costello

so what your trying to say is that we are all alive, but not really? when does life begin then? what defines a life? i stand by the belief that life begins when that "cell" is created. to take that life away is murder, especially when that entity cant do anything for itself like prevent its own demise.

__________________
"They don't even know what it is to be a fan. Y'know? To truly love some silly little piece of music, or some band, so much that it hurts."

-Almost Famous

filtherton

Originally posted my matthew330
It's not funny really. The woman has much, much more invested biologically in carrying a child to term than the man. The man can just up and leave whenever he wants. He is not forced to carry a prechild in his belly for nine months. What would seem selfish to me is the idea of a man looking at a woman he impregnated and thinking, "fuck, I got it rough."

Abortion as birth control? Seems a bit high priced compared to the pill or condoms, or whatever other method available. I don't know about the philosophical view, but i guess i wouldn't advocate dentures as a method of tooth care either.

ForgottenKnight

I vote pro choice. Here's my reasoning:

It very much depends on the situation. I believe that if you can't suffer the consequenses of having unsafe sex, then you shouldn't have unsafe sex. While being pro life, you should realize that there are situations in life, maily rape, where there was no choice. In situations like that there needs to be the option of abortion. Otherwise you're forcing a child on a woman without respect to her rights.

__________________
"People say I'm strange, does that make me a stranger?"

matthew330

I'll rephrase the question, I think you got the point and just couldn't address it. If you ask any pro-choice person if they have a problem with a particular individual having 8 abortions, they will say yes. And they won't elaborate with a "it costs too much." This is a recognition that there is something inherantly wrong with abortion - and if it's not that it is the taking of a human life, i'd like to know what they think it is.

Off-topic, but we all know pro-abortion is much more accurate a description than pro-choice. When a young girl walks into planned parenthood abortion is practically shoved down her throat with very little information on any other alternatives. What kind of choice is that. "Prechild"?? Come on now - you can say it - psst, there's a baby in there little girl.

matthew330

If you haven't heard - she does have the option of abortion. But those situation make up, what - less than 2% of all abortions. Pro-choice people are inevitably forced to reference these to defend their position but it is an undeniable fact that somewhere around 95-98% of all abortions are for social reasons.

Ya know, their are times in life where murdering another human being is the only option: war and self-defense being two. Why don't we make all murder, no matter what the circumstance, legal for the same reason

Mael

i'm pro-choice. and yes, i think someone having 8 abortions is wrong. is it because i think they're taking a human life? nope. no. sorry. it's because it shows a major lack of responsibility on the part of the person getting the 8 abortions. she's too lazy or weak to be bothered/force condom usage. she's having lots of unsafe sex for whatever reason, and that isn't good.

now let me ask you this... is that the type of person you want raising another human being?

Himbo

Here's what it comes down too. We has human beings have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Plain and simple. You cannot take that away from anybody. I don't see what is being accomplished here, how about we get to the root of the problem. How about we take all this money that is being donated to these pro-life, and pro-choice groups and put it to some better use. Let's put it towards educating people about safe sex and the different methods of it. This way we get to the ROOT of the problem. The gov't will never outlaw abortion . . . . it will never happen . .

Lebell

Just a question Mathew330,

Have you actually been in a Planned Parenthood office before?

I say that because I have and I have seen all sorts of literature on abstenance and adoption. Of course, I haven't actually been to a clinician for an abortion so I don't know what is said there, but so far my experience isn't what you are describing.

And no, Pro-Choice is exactly what I am.

If you need to see my reasoning, please refer to my essay I posted on page 2 of this thread.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

matthew330

that's it? - to answer your question yeah i have been. But what i said came from hearing planned parenthood people talk. Is that it?

almostaugust

Im not someone who thinks that abortion is a great practice, but i think its alright under the right circumstances. I think a woman's body is pretty much her domain and her call.

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'

matthew330

again, unless you decide to have the baby. Then your "your body, your call" independence cry is thrown out the window and it becomes "it takes two to tango."

If men have absolutely no say in your decision to abort (if the man wants you to keep the baby), then be consistent about it and when you arbitrarily decide to keep the baby - the man should have every right to say "hey, it was your choice - later"

Obviously i don't agree with any of the above situations - just pointing out the hypocrisy

numist_net

well.. it should be a discussion between the woman and the man (if hes man enough to stick around, in most cases), but ultimately, it is the woman's choice.

As far as what I would do? I'd let her make the choice, and then live with its consequences, even if that means I have to raise my own kid.

my pence on the subject.

matthew330

An essay for Lebell
http://www.gargaro.com/abortion.html

Lebell

I'm a bit confused by this question.

Anyway, thanks for the link.

I wish I could say that it's an interesting read, but truthfully, she breaks no new moralistic or ethical ground and fails to address the issues I summed up in my essay and my conclusion.

I'll also add that maybe she hasn't heard verbal abuse and intimidation from the pro-life side at an abortion clinic, but I have.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

matthew330

To be perfectly honest - the question "that's it?" confused me a bit too when i reread, please disregard. I think i was replying to another board at the same time. did i mention i was a lil hung over at the time too - on a tuesday - how'd that happen?

Anyway - i didn't assert that the article was breaking moralistic ground. Just well researched and addressed far more issues than yours did (no diss intended). Her article wasn't written in response to yours, but I will now - i was kind of rushing earlier, and just posted that in hopes of some sort of response from you. But whatever, this is what I think in a nutshell about your essay:

You conveniently compare the life of a week old and the life of an 8 and a half month old and acknowledge that there is a grey area in between. You acknowledge life in the 8 1/2 month old by the defination given and state that the week old does not meet the criteria. Your solution to the grey area: restrictions on abortion as the baby evolves. You don't define these restrictions for obvious reasons (i.e. - they are not defineable). My problem with this is that because you cannot pinpoint a time in which you believe the fetus is "alive", the only safe assumption is that it is alive at conception. I'm surprised that your essay acknowledges and leaves open the possibility that a human life (by your own definition) can be and is at times ended - it is murdered. And your justification for this murder is "preservation of a woman's self-determination."

AngelHands

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread yet, but I'm going to add my opinion.

1) Life begins at conception. That's it. I think it's wrong to think it's ok to take a life (especially from a baby that can't defend itself). That child is just as alive and just as human inside the womb as it is outside of the womb.
2) Abortion is not a way to solve a problem.
3) Men should definitely have a say in what happens. If a man is willing to step up and accept responsibility for his actions, more power to him.

However, making abortion illegal does take away a piece of freedom. Abortion isn't right, but some women out there will do it whether it's legal and in a clinic somewhere safe(r) or illegal and not in a clinic done professionally (or whatever term you choose to use there).


That's the short version...

__________________
lost and broken

Lebell

"conveniently" is a loaded word and truthfully, I don't much care for it, since it implies to me some sort of dishonesty on my part. I used the extreme ends of the spectrum to illustrate the difficulties involved in reaching an ethical consensus as to what it means to be human and a person.

I also believe I state quite clearly that the laws as they stand are a reasonable compromise to the question of when the fetus becomes a person and should not be easily aborted; i.e. no restriction to abortion in the first two trimesters and some restrictions in the third trimester.

And no one has argued that a zygote is not 'alive' in the biological sense nor that it is not uniquely human in the genetic sense, but that it is not yet a human being in the sense of what we understand that to be (which I went on to define).

The alternative, ignoring the qualities that we attribute to persons and using your "better safe than sorry" criteria, is to grant every newly fertalized egg equal full legal status as a human being, meaning that the mother has NO ability to terminate the pregnancy, even if the preganancy was due to rape, the fetus was deformed, etc.

Is this really what you are suggesting?

Because ethically, you can do nothing else without appearing a hypocrite, accepting your own criteria for legal abortions (murder, in your words) while rejecting mine.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mael

just to point out, and while i do agree with you on the idea that this double standard really sucks, it's irrelevant to the debate.

Eowyn_Vala

I was brought up to be pro-life. For the longest time that is what position I took whenever anyone asked me about abortion. In the last year or so I have changed my opinion to pro-choice. I am not saying that I now go around promoting abortion, but I do believe that no one can tell someone else whether they should be able to have an abortion or not. If that is what they choose then why should we stop them and make their decisions for them. There may come a time in your life where you are faced with the decision of abortion. You may not be able to provide for a child yet the thought of carrying it full term and giving it up for adoption is a very hard thing to do. I even found a passage in the BIBLE saying that if the child won't have a good life then it would be better off if it had never been born. No abortion is not a good thing, but it is an optino provided for those who have few other choices. Yes they have choices, but it is their choice and I am not going to tell someone what they can and can't do. While I may never make the decision to have an abortion, I can't actually say. I could say right now that I never would but I have never been in a circumstance where I would or could consider it an option. I hope I am never in there because it would be a very hard choice to make.

__________________
Cain: I know what you're doing. I've lead troops into battle before.
DG: And, how am I doing?
Cain: Well, there's less *hugging* when I do it

matthew330

Your wrong about the "conveniently" thing. It doesn't imply dishonesty at all - you just didn't bother to address at what point a fetus fits you definition of life (in all its wisdom). I'd also like to add that there are many adults that wouldn't fit half the criteria in that definition of life - severe mental retardation being one. Perhaps you should consider a definition of life that doesn't come from some pro-choice advocate and then explain to me how an eight week old fetus, as described below, and well within you "first two trimester" cut-off, is not alive.

Eight Week Fetus: All the major organs of your baby have formed now though they are not fully developed yet. Eyes and ears are growing now. The heart is beating strongly. When you have an ultrasound during this time, you can see the fetal heart pulsating.

And for the record - the whole "murder, in my words." Yes i believe it is murder, but they are not my words, they are in fact yours - you just window dressed it with nicer words. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED that at a point (which you CANNOT define) the fetus is "alive." However your loose timeline of legal abortions certainly allows for the taking of a human (again - YOUR DEFINITION) life. And again you justify this killing for "self-determination of the woman."

As i mentioned before - pro-choice advocates are always forced to reference rape, incest, in your case deformed (CERTAINLY NO REASON FOR KILLING A BABY). Being that these situations make up such a tiny percentage of all abortions that take place I'll leave it alone for now, for your benefit. I don't want you to get sidetracked on that. BABY STEPS for Lebell.

matthew330

Mael, with all respect, it is completely relevant. The "My Body, My Choice" is the backbone of the abortionist argument. It's ironic how quickly this is no longer their philosophy when a woman "chooses" to deliver to term.

matthew330

I would guess, Eowyn_Vala, that you are in college, shortly out of your house. This happens frequently. College students leave the house and when liberalism is shoved down their throats for 4 years by professors, they question everything they learned growing up. That's natural. What you have to realize is college students are not yet thinking for themselves. When you get out from under the wing of those professors, and you really start thinking for yourself - I have faith you'll once again switch to pro-life.

Lebell

You start out by saying you weren't being sarcastic by being sarcastic.

And I believe I've addressed your question 3 times now. I don't know when a fetus becomes a person, but I am comfortable with the laws as they are; being a compromise between giving all rights to the fetus or all rights to the mother. In the early stages of pregnancy I prefer to err on the side of the mother. In the later stages, I prefer to err on the side of the fetus.

I disagree strongly with this statement.

To review:

It can be argued that even a severly retarded person exihibits traits 1, 3, and 5 (and possibly 4), so that they meet Warren's definition of "person".

Please.

I have spent 15 years formulating and debating my position on abortion. So address it or not, but don't try to brush it off as being from some "pro-choice advocate".

See above.

No, I never said murder, I never meant murder. If you choose to use that word, then use it.

But please don't try to say I am using it or that I "really" meant that when I never did and don't.

I see.

So your main beef is that my argument allows the possibility of "murdering" a person. (And to be clear, my definition of "person" allows the possibility.)

Well yes, it does.

But neither of us know when a fetus becomes a person.

Your argument is that we should be "better safe than sorry" and declare the fetus a person at conception.

My argument is that there are worse things than "murdering" a fetus when we are not sure about that fetus' status; namely, taking away the rights and freedoms of someone that is, beyond any doubt, a fully realized person.

No, it is central to your position to tell us if you allow exceptions, because if you DO, then you are saying that it is ok to "murder a baby" if there is good enough cause. In otherwords, accept your line in the sand, but not mine.

So to side step the issue with more sarcasm and condescending witticism is disingenous and dishonest.

(As an aside note, please tone it down. If you can't post without resorting to this kind of nonsense, please don't post.)

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

MacGnG

**i'm just gonna jump back in here**

The mother should have a choice; what her choice is doesn't matter as long as she has a choice!

typical response: "why doesn't the father have a say?"
my response: "because the father doesn't have a baby inside of him"

father should have A say;
MOTHER HAS THE FINAL SAY
----the above is my position------
-----below is something new to talk about-----
If the mother is incompetent of making the decision, then she shouldn't be having the child.

Jonsgirl

Very intelligent points here.
I would like to ask a question.
Let's say that a mother carries her child to term. Let's say that if she rasises this child the needs of the child won't be met. Is abortion any better than letting the child suffer for years?
So she can be totally unprepared to raise a child, get pregnant, but it's better to let the child be born and go hungry than it is to "kill" a fetus?
I think there's something wrong wtih a society that is much more concerned with life before birth than life after birth.

__________________
Someday, someone will best me.
But it won't be today, and it won't be you.

Mael

but don't you see!!! this is a LIFE we're talking about!!!


/end sarcasm

i completely agree with you.

nofnway

I have read many but not all of the posts here.
Being a guy I will never have to be the last word on this decision but here is my 2 cents worth.

I believe in a few simple concepts that I try to live by....sort of a combination of logic and utilitarianism and natural consequences.

I am pro choice but in a different way
I almost never get into the debate about when life begins but rather when the choice is made.

If you jump off the roof you will most surely fall to the ground (barring any obstacles) it is a natural consequence of jumping.

The choice is made when you decide to have sex.......the natural consequence is pregnancy (Given enough trials and any mathematical possibility it is a certainty)

What would do the most good for the most people is difficult to fathom but I can weigh that thought against the Kantian ethic of "Act on that maxim that you would deem universal"

That categorical imperitive gives me these two thoughts....
what if everyone aborted.....Bad
What if everyone weighed, considered and accepted the consequences of their actions.....Something much better

I would choose not aborting as a policy with noteable exceptions. However, changing a womans heart is truly the only way to get her to see it that way after the decision has been made.

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

matthew330

We agree what the implications of aborting are: the taking a human life.

"My argument is that there are worse things than "murdering" a fetus when we are not sure about that fetus' status; namely, taking away the rights and freedoms of someone that is, beyond any doubt, a fully realized person."

What rights/freedoms are being taken away? ZERO. Unless you consider the taking of a human life a right. Especially when you consider that everyone who steps up to their responsibilities, carries the baby to term - in the long wrong never has any regrets. Have you ever heard anyone say "I just should have aborted my child." No, i don't think you have. And we can probably agree that there are a boatload of children out there who were unplanned, weren't conceived in the most ideal of circumstances, etc, etc.

I wasn't brushing off your argument as being from some "pro-choice advocate." Your definition of life came from some pro-choice advocate and as such is defined in a way that will not contradict their view on abortion - a "convenient" definition if you will.

And you certainly can't argue that a person in a coma wouldmeet any of the criteria that you mentioned. Why not just kill them - is it because they have "the potential" to become a person? hmmm, where have i heard that before. Besides - out of the 5 criteria for life the only one i can pinpoint and can say for sure a 3 month fetus doesn't have and that's the capacity for reasoning.

One more thing - we're arguing abortion here. You're getting all testy from what I can tell because at one point i said "you conveniently blahblahblah", and another i said "your definitioin of life (in all its wisdom)." Conveniently doesn't imply dishonest, and the "in your wisdom" was more irony than sarcasm. It was just making the point that that definition of life came from someone who had an agenda to suit that definition for their own words - and certainly not an M.D. I don't think i'm being overly sarcastic or condescending.

MacGnG

since we are never going to convince the other side, compromise.

lets discuss the following question:
my thoughts: if mother or child would be in danger from the birth; if the mother is mentally or physically unable to handle 9 months of child bearing

Mael

i think you missed the point of what i was saying. the double standard is irrelevant. it IS the WOMANS choice what to do with her body. if a man beats a woman, she has the choice to file charges, and whatever her choice, it effects (or affects?) the man. if a man knocks a woman up, she has the choice to carry or abort, and the man has to live with it. it sucks for us guys, but to take that choice away from her would be far worse.

since your so against abortion, i ask you this: would you rather the govt. make you get a license to have sex? have a license to have a kid? we have to get a license to drive a car, and that can kill people and affect the lives of others. why not with kids? bad parents raising a kid could lead to a lot worse than a car accident. (i realise this may not be the best analogy, or maybe it's already been used, but i'm short on time, class starts in 10.)

Lebell

Let us be clear.

What we agree on is that the fetus is bioligically alive and is human by definition of its DNA. What we don't agree on is that the fetus is a person that deserves the same legal protections as a person.

And the "rights" being taken away is the most fundamental right of all, that of moral and ethical self determination. This right I would argue is THE most fundamental God given right of all and to deny it is a sin.

You would take away this right by forcing women to use your morays and ethics in determining if an abortion (something deeply personal) is ethically and morally right or wrong.

The problem with this is that there are well thought out and valid arguments (some of which I have presented) which do not agree with your morays, therefore your argument for taking away this right must devolve to "better safe than sorry".

This is unacceptable to me and will always be.

You bring up the case of a person in a persistant coma. That is a different discussion, but I think we can agree that the person likely met all qualifications for personhood before falling into their coma. Next I have the following questions: How likely is the person likely to come out of their coma? How many people come out of persistent comas vs how many do not? Has the person signed any medical directives, medical powers of attorney, etc.

But to your original point, the individual certainly DID qualify as a person and may do so again. Further, they may or may not have provided instructions and wishes for such an eventuality. But if they have not and they will not recover, then the ethics of medical euthanasia is a valid question that I don't feel our society has sufficiently addressed.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

filtherton

I've seen so many prolifers use the word murder in reference to abortion. Even though the argument of when a fetus deserves full fledged human rights is as of yet unresolved, let's pretend that we've decided that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Not what i believe, but let's pretend.
- Don't we as a society condone murder for the right reasons every day? War is cool, right. We can murder innocents and soldiers alike if it is in our country's best interests. I've done no study, but i think the assumption of overlap between the prowar and prolife demographics would probably hold true. We murder criminals, we make all kinds of exceptions when it comes to the sanctity of life.
Why is abortion unacceptable? It arguably benefits society to not have a bunch of impoverished, unwanted children running around growing up angry. Why is this not acceptable?

Jonsgirl

You are making a very broad statement here. You seem to be saying that no one, at any time, has ever regretted having a child. And that implies that you think everyone who has ever had an abortion has regretted it.
How can you possibly make that assumption?
And is the only reason women have an abortion because they aren't responsible people?
There are any number of factors involed in that kind of descion. You can't possibly know what someone goes through when they are faced with having a child. *Unless, you've been there.*
The choice should not be left in the hands of someone who feels they are morally superior to everyone else.

__________________
Someday, someone will best me.
But it won't be today, and it won't be you.

nanofever

Hypothetical situation:

A biologist takes sperm and an egg and puts them in a petri dish, with-in the hour conception will occur. Is it murder if the biologist takes the dish and cleans it twenty minutes later, even if conception had not occured ?

matthew330

This sounds a bit different than what you said previously

This is what I was referring to when i said we agree what the implications of abortion are. Where we differ is I believe it is always the taking of a human life, where as you believe it is the taking of a human life in certain instances - so it's fair to say that over time it is the taking of many human lives (innocent lives i might add) - from your perspective. What justifies the taking of these lives is to preserve the "rights and fredoms of someone that is a fully realized person", and the possibility of murdering a "fully realized person" (even by Warren's definition) in order to preserve these rights are an acceptable loss i suppose (not to put words in your mouth, but i see no other way of putting it.

I take issue with your description of these "rights" as "god-given and to deny would be a sin." Medical technology is not a God-Given right. Not to get corny but I would suggest that if anything in this particular argument is "god-given" it would be the gift of motherhood. Nobody ever argued that the steps of becoming a mother was "easy and convenient."

As far as the coma thing, it wasn't a significant point and I don't want to spend too much time on it but your questions
as they may be applied to a fetus - the overwhelming majority on both of these. You may have me on the not signing power of attorney one - fetus' don't do this. Besides Warren never said, these are no longer the criteria for life if they meet none now - but once did. Which was my point in the first place, her definition is incomplete, and suited to her agenda. A fetus at any stage would meet the criteria for every other definition of life i can find.

And Mael - the man "chose" to beat her, he should by all means pay the price. And by law, the woman doesn't have to choose to prosecute, the state can prosecute without her permission. And the whole "bad parents raising a kid could lead to a lot worse than a car accident" if you look at the statistics the incidence child abuse has risen since Roe v Wade. What makes sense to me as the article i posted a link to before would be that it is a result of people's attitudes toward the "sanctity" of life as one other poster put it. To be exact "We murder criminals, we make all kinds of exceptions when it comes to the sanctity of life." Yes - we murder incredibly violent criminals - and you would suggest that not only is there something sanctimonious about this murderer, but more so than a baby who hasn't been born yet. I just don't get that logic.

Nanofever the answer to your question is no - it's not murder, conception had not occurred.

I may have missed someone elses, but it's kinda difficult when it's 5 or 6 against one. I think I responded to most of them.

telekinetic2

Does anyone have a record of the earlies prematurely born baby that survived?

I know my mother works with children with developmental delays, and she has one girl who was born slightly before the third trimester began....she was smaller than a dollar bill, and is doing fine (relatively...she has a few handicaps that are being dealt with).

Just food for thought...I'd be interested to see the earliest born premie.

Just for the record, I'm weighing into this debate witht the following mindset: strictly anti-abortion in the concrete, ie concerning me directly, openmindedly pro-life in the abstract, for society.

If you believe life begins at conception, that would be the petri-dish equivalent of birth control...not allowing the sperm to fertilize the egg. Otherwise, it depends on your definitions.

filtherton

We also inevitably execute innocent people.
I'm not saying the criminal is morally better or holier than the unborn child, just that when speaking of the sanctity of life, shouldn't you be consistent across the boards? It is not all right to murder a fetus because all life is sacred, right? Why is it all right to murder a criminal? Why is it all right to kill soldiers and innocent civilians in war?
Why is one form of murder justifiable while another form is not?

matthew330

Well this is a whole other argument which i would expect to hear from someone arguing against the death penalty - not for abortion. I think it's pretty twisted logic to suggest that because murdering a criminal is legal, so should killing a baby. To be fair, I'm not sure where i stand on capital punishment ( i can tell you i'm against how it is currently applied) - but because i believe the life of a newbord is far more sacred than the life of a serial murderer - this is where i'll put my efforts.

I don't see any comparison to a confused teenager going to have an abortion without their parents knowledge to say the US entering WW-II.

"Why is one form of murder justifiable while another is not?"
If someone is attacking a family member of mine and their life is in danger, if it's in my means - I will kill them. I will not hesitate and say "Well because i can't justify the killing of a fetus, i'll sit here and keep my fingers crossed."

RatherThanWords

holy shit...I start this post and disappear for 3 months at college. I return and it's still at the top. I heart you guys!

filtherton

Okay, let me rephrase. Why is abortion not justifiable if it can be shown to benefit individuals and society with regulated application? We justify other types of murder when they benefit society and individuals, as your self defense example illustrated.

If you can't see any connection than you are not paying attention. Society has always condoned murder under the right circumstances. If you support murder under any circumstance than you are acknowledging that it does have a use and a place in our society. So where do you draw the line?

If my girlfriend got pregnant and the child was going to endanger her life, or even endanger the future that we have planned and she agrees, it will get aborted. Because under some circumstances, the "killing" of a fetus is very justified. Society is better off with two fully productive people unhindered by a child they aren't capable of raising than it is with another family on welfare.