 18

A baby is a member of our species.

And a fetus does have rights. Ever heard of situations where a pregnant woman is beaten? If the baby dies, the charge is murder. Talk about a double standard. It's only a person when the mom wants it. THAT is the part that makes me sick.

unborn victims of violence act
 

willtravel,

A). The definition for person that you listed defined a person as "n. 1) a human being". You then said "The American legal term is either homo sapiens (derived from definition 1)"

Where is this derived? Is that your derivation? The law dictionary does not provide any information on the term "homo sapiens". By the way, the complete taxonomic term for modern mankind is "homo sapiens sapiens".

B) Regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, someone once asked me “if killing an unborn baby by accident is manslaughter, what is killing it on purpose?" This person implies that intent should 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 calls "hypocrisy" with respect to intent in this kind of case, 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.

From an ecological standpoint, pro choice would be beneficial to our earth considering the overconsumption of most 1st world countries. 1 American = 100 3rd world persons. Thus, if you're one of those people believing in pro life consider this: With pro choice there will be more resources for your offspring. Believe it or not there are couples that are intellectually competant that have no desire for a child. It is very easy for one to get pregnant; all it takes is a few drinks and one mind slip.

If, like many people including myself, you believe abortion is murder, I suspect your statement might change.

If you oppose murder don't do it? Not good enough.

I've heard similar reasons before for why some couples are childless.

Its a bunch of crap really.

The western worlds population is shrinking, the US would be stable as is. The only growth is from immigration.

So you are not 'saving resources for you children' you are 'freeing resources for other peoples children'. There are parts of the world that are overpopulated, but its a local issue, the 'west' as we call it, isn't one of those parts.

So if you think not having children is saving the planet in some way you are sadly mistaken.

If a woman is brutally raped, lets sasy by 10 people, should she be forced to carry it around for 9 months and then give birth to it? Should she then be plagued by thoughts about what is it like now?

What was that scary statistic I read recently? Some end-of-the-world book about Muslims taking over the planet through rabbit-like reproduction.

...

Anyways, it was something vaguely silly like:

By 2075ish... a staggeringly significant portion of the earth's population will be of middle eastern / asian ethnicity.

Such "primitive" cultures simply have (on average) 4 times as many children as the American 2-and-change.

Whitey is going to be extinct.

...

Not a bad thing, maybe.

Would you be in favor of no abortion except in cases of rape?

Its a nice red herring, but it really isn't the argument.

In my opinion, MY opinion only applies to ME. If I could get pregnant (which I cannot), I would be opposed to getting an abortion simply because its my eventual Kid. If You could get pregnant (which you cannot), I would have no right to tell you not to do whatever you want with your body, any more than I could tell you not to drink Whiskey, or smoke Tobacco.

Its simply none of my business, and unless its your wife we are talking about...its not yours either.

So you are putting a child on the level of a harmful drug?

I'm not anti-abortion myself, but the 'pro' arguments really need to quit trying to sugar coat the issue.

With abortion you are killing a viable human. It doesn't matter that its only viable while with the mother. For one thing children are only 'viable' with adult care for the first decade or so of their life, another issue will be there will come a time when you can have an 'artificial womb' in which case the argument will be void.

In some odd way this reminds me of the arguments for music/software piracy. Everyone is trying to hard to justify it and can't say 'Yes I'm stealing it'. Its time to face the music here too, "Yes an abortion kills a human, but I don't think its that big a deal."

No one wants to be the bad guy but an abortion is a purely selfish act, even when it is justifiable, and I do think you can have a justifiable abortion.

So a woman should be forced to carry the child that resulted in a rape?

EDIT: Let us say for just a moment that (gods forbid) your wife were raped. Let us also for a moment say that she got knocked up by this vile person. You are saying, since a baby is a human and should not be murdered, that you would force your wife to carry a child not your own and then raise this child? A child that will remind your wife every day of her life that she was raped?

Surely if you dont believe in murdering your child, you couldnt possibly believe in giving part of your wife up for adoption. That would be like... abandonment!

I never said that, not even close.

I said its a red herring argument of the pro-abortion crowd.

Its one of those horrible things where most people, even most anti-abortion types would say an abortion is justifiable.

But the vast, vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.

What I asked if a law was passed that made abortion only allowed in cases of rape would you support that?

If not then the rape issue isn't your real issue and its not the point, its just an awful example used to justify the true motivation.

If my wife was raped and became pregnant I would want her to get an abortion, but honestly it would be the morning after pill so it wouldn't get to that stage.

I'm not aware of a pro-abortion crowd....there's your red herring.

I am aware of a pro-choice crowd that recognizes a woman's right to choose based on her own moral standards....not yours, mine, or the governments.

ROFL, calm down, oh great kemosabe. I wasnt referring to you. Silly llama. There have been many people who have replied to this particular thread. Mayhaps it is guilt that led you to think that it was?

You can be a completely open term. How endearing that you would give me that much power. :D Dear me, belly laughs do tend to hurt after a bit.

In response to you, however, no, rape isnt my only argument. It was the one I chose to use. How fair would that be if I did all the arguing for pro-choicers?

haven't posted much so be easy on me please. I think every situation is different. imo some parents dont deserve children. However, I have met some amazing people that are a product of poor parenting. I guess I am just wishy washy on the whole subject. Most of the time I lean torward keeping it legal. I am not fond of our govt making desicions for us.

It's a shame really. I think it'd be hilarious to see a prego with a goatee.

.03% of all abortion cases result from rape. If 10,000 women get an abortion, odds are maybe 3 are from rape. Almost all pregnancies (statistically, 9,997/10,000) are from lazy and irresponsible behavior (on the part of both the woman and the man). It's those women that are killing the baby because they couldn't just control themselves and act like an adult. Let's say before I was married I had 35 sexual partners. Pill + condom + spermacide, no exceptions. Statistically speaking, I would have had to lay over 10-20x the people to be anywhere near the area where I would have statistically in danger of having a kid.

Based on the sequence of posting, I am the only one you would have been responding to, unless of course you are just randomly responding to past posts without quoting, if so I'd recommend you use the quote feature as to clear up the confusion.

So please keep that amused smugness, 'your so vain you think this song is about you' attitude toned down a bit you have used it with me in the past as a smoke screen.

At any rate, the rape aspect really wasn't the issue, just a secondary reason to bolster your position which has nothing itself to do with rape, so why bring it up?

You, Ustwo, could never have an abortion, so why bring that up? Gods forbid it be a long thread that requires reading in sections, thus replying in them. As for the quote feature. I use it when I feel the need, thank you for pointing it out to me.

It is a discussion, I am discussing- much like yourself. I call them as I see them, something you should be used to. Kindly remove your bruised pride from my table since that is where it appears to have been left. It isnt my dish to wash.

Mr. Ravel, you are very much so correct, however, I have known a girl who got pregnant twice on the pill and twice on Norplant. It happens. There is always the argument about the pregnancy threatening the life of the motner and/or the child. Also, the child being born with deformaties and/or disease it can never hope to survive without insane amounts of pain and suffering. Why force the woman to go through carrying the child/ delivering the child all for naught?

I doubt I have to say this to you Mr. Ravel, but given previous circumstances, I shall. I am not raising the above to argue with you. I am merely trying to voice the other side. Nor am I trying to convert you to pro-choice. Perhaps to admit that there may be a time when an abortion may be acceptable. :D

You'd think she would have stopped using it after the first time. The pill clearly states that there is a failure rate.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3105699.html

When you combine them, the failure rate drops off considerably, when they work at contraception from different angles. The condom stops most sperm, but if it breaks, it has to deal with spermicide and the pill. It's when you do your homework before you get to home base that you tend to be the most safe.
We're still talking about a small number with failed contraception and there are only a handful of deformity related abortions in the past 20 years.

An overwhelming amount of abortions are the result of unprotected sex. I take issue with killing a baby because Lolita didn't feel like taking a pill or Frank didn't want to wrap it up.
There are some times when the mother isn't at fault. Rape (which includes incest because shagging your family member means your nuts, and shagging a crazy person is rape) deformation, and the mother being in danger means that the abortion isn't the mother's fault, but that still doesn't make it right imho.

Agreed... agreed... agreed... agreed.

I am not a fan of people using it as a form of birth control either. I would, however, rather there not be a baby than for there to be a baby no one wanted that would be mistreated or abused or ended up in a dumpster.

The sad thing is, we can only go by the number of rapes reported. I never reported mine, I miscarried the baby. No one need get sympathetic, I am not sad over it. Truth is, most women feel any range of emotion that in many cases stops a woman from reporting.

Then there is my whole "the world is overpopulated anyway" theory. I guess I am just more cold and unfeeling than I used to be. I wont lose any sleep over abortion though.

Thank you Mr. Ravel, for being you and not taking anything I type to heart. It gives me the warm fuzzies. :) I adore opposing views with you!

Because, as we know all know, humans are asexual.

:rolleyes:

Why are Americns so obsessed with what other people are doing with their genitals?

Abortions are just 'what other people are doing with their genitals'? No way, jose.

I believe if we really, really were able to stop obsessing over what other people were doing with their genitals we could make abortion obsolete.

FREE AND EASY ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL FOR EVERY WOMAN AND TEENAGE GIRL IN AMERICA 2008!

Solution driven commentary? Just one more reason why I love you so. :)

Dude....get over it, you were born without Ovaries. At least you can write your name in the snow. This whole control over women thing became kinda frowned upon a decade ago, so just quit acting like you can tell them what to do....Hell, you might even find out they are pretty smart. Then you can become an Infinite Winner.

That's a lovely thought, but who's going to pay for it?

My personal views on abortion aren't relevant here, so I'll go straight to what I think government policy ought to be. Women should have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion. The opinion of the father should be given no legal weight. In countries with socialised health care (mine, for example), abortions should only be paid for by the state if a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if continuing the pregnancy would be abnormally dangerous for the mother.

It's too bad we're not socialist.

"Socialist" can mean many different things... be careful what you wish for.

How does this thread get dug up out of the darkness every so often? It gets bumped and then disappears and then gets bumped and disappears again. Very strange.

It's an important topic. People always have something to say about abortions.

I realize it is a lovely thought and more like a pipe dream. Ideally we would pay for it in the interest of giving women a more concrete investment in the idea of birth control and curbing, what I consider to be, the rather barbaric practice of abortion as a means of birth control. Which, whether we like to admit it or not, is its greater purpose. After all, the public already pays a great deal for it the whether they like it or not.

So the big deal-breakers are the money (always the money, the money, the fucking money - why does the government seem to either be swimming in resources or flat broke?) and the pro-lifers who don't want women to be so empowered to engage in sex out of wedlock, especially their teenage daughters.

I fully admit to being a dreamer on this subject. Then again, if I were Queen, things would be different. :)