NationStates Jolt Archive

I have an interseting look on Abortion. I do belive it is wrong, as I am Catholic, yet, the USA sees it as wrong AND right.
In some case, such as an atemted murder of a pregnant woman, the woman can charge the killer with murder if her unborn child is killed, yet in abortion, there is no murder. The baby is being killed both ways. How can the USA make this so?
I say the UN hereby makes it illeagle in their nations to abort babies. Although this might not be a "Nation State Issue" I belive this game, which is very unique and interesting, should be as real as possible. Please support my cause fellow UN Nations.

Also, I know German is the second leading language on the internet so i post theese in german.

Ich habe einen interseting Blick auf Abtreibung. Ich tue belive es bin falsch, da ich katholisch bin, dennoch, sieht die USA es als falsch UND nach rechts. In irgendeinem Fall wie atemted Mord an einer schwangeren Frau, die Frau kann den Mörder mit Mord aufladen, wenn ihr unborn Kind getötet wird, dennoch in der Abtreibung, es keinen Mord gibt. Dem Baby wird beide Weisen getötet. Wie können die USA dieses so bilden? Ich sage die UNO hiermit Marken es illeagle in ihren Nationen, um Babys abzubrechen. Obgleich diese nicht eine "Nation-Zustand-Ausgabe" I sein konnte belive dieses Spiel, das sehr einzigartig und interessant ist, sollte wie möglich so real sein. Stützen Sie bitte meine Ursache Gefährte-UNO Nationen.

if you are going to lobby to take away the most basic freedom (the right to control one's own body) of half the population of the world, the least you could do is learn to spell and use correct capitalization.

IIn some case, such as an atemted murder of a pregnant woman, the woman can charge the killer with murder if her unborn child is killed, yet in abortion, there is no murder.


Sorry, but no. It may look good in courts, because it is a woman and she is prenant, but you won't get 2 counts of murder. And, i'm going to be the one to break this to you, but you are WRONG. As in the post above me, people have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies ( well, you get what I mean)

We in Gurthark fully support a woman's right to control her own body.

Note that we do still make the termination of a woman's pregnancy *without her consent* a very, very serious crime. It is not murder, but our courts have interpreted it as "grievous bodily harm", on approximately the same level as causing someone to lose a limb. The victim is the woman, not the fetus.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

The Most Holy Republic of Eredron would be willing to support a resolution criminalizing abortion, provided abortions made because of the risk to the mothers life are exempted.

modalert , could you please correct the spelling of "illegal" in the poll and capitalize it?

It is a bit of an eysore.

Anywhen, I am prochoice, but as somebody once pointed out, I think that explosive issues such as abortion would be better off left out of the UN.


Peace, Truth, and Justice,
Luke

IIn some case, such as an atemted murder of a pregnant woman, the woman can charge the killer with murder if her unborn child is killed, yet in abortion, there is no murder.


Sorry, but no. It may look good in courts, because it is a woman and she is prenant, but you won't get 2 counts of murder. And, i'm going to be the one to break this to you, but you are WRONG. As in the post above me, people have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies.

Also, I know German is the second leading language on the internet so i post theese in german.

Not in NS.

In NS the second most common language is Dutch.

We see abortion not only as a legitimate right but as socially desirable. Our population is already growing at an annualized rate of 1.43*10^22 per cent, in spite of our zero immigration policy. We really don't need the extra babies. In fact, the directorate is considering the possibility of allowing each woman to have only .65 children.

In fact, the directorate is considering the possibility of allowing each woman to have only .65 children.

In 70-120 years you may have a population of 0 if you adopt that population. :lol:

Anyways, even though I disagree with abortion and view most pre-choice supporters as a bunch of hypocrites, outright banning completely doesn't seem like a feasible idea because sometimes a women's life may be in danger due to pregnancy.

The difference between abortion, and a murder trial of a mother and her unborn baby, is that abortion is only by choice of the mother.

If we illegalize abortion, and let's say some 15 year old girl gets pregnant. She does drugs, sex stuff like that, and doesn't want the child. But can't abort it, because it's against the law. So teh baby is born, so what's teh girl going to do with the kid? Either treat it horribly, or literally throw it in the trash (It's been done)

Also, if you're going to give a fetus rights, then wouldn't ANY egg that goes unfertilized be murder?

i agree that abortion is very wrong. i would like to know by those who call themselves prochoice (aka pro-death) when the child in the womb becomes a person? it cant be as the child is leaving the woman because yet partial birth abortion is illegal. so please answer me this.

Also, if you're going to give a fetus rights, then wouldn't ANY egg that goes unfertilized be murder? No, also the other problem with your argument is that some nut case can use a chicken egg due to how vague it is and we all know that a lot of animals are killed to keep people fed and it isn't called murder.

Oh and one more thing, if they don't want the kid they can always put it up for adoption. Gee I bet you didn't think of that now did you. BAKA :roll:

Most of them are too lazy :? or don't care enough

Most of them are too lazy :? or don't care enough Well then the hell with them, besides "God helps those who help themselves."

This is an issue that should be left up to individual nations to decide. I have to say though that i would resign from the UN if a law was passed stating that all member nations have to make abortion illegal. It would be the first time any law has made me want to do that.

good if you were to leave the U.N there would be less muderes within the association. and since when does the goverment get to decide if it it is ok to kill innocent people. sounds like hitler to me.

Well, if children are aborted, they're basically in teh same place they would have been if they were never born, right?

Plus, we should pass laws just because some religion doesn't like it.

we illegalize abortion, and let's say some 15 year old girl gets pregnant. She does drugs, sex stuff like that, and doesn't want the child. But can't abort it, because it's against the law. So teh baby is born, so what's teh girl going to do with the kid? Either treat it horribly, or literally throw it in the trash (It's been done)

Or there is that thing called ADOPTION. Now just think about it, if YOU were the unborn child would you:
A: Want to be aborted
B: Want to be born and be treated horribly but have a CHANCE at life!

no it is not because at the moment of conception that child is a person and no one has the right to decide if that person has the right to live. this is not a question of religion it is a question of human rights.

Of course, at the moment of conception a fetus still has about a 60% chance of failing to attach and dieing anyway...

I disagree with abortion, but I also disagree with regulating what a person can do to their body. In other words, I'm indecisive.

-The Greater Representative
X>=0

We in Gurthark fully support a woman's right to control her own body.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark


The Carver States follows a similar policy. We do augment our position, though, to include that fathers of children bear half of the responsibility of raising any child they conceive within a woman. We believe this promotes the idea of males within our country developing an awareness of the consequences of their actions.

Gillian Barre
Primate for Happiness
Carver States

I thought you were proposing a Pro Life concept, not an anti-abortion one. Yes, we are in favour of Life. However, for the time being we will continue to allow Death. Abortion, like all Bodily Rights, will remain with the woman.

Arch Cardinal Erik
The United Good

Excuse me, you have no right to call me a murderer unless i have taken another life, and i never have. I have never even had an abortion, and personally never would, so even using that logic you cannot call me a murderer. If you want to believe i support murderers, that is a completely different thing, because according to your beliefs it's true. You are perfectly entitled to think and believe that.

you may never have had an abortion but by allowing for this to happen within your country you are morally responsable for their murders.

The Armed Republic of Michopolis considers the unborn child to be a part of the mother's body until the point at which they are seperated, ie: birth. Though many of you may disagree with this premis, to state that the unborn child is independant of the mother although housed and fed by her body and her body alone is to state that every single egg and sperm within a human body is an independant being as it has the potential for life.

Thusly, to call abortion murder is to state that the murder of one man is the equivalent of not only his death, but the death of every potential child carried within him. One charge of murder, under this premise, becomes thousands of charges of murder. Not only that, but by killing a person you could very well be denying an entire family tree, possibly hundreds of people, a chance at life. The Armed Republic of Michopolis does not accept this position and considers it to be a mother's right to have an abortion just as a person can legally cut off their own hand.

Abortion is currently legal in Ursoria, despite the fact that about 85% of our people are Catholic. Nonetheless, it is one of the most highly-controverted issus in our political system. There are always stormy arguments in Parliament whenever the issue is raised. The present government favours legalised abortion, while both major opposition parties have indicated a desire to restrict it if elected.

Most of our people regard abortion as ethically wrong. But there is an understandable reluctance to impose one set of religious teachings on those of another persuasion, since experience has shown that such a policy, if consistently applied, leads to the destruction of everyone's freedom.

It doesn't quite work to say that abortion is about giving women the right to control their own bodies, since the issue is precisely how many people's rights are to be protected. It is impossible to answer that question without recourse to one's own religious and philosophical beliefs. So abortion is one of those difficult issues that don't quite "fit" into the context of a democratic and secular polity.

Based on the complexity of the issue, and the wide differences of opinion surrounding the issue, it would seem to us highly unwise to impose a worldwide ban on abortion through a U.N. resolution.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

This is an issue that should be left up to individual nations to decide. I have to say though that i would resign from the UN if a law was passed stating that all member nations have to make abortion illegal. It would be the first time any law has made me want to do that.

I agree the issue should be up to member nations individually. The topic is so emotionally charged and divisive it would rend the UN; attempted enforcement in either direction could cause mass defections....Best leave it to local option.

Is it established in the scientific comunity that a fetus is considered a human being from conception?

I believe not. Until a certain age abortion should be legal and free for the women who dont have the capability to pay the abortion herself.

No woman should be forced to have an unwanted child.

A surprising number of people have flippantly remarked, "If you don't want to have a child, you should just put it up for adoption."

I ask the representatives of those countries: Have you adopted a child? In particular, have you adopted a "hard-to-place" child--one who is no longer an infant, is not white or Asian, or has mental or physical health problems? Are you aware of the adoption statistics? Children from a few "desirable" categories (healthy white and Asian infants, mostly) are indeed almost immediately snapped up, but a much larger number of children languish in the foster care system until they reach the age of majority.

We in Gurthark urge all people internationally who want to reduce the number of abortions performed to make a point of adopting a "hard-to-place" child, rather than lobbying to make abortion illegal. If the climate was such that birth mothers could have a reasonable expectation that their children would be raised in a stable, loving home, we are confident that the number of abortions would decrease noticeably.

Sicerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

You aren't a person until you are born. Did you have any pre-natal thoughts? Did you have feelings? Did you care if you were born or not?
If you are a person when you are a fetus than your first birthday would be counted when you turn 3 months old. If abortion is illegal than we will have a lot of back alley abortions and people will be finding a lot of fetuses in their dumpsters and in their garbage cans. We don't want that, well, at least I don't. Maybe you "pro-lifers" do. Coat hanger abortions are dangerous and could kill the mother, then you would have an actual human death and not just the death of a fetus.

This country was, or was supposed to be, founded upon leting others believe what they want. The good thing about pro-choice is that.. YOU DON'T HAVE TO. If you get an unwanted pregnancy, you don't HAVE to abort, but it's definately an option. Let those who support abortion abort, and those who don't want to put up for adoption, or something else.

And no we're not pro-death. We're about as pro-death as the supporters of illegal abortion are pro-throw-your-baby-in-a-dumpster.

A surprising number of people have flippantly remarked, "If you don't want to have a child, you should just put it up for adoption."

I ask the representatives of those countries: Have you adopted a child? In particular, have you adopted a "hard-to-place" child--one who is no longer an infant, is not white or Asian, or has mental or physical health problems? Are you aware of the adoption statistics? Children from a few "desirable" categories (healthy white and Asian infants, mostly) are indeed almost immediately snapped up, but a much larger number of children languish in the foster care system until they reach the age of majority.

We in Gurthark urge all people internationally who want to reduce the number of abortions performed to make a point of adopting a "hard-to-place" child, rather than lobbying to make abortion illegal. If the climate was such that birth mothers could have a reasonable expectation that their children would be raised in a stable, loving home, we are confident that the number of abortions would decrease noticeably.

Sicerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

We second that sentiment. Perhaps something could be done through the U.N. to make the process of adoption easier worldwide. In Ursoria, we have made a start in this direction through legalising adoption by gay couples, and (in certain instances) by single individuals. We no longer require that prospective adoptive parents be in the upper income brackets, and our government works closely with religious and charitable groups to provide post-adoption counselling and assistance.

I think abortion is one of those topics where neither side will ever get the other to change its mind, so arguing is a futile endeavor.

That being said, I'm pro-choice - to a point. I believe that life begins at that stage where the fetus can survive outside of the woman's womb. That doesn't necessarily mean birth. Usually after the 3rd trimester, a baby born prematurely can be nursed to survival and eventually, health. This is why my personal preference is to have partial-birth abortions illegal, while keeping legal abortion in the first two trimesters.

I know people may bring up counter-arguments. That's fine - my way of thinking could very easily be turned into a pile of rubble. BUT that's my way of thinking about it, and, as stated above, you're not going to change my mind about that.

I strongly disagree that Abortion should be banned. While abortion may have its draw backs, it gives those that made a big mistake a second chance.

If abortion is illegal than we will have a lot of back alley abortions and people will be finding a lot of fetuses in their dumpsters and in their garbage cans. We don't want that, well, at least I don't. Maybe you "pro-lifers" do. Coat hanger abortions are dangerous and could kill the mother, then you would have an actual human death and not just the death of a fetus.

Just because you like the consequences of something doesn't make it right.

In the kindest way possible I feel that all you who are attacking Ephyon should take a look at what you are doing. You are attacking grammar and not the issue. I would really appretiate some constructive sharing in this forum, something that we could all gain perspective on. If Nation States is to resemble, in some way, a world government then we should debate and vote on all imprtant issues that shape society and the world.....abortion being one of them. To ignore these things would not be true to the game.......Just some food for thought.

As for my personal opinion I think that the arguement that it is a women's body is very weak......because it is actually another human beings body that is affected by abortion.......the woman just makes the call. Please share constructive arguements so that we may be able to truly learn and grow from our differences.

Sincerely,
Ann
The Kindom of Marscapone

if you're going to give a fetus rights, then wouldn't ANY egg that goes unfertilized be murder?

That would be the perfect rationalisation for primary school kids having constant orgies. While we're at it, why don't we give sperm those rights as well, since a foetus comes from more than just an egg.

That would cause a huge population explosion, one that most countries would not be able to deal with or afford.

Also, I know German is the second leading language on the internet so i post theese in german.

Ich habe einen interseting Blick auf Abtreibung. Ich tue belive es bin falsch, da ich katholisch bin, dennoch, sieht die USA es als falsch UND nach rechts. In irgendeinem Fall wie atemted Mord an einer schwangeren Frau, die Frau kann den Mörder mit Mord aufladen, wenn ihr unborn Kind getötet wird, dennoch in der Abtreibung, es keinen Mord gibt. Dem Baby wird beide Weisen getötet. Wie können die USA dieses so bilden? Ich sage die UNO hiermit Marken es illeagle in ihren Nationen, um Babys abzubrechen. Obgleich diese nicht eine "Nation-Zustand-Ausgabe" I sein konnte belive dieses Spiel, das sehr einzigartig und interessant ist, sollte wie möglich so real sein. Stützen Sie bitte meine Ursache Gefährte-UNO Nationen.

The People's Republic applaudes you for posting your message in German.

Tschüss

Or there is that thing called ADOPTION. Now just think about it, if YOU were the unborn child would you:
A: Want to be aborted
B: Want to be born and be treated horribly but have a CHANCE at life!
If you were the fetus you wouldn't be able to think on that level, so it wouldn't make any difference to you.

no it is not because at the moment of conception that child is a person and no one has the right to decide if that person has the right to live. this is not a question of religion it is a question of human rights.
But it is religion who is trying to tell everyone when a fetus becomes an independant human being.

you may never have had an abortion but by allowing for this to happen within your country you are morally responsable for their murders.

Nope. Sorry, but you are WAY off there. I can guarantee you nobody who in the right mind voted to not make it illegal has any moral issues with it, or ever did or ever will. You can go cry your heart out all you want about it, but you will never get these people to blame themselves and feel guilty.

no it is not because at the moment of conception that child is a person and no one has the right to decide if that person has the right to live. this is not a question of religion it is a question of human rights.

You obviously have no clue about how the human reproductive system works. At the moment of conception, all that has happened was 24 pairs of chromosomes from the sperm bonded in the egg with the egg's 24. That makes it an egg with 48 pairs. Not a human being. It is not a "person" (which most define as a fully developed human), but an egg. It has no brain, no body, no way to "want" the chance at life (no emotion). It is just an egg. I don't see any eggs walking around the streets, demanding human rights. Why? BECUASE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. Therefore, it is not a question of human rights, because it has no rights, and no need to have or want them. Just becuase you think it is wrong, it gives you the right to push your opinions on all of us? I don't think so.

Even if religion supports a cause, does that make that cause solely religious? The Catholic Church is against abortion, so is abortion a religious issue. No. It makes no difference what groups support which arguments. What matters are the arguments themselves.
Why would someone want to have an abortion? It has been scientifically proven that those women who have abortions are very likely to experience extreme emotional distress and stress. Ever hear any women say that they are happy they got an abortion. Perhaps, but those who are unhappy far outway those who are happy. Is there any good reason to have an abortion (besides if one's life is threatened) that cannot be solved by adoption?
It is a human rights issue. The debate shouldn't be whether to count human life as from the moment of conception, or from the moment of birth. These are all potential people. What right do we have to choose whether or not they live or die?

Just because I believe murder and theft is wrong doesn't mean I should force my beliefs on you.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.........(sarcasm)

Even if religion supports a cause, does that make that cause solely religious? The Catholic Church is against abortion, so is abortion a religious issue. No. It makes no difference what groups support which arguments.
This is true. Of course, sometimes people actually *use* religion in their arguments. But there are anti-abortionists who use arguments other than religious ones.
What matters are the arguments themselves.
Why would someone want to have an abortion? It has been scientifically proven that those women who have abortions are very likely to experience extreme emotional distress and stress. Ever hear any women say that they are happy they got an abortion. Perhaps, but those who are unhappy far outway those who are happy.
That's not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison (even setting aside the matter of whether people should be allowed to make bad choices) is the percentage of women who have an abortion who experience distress later versus the percentage of women who carry an unwanted pregnancy to term who experience distress later.

Yes, many women who have abortions are unhappy. But many women who have children they didn't want are unhappy, too.
Is there any good reason to have an abortion (besides if one's life is threatened) that cannot be solved by adoption?
Please see my earlier posts about adoption. The answer is "yes," and will continue to be until the adoption system changes dramatically. As I said before, you can do your part to ensure this by adopting a "hard-to-place" child.

It is a human rights issue. The debate shouldn't be whether to count human life as from the moment of conception, or from the moment of birth. These are all potential people. What right do we have to choose whether or not they live or die?
As someone else pointed out in this thread, *every* sperm-egg pair is a "potential person." If all you care about is potential, you are obligated to have sex as often as possible, and use any "spillage" for artificial insemination. Otherwise, you will be denying millions of "potential people" the right to exist.

Sincirely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

im gay.

Pro life is exactly the same as anit-abortion. It's just a nicer way of saying it. The same goes for pro choice; pro-abortion.

More PC garbage.

Pro life is exactly the same as anit-abortion. It's just a nicer way of saying it. The same goes for pro choice; pro-abortion.

More PC garbage.

Not really. To say that anti-abortionism is "pro-life" is to accept the anti-abortionist argument that abortion is killing. Not everyone agrees with this.

To say that pro-choice people are "pro-abortion" is to say that they actually support abortion. Only a small handful of them do. Many are neutral about abortion; many more are actually opposed to the idea. They simply want to preserve the right to *choose* abortion. (Personally, I support people's right to eat bubblegum ice cream. That doesn't mean I'm "pro-bubblegum ice cream." I *hate* bubblegum ice cream.)

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I can't belive I am hearing all this pro choice crap. If every woman who wanted to have an abortion had one, the earth's human population would eventually die out! IF that is what the UN really wants, so be it, but I would like the human civilizations to prosper for a long time to come.

I can't belive I am hearing all this pro choice crap. If every woman who wanted to have an abortion had one, the earth's human population would eventually die out! IF that is what the UN really wants, so be it, but I would like the human civilizations to prosper for a long time to come.

Ephyon, do you have statistics to support this? In Gurthark, we have abortion more or less completely on demand, and our population is still growing. Some people actually *want* to have children; they're quite sufficient to keep up our ranks.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

If abortion is illegal than we will have a lot of back alley abortions and people will be finding a lot of fetuses in their dumpsters and in their garbage cans. We don't want that, well, at least I don't. Maybe you "pro-lifers" do. Coat hanger abortions are dangerous and could kill the mother, then you would have an actual human death and not just the death of a fetus.

Just because you like the consequences of something doesn't make it right.
I don't like the consequences of it. Did I say I want to find a fetus in my dumpster?

Well, if the mother hates the baby that much she shouldnt be having sex in the first place.

Well, if the mother hates the baby that much she shouldnt be having sex in the first place.

This is a strange claim on so my levels I don't quite know where to begin.

First off, most pregnant women who have abortions do not "hate" the "baby." There isn't a baby yet, and they wouldn't even know one, much less hate it, if it existed. They do not want to have a baby (which is different from hating a particular baby) because they know that doing so--at that time--will destroy their lives.

Secondly, the claim that people should only be having sex if they want to be parents has always struck me as bizarre. Why on earth? Yes, being a parent is a possible consequence of having sex. Spending your life in a wheelchair is a possible consequence of driving. Should you only drive if you want to spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

Personally, I think that much (not all, but much) anti-abortion sentiment comes from the idea that women who have sex (especially those who have sex for pleasure, as opposed to for procreation) are evil, and that childbirth is just punishment for those women. This goes against one of the very core principles of Gurthark's value system (which is that there are no victimless crimes), which is one of the reasons we so fiercely fight anti-abortion legislation. I also find it offensive on a personal level.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Okay, to put it in "scientific terms" for all you literate people out there, there is ONE purpose for sex. TO HAVE CHILDREN! We wouldnt have our sexual organs if we didn't have children, then sex wouldn't exist. So if you don't want to have children, don't have sex, because that's the ONLY purpose of sex. Yes it is enjoyable, but if we wernt ment to have babies, there would be no pleasure from sex.

Okay, to put it in "scientific terms" for all you literate people out there, there is ONE purpose for sex. TO HAVE CHILDREN! We wouldnt have our sexual organs if we didn't have children, then sex wouldn't exist. So if you don't want to have children, don't have sex, because that's the ONLY purpose of sex. Yes it is enjoyable, but if we wernt ment to have babies, there would be no pleasure from sex.

You realize, of course, that the same applies to eating--pleasure is a consequence of its original evolutionary purpose, which was to enable survival.

Does this mean that the only purpose for eating is survival? That it is evil to eat when one does not need to do so to survive?

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

At this point, I'd be surprised if the UN wasn't pro deaeth.

Aye, we in the Drama Isles do NOT support the complete banning of abortion. Even though I am myself Catholic (and thus morally opposed to abortion) people have the right to their own bodies. NO government should be able to tell a woman whether to keep or kill her child. I think this is called the right to "life, liberty, and property" advocated by John Locke.

The Office of the Dictator
The Drama Isles

as we've stated before, Camarolina favors a "no abortion" platform, but prefers nations achive this on their own, with no "world government" interference.

IIRC, it doesn't medically qualify as a fetus until the third trimester--6 months and later into the pregnancy. Besides that I think this is very similar to the idea of providing free, clean needles to junkies. They're going to keep doing what they're doing, regardless of what the law says, so why not provide them with sterile materials so that we don't have diseases spreading like wildfire. Likewise, abortions will continue whether they're illegal or not. Isn't the most humane thing to do to provide adequate care facilities for this, rather than a woman shoving a coat hanger up her hole and trying to claw it out, causing herself horrible internal damage, and maybe even illnesses if something nasty is on that coat hanger?

Ignoring all that I've said above, it would be best for international law to decide when that cluster of cells qualifies as a fetus and has rights, rather than to impose laws that clearly violate national sovereignty.

If prohibition of abortion were to become a UN resolution, I would vote NO for all of the above listed reasons and crusade for others to do the same.

you may never have had an abortion but by allowing for this to happen within your country you are morally responsable for their murders.

so. by this logic, anything you view as morally wrong that occurs withing your country, you must have allowed to happen then right?

I can't belive I am hearing all this pro choice crap. If every woman who wanted to have an abortion had one, the earth's human population would eventually die out! IF that is what the UN really wants, so be it, but I would like the human civilizations to prosper for a long time to come.

I suppose you realize that would me all women wanted abortions, in effect dropping the birth rate to zero? You are clueless.

Just because I believe murder and theft is wrong doesn't mean I should force my beliefs on you.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.........(sarcasm)

pro-life is a moral judgement not back by demostratable harm to any living human. fetus are not "human" . they are potential humans, as such they get very limited protection under the law. the mother, who is a living human, gets the bulk of the choice and protection of the law.
thats the crux of the debate. pro lifers feel the fetus is alive, is human, and killing it is murder. despite all the evidence to the contrary that clealry shows prior to the 6+ month mark the fetus is not "alive" in the technical sense, and is definately not sentient, pro lifers cling to their tired old arguements.

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

One sided. That's the abortion stance of most Christians -- one sided. We hear the Christian Coalition speak against abortion. We hear Focus on the Family tell Republican candidates it will not support them unless they state their opposition to abortion. We hear Operation Rescue's Christian members praying God will turn back the clock and make abortion illegal again. Over and over we are bombarded with the "Christian" perspective that abortion is outright wrong, no exceptions.
With all these groups chanting the same mantra, there must be some pretty overwhelming biblical evidence of abortion's evil, right?

Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a verse to support a view they heard from someone else. By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity -- and many of the Culture's beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

This is most definitely the case when it comes to abortion. Ask most anti-abortion Christians to support their view, and they'll give you a couple of verses. One, quite obviously, is the Commandment against murder. But that begs the question of whether or not abortion is murder, which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person. To support their beliefs, these Christians point to one of three bible verses that refer to God working in the womb. The first is found in Psalms:

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for Thou art fearfully wonderful (later texts were changed to read "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made"); wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."
Psalm 139:13-16
Although this passage does make the point that God was involved in the creation of this particular human being, it does not state that during the creation the fetus is indeed a person. According to Genesis, God was involved in the creation of every living thing, and yet that doesn't make every living thing a full human person. In other words, just because God was involved in its creation, it does not mean terminating it is the same as murder. It's only murder if a full human person is destroyed.
But even if we agreed to interpret these verses the same way that anti-abortion Christians do, we still have a hard time arguing that the Bible supports an anti-abortion point of view. If anything, as we will soon see, abortion is biblical.

Anytime we take one or two verses out of their context and quote them as doctrine, we place ourselves in jeopardy of being contradicted by other verses. Similarly, some verses that make perfect sense while standing alone take on a different feel when seen in the greater context in which they were written. And we can do some rather bizarre things to the Scriptures when we take disparate verses from the same context and use them as stand-alone doctrinal statements. Some prime examples of this come from the same book of the Bible as our last quote. Consider these verses that claim that God has abandoned us:

"Why dost Thou stand afar off, O Lord? Why dost Thou hide Thyself in times of trouble?"
Psalm 10:1
"How long, O Lord? Wilt Thou forget me forever? How long wilt Thou hide Thy face from me?"
Psalm 13:1
"O God, Thou hast rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry; O, restore us.
Psalm 60:1
Not only can we use out-of-context verses to support that God doesn't care for us anymore, we can even use them to show how we can ask God to do horrible and vile things to people we consider our enemies. In this example, King David even wanted God to cause harm to the innocent children of his enemy:
"Let his days be few; let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children wander about and beg; and let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes. Let the creditor seize all that he has; and let strangers plunder the product of his labor. Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him, nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children."
Psalm 109:8-12
Are we indeed to interpret that God, speaking through David in these Psalms, is saying we have been abandoned by God and that when wronged we can ask God to cause our enemies to die and cause our enemies' children to wander hungry and homeless? Indeed, it would seem the case.
But rather than interpret that God is with us as a fetus, but forgets us as adults, and yet will allow us to plead for the death of our enemies, we need to look at the greater context in which all these verses are found: songs.

Called Psalms, these are the songs of King David, a man of great faith who was also greatly tormented. He was a man of passions. He loved God, lusted for another man's wife, and murdered him to get her. He marveled at nature and at his own existence. All his great swings in emotion are recorded in the songs he wrote, and we can read them today in the Book of Psalms. What we cannot do is take one song, or one stanza of a song, and proclaim that it is indeed to be taken literally while taking other stanzas from David's songs and claim they should not be taken literally.

Yet that is exactly what anti-abortion Christians are asking us to do. They use those few verses from the Psalms to support their dogma that abortion is wrong. They proclaim those verses as holy writ and the other verses as poetry that we should not be following. Clearly, this is a perfect example of taking verses out of context. And it leads us to only one conclusion: if we cannot trust that God wants to kill our enemies and abandon us, we must also conclude that we cannot trust that God has defined the fetus as being a person.

For indeed, if we allow that kind of thinking we could also make an argument that God is willing to maul children to death if they make fun of a bald guy who just happens to be in God's favor. You think I'm joking, but I'm not. In the book of Second Kings, our hero, the Prophet Elisha, who was quite bald, so it seems, was taunted by a group of young boys. Elisha's response was bitter and cruel:

"...as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, 'Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!' When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."
2 Kings 2:22-24
Did God kill those forty-two kids for making fun of a bald prophet? We can certainly make an argument for that if we use the anti-abortionists' kind of thinking.
Likewise we can also use the anti-abortionists' methods to establish that God approves of pornography, as seen in these following verses by Solomon as he pondered the female body:

"How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks for mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle."
"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine."

Song of Solomon 7:1-3,7-9
Pretty steamy stuff. Taken by itself, it would appear God is indeed promoting a written form of pornography. But just like Psalm 139:13-16, we cannot take it by itself. Instead we must take it within the context it was written.
The same is true with the other two verses used by anti-abortion Christians to defend their cause. From the book of Jeremiah, these Crusaders are fond of quoting the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," from the first chapter. But they never quote the entire passage, which changes the meaning considerably:

"Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant."
Jeremiah 1:4-10
This is a special event -- the birth of a prophet. God brought the prophet Jeremiah into the world for a divine purpose, and because of that, God was planning Jeremiah's life "before" he was even conceived. God was preparing him to do miraculous things, such as speak on behalf of God while still a child and setting him up as an overseer of nations and kingdoms. But the anti-abortionists simply overlook this on their way to claiming that the one phrase they quote proves God sees us as individual people while still in the womb. God saw Jeremiah in that way, but to claim it applies to all of us is akin to saying that we were all prepared as children to speak for God, and that God has placed all of us "over the nations and over the kingdoms" of the world. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not; therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives.
Another problem in this passage is the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." In Psalm 139:13-16 the anti-abortionists claim that because God was active in the creation of King David in his mother's womb that we must conclude the fetus is recognized by God as being a person. But here we see God stating that he knew Jeremiah "before" he was formed in the womb. By anti-abortionist logic, we would have to conclude that we are a human person even before conception. Since this is a ridiculous notion, we must, therefore, conclude that the anti-abortionist is interpreting these verses incorrectly.

The last verse most often quoted by anti-abortion Christians relates the story of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, while both were pregnant. When they meet, the pre-born John the Baptist leaps in his mother's womb at Mary's salutation. Let's read the original:

"And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"
Luke 1:39-41
As much as the anti-abortion lobby would like this to mean that all fetuses are sentient persons because one is recorded as knowing Mary's words and then leapt inside the womb, the logic is as flawed as the Isaiah misquote. Again we have a miraculous event. Again we have a divine prophet whom God had ordained since before he was conceived. And this time it's even more miraculous, because the gestating John the Baptist is reacting to the approach of Mary, who at the time was pregnant with Jesus. Unless we believe all of us are chosen before birth to be the divine prophet ordained by God to herald the arrival of Christ on earth, then we cannot claim this passage refers to us. And indeed, it does not. While gestating fetuses are known to move and kick as their nervous systems and muscles are under construction, only divinely-inspired babies understand the spoken words of the mother of Jesus and can leap in recognition.
The point to all this is simple: we cannot take the verses we like and interpret them to support what we want to support. And, more to the point, we cannot simply accept what some Christian leaders proclaim as being God's word on a given subject without carefully reading the full text of the book and taking into consideration the entire context. We cannot, as we have shown, simply interpret those few verses from Psalms, Isaiah, and Luke as a reason to be against abortion. And, as we will see in a moment, there are still other verses -- if interpreted in the sloppy manner demonstrated by anti-abortion Christians -- in the Bible that could easily lead us to argue that indeed God, at times, supports abortion. Let's take a look.

In the full context of Ecclesiastes, King Solomon makes the point that much of life is futile. Over and over he writes that if life is good then we should be thankful. But when life is not good, Solomon makes some interesting statements:

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5
Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life. This is made even more clear in these following verses:
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
Here we have an argument for both euthanasia and abortion. When quality of life is at stake, Solomon seems to make the argument that ending a painful life or ending what will be a painful existence is preferable. Now remember, we're not talking about David's songs here. We're reading the words of the man to whom God gave the world's greatest wisdom.
And Solomon was not alone in this argument. Consider the words of Job, a man of great faith and wealth, when his life fell upon the hardest of times:

"And Job said, 'Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, "a boy is conceived." May that day be darkness; let not God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'"
"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."

Job 3:2-4,11-19
And again a few chapters later Job reiterates the greater grace he would have known if his life had been terminated as a fetus:
"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19
Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life. And taking these verses to their extreme, I could claim that abortion is not just a good idea, it is a sacrament.
Actually, I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither. The condemning and supporting comes not from the words of the Bible but from leaders within our Culture of Christianity who use verses out of context -- the same way I just did to support abortion -- to support their views against abortion. The condemning and the supporting comes not from the Scriptures but from average Christians who take the easy way out, accepting one or two verses of the Bible as proof that their leaders are speaking the gospel truth. The condemning and supporting comes not from God but from those who do not take the time to read the Bible, in its own context, and decide for themselves the meanings therein.

For indeed, there is one passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the act of causing a woman to abort a pregnancy. And the penalty for causing the abortion is not what many would lead us to believe:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.

It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.

Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument.

The word yalad is a verb that describes the process of something coming out - the departing of the fetus. Since it is describing the process, and not the result, it could be used to describe either a live birth or a miscarriage. Shakol which shows up in Hosea 9:14, is also a verb, but its meaning is to make a woman barren. Now a barren woman certainly might miscarry, but with this understanding of the word, it's clear why the writer of Exodus would not have used it since this miscarriage was caused by an accident, not by barrenness. And the word nefel is not even a verb. It's a noun. True, as a noun it is the term for a miscarried fetus, but the writer wasn't using a noun. He was using a verb to describe the coming out of the fetus. Thus, if I were describing a man falling to his death, I would use the verb "to fall" which can be used for both those who die and those who survive a fall, but to describe the man himself I would use the word the "fatality." So we can see that while a novice might mistake a verb for a noun and come to the wrong conclusions about the original Hebrew words used in the Exodus passage, a more careful look proves that the words only describe the action of losing the fetus, not the fetus itself. And that being the case, we can't use the Hebrew translations to determine if the fetus was alive or not when it came out - so we are forced to accept that in all certainly, considering the medical knowledge at the time, the preemie died. This makes it even more clear that the "tooth for a tooth" passage refers only to the mother, not to the miscarried fetus.

What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus - the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person - can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

It is time to stop the one-sided view of abortion being proclaimed by Christian leaders. These leaders do not -- despite their claims -- have a biblical mandate for their theologies. It is time to stop preaching that the Bible contain an undeniable doctrine against abortion. It is time to stop the anger and hatred being heaped on abortion doctors and upon women who have abortions, especially when it's done in the name of a God who has not written such condemnations in his Bible. It is time to stop, because the act of making a judgment against people in God's name, when God is not behind the judging, is nothing short of claiming that our own beliefs are more important than God's. We must stop, because if we don't, then indeed the very type of theological argument being used against abortion can be turned around and used to proclaim that abortion is biblical.


Further
All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are:
Is it alive?
Is it human?
Is it a person?
Is it physically independent?
Does it have human rights?
Is abortion murder?
Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.
1. Is it alive?

Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.

But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.

2. Is it human?

Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)

Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate.

3. Is it a person?

No. It's merely a potential person.

Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)

There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason.

The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.

The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either.

Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception.

But they are wrong. Their "logic" is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true.

And in reality, the Pro Choice defender's fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person.

It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical wellbeing of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question.

4. Is it physically independent?

No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.

Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.

Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?

This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.

This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.

To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.

This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supercede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?

5. Does it have human rights?

Yes and No.

A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.

If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy.

Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world.

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice.

Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue....

6. Is abortion murder?

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.

If indeed "consciousness does not begin until months, even years, after the baby was born", then we should feel free to kill all unwanted living babies until they are "months, even years" old.
Of course we won't do that (I hope). Why? Because: When it comes right down to it, we can sense that these small humans in fact do show many levels of consciousness from a very early age; and, because we sense that humanness may be something too precious to deal away because of narrow legalistic definitions ("viability", "consciousness", "fetus/human/baby" etc.). Do we want to do away with retarded people or others who have a "low quality of lie" (in our estimation)? The old and sick- forced euthanasia? We are not to that point yet, but similar issues of what constitutes a human life worth living are at stake.

This may be why the history of the pro-choice movement is tied in with eugenics.

Okay, to put it in "scientific terms" for all you literate people out there, there is ONE purpose for sex. TO HAVE CHILDREN! We wouldnt have our sexual organs if we didn't have children, then sex wouldn't exist. So if you don't want to have children, don't have sex, because that's the ONLY purpose of sex. Yes it is enjoyable, but if we wernt ment to have babies, there would be no pleasure from sex.

That is not true. Not all animals gain pleasure from sex (actually I think humans are the only ones) but they do it anyway. Sex between other animals only serves the purpose of reproduction.

Okay, to put it in "scientific terms" for all you literate people out there, there is ONE purpose for sex. TO HAVE CHILDREN! We wouldnt have our sexual organs if we didn't have children, then sex wouldn't exist. So if you don't want to have children, don't have sex, because that's the ONLY purpose of sex. Yes it is enjoyable, but if we wernt ment to have babies, there would be no pleasure from sex.

That is not true. Not all animals gain pleasure from sex (actually I think humans are the only ones) but they do it anyway. Sex between other animals only serves the purpose of reproduction.

Dolphins screw for pleasure too.

Okay, to put it in "scientific terms" for all you literate people out there, there is ONE purpose for sex. TO HAVE CHILDREN! We wouldnt have our sexual organs if we didn't have children, then sex wouldn't exist. So if you don't want to have children, don't have sex, because that's the ONLY purpose of sex. Yes it is enjoyable, but if we wernt ment to have babies, there would be no pleasure from sex.

That is not true. Not all animals gain pleasure from sex (actually I think humans are the only ones) but they do it anyway. Sex between other animals only serves the purpose of reproduction.

Dolphins screw for pleasure too.
Chimps too, but they're practically humans.

That is not true. Not all animals gain pleasure from sex (actually I think humans are the only ones) but they do it anyway. Sex between other animals only serves the purpose of reproduction.

Well what about masterbation? why do animals masterbate?

Okay, to put it in "scientific terms" for all you literate people out there, there is ONE purpose for sex. TO HAVE CHILDREN! We wouldnt have our sexual organs if we didn't have children, then sex wouldn't exist. So if you don't want to have children, don't have sex, because that's the ONLY purpose of sex. Yes it is enjoyable, but if we wernt ment to have babies, there would be no pleasure from sex.

That is not true. Not all animals gain pleasure from sex (actually I think humans are the only ones) but they do it anyway. Sex between other animals only serves the purpose of reproduction.

Dolphins screw for pleasure too.
Chimps too, but they're practically humans.

I stand corrected

...A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth. ...

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. ...

After assesing that first parigraph I have quoted One could come to the conclusion that Abortion should only be allowable in the case of a real iminant threat to the Mothers life. I am curious as to how you feel about that.

Second Quoted Paragraph: I have a problem with this because of my definition of what a Right is. For me A right is not somthing that can be given or taken away. It is not somthing that can be demanded, it is simply there. So I would have to disagre with what you said about both the mother and the child and that they can't both have rights. Granted however Rights can be violated. So while they both have the right to life an abortion that was preformed out of convenience would violate the childs rights.

In other words while the mother one does not have "veto power" over the other the mother does have the free will to choose whether or not she is going to violate the rights of that child or "potential person"


Lastly, somthing that I have been pondering because I have gone through this myself: the "Potential Person Argument" I first started using this argument not because I thought of fetuses as potential people but because others don't think of it that way. After all you can't give religious arguments to a non religious person in a country where there is suppose to be a seperation of church and state. Therefor if you believe that a fetus is a person because of your religion you wouldn't be able to bring that into an argument.

So in retrospect the Christians of the world should be more worried about converting people first or getting them to believe in God and then start in with the religious debating.

Well I have to get to class. catch you later

Coldblood

A couple of things. I just had a talk with someone who also knows the ins and outs of the Bible and here is what I got.

1) You can't use the old testement as the athority on what goes on any more. The reason we have a "New Testement" is because when Jesus came down to Earth as a man he Made a New Testement with the people of earth. After all if we still followed all the laws of the old testement we would be stoning alot of people. The laws of the Old Testement were kind of a starters or begineers set of rules for God's people. After you you can't just give a calculus problem to someone in the second grade (unless their a genius) and expect them to be able to work it out. In stead you have alot of teaching to do before they get that far. It was the same with the early church, it had to be tought the basics first before Jesus could come along and lay down some new rules.

2) If you look at when Mary meets Elizabeth, Elizabeth says to Mary: "who am I that the mother of our Lord should come to me?"
Now You can't be a mother unless you have a child and Jesus did come into this world as a man. So there for she did have a life inside of her.

There was also somthing in Timothy but I really don't remember what it was. If needs be I will find it for you.

Besides, Coldblood was doing some very uncritical proof-texting.
Get a Bible Commentary.
Mathew Henry, Interpreter's Bible, whatever. See what the scholars say about your passages.

Aegonia has taken the pro-death ticket. All pregnant women are required to abort their children until we can stop uncontrollably raping the Earth of its resources due to overpopulation. We figure killing babies is better than killing everyone (the eventual circumstance of overpopulating the Earth).

Well, okay - not really, but I wanted to say it. We actually believe in pro-choice. Although typically there are already social problems with mothers who choose to get abortions, we figure that there would be more social issues if every woman was having 10 children by 30 years of age, in true Catholic form. It's almost as bad as the polygamist Mormon man who has 20 children with different "wives" and doesn't support any of his kids because he only earns $18,000 as a "waste management engineer", but is allowed to fornicate out of control because of religion. So now, all of his wives will seek assistance from the government to make ends meet. Personally, I don't like paying for his mistakes, and since I can't kill them, the least I can do is let them kill themselves (abortions).

Whew, that was a rant. Sorry. Bash away. :D

the pro-life people are probably already firing up the bashing engines they have, i think we'll need to wait though aegonia.

I made a much better post in the other abortion thread. Oh well... I'm curious to see what comes out of this. I was just in a bad mood when I wrote it.

actually i was quoting a publsihed scholar type. check the link .

find me any examples in the new testamet that prohibit abortion. all jesus did when he came was to set aside the laws of moses. thats the 10 commandments for the rest of you.

find me any examples in the new testamet that prohibit abortion. all jesus did when he came was to set aside the laws of moses. thats the 10 commandments for the rest of you.

When Jesus can he did NOT take away the 10 commandments. What he did was declare that we no longer had to follow the Deueranomic Law, which was very picky.

I know that those who use the bible's lack of commentary on abortion mean well, but the argument is mostly directed at catholics (correct me if I am wrong here), who do not practice their faith "sola scriptura". This simply means that rather than taking the bible at face value, those who follow the catholic religion adhere to divine revelations outside of what is outlined in the old and new testaments; in the learning of their religion, caltholics also use a text called a "Catechism" that contain these supplemental writings. In that vein, an argument against the Catholic/Christian position should be well researched beyond just the bible. The idea of having a well researched argument goes for both sides, although I don't think that there can ever be an end to this debate since the wills and opinions of each side are equally strong.
In short, don't just post scripture and interpret it how you want to, because your interpretation may be very different than what someone's religion teaches is correct. And I implore you all not to personally attack each other because it turns an intelligent debate into the equivalent of a playground argument.
Thank You,
A Representative of West Sophiata

As a PS, I would like to add that the majority of Mormons no longer condone the practice of polygamy; the few recent instances of this that have occurred were a result of religious fundamentalism.

I know that those who use the bible's lack of commentary on abortion mean well, but the argument is mostly directed at catholics (correct me if I am wrong here), who do not practice their faith "sola scriptura". This simply means that rather than taking the bible at face value, those who follow the catholic religion adhere to divine revelations outside of what is outlined in the old and new testaments; in the learning of their religion, caltholics also use a text called a "Catechism" that contain these supplemental writings. In that vein, an argument against the Catholic/Christian position should be well researched beyond just the bible. The idea of having a well researched argument goes for both sides, although I don't think that there can ever be an end to this debate since the wills and opinions of each side are equally strong.


Sola Scriptura: Just out of curiosity whre in the bible does it say that we are to follow the bible alone?

The bible does however talk about the church having athority.

Matthew 18:17-18
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

In Matthew Jesus is giving the athority to dictate what is to be law. And in Timothy The Church is labled as the bill and ground of truth.

The Catechism: The Catechism pretty much explains what the church's position on alot of things but it doesn't just state things, it also give references to the Bible as to where the the beliefes are founded in scripture.

One would also have to understand that there are some books that are in the Catholic Bible that were taken out of some of the other Religions Bible or that the bible was just changed to suit the desires of a King(King James Version) these books would include: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees.

Sola Scriptura: Just out of curiosity whre in the bible does it say that we are to follow the bible alone?

....

The Catechism: The Catechism pretty much explains what the church's position on alot of things but it doesn't just state things, it also give references to the Bible as to where the the beliefes are founded in scripture.

I was only trying to make a point that by simply quoting and misinterpreting bible verses, an argument against the pro-life stance wouldn't necessarily hold water, because we don't use the bible as a manual for life. Therefore the absence of a particular reference to abortion in the bible would be irrelevant, as the Catholic Church believes in much more than the bible merely states. In other words, using and kind of religious writing to argue against the beliefs/position of that particular religious group is ineffective unless one understands the theology.
I may not have worded my previous comment correctly, but I think we might have made the same point, in a way.

I can't belive I am hearing all this pro choice crap. If every woman who wanted to have an abortion had one, the earth's human population would eventually die out! IF that is what the UN really wants, so be it, but I would like the human civilizations to prosper for a long time to come.

Yes, let's be mindless about this and pull facts out of our ass and be idiots. You know that would never happen.

How many times must it be said?!

THE UN IS NOT THERE TO DICTATE POLICY TO MEMBER NATIONS.

Your proposal removes national sovereignty.

Yes it is.

Some of the proposal categories are "Gun Control" "Gambling" and "Drugs".

While I'm against abortion, I wouldn't illegalize it as that would make too many people unhappy. The UN is not the place for such a resolution.

you speak about not illegalizing it because it would make people unhappy. well about what the people who are killed in the process think? wouldnt you be unhappy if your mother when homicidel on you?

you speak about not illegalizing it because it would make people unhappy. well about what the people who are killed in the process think? wouldnt you be unhappy if your mother when homicidel on you?

Well, since no one can agree on whether unborn babies/lumps of cells are elligible for the right to life, I really don't want to risk making millions angry.

soo you would rather take a chance of killing possible humans than makesing people angry?? what if they are human think of the millions of lives you would be saving! ( and they are humans).

soo you would rather take a chance of killing possible humans than makesing people angry?? what if they are human think of the millions of lives you would be saving! ( and they are humans).

For the love of god listen to what I said about backing up your arguments.

And do you realise how many lives we would save if we outlawed eating pig? Better yet, if we outlawed fatty foods. Oh, and not to mention outlawing religion, that would save millions of lives too.

And I'd like some evidence of these "Millions of lives" because I find it hard to believe there are millions of abortions taking place. Again, BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH FACTS!

Yes it is.

Some of the proposal categories are "Gun Control" "Gambling" and "Drugs".

They shouldn't be. The only reason I'm still in the thing is because it's a requirement for an RP alliance.

more abortions take place yearly than jews were killed in the holocost in germany! hows that for a fact? and religion and eating pork is a right whereas killing people is not!

more abortions take place yearly than jews were killed in the holocost in germany! hows that for a fact? and religion and eating pork is a right whereas killing people is not!

It can easily be argued that abortion is a right. And can we outlaw war then?
Please capitalise.

more abortions take place yearly than jews were killed in the holocost in germany! hows that for a fact? and religion and eating pork is a right whereas killing people is not!

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH FACTS!

You can't claim something is a fact without sources, you can't say more abortions take place then jews killed in the holocaust without proof of that.

And just because you think eating pork is a right doesn't mean it is, the amount of people that would be saved (from a cold you could get from it since pigs are what bring the flu across the world) you are killing other people who you spread the cold to, much more people die from pigs then abortions.

And I will say it again, back up your arguments with facts.

you talk about siteing your fact i dont see where you got that from. mine is an actual fact your's is some bs you made up from the top of your head!

Rangerville said:

This is an issue that should be left up to individual nations to decide.

I concur.

you talk about siteing your fact i dont see where you got that from. mine is an actual fact your's is some bs you made up from the top of your head!

No, pigs are the only animal we eat that spread the same viruses we can get, such as the common cold or the flu. And if we didn't have pigs the amount of people getting those virus's would drop signifigantly. See, I'm backing up my facts.

You states an outrageous claim that can't be backed up, so you have to show sources or a link to a professional site saying such, because I am positive we do not have over 8 million abortions.

Ahem, can the anti-abortion nation please state his opinion on whether war should be banned.

actually if you look at the number of jews killed by the holocost to the number of people killed by abortions in a year you can easily see the truth!

actually if you look at the number of jews killed by the holocost to the number of people killed by abortions in a year you can easily see the truth!

The truth that you are wrong, there are only about 1.3 million abortions a year, far short of 8 million.

And it is YOUR job to offer proof, because YOU are the one claiming the outrageous facts. So YOU have to give a link to a source that shows how many abortions there were.

I have an interseting look on Abortion. I do belive it is wrong, as I am Catholic, yet, the USA sees it as wrong AND right.
In some case, such as an atemted murder of a pregnant woman, the woman can charge the killer with murder if her unborn child is killed, yet in abortion, there is no murder. The baby is being killed both ways. How can the USA make this so?
I presume the legal philosophy behind it would be something like.....
In case of a killer, the baby was killed against there will.
However in the case of abortion, the mother represents the baby. If she, and there for the baby, agrees to be killed it is a very special form of eutanasia.

But check the ages of the baby to. Abortiong is allowed only in the very beginning. The murder of the child can very well be after the time allowed for abortion have long passed.

How many times must it be said?!

THE UN IS NOT THERE TO DICTATE POLICY TO MEMBER NATIONS.

Your proposal removes national sovereignty.

That is a point of view. Lets vote for that :P.
Actually you got it quite wrong. First of all, a lot of resolutions are about dictating policy in somebodies souvernity.

What do you mean I am not allowed to kill my minorities?!?!?
What do you mean I am not allowed to have an atomic bomb in my back yard?
Whe would it be wrong to have those nice little creepy bacterias in my little private lab.
Well those where the first three that popped in my mind.

What the UN forbids or not, is just plainly based on, what gets through the votes. Can assure you however, any self respecting nation kinda automatically votes against it unless there would be something other at stake. Seemingtly unnessasery meddling in internal affairs is usually never voted for unless that internel affair is believed to be a threat to that country. Afcourse, we here at NS might be less realistic :).

To me it seems a lot of people threat the UN in the NS quite differently. They are the voters. Teh regional representatives are in the senate.
And wopla start making legislation. Ah well, just as eductative :P.

Or even better, if people start thinking like a nation, it might learn people a lot of things about the UN they where never aware off. That little things about what you just said, usually just get voted away right away.

Making a real UN proposal is a hellish thing. You think somebody just writes it and says here it goes. To be worth considered the time of voting, there are lenghtly discussion. Power blocks that want to make changes in there favor. A long process of negotiation and changes. IF the deligation members would addept that little extra touch in there behavoir, then it gets real fun.

The touch would be, don't allow a resolution to be voted on, unless you think it will pass. Proposing a resolution that failed makes you look very stupid :P
Well, that will surely change the way proposals are made :)

more abortions take place yearly than jews were killed in the holocost in germany! hows that for a fact? and religion and eating pork is a right whereas killing people is not!

1/3 of all pregnencies end in miscarriage. Is this what your thinking of?

Abortion is wrong, it should be illegal. People who say "It's my own right to deal with my own body" are just dishing out a bunch of bull crap. It's murder- the babies are alive when it happens.

I've seen video clips of a baby before it's born- they actually form facial expressions, yawn, and do a number of other things. Why do people think it's o.k. to kill thousands of babies a year just because they don't want them? It's just sickening. If you don't want to baby, then put them up for adoption after it's born, don't kill it.

more abortions take place yearly than jews were killed in the holocost in germany! hows that for a fact? and religion and eating pork is a right whereas killing people is not!

1/3 of all pregnencies end in miscarriage. Is this what your thinking of?

It's way more than that. Over 90% of pregnancies are naturally terminated within the first two weeks.

This is because the mother's immune system often doesn't recognize the baby's DNA, especially if it is her first time having sex with the biological father. Her immune system assumes that it''s an invading force (such as a cancer) and will attack it.

Much of the time when a woman has sex she gets pregnant. It's just that it's usually terminated so early no one notices.

Abortion is wrong, it should be illegal. People who say "It's my own right to deal with my own body" are just dishing out a bunch of bull crap. It's murder- the babies are alive when it happens.

I've seen video clips of a baby before it's born- they actually form facial expressions, yawn, and do a number of other things. Why do people think it's o.k. to kill thousands of babies a year just because they don't want them? It's just sickening. If you don't want to baby, then put them up for adoption after it's born, don't kill it.

The baby doesn't have the right to be in the mother's body. It's only there by her permission. Her right to life (and therefore to her body) means that she has the right to remove the baby from her womb whenever she chooses. That it dies is merely a tragic consequence.

Fine. It is therefore illegal to use contraceptives as it destroys potential human life. Never mind that it infringes on sexual freedom and will make the population skyrocket.
A foetus is not human, it is a bunch of cells. Yes, I think we should act sensitively, but it is not human life but potential human life. If that's murder, so is contraception.

Fine. It is therefore illegal to use contraceptives as it destroys potential human life. Never mind that it infringes on sexual freedom and will make the population skyrocket.
A foetus is not human, it is a bunch of cells. Yes, I think we should act sensitively, but it is not human life but potential human life. If that's murder, so is contraception.

Scarily enough alot of people actually believe that contraception is murder

I really don't have much to add to this discussion. Oh wait, that's spamming, gotta go.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fê|xomun@âûlkakûmo(we like very big butts)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Homophobia is so gay.
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

more abortions take place yearly than jews were killed in the holocost in germany! hows that for a fact? and religion and eating pork is a right whereas killing people is not!

1/3 of all pregnencies end in miscarriage. Is this what your thinking of?

It's way more than that. Over 90% of pregnancies are naturally terminated within the first two weeks.

This is because the mother's immune system often doesn't recognize the baby's DNA, especially if it is her first time having sex with the biological father. Her immune system assumes that it''s an invading force (such as a cancer) and will attack it.

Much of the time when a woman has sex she gets pregnant. It's just that it's usually terminated so early no one notices.

the statistic was probably after a certain amount of days to qualify it as a miscarriage.

If you want to abort babies/fœti, that is your own choice and a message board probably isn't going to do much good in effecting it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

How many times must it be said?!

THE UN IS NOT THERE TO DICTATE POLICY TO MEMBER NATIONS.

Your proposal removes national sovereignty.

That is a point of view. Lets vote for that :P.
Actually you got it quite wrong. First of all, a lot of resolutions are about dictating policy in somebodies souvernity.

What do you mean I am not allowed to kill my minorities?!?!?
What do you mean I am not allowed to have an atomic bomb in my back yard?
Whe would it be wrong to have those nice little creepy bacterias in my little private lab.
Well those where the first three that popped in my mind.

What the UN forbids or not, is just plainly based on, what gets through the votes. Can assure you however, any self respecting nation kinda automatically votes against it unless there would be something other at stake. Seemingtly unnessasery meddling in internal affairs is usually never voted for unless that internel affair is believed to be a threat to that country. Afcourse, we here at NS might be less realistic :).

To me it seems a lot of people threat the UN in the NS quite differently. They are the voters. Teh regional representatives are in the senate.
And wopla start making legislation. Ah well, just as eductative :P.

Or even better, if people start thinking like a nation, it might learn people a lot of things about the UN they where never aware off. That little things about what you just said, usually just get voted away right away.

Making a real UN proposal is a hellish thing. You think somebody just writes it and says here it goes. To be worth considered the time of voting, there are lenghtly discussion. Power blocks that want to make changes in there favor. A long process of negotiation and changes. IF the deligation members would addept that little extra touch in there behavoir, then it gets real fun.

The touch would be, don't allow a resolution to be voted on, unless you think it will pass. Proposing a resolution that failed makes you look very stupid :P
Well, that will surely change the way proposals are made :)

These things you cite affect other nations. This is why they are accepted as UN proposals and treaties.

Forcing the banning of abortion on a nation only affects the people within that nation, and removes the country's right to decide on this issue for itself.

Yes, some proposals may infringe on some national sovereignty, but there is a very good reason for this (as you said, restrictions on mass slaughter of civilians for example). There is a point at which the line must be drawn.

These things you cite affect other nations. This is why they are accepted as UN proposals and treaties.

Forcing the banning of abortion on a nation only affects the people within that nation, and removes the country's right to decide on this issue for itself.

Yes, some proposals may infringe on some national sovereignty, but there is a very good reason for this (as you said, restrictions on mass slaughter of civilians for example). There is a point at which the line must be drawn.

Yes you are right, somewhere you have to draw the line. And that line is decided by voting (and deligation approval). IRL there is no god that says cleary what is what isn't. Though here the moderaters could be gods. Though since there are more you can call it a polytheism :P.

Actually the things I say don't affect other nations. Well not more than a lot of other things do. I don't see how killing my minorities will affect other nations anyway. If I give a press blockage, and shoot people trying to flee, you would never know.
Having an atom bomb in my backyard. Not really. The radiation would not even be noticeable except for stupid satalites flying over MY country.
Having creepy bacterias. Well not really either. Assuming that I don't make an mistake that get them spread.

Yes, some of them do affect other nations if things go wrong. Especially with those two weapons. Or huge amounts refeegees coming over the border.

However, I can quit imagen I am not that happy with abortion refeegees coming over my border either. Nor that if my citizens happen to be in the country they can not have an abortion. Imagen one accidentally happing to get imprisoned. Just imagen the horror. Gosh some kind of governement might even deny her an abortion. Nah I don't like those things. I prefere them to have a resolution that spans the entire world :P.
Afcourse I argued against forbidding abortion. (it was easier :P)

Reverse would be something like, I protect the rights of my babies. And I can not allow somebody to just go over the border and have one of my citizens or future citizens (a baby) be killed. We have to have a law that forbids abortion everywhere.

You see the line what affects other nations is very unclear, so never think things are easy and simple. Grin, or you would not stand a day in politics :P. Where the line will be drawn, UN democracy dicatates :)

Abortion is wrong, it should be illegal. People who say "It's my own right to deal with my own body" are just dishing out a bunch of bull crap. It's murder- the babies are alive when it happens.

I've seen video clips of a baby before it's born- they actually form facial expressions, yawn, and do a number of other things. Why do people think it's o.k. to kill thousands of babies a year just because they don't want them? It's just sickening. If you don't want to baby, then put them up for adoption after it's born, don't kill it.

The baby doesn't have the right to be in the mother's body. It's only there by her permission. Her right to life (and therefore to her body) means that she has the right to remove the baby from her womb whenever she chooses. That it dies is merely a tragic consequence.

Grin I love this kind of argumentation. It proves only something I have know for a long time. You can argue for everything in life in favor of it or against it, and always come up with a resonable argumentation.

Though religios people would have some objectes including against suicide, which suggest you are not entirely allowed to do with your body what you want to. Though they go wrong there to. I am not trying to commit suicide. I am just trying to see if I can jump away at the last moment ;)
PS NEVER EVER DO IT THAT WAY. Don't do it period. But this way you ruin the emotions of the driver for life. That is just cruel.

more abortions take place yearly than jews were killed in the holocost in germany! hows that for a fact? and religion and eating pork is a right whereas killing people is not!

1/3 of all pregnencies end in miscarriage. Is this what your thinking of?

It's way more than that. Over 90% of pregnancies are naturally terminated within the first two weeks.

This is because the mother's immune system often doesn't recognize the baby's DNA, especially if it is her first time having sex with the biological father. Her immune system assumes that it''s an invading force (such as a cancer) and will attack it.

Much of the time when a woman has sex she gets pregnant. It's just that it's usually terminated so early no one notices.

Yep. But the church actually doesn't have a really big objection with that. They few anything god does is oke. There problem is in these things is human interference. Some believe that taking man made medicine when sick is also that kind of interference that cannot be allowed. Actually they have a good point. Humans can do more than they have the wisdom to handle. Thinking you should let things in the hands of god is sometimes not so bad. I take the ecology on our world. as example. Or another one, the not so well conditions in africa. Largely created by overpopulation to. Over population partially in existence because europe was so friendly to give the kind gesture of teaching them medicine.

We humans are notoriously noted for our complete obliviousness of consequences (so do animals) with far to great power than is good for us (which animals generally lack). A religion that says lets curp those powers, has a good point.

I have already heard of abortion cases based on whether it was male or female. They are capable of detecting that now, before the termine for abortion is over.

Not only am I pro-abortion, I would like to propose that parents be allowed to lawfully terminate their child's life up to the age of 16. This seems fair to me. Your kid turns out to be all whiny and arsey, no problem: take it to the doctors and get rid. Get another one.

It could be regulated in the following way: as soon as you name your kid, your not allowed to terminate it. So if you erckon you might not like your kid in the future, you have to call it Kid-1 or whatver, or it, until you reckon it's a keeper.

Imagine all the young hoodlums we could erradicate. Utopia awaits in the above notion.

This is kind of OT to the thread, but is there an issue anybody has come across which allows them to pick a pro or anti abortion stance for their nation? Without adding my own voice to the argument, I would like to have a choice ( :lol: ) to officially take a policy position on abortion for my nation.