NationStates Jolt Archive

This is only intended for those who proffess to a belief that abortion should always be illegal except in the case of rape or serious risk to the mother. The rest of you need not pay attention.

To you who believe this I say: How do you justify this moral quandary?

Essentially, what you're saying is that abortion is murder and always always wrong- except in the case of rape. Then it's all right.

The way I see it, there are only two ways this can go. Either you think it's not murder if it's rape- that is, the child of a rapist is less human than other children. So should children of felons not be treated as human by the government? Should you be allowed to enslave the children of a murderer, if they have done nothing wrong themselves?

Or do you feel murder is all right in this case- That it's okay to kill the child of a rapist? So should there be lower penalties for the murder of a criminal's child? Can we take this a bit further and say that the penalty for killing someone should be related to their father's criminal record?

I don't seriously believe anyone can think this way. Which leaves only one real alternative: You think premarital sex should be a crime punishable by baby. You think women should only have to go through pregnancy and birth if they were responsible for becoming pregnant. Which, if I might be so frank, is a twisted way to think.

So which is it? Or is there some option here I haven't considered?

(Note that I, myself, am adamantly pro-choice. But that's not the issue here...)

because even an adamant pro-lifer isnt that heartless

and

they know that if they go to the ultimate extreme position of "no abortion no way no how" they will never attain their goal of re-criminalizing abortion

This is only intended for those who proffess to a belief that abortion should always be illegal except in the case of rape or serious risk to the mother. The rest of you need not pay attention.

To you who believe this I say: How do you justify this moral quandary?

Essentially, what you're saying is that abortion is murder and always always wrong- except in the case of rape. Then it's all right.

The way I see it, there are only two ways this can go. Either you think it's not murder if it's rape- that is, the child of a rapist is less human than other children. So should children of felons not be treated as human by the government? Should you be allowed to enslave the children of a murderer, if they have done nothing wrong themselves?

Or do you feel murder is all right in this case- That it's okay to kill the child of a rapist? So should there be lower penalties for the murder of a criminal's child? Can we take this a bit further and say that the penalty for killing someone should be related to their father's criminal record?

I don't seriously believe anyone can think this way. Which leaves only one real alternative: You think premarital sex should be a crime punishable by baby. You think women should only have to go through pregnancy and birth if they were responsible for becoming pregnant. Which, if I might be so frank, is a twisted way to think.

So which is it? Or is there some option here I haven't considered?

(Note that I, myself, am adamantly pro-choice. But that's not the issue here...)
An embryo is not a child

because even an adamant pro-lifer isnt that heartless

and

they know that if they go to the ultimate extreme position of "no abortion no way no how" they will never attain their goal of re-criminalizing abortion

Well of course that's the other option- they are compromising their beliefs to achieve political ends. I didn't think of that...

An embryo is not a child

I apologize. Read it as "human offspring" if it troubles you that much.

I apologize. Read it as "human offspring" if it troubles you that much.
"it's okay to kill the child of a rapist"
It just sounds like I could kill a criminal's 7 year old boy and get away with it.

"it's okay to kill the child of a rapist"
It just sounds like I could kill a criminal's 7 year old boy and get away with it.

That is exactly what I'm saying these people are saying.

Because it would be a child through unwanted sex. a child whom would be regarded as a mistake by the childs parents.

noone should have to put up with a life like that.

[QUOTE=Adrica]This is only intended for those who proffess to a belief that abortion should always be illegal except in the case of rape or serious risk to the mother. The rest of you need not pay attention.

QUOTE]
this is funny, because the only ones posting here are the ones who need not pay attention, this is just a bunch of liberals bitching about nothing to each other again.

Because it would be a child through unwanted sex. a child whom would be regarded as a mistake by the childs parents.

noone should have to put up with a life like that.

And this is different from a normal child that might be aborted in that...?

And this is different from a normal child that might be aborted in that...?
none, it just makes sense in their little heads so they dont explode

this is funny, because the only ones posting here are the ones who need not pay attention, this is just a bunch of liberals bitching about nothing to each other again.

You think this is a non-issue, then?

Personally, I don't think that a rapist's child should be aborted (unless it is of danger to the mother's health).

My opinion is that the baby should be born and then given up for adoption, that way it can lead a normal life.

Personally, I don't think that a rapist's child should be aborted (unless it is of danger to the mother's health).

My opinion is that the baby should be born and then given up for adoption, that way it can lead a normal life.

Well, then, I don't have a problem with you :P

(At least, not in the context of this thread...)

as a pro-lifer I agree that a person concived of rape should have the same rights as everyone else, least we start judging eachother on who our fathers are/were

IMO, the best solution in this situation is for the girl who was raped to get a "morning-after pill" if she doesn't want to risk becoming pregnant as a result. That is, it should be standard procedure to offer her one. While there are people who believe that even the single-celled zygote is a full-fledged human being with all the rights due to such an entity, the simple fact is that a zygote is undetectable as such. Also, many embryos with multiple cells are lost in the first week or so after conception, without the mother ever knowing that fertilization occurred. So, with the combination of the uncertainty over whether the embry exists, uncertainty over whether the embryo would survive even if it does exist, and possibility of emotional trauma due to carrying the child to term, I feel that use of the morning-after pill is fully justified in the case of rape.

I would not be openly opposed to making the morning-after pill readily available for anyone, regardless of the circumstances of conception, since the first two of the three reasons above still apply, and because I (being a single male with no medical or theological training) feel unqualified to discuss abortion in general. While there are very few circumstances under which I would support abortion after the embryo becomes detectable, I'm not the type to run around telling people it's "murder" because I don't really feel like mucking around in other people's lives.

Just so you'll know, there was a time when I opposed abortion except in the cases of 1) rape, 2) serious threats to the health of the mother (although this would not be mandatory if the mother wished to risk her life), or 3) extreme unlikelihood of long-term survival of the infant. Thanks to discussions like this, I have revised my view to 1) what I have discussed above in terms of rape, and 2) judgement calls on the part of the parents in cases 2 and 3 above. Although I won't argue at length with someone who is dead-set on getting an ordinary abortion, I do not expect myself, in the forseeable future, to support what is known as a "partial-birth abortion" any time in the forseeable future, because, if I understand the process correctly, the mother still has to push the fetus out of her birth canal, which means the abortion itself is nothing but a pointless waste of human life.

Yes, I know I've wandered kind of far afield of the topic. No, I don't really care that I have done so.

Very interesting topic. I wish to put in that since few if any of us are fortune tellers, we won't know how the baby's life will turn out. It seems to me that despite a mistake or tragedy of rape, giving a the offspring a chance can indeed still allow for the offspring to have a great life. The mother has to make a choice to care for the offspring regardless of how it was conceived and the friends and family around this mother need to be there to support her as well. More than likely the father hasn't stuck around, or hopefully is in prison, so this offspring will grow up without a father. Even though that may be a disadvantage, there are plenty of people out there who came from one parent families that took the initiative to be selfless and care for this child who are great successes. I admit part of my thoughts on this come from a theological perspective that the wickedness of an event can be remedied through time some help, whether it be supernatural or the miracle within people themselves. As a friend to somebody who became pregnant from rape I would advise for that person to go through the birth process. It is a child that she can still love. And also as a friend I feel it my duty to help her out in as much as possible to give her offspring a chance.

I suspect many pro-lifers would remove all exceptions except for where the life of the mother is at risk ( and some would probably want that removed too and just leave it up to god).

The rape incest exception is probably just there to make their position sound more palitable, i.e. exclusions for where the woman did not voluntarily enter into behavior where pregnancy resulted and thus bears no responsiblilty for the pregnancy.

In all other cases (risk of life of mother excepted) pro lifers can impute that the woman intended to get pregnant from her behavior, and can therefore claim that she bears responsibilty for the life of the child. As such she has no right to terminate it.

Bit like gun control, one step at a time, don't ban it all at once, only the most unpopular elements thereby shifting the focus of the argument.

above. Although I won't argue at length with someone who is dead-set on getting an ordinary abortion, I do not expect myself, in the forseeable future, to support what is known as a "partial-birth abortion" any time in the forseeable future, because, if I understand the process correctly, the mother still has to push the fetus out of her birth canal, which means the abortion itself is nothing but a pointless waste of human life.


You had a very well-thought out post here. Just thought I would clarify something.

D&X or "partial birth abortion" involves the doctors inducing labor in order to dilate the vagina and begin the process of birth. The fetus is then terminated. Of course, this procedure (in the US anyways) can only be used in cases where the mother's health or life is in danger. It is, barring dangerous surgery that endangers the mother even further than she already is, the only method by which fetuses which have developed hydrocephalus (and would not survive more than a few minutes even if delivered by C-section) can be removed.

This is only intended for those who proffess to a belief that abortion should always be illegal except in the case of rape or serious risk to the mother. The rest of you need not pay attention.

To you who believe this I say: How do you justify this moral quandary?

Essentially, what you're saying is that abortion is murder and always always wrong- except in the case of rape. Then it's all right.

The way I see it, there are only two ways this can go. Either you think it's not murder if it's rape- that is, the child of a rapist is less human than other children. So should children of felons not be treated as human by the government? Should you be allowed to enslave the children of a murderer, if they have done nothing wrong themselves?

Or do you feel murder is all right in this case- That it's okay to kill the child of a rapist? So should there be lower penalties for the murder of a criminal's child? Can we take this a bit further and say that the penalty for killing someone should be related to their father's criminal record?

I don't seriously believe anyone can think this way. Which leaves only one real alternative: You think premarital sex should be a crime punishable by baby. You think women should only have to go through pregnancy and birth if they were responsible for becoming pregnant. Which, if I might be so frank, is a twisted way to think.

So which is it? Or is there some option here I haven't considered?

(Note that I, myself, am adamantly pro-choice. But that's not the issue here...)

The main issue here is does a mother have the right to privacy?
Does she own her own body?
Does she have to carry a fetus for 9 months that she does not want, did'nt want to produce, and was forced upon her illegally.

Its not the same thing to say , " I can't kill that baby from women who was raped." But Why can't she? Its a parasite.

If a mother wants the baby then its not a parasite because its symbotic. You want a baby and labor brings it out.

If I shoot you with a dart and now you have to let a tape worm inside you.
You would want to get it out, yes? The reason you did not ask for it possibly. Maybe you just don't like a parasite inside you.

However, if you take the parasite view then the fetus is indanger because it acts likewise.

If you accept the consent view then you must agree that rape is not with consent.

Unless you can describe how rape=consent, you will be losing ground.

It can be very tormenting to a woman to have to bear the child of her attacker.
However, I had a 19 year old friend who had an abortion in these circumstances and her feeling sof guilt and helplessness over the abortion (Panned Parenthood does not councel patients about this pervasive post-procedural problem) added to her feelings of guilt and helplessness over the rape (it is irrational, but many rape victims do feel guilt; perhaps it is a way to make sense out of something senseless).

So she killed herself.

It can be very tormenting to a woman to have to bear the child of her attacker.
However, I had a 19 year old friend who had an abortion in these circumstances and her feeling sof guilt and helplessness over the abortion (Panned Parenthood does not councel patients about this pervasive post-procedural problem) added to her feelings of guilt and helplessness over the rape (it is irrational, but many rape victims do feel guilt; perhaps it is a way to make sense out of something senseless).

So she killed herself.
Many victims have a strange sense of its their fault. How can they blame themselves for being raped? Its like saying he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Example: Guy getting gass. Random drive by against a group at a gas station, innocent guy gets shot. Bystanders say, " was in the wrong, place at wrong time".

You have to wonder isn't a gas station where you get gas? Where do they go?

But yeah victim guilt is happening.

I can't believe there are actually scum who would force a woman to have her rapist's child. It's like pouring salt in the wound. Pregnancy takes an incredible toll on a woman's body and causes irreversible changes. And thats just the woman. The child will have it far worse with his life being the product of a heinous crime. What you fools fail to realize is that life can be worse than death. I'd rather not live than live as the product of a rape.

I can't believe there are actually scum who would force a woman to have her rapist's child. It's like pouring salt in the wound. Pregnancy takes an incredible toll on a woman's body and causes irreversible changes. And thats just the woman. The child will have it far worse with his life being the product of a heinous crime. What you fools fail to realize is that life can be worse than death. I'd rather not live than live as the product of a rape.

So you would "force" her to not have this child?

So you would "force" her to not have this child?
I think he means she should have the choice...

Since abortion after the second trimester is illegal, and since a fetus before this stage cannot survive outside of the womb, the idea that it is "killing a baby as it is being born" is bullshit. The anti-choice side simply uses partial birth abortion to horrify people into supporting them, because of the nature of the operation.

I don't seriously believe anyone can think this way. Which leaves only one real alternative: You think premarital sex should be a crime punishable by baby.
LOL!!!

My point is that (some) people who say abortion is murder still say it should be an alternative in the case of rape.

If you don't feel that abortion is murder, I value your opinion, but not in the context of this thread :)

It is important to remember that the barbarians who believe abortion is murder and want to outlaw it believe that it is unconditionally wrong.

People who believe abortion is murder believe that a rape victim who is pregnant should be legally forbidden from having an abortion. Regardless of her age. Regardless of who raped her.


^^^This is something you must never forget.^^^




If the taliban outlaws abortion in america, what will they outlaw next?

People who believe abortion is murder believe that a rape victim who is pregnant should be legally forbidden from having an abortion. Regardless of her age. Regardless of who raped her.


This I do not find morally reprehensible. They have a set of beliefs, and are sticking to those beliefs.

It is the people who feel as you say EXCEPT they think it's okay in the case of rape I don't get.

It is the people who feel as you say EXCEPT they think it's okay in the case of rape I don't get.
Well, one could argue that it's a 9 month prison sentence for the rape victim.

Also, you have many ways to hurt the unborn fetus permanently if it's truly an unwanted child.

OTOH I'm against 'leisurely' abortion and abortion after the fetus can survive out of the womb *with* the best medical care available.

You know what, I'm not really a "pro-lifer". I think it is the mother's choice whether or not she wants be pregnant for nine months and have a child. If a woman was raped, that child, even if she did give it up for adoption, would be a reminder of when she was raped. It is the mother's choice, she should have the right to an abortion as long as the baby isn't very far along.

This I do not find morally reprehensible. They have a set of beliefs, and are sticking to those beliefs.

It is the people who feel as you say EXCEPT they think it's okay in the case of rape I don't get.

Those people feel that because the woman did not willingly have sex and was raped she should have the right to an abortion. It is just because they feel that because the woman was forced she needs special priveledges.

To an "abortion is murder" taliban barbarian, if a 13 year old girl is impregnated by her brother or father, she should be legally forbidden from having an abortion.

To an "abortion is murder" taliban barbarian, if a 13 year old girl is impregnated by her brother or father, she should be legally forbidden from having an abortion.
can you provide me with a link to something proving this has happend before casue I'm pretty sure it would be on the news.

To an "abortion is murder" taliban barbarian, if a 13 year old girl is impregnated by her brother or father, she should be legally forbidden from having an abortion.


to be fair like the topic says that most pro lifers have the rape clause

a 13 year old girl is a minor

hence statutory rape …

So not forbidden by most pro lifers (not my view just pointing out the mainstream)

to be fair like the topic says that most pro lifers have the rape clause

a 13 year old girl is a minor

hence statutory rape …

So not forbidden by most pro lifers (not my view just pointing out the mainstream)

Only forbidden by the ones who believe that abortion kills a human being.

Those who support abortion in case of rape but not otherwise have no leg to stand on, morally or logically.

It's a silly compromise thrown out between the abortionists and anti-abortionists.


The only defendable positions are that abortion is wrong, or it is permissable up to a point.

Those who support abortion in case of rape but not otherwise have no leg to stand on, morally or logically.

It's a silly compromise thrown out between the abortionists and anti-abortionists.


The only defendable positions are that abortion is wrong, or it is permissable up to a point.

Correction: if it is permissable up to a point, that point just might be when the mother did not consent to sex. It would be more accurate to say "those who support abortion in case of rape but say that it is murder otherwise have no leg to stand on."

Your question is commonly used in the arguements for Pro Choice, but the fact of the matter in the United States a case of abortion from a woman being raped is far and few.

American women aren't using the abortion option as some necesary evil to rid the evidence of a rape trauma - they use it as a form of birth control just as the government of China does so for population control.

There are Pro Life advocates whom simply want the time-limit of an abortion to be lowered to 7 weeks or less.

The majority of abortions in America are done during the first trimester, which is 13 weeks, yet at 7 weeks, there is a heartbeat - obviously if you stop a heartbeat then you are taking a life.

The problems in these arguements is extreme views ignoring most facts and that goes for both sides.

The issue in the arguement which I find personally frustrating is those extremists who will only view this arguement as a battle for their choices. If you think this is about "men" forcing control ,over a woman's body, then you are missing half the picture.

there is a heartbeat - obviously if you stop a heartbeat then you are taking a life.


I disagree, it is the Brain in which we must determine when the "child" is "alive," I believe this is when we become self aware. This should be the cut off point if any.

just my 2c

that said, great thread and im actually pro-choice

Your question is commonly used in the arguements for Pro Choice, but the fact of the matter in the United States a case of abortion from a woman being raped is far and few.

*insert buzzer noise here* Wrong. If abortion was being used as birth control, we would be selling more "morning after pills" and there wouldn't be a need for abortion. Secondly, if the people in question used birth control and STILL conceived a zygote, than abortion is used AFTER birth control has ALREADY failed (thus making it NOT birth control).

American women aren't using the abortion option as some necesary evil to rid the evidence of a rape trauma - they use it as a form of birth control just as the government of China does so for population control.

*insert buzzer noise here* Wrong again. "Birth control" is considered a means to PREVENT pregnancy. The term does not carry over to actions taken AFTER conception.

There are Pro Life advocates whom simply want the time-limit of an abortion to be lowered to 7 weeks or less.

The majority of abortions in America are done during the first trimester, which is 13 weeks, yet at 7 weeks, there is a heartbeat - obviously if you stop a heartbeat then you are taking a life.

*yawn* Actually, a heartbeat doesn't constitute an organism... a central nervous system does. No outside stimulus receptors, no organism. Otherwise, brain-dead patients wouldn't be considered possible organ donors. Donating their organs would be considered "murder".

The problems in these arguements is extreme views ignoring most facts and that goes for both sides.

The issue in the arguement which I find personally frustrating is those extremists who will only view this arguement as a battle for their choices. If you think this is about "men" forcing control ,over a woman's body, then you are missing half the picture.

Actually, I believe the argument is about anyone forcing control over anyone else's body. If you don't think she should be able to have control over her own body, than you have no reason to think you should be able to have control over her... unless you, yourself, are a rapist, that is.

(Disclaimer: Not exactly pro-choice, but not pro-life either)

To address the original issue. The reason is that, when a woman chooses to have sex, she accepts an inherent risk that she might get pregnant (except in those cases where the woman is exceptionally ignorant, but to keep this discussion simple, we'll assume a small degree of common sense). If that risk was unacceptable, she wouldn't choose to have sex.

Now, that risk is presently mitigated because there are alternatives available such as abortion which make long-term (ie, 9 month) commitment unnecessary, and reduce it down to in the best-cast scenario, minor inconvienience. Other, not so best case scenarios are there, such as long-term guilt, but those are varied and dependant upon the individual.

Any semi-reasonable person knows these risks when they voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse.

Rape and most incest is a different matter. The woman sometimes has no choice in the matter, and no matter how human that life may or may not be, it is adversely affecting the life of someone who had no choice in the decision of whether or not it was going to be there.

That is why rape and incest, in the minds of some pro-lifers, should be legal while other cases, involving voluntary sexual intercourse, should not.

(Disclaimer: Not exactly pro-choice, but not pro-life either)

To address the original issue. The reason is that, when a woman chooses to have sex, she accepts an inherent risk that she might get pregnant (except in those cases where the woman is exceptionally ignorant, but to keep this discussion simple, we'll assume a small degree of common sense). If that risk was unacceptable, she wouldn't choose to have sex.

Now, that risk is presently mitigated because there are alternatives available such as abortion which make long-term (ie, 9 month) commitment unnecessary, and reduce it down to in the best-cast scenario, minor inconvienience. Other, not so best case scenarios are there, such as long-term guilt, but those are varied and dependant upon the individual.

Any semi-reasonable person knows these risks when they voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse.

Rape and most incest is a different matter. The woman sometimes has no choice in the matter, and no matter how human that life may or may not be, it is adversely affecting the life of someone who had no choice in the decision of whether or not it was going to be there.

That is why rape and incest, in the minds of some pro-lifers, should be legal while other cases, involving voluntary sexual intercourse, should not.

Well pointed out … and I think what’s on most pro lifers minds too (though some say not even that … and I can defiantly understand)

I can see where some people find it illogical line to draw … and I understand I know how it is … people piss me off when they seem to derive a limit or a belief from no logic.

But its simple
Most pro life are actually more pro choice but with stiffer standards … rather the drawing the line at the woman’s wants

They draw it at the fact that if she didn’t WANT the baby she shouldn’t have taken the risk … there is risks to do everything in life … from driving your car to going to school.

If the risk is too high for something in particular … don’t do it.

But I can see how that is not accepted but there IS logic … rather then drawing the line like hard core pro lifers they are more like pro choice that just don’t fit in because they don’t put the line way back at the whim stage


(sorry if I am rambling but just saying I can see the logic here … its not like they arbitrarily drew the line … rather that there is different)

Somewhere between choice and life

Rape and most incest is a different matter. The woman sometimes has no choice in the matter, and no matter how human that life may or may not be, it is adversely affecting the life of someone who had no choice in the decision of whether or not it was going to be there.

That is why rape and incest, in the minds of some pro-lifers, should be legal while other cases, involving voluntary sexual intercourse, should not.

Okay, but how about this...? If abortion is wrong because it's murder, it should, theoretically, still be murder if the woman didn't choose to have sex. Also, this organism that can't express its choice... is its choice more important than the physical, emotional, and psychological well-being of a grown woman?

Okay, but how about this...? If abortion is wrong because it's murder, it should, theoretically, still be murder if the woman didn't choose to have sex. Also, this organism that can't express its choice... is its choice more important than the physical, emotional, and psychological well-being of a grown woman?

I wasn't arguing that particular point, merely explaining it because most like in most polarized debates, neither side wants to spend any time trying to understand where the points of view of the other side come about.

The abortion debate, unfortunantely, is one driven by emotion rather than logic.

Those on the pro-choice side never want to acknowledge the fact that a woman has a choice in pregnancy by not engaging in sex, pregnancy doesn't just happen. Most abortions only serve to terminate a pregnancy in cases where a woman wants the luxury of having sex without the need to carry a child to full term. The reasons for not wanting that are varied, from societal pressures to bringing an unwanted child in the world. But the fact remains that if one did not want that possibility while abortion was illegal, abstinence would still give one that choice. Abortion in these cases, again, only serve to have that same choice they've always had, but allow sexual intercourse.

Pro-lifers also make many ignorant choices. They're driven by religious concepts that have no grounds in their religion. It's mainly "Because preacher says so." (disclaimer: I'm an athiest) Some also refuse to give any leeway to the other side, to understand why women want to get abortions in the first place. Nor do they acknowledge the scientific aspects of when an embryo becomes a viable, sustainable form of life.

So, really, the debate is destined to end in stalemate. In the final analysis, the winner will be which view is held by the majority, not in who can make the most logical and/or compelling argument.

Because it would be a child through unwanted sex. a child whom would be regarded as a mistake by the childs parents.

noone should have to put up with a life like that.

but in the case of consentual sex where the contraceptives didn't work, the pregnancy was unwanted and a mistake.

does that mean that it's alright to abort when you don't feel ready for a baby?


i'm pro-choice, personally. so i think they should.

I wasn't arguing that particular point, merely explaining it because most like in most polarized debates, neither side wants to spend any time trying to understand where the points of view of the other side come about.

While I can see the possible sources that create pro-life thinking, what I constantly wrestle with is how they justify deciding things for other people. Is that not the ~same~ personality characteristic that rapists have? ...Wanting control over someone else...? No?

The abortion debate, unfortunantely, is one driven by emotion rather than logic.

I'll agree with you here... I am, for example, using logical arguments to support my ~feeling~ that people should have the right to choose what they can/will endure.

Those on the pro-choice side never want to acknowledge the fact that a woman has a choice in pregnancy by not engaging in sex, pregnancy doesn't just happen. Most abortions only serve to terminate a pregnancy in cases where a woman wants the luxury of having sex without the need to carry a child to full term. The reasons for not wanting that are varied, from societal pressures to bringing an unwanted child in the world. But the fact remains that if one did not want that possibility while abortion was illegal, abstinence would still give one that choice. Abortion in these cases, again, only serve to have that same choice they've always had, but allow sexual intercourse.

I realize that people can just abstain from sex to prevent pregnancy. I do, however, I note that you said "a woman has a choice" to abstain which assumes the woman has more responsibility than a man in deciding not to engage in sexual activity.... This subtle implication rules out the fact that men have a greater capacity to overpower women in sexual situations.

Another thing pro-lifers tend to ignore (that follows along with the exact same argument) is that humans are social creatures. They want to be emotionally and physically intimate with eachother at some point in their lives. It is a scientifically proven stage in socioemotional development. So, I, as a female, was once refused a tubal proceedure because was, at the time, under an "acceptable age" to request that proceedure. Assuming I had gotten pregnant in that situation (despite use of birth control), I would have had no other option besides abortion (as I had already decided years prior that I did not want to bear a child).

Either way, the need for physical and emotional intimacy is one of the socioemotional "side effects" of being human. Abstinence is a great and foolproof policy. Unfortunately it either delays or supresses one of the major developmental stages in people in their 20s and 30s (source: scientific journal of studies by Erik Erikson...educational psychologist). To quote the study regarding this stage in human development:

Stage 6: Intimacy vs. Isolation

The young adult's personality is influenced by efforts to establish intimacy or a close relationship with another person.

This is typically the time that young adults strike out on their own - off to college, move away from home or get a job.

Failure to establish a close relationship with another leads to a sense of isolation or a feeling of being alone.


Pro-lifers also make many ignorant choices. They're driven by religious concepts that have no grounds in their religion. It's mainly "Because preacher says so." (disclaimer: I'm an athiest) Some also refuse to give any leeway to the other side, to understand why women want to get abortions in the first place. Nor do they acknowledge the scientific aspects of when an embryo becomes a viable, sustainable form of life.

True enough... but then you knew I wouldn't argue your point here. I do think, however, that there are non-religious people who argue against abortion based on who has the right to kill whom and so forth...

So, really, the debate is destined to end in stalemate. In the final analysis, the winner will be which view is held by the majority, not in who can make the most logical and/or compelling argument.

A couple points to clarify:
While I can see the possible sources that create pro-life thinking, what I constantly wrestle with is how they justify deciding things for other people. Is that not the ~same~ personality characteristic that rapists have? ...Wanting control over someone else...? No?
That's a nonsensical and emotionally loaded argument. You could make the same argument about any law on the books. Controlling people -- it's what laws do.
...you said "a woman has a choice" to abstain which assumes the woman has more responsibility than a man in deciding not to engage in sexual activity.... This subtle implication rules out the fact that men have a greater capacity to overpower women in sexual situations.
I was referring to consentual intercourse, not rape. Also, I didn't mean they had more responsibility. They do, however, bear a greater brunt, because of biology, of the potential consequences of sexual intercourse. STD's aside, the man has no post-orgasmic consequences (minus, of course, potential legal responsibilities). This also doesn't take into account the rights (if any) of a father in deciding whether or not to have an abortion. The woman, after all, by engaging in sexual intercourse, has accepted the potential risk of pregnancy, as did the father. That risk already having been accepted, why shouldn't the father have a say? In my mind, that's a worthwhile argument to explore.
Another thing pro-lifers tend to ignore (that follows along with the exact same argument) is that humans are social creatures. They want to be emotionally and physically intimate with eachother at some point in their lives. It is a scientifically proven stage in socioemotional development.
Again, we're talking about sexual intercourse. One can develop close and intimate relationships with the opposite sex without engaging in sexual intercourse. A lot of Baptist teenagers and 20-somethings I know do this. They'll do everything but tab A into slot A, remaining "technical virgins." Go figure. And, regardless of instinctual desires, it is still, by virtue of the word, a choice. The desire to grab a screaming baby in front of me at the movie theater and throw it across the room is perfectly natural -- doing so, would get me into trouble.
Either way, the need for physical and emotional intimacy is one of the socioemotional "side effects" of being human.
So are a great many other things we, as humans, have forgone in the interests of creating a civilization. It's in our best biological interests to mate with as many people as possible -- but society tells us to be faithful to one person. We hold in our desire to urinate or deficate on a whim, and wait until toilet facilities are available. Many of us force ourselves into physical exertion, to avoid being fat, even though naturally we avoid it. Rape is also a natural act, but is frowned upon. The pharmecutical industry is partially built up around the concept of supressing certain natural tendencies in the interest of living in society.