NationStates Jolt Archive

Pro-life people have repeatedly been classified as religious fantics and anti-woman. I now ask you to explain why you cling to a court ruling which the litigant known as Roe has said was a mistake and something she regrets doing.

Pro-life people have repeatedly been classified as religious fantics and anti-woman. I now ask you to explain why you cling to a court ruling which the litigant known as Roe has said was a mistake and something she regrets doing.
Yes, very true, she is now a born-again Christian, and says she was basically used by the left to advance their cause.

Hasn't this thread been done before? ALOT? Why start a new one?

because when i asked this question on other threads, i was told to stop being moronic.

because when i asked this question on other threads, i was told to stop being moronic.
Maybe you should take the hint, and not make a new thread where you will be will told to stop being moronic.

Maybe you should take the hint, and not make a new thread where you will be will told to stop being moronic.
So, call someone moronic before you even debate the issue (indirectly, I know). Why would you try to suppress someone else's thread?

I am glad to see it moronic to question abortion. I am elated to know that voices against abortion will get the same treatment as those against the holocaust. I hope history remembers us.

The court decision stands whether or not Roe still wants it or not. Has something changed since the decision was made that would invalidate it?

I didn't call the poster moronic. I'm just saying, maybe this belongs is one of the billion other abortion threads, not in a new one.

The court decision stands whether or not Roe still wants it or not. Has something changed since the decision was made that would invalidate it?
I believe the question was not the legality of it, but the moral justification of it. If the litigant herself did not believe in the issue that was decided for her, I believe it takes away some of the moral justification for the ruling.

Because giving birth could be detrimental to the mother's physical or mental health. If she was raped, or the embryo is there because of incest, or sometimes both, then the woman may not want that reminder. She may not want to go through the whole birthing process for something she doesn't even want. While adoption is a viable option for little white babies, no adoption agency wants a black or hispanic baby.

Also, if the woman develops certain conditions during pregnancy, giving birth could kill her and possibly the baby. The government shouldn't favor the rights of unborn zygotes/embryos/fetuses over the rights of adult women who are fully capable of making a decision on their own.

Plus, if abortion is illegalized, then some desperate and scared women are going to go back to using coat hangers in alleys.

I didn't call the poster moronic. I'm just saying, maybe this belongs is one of the billion other abortion threads, not in a new one.
I believe that most people don't go exploring thru the billions of other threads, they just pick up on the most recent ones. Thus, if you want attention to your issue, starting a new one makes sense.

I am pro choice, and as I haven't posted in the other threads I might just be the first one to explain himself here...prepare for a rant.
*jumps on a soapbox*
There is absolutely no reason why abortion should be made illegal. Why? Because there is no guaranteed way of knowing beforehand that you couldn't get pregnant, short of abstinancy. Pro choice is just that, it gives the person, usually the female, the choice of whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Making abortion illegal would be not only morally wrong, but it would ultimately become detrimental. Because frankly extra lifes do not neccesarily mean more jobs. Look at China for instance. Their birth control methods are rigidly enforced (one child per family, period) but where has it gotten them? The birthrate of girls is the lowest in the entire world, the country has one of the biggest unemployment percentages in the world, and it's not improving one bit. Abortion should neither be made illegal, nor made compulsory under any circumstances. Thank you.
*steps down*

Because irregardless of the ruling we still feel abortion should be legal?

Honestly, i'm mainly for it to spite the religious nuts.

Plus, if abortion is illegalized, then some desperate and scared women are going to go back to using coat hangers in alleys.
That is simply a scare tactic that the NOW has been using since before Roe v Wade was even initiated. Did some women perform their own abortions in back alleys with coathangers? Yes, but not to the degree the feminists would have you believe. You don't get rid of a law because some people find an unsafe way to get around it.

Roe changing her mind doesn't change the ruling.

I am not questioning that the decision stands though I would have to say that court ruling itself unable to decide an issue is hardly a reason to say abortion should be legal. The supreme court found abortion legal because of the 14th amendement, saying they could not rule that life began at conception. Missouri passed a law saying that life begins at conception. A court making laws by being inconclusive in their ability to define life hardly seems like good jurisprudence. If this case were solid, there would be little fear of it being overturned.

because when i asked this question on other threads, i was told to stop being moronic.

Excuse me? You most certainly did not ask THIS question.

Your question was regarding abortion as 'fetal murder'.

I called you moronic because the issue of abortion not being able to be defined as murder was discussed not two pages earlier in the same thread (a page on which you posted).

The question you've asked here could have fit neatly into one of the many other threads.

(well, I guess I'll have to apologise in case this isn't a response to my post. But if it was, I stand strongly by my 'moronic' comment)

I am pro choice, and as I haven't posted in the other threads I might just be the first one to explain himself here...prepare for a rant.
*jumps on a soapbox*
There is absolutely no reason why abortion should be made illegal. Why? Because there is no guaranteed way of knowing beforehand that you couldn't get pregnant, short of abstinancy. Pro choice is just that, it gives the person, usually the female, the choice of whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Making abortion illegal would be not only morally wrong, but it would ultimately become detrimental. Because frankly extra lifes do not neccesarily mean more jobs. Look at China for instance. Their birth control methods are rigidly enforced (one child per family, period) but where has it gotten them? The birthrate of girls is the lowest in the entire world, the country has one of the biggest unemployment percentages in the world, and it's not improving one bit. Abortion should neither be made illegal, nor made compulsory under any circumstances. Thank you.
*steps down*
*jumps on soapbox*
Pro-choice = a woman can legally murder her unborn baby. That's Orwellian Newspeak. The term should be pro-life or pro-death (or anti-life or anti-death if you want to use the negatives). What does the job market have to do with the decision whether to carry a baby to full term or not? A woman in New York actually decided because her standard of living would go from wealthy down to upper-middle-class, to selectively murder one of the twins she was carrying. Making abortion acceptable by using the term pro-choice cheapens life in general, and make society more numb to the more unsavory things we all have to face in life.
*jumps off soapbox*

Excuse me? You most certainly did not ask THIS question.

Your question was regarding abortion as 'fetal murder'.

I called you moronic because the issue of abortion not being able to be defined as murder was discussed not two pages earlier in the same thread (a page on which you posted).

The question you've asked here could have fit neatly into one of the many other threads.

(well, I guess I'll have to apologise in case this isn't a response to my post. But if it was, I stand strongly by my 'moronic' comment)
This is not about your post in particular.

*jumps on soapbox*
Pro-choice = a woman can legally murder her unborn baby. That's Orwellian Newspeak. The term should be pro-life or pro-death (or anti-life or anti-death if you want to use the negatives). What does the job market have to do with the decision whether to carry a baby to full term or not? A woman in New York actually decided because her standard of living would go from wealthy down to upper-middle-class, to selectively murder one of the twins she was carrying. Making abortion acceptable by using the term pro-choice cheapens life in general, and make society more numb to the more unsavory things we all have to face in life.
*jumps off soapbox*
*sigh*

Would you call a single cell an unborn baby? How can you murder a single cell? If you are going to prance around saying life begins at conception, you are gonna have a hard time proving that a single cell is actually a human.

Because irregardless of the ruling we still feel abortion should be legal?

Honestly, i'm mainly for it to spite the religious nuts.
I'm at a loss to understand why abortionists believe that it is a religious issue for those of us against it. I am a Christian, but last time I read my Bible, it said nothing directly about thou shalt not commit partial birth abortion. It does say thou shalt not murder, as one of the ten commandments, but murder laws are on the books in all 50 states.

This is not about your post in particular.

Oh good. I will apologise then :p

I'm also going to avoid this thread like the plague because the whole abortion debate is killing my blood pressure.

I'm at a loss to understand why abortionists believe that it is a religious issue for those of us against it. I am a Christian, but last time I read my Bible, it said nothing directly about thou shalt not commit partial birth abortion. It does say thou shalt not murder, as one of the ten commandments, but murder laws are on the books in all 50 states.


Oohooh! have to jump on this! (sorry blood pressure)

The Bible indirectly states that abortion is NOT murder, in Exodus 21:22. It states that the fine for causing a woman to loose her unborn child is a fine of silver paid to the father.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the punishment for MURDER stoning? Or death of some other kind? Isn't it at the very least uniform?

Seems to me the Bible doesn't consider the unborn to be equal humans. One thing it agrees with science on, then.

*sigh*

Would you call a single cell an unborn baby? How can you murder a single cell? If you are going to prance around saying life begins at conception, you are gonna have a hard time proving that a single cell is actually a human.
Indeed. And find yourself in a rather tricky situation as you loose thousands of cells, naturally, each day.

*sigh*

Would you call a single cell an unborn baby? How can you murder a single cell? If you are going to prance around saying life begins at conception, you are gonna have a hard time proving that a single cell is actually a human.
*bigger sigh*
The single cell resulting in from the union of the egg of the woman and the sperm of a man is unique - called the zygote. This cell grows, divides, multiplies, then other cells start differentiating, etc, then the baby is born. Are you willing to set a point at which this cell or collection of cells suddenly becomes "human", and one cell before that, is not? That aside, partial birth abortion allows us to suck out the brains of an unborn baby, unborn only by the virtue of the head is left inside so it can legally be aborted, while the body is outside.

Indeed. And find yourself in a rather tricky situation as you loose thousands of cells, naturally, each day.
That's what bugs me the most about anti-abortionists, they shove pictures of mutilated late-term fetuses in my face...and then try to ban abortion all the way up to fertilization, even in case of rape, and then have the gall to call themselves "pro-life". Those people sicken me.

Oohooh! have to jump on this! (sorry blood pressure)

The Bible indirectly states that abortion is NOT murder, in Exodus 21:22. It states that the fine for causing a woman to loose her unborn child is a fine of silver paid to the father.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the punishment for MURDER stoning? Or death of some other kind? Isn't it at the very least uniform?

Seems to me the Bible doesn't consider the unborn to be equal humans. One thing it agrees with science on, then.
You just proved a Biblical argument against abortion. A punishment was given for the loss of the child. Why would a punishment be given if nothing was wrong with it? And just because the punishment given was not the same as murder, does not mean that it was not considered wrong. And that does not address the issue of someone deliberately CHOOSING to murder their unborn child.

*bigger sigh*
The single cell resulting in from the union of the egg of the woman and the sperm of a man is unique - called the zygote. This cell grows, divides, multiplies, then other cells start differentiating, etc, then the baby is born. Are you willing to set a point at which this cell or collection of cells suddenly becomes "human", and one cell before that, is not? That aside, partial birth abortion allows us to suck out the brains of an unborn baby, unborn only by the virtue of the head is left inside so it can legally be aborted, while the body is outside.

Partial birth abortions are only legal when the child is already dead or the mother is at risk.

The majority occur when the infant is already dead inside the womb (and no, I don't know why these are still classified as 'abortions', but they are)

The humanity of the infant is wholly irrelevent. See the last few pages of the other abortion threads if you're curious about why (I am in fact a lazy sod, you see)

*bigger sigh*
The single cell resulting in from the union of the egg of the woman and the sperm of a man is unique - called the zygote. This cell grows, divides, multiplies, then other cells start differentiating, etc, then the baby is born. Are you willing to set a point at which this cell or collection of cells suddenly becomes "human", and one cell before that, is not?
Ah, it's a tough question isn't it. The answer may be that life gradually develops, and that saying fertilization is the start of life is just as arbitrary as saying second trimester or third trimester or birth is the start of life.

That aside, partial birth abortion allows us to suck out the brains of an unborn baby, unborn only by the virtue of the head is left inside so it can legally be aborted, while the body is outside.
You're getting caught up on the brain-sucking. There's plenty of ways to abort a baby.

That's what bugs me the most about anti-abortionists, they shove pictures of mutilated late-term fetuses in my face...and then try to ban abortion all the way up to fertilization, even in case of rape, and then have the gall to call themselves "pro-life". Those people sicken me.
*nods his agreement*
Just in case you misunderstood I was agreeing with your post. I mean come on. Pro lifers ask yourself this: What makes us human?

You just proved a Biblical argument against abortion. A punishment was given for the loss of the child. Why would a punishment be given if nothing was wrong with it? And just because the punishment given was not the same as murder, does not mean that it was not considered wrong. And that does not address the issue of someone deliberately CHOOSING to murder their unborn child.

I assume it's because the father didn't want the woman to abort. And we all know men were all that mattered back then (hence the fine)

My argument was that it was not considerered MURDER. since the punishment was not the same as that for MURDER, are you seriously saying it doesn't follow that the Bible doesn't consider abortion to be murder?

(PS. abortion can't be murder. Stop trying to use over emotive words. It just looks stupid)

I assume it's because the father didn't want the woman to abort. And we all know men were all that mattered back then (hence the fine)

My argument was that it was not considerered MURDER. since the punishment was not the same as that for MURDER, are you seriously saying it doesn't follow that the Bible doesn't consider abortion to be murder?

(PS. abortion can't be murder. Stop trying to use over emotive words. It just looks stupid)
PS. Stop name-calling. It makes you appear unintelligent.
I use the word murder for the following reason:
If one believes that an unborn baby is a human being, entitled to all rights accorded to all other citizens of the USA by the Constitution, then terminating that life is, by definition, murder. If one does not believe that to be true, then they may use more palatable words like termination of pregnancy, abortion, etc.

That is simply a scare tactic that the NOW has been using since before Roe v Wade was even initiated. Did some women perform their own abortions in back alleys with coathangers? Yes, but not to the degree the feminists would have you believe. You don't get rid of a law because some people find an unsafe way to get around it.


Don't you think that if anyone knows the truth about that it would be the 'feminists'?
Also, having volunteered in a Mexican medical tent, I have seen the effects of "do-it-yourself" abortions in countries where the catholic church has prominent sway of local opinion AND law. Maybe the old coathanger trick wasn't as popular as the 'feminists' (your words not mine) would have you believe, but only because there are much more effective but equally devistating devices, poisons, or methods to do said job.

I was raised Christian, and am now born again. I don't believe in Abortion, and maybe I am even Pro-life. But making abortion against the law has absolutely no value, socially or morally.

Abortion is killing, and in the sense that it is a killing of a human during it's lifecycle it is "murder", albeit a legal murder. Arguments to teh contrary simply do not hold.

The issue raised in an unwanted pregnancy is - does an individual have the right to a taking from another's body? That is, does a human by virtue of being conceived in a person have the right to take whatever it needs from that person? By logical extention, if I need my brother's kidney to live do I have the right to have it forcibly removed?

That, to me, is the key issue involved. Thus the issue of "choice" over "life" is not especially Orwellian. The court appears to have attempted to make a compromise, more in terms of Oliver Wendelll Holmes, ie attempting to craft an interpretation in line with general public perceptions.

Abortion is killing, and in the sense that it is a killing of a human during it's lifecycle it is "murder", albeit a legal murder. Arguments to teh contrary simply do not hold.

The issue raised in an unwanted pregnancy is - does an individual have the right to a taking from another's body? That is, does a human by virtue of being conceived in a person have the right to take whatever it needs from that person? By logical extention, if I need my brother's kidney to live do I have the right to have it forcibly removed?

That, to me, is the key issue involved. Thus the issue of "choice" over "life" is not especially Orwellian. The court appears to have attempted to make a compromise, more in terms of Oliver Wendelll Holmes, ie attempting to craft an interpretation in line with general public perceptions.
It is disturbing to me that the court would rule based on "general public perceptions". I thought rulings were based on the letter and, to some degree, intent of, the law. If "general public perceptions" are used as a basis for ruling, whose perceptions are used? There is very little in our society that the public as a whole agrees upon.

Before I start I'll say that I havent participated in any abortion debate-type threads here... and i haven't read anything in this thread except for the starting post.
There's something missing from the whole abortion debate:
What's all this pro-this pro-that?
What about anti?
My stance on the issue is Anti Self-Righteous Hypocrite.
How can these "Pro-lifers" (from now on referred to as "self-righteous hypocrite, or SRH for short) claim that a zygote or a <2 week old fetus that's like ye' big have life and should at all costs not be 'murdered', when they think nothing of eating a pig, cow, chicken, miscellaneous animal that grew up in horrible conditions its whole life and then cruelly slaughtered for your mouth?
No, I'm not a psycho, militant vegetarian, but when I hear from a vegan SRH I'll respect at least that individual's view on the abortion debate.
As if its even about protecting human life... why dont they just come right out and say that they want all women who have sex out of wedlock to be burnt at the stake and called witches, and those who are pregnant to be locked in the house knee deep in their spawn?
All those horrible pictures they put on placards... that's not even what it looks like. Those are from rare instances, and no doubt illegal ones, where a very late termination took place.
Look, abortion is not something people want to do. I doubt any of you SRHs have been in a situation where you got pregnant with someone you dont want to have a child with/at a bad time in your life when a child would not be a good idea at all. And yes, Think of the Child. Imagine growing up knowing you're only alive because your (unknown) dad's condom broke and living in dirty, shitty conditions.
If you really want to do something about the number of abortions taking place... rather than bitching and whining, trying to get it outlawed, why dont you get the government to fund family planning centers, increase education and accessibility to contraception and have some welfare service available for single mothers. Or do it yourself, even.
If you really care about reducing abortion rates, you have to think about the cause of all the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Of cause abortion isn't the best option, and anyone who hasn't been blinded by conservative christian views on how pre-marital sex is only done by satanists will be able to empathise with these women in that abortion was the last option for them.
Please... give it some thought. Its just plain selfish to think that outlawing abortion will make everything better.

Before I start I'll say that I havent participated in any abortion debate-type threads here... and i haven't read anything in this thread except for the starting post.
There's something missing from the whole abortion debate:
What's all this pro-this pro-that?
What about anti?
My stance on the issue is Anti Self-Righteous Hypocrite.
How can these "Pro-lifers" (from now on referred to as "self-righteous hypocrite, or SRH for short) claim that a zygote or a <2 week old fetus that's like ye' big have life and should at all costs not be 'murdered', when they think nothing of eating a pig, cow, chicken, miscellaneous animal that grew up in horrible conditions its whole life and then cruelly slaughtered for your mouth?
No, I'm not a psycho, militant vegetarian, but when I hear from a vegan SRH I'll respect at least that individual's view on the abortion debate.
As if its even about protecting human life... why dont they just come right out and say that they want all women who have sex out of wedlock to be burnt at the stake and called witches, and those who are pregnant to be locked in the house knee deep in their spawn?
All those horrible pictures they put on placards... that's not even what it looks like. Those are from rare instances, and no doubt illegal ones, where a very late termination took place.
Look, abortion is not something people want to do. I doubt any of you SRHs have been in a situation where you got pregnant with someone you dont want to have a child with/at a bad time in your life when a child would not be a good idea at all. And yes, Think of the Child. Imagine growing up knowing you're only alive because your (unknown) dad's condom broke and living in dirty, shitty conditions.
If you really want to do something about the number of abortions taking place... rather than bitching and whining, trying to get it outlawed, why dont you get the government to fund family planning centers, increase education and accessibility to contraception and have some welfare service available for single mothers. Or do it yourself, even.
If you really care about reducing abortion rates, you have to think about the cause of all the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Of cause abortion isn't the best option, and anyone who hasn't been blinded by conservative christian views on how pre-marital sex is only done by satanists will be able to empathise with these women in that abortion was the last option for them.
Please... give it some thought. Its just plain selfish to think that outlawing abortion will make everything better.
If your goal is to win over the "SRH's" to your point of view, you might consider rationality instead of name calling, stereotyping, cursing, and ridicule. It weakens your argument.

and can i ask, what choice do you give the father? If a child is born, then he is required to help support the child. But what if he doesnt want the child? why can't he ask for, and get, an abortion? If the mother didn't want one, she'd get an abortion. And please don't say "It's his fault, because he did have sex after all, and that's the risk", because if you do, then I say she took the risk as well. Personally i believe that the opinions of both parents MUST be taken into account.

I've said before and will probably have to say again, I'm not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice. I don't think that it is the duty or right of our government to intrude on what are totally private matters.

If your goal is to win over the "SRH's" to your point of view, you might consider rationality instead of name calling, stereotyping, cursing, and ridicule. It weakens your argument.
Care to comment on my arguments rather than try and weaken what I said by picking out my writing style?
I agree with you, but your side is guilty of the same accusation.

Care to comment on my arguments rather than try and weaken what I said by picking out my writing style?
I agree with you, but your side is guilty of the same accusation.
I didn't weaken it, you did by your stereotyping and name-calling. Some who are anti-abortion are guilty of inflammatory rhetoric, but you do not advance your cause by doing the same, and I personally have not engaged in such rhetoric. Should I refute your stereotypical argument that people who are against abortion just want to keep them home barefoot and pregnant? Not worth my time.

I'll tell you why I still support pro-choice.

I work at a 350 bed hospital in a fairly large urban area. We have one of the best labor and delivery departments in the state as well as one of the top neo-natal ICU's, a recently updated E.R. and modern ICU and O.R. facilities. Everything you could expect for the best medical care western medicine can provide. But despite this we had a 32 year old woman die last week after giving birth. Yes people, it still happens, more often than you'd think.

With all the advances of modern medicine childbirth is still a risk. It is still one of the top ten cause of death for women under 30 in a modern country like the US. In the third world it's much worse.

I don't feel anyone has the right force another into a situation of risk, no matter the odds.

A woman is not killing her fetus when she gets an abortion. She is having it removed from her body, and if it can't live outside, that is a tragedy. You can't force her to provide so much of her life force to fuel a being that she did not choose to create and may have been the result of rape.

As for when the baby becomes human, my belief is that a person's worth is a complicated mixture of present and future value, and mostly based on relationships. Sorry I can't explain here. If you believe in a soul given to a child at conception, how do you explain the splitting of one Zygote into twins? Or, better, the common occurence of one twin zygote taking over the other? Is this unique human being killing it's twin -- what becomes of all those extra souls?

A woman is not killing her fetus when she gets an abortion. She is having it removed from her body, and if it can't live outside, that is a tragedy. You can't force her to provide so much of her life force to fuel a being that she did not choose to create and may have been the result of rape.

As for when the baby becomes human, my belief is that a person's worth is a complicated mixture of present and future value, and mostly based on relationships. Sorry I can't explain here. If you believe in a soul given to a child at conception, how do you explain the splitting of one Zygote into twins? Or, better, the common occurence of one twin zygote taking over the other? Is this unique human being killing it's twin -- what becomes of all those extra souls?

(To bold) Thank <insert deity here> someone at least understands this basic, basic concept.

To pro-lifers I say: "answer my question; why should a pregnant woman be the sole exception to the rule that states no living human being can be forced to donate their body to another, no matter what the circumstances"

No one will answer, naturally.

And I apologise whole-heartedly for being cranky and rude. I'm a 17 year old girl, have my exams, my period, and have been arguing this debate for about 2 or 3 months. Any bile is not directed at individuals (or not *intended* to be), but rather at my annoyance that this debate hasn't finished yet.

and can i ask, what choice do you give the father? If a child is born, then he is required to help support the child. But what if he doesnt want the child? why can't he ask for, and get, an abortion? If the mother didn't want one, she'd get an abortion. And please don't say "It's his fault, because he did have sex after all, and that's the risk", because if you do, then I say she took the risk as well. Personally i believe that the opinions of both parents MUST be taken into account.

Personally, I support 'paper abortions' for men. As long as women are free to have an abortion for the same period of time (ie, the cut off date for both is the same), I believe men should have the right to legally sign away all rights and responsibilities to the child. That would mean, for example, he has no legal claim to the child, but also would not need to pay to support the child.

This way, both parents could make an informed choice.

Rape abortions are among the lowest in # of abortions. If a case of rape was provable, then the abortion would be fine. The majority comes from irresponsible people.

Rape abortions are among the lowest in # of abortions. ... The majority comes from irresponsible people.Yay! Someone else who actually distinguishes among different circumstances behind abortion!

Personally, I am pro-choice, but only when rape/health come into play; I do not believe in abortion as a means of emergency contraception.


Oy, I'm agreeing with a slave trader... :)

Yay! Someone else who actually distinguishes among different circumstances behind abortion!

Personally, I am pro-choice, but only when rape/health come into play; I do not believe in abortion as a means of emergency contraception.
Why not?

Do you believe a fetus is life or don't you?

If so, then why should the reasons behind the creation of that life determine what can be done with it?

If not, then it doesn't matter either way.

Rape abortions are among the lowest in # of abortions. If a case of rape was provable, then the abortion would be fine. The majority comes from irresponsible people.
Why is abortion wrong for "irresponsible" people? The end result is still a pregnant woman with an unwanted fetus.

As far as I can see, either you think a fetus is life or you don't.

I know of someone who was in a BAD relationship. She couldn't get out herself but knew that she would not be able to protect a baby, or ever get away one a child was born, so she had an abortion.

She knows this was right for her for then, but she will always miss the child she didn't have.

Once you have an abortion, you don't forget or walk away unaffected.
That's why I'm Pro-choice.

Why is abortion wrong for "irresponsible" people? The end result is still a pregnant woman with an unwanted fetus.

As far as I can see, either you think a fetus is life or you don't.

The point was still made, though, that abortion is too often used as an "emergency contraceptive". Let's face it, in this day and age and in countries like Australia and the USA, it's not that hard to avoid getting pregnant when you're involved in fully consensual sex. I know, condoms break and such, and I am pro-choice, but I don't believe it's that hard to avoid becoming pregnant if you don't want a child.

Im pro choice for moral reasons, if somone values all life and dosent want to abort a baby regardless of the circumstances then by all means dont. But don't go shoving your ideals down the throughts of people you have no right to judge for their decisions.

People say what happens when somone wants a abortion but cannot get one is nothing but scare tactics but whether you like it or not it does happen and will continue to happen in area's where abortion is illegal.

Not everyone can aford to have a baby and cannot live moraly knowing their own flesh and blood is out there for adoption growing up without them, but if they did keep the baby they would be in the gutter trying to support themselfs in which the baby will be taken from them anyway by child suport agencys.

So whether you think abortion is wrong due to moral or religious reasons in the end that is your opinion, your views and you shouldnt force feed everyone else with your belifes regardless of your knowledge of the situation.

Why not?

Do you believe a fetus is life or don't you?

If so, then why should the reasons behind the creation of that life determine what can be done with it?

If not, then it doesn't matter either way.I believe it is not life, at least not in the earlier stages of development.

Someone mentioned earlier that abortion is not killing the fetus, just removing it. If you remove a 2 month old fetus, it cannot survive as a standalone entity, and therefore does not classify as life to me. If it is much later (3rd trimester or so), it could probably survive with (a lot of) assistance, and i can see it being called life. But I don't agree with late-term abortions either, unless it's for health concerns (in which case, it falls under my previous standards).

And just to head off any opposition: when I talk about the removed fetus not being able to survive, let me make a distinction between not being able to survive because it is 'not being cared for' and 'not being physically capable of survival'. A batch of new-born kittens will perish if the mother abandons them, but that does not mean they are incapable of surviving without her; you can bottle feed the kittens and they will live. An under-developed fetus does not have the organs to sustain its own life unless it has reached a certain stage of its own growth.

Also, if you want to raise the 'potential' arguement, consider the potential of all the millions of sperm that are essentially killed because of contraception. Why does life-potential have to start with conception?

Also, if you want to raise the 'potential' arguement, consider the potential of all the millions of sperm that are essentially killed because of contraception. Why does life-potential have to start with conception?

Masturbation is Murder!

Sorry, taking that idea to a ridiculous extreme

Masturbation is Murder!

Sorry, taking that idea to a ridiculous extremeThat's ok, I make the same joke. :cool:

But, I feel it is a good point to make. I think that 'spilling your seed' is a sin in the Bible, and one of the reasons for that little Sodom/Gomorrah incident. (Admittedly, I'm not well-versed in quoting/misquoting the Bible, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

[finishing my thought:]
How is using contraception any different than manual forms of self-gratification? (both in terms of wasted seed and wasted potential)

allright, never gotten into one of these debates, so here goes...

Allright, im not especially pro choice... dont think abortion is murder, just kinda... unmoral in my view. Note my view. I fine with you getting one if you want. Now haveing said that I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned on purely political grounds. Roe v. Wade being over turned would not make abortion illegal. It would simply leave it up to the states. Im a fairly liberal republican. pro-gay marriage, anti-iraq war, neutral on abortion. The original meaning of republican is not what it is today. Think Eisenhower and now Swarcheneggar, not Reagan and Bush. States have a right to decide the laws within them. a government in DC is not able to suit or meet the needs of people in different ares, its not connected enough. (note im from Alaska, weve elected a seccesionist governor. Twice. It colors your view.) The current conservative policies stem from reagan, who, look it up, was a staunch liberal untill he got sick of actors during his time as president of the SAG. Thats why they called him the great communicator. Sold liberal ideas like deficet spending to republicans. Young republicans today have no idea of what once was the two party system with conservatives and liberals in both parties. Roe v. Wade should be overturned solely because a states population has the right to decide whats best for them without undue interference from the Federal Government.

Did some women perform their own abortions in back alleys with coathangers? Yes, but not to the degree the feminists would have you believe.

I have sources here to the contrary.

Janet McCalman: Sex and Suffering; Women's health and a women's hospital, The Royal Women's Hospital, 1856-1996, 1998

"But despite anibiotics and better birth control, the pathological consequences of induced abortion continued to dominate the non-midwifery side of th Women's (Hospital)."
"There was still the shock of what omen in their desperation did to themselves: syringing the womb with Rinso, Persil, Dettol, copper sulphate solution, even flammable liquids... They douched themselves with hoses at high pressure. They inserted sticks, twigs, knitting needles, umbrella ribs into their cervixes."
This was when it was nearly impossible to obtain an abortion in Australia. Here are some of the reasons women did these things.
"Financial difficulties, number of children in family, fear of social stigma, insecurity because of being separated defacto or single, marital disharmony (including drink), etc..."

Andrea Whittaker, Intimate Knowledge: Women and their health in Northeastern Thailand

"Abortion is illegal in Thailand unless under restricted circumstances. Despite the illegalities, field and hospital based studies in Thailand suggest that induced abortions are common, with over 200 000 to 300 000 performed each year by a variety of methods, with a high number performed inadequately resulting in complications including injury, infection, infertility and maternal death."

"an estimated 200 000 or more Third World women die needlessly each year due to botched abortions."

Yeah, it's those damned feminists at it again, huh?
Since when is calling someone a feminist an insult anyway?

Too right. I've recently studied the history of abortions here in Romania. During its Communist period (up until 1989), abortion was illegal except in the most rare of circumstances (maybe a couple of hundred a year were authorised). However, that didnt mean that there were no abortions, it just meant that people had to go to backstreet abortionists, often being those with little medical knowledge and in dubious hygienic conditions. As a result, the maternal death rate in Romania was the highest in Europe for over a decade.

So yes, I am pro-choice. If only because anti-choice doesnt work as a government policy.

As mush as I hate the term, I consider myself a pro-choicer.

My reasoning: it's the woman who has to carry the feteus. It's the woman's body that has to nourish the feteus. For 9 months a woman has to make major life changes - no smoking, no drinking, no various other substances, no spices, cut down on coffee, the thrwoing up, the weight gain, the muscle aches, the swollen ankles, the list goes on.

Now if you argue that abortion is murder than I'm afraid that you must also argue that unless a woman does makethe above chnages then it's abuse. After all you are arguing the feetus is a human life and in Australia and I'm sure the USA there are laws against abuse.

If a child is wanted, I'm sure most people wouldn't mind the above sacrifices. But if the child is unwanted why should someone mkae those changes. Don't they have rights? Isn't it the belief of all freedom loving people that everyone should have a choice?

Abortion should be up to the woman!

i am going to state this simply every pro-lifer needs to get a job for a social services office prefferable one that deals directly with welfare, or Child protective Services, then come back to this thread and spew how we are all sinners and we are takign a life. sorry guys i have seen babys with fetal alchol syndrom, bad parenting, negligence, babys born with addiction's. i have also seen that alot of these parents were teenagers and born from a cycle of forced births. so just on a little offset, next time a pro-lifer claims killing a fetus is a life without looking at the whole picture they need to maybee take personal responsibilty of all the rapist and murders that take place daily that will increase when the CPS and other social services are over loaded with cases and we have more children growing up in un-educated, poverty and drug stricken neighborhoods - so if abortion is killing a child. what is letting them grow up being a victim of there enviorment? if every relgious follower gave up there personal ambitions and worked forward to being a saint maybee we would have a perfect world, but this isnt goingto happen your going to preach, voice your opinion, and only fight for what you feel is right and not take responibilty for the negative outcome.

Because irregardless of the ruling we still feel abortion should be legal?

Honestly, i'm mainly for it to spite the religious nuts.

Same here. When I was in seventh grade the youth pastor of the church I was forced to go to three times a week so my new stepmom could screw my dad, showed the sickening movie, "The Silent Scream", to us I was horrified not because of the counselors that badgered the poor rape victim, the tongs that reached inside to crush the baby's skull and move it into place to be removed [hence the name because it opened its mouth on the screen] or seeing her in stirrups while having a vaccuum hose rammed into her womanhood. I was horrified because I was thirteen. So, I'm uncertain to this day for it because of the way those religious nuts presented me with it. The reason for the abortion was valid but the brutality was stomach turning.

I'm glad to see so many sensible, properly educated, compassionate people advocating abortion as a means of reducing human suffering.
Hopefully no one sees abortion as a form of contraception - but this has been emphasized enough.

Basically, no state has the right to say what a human being may or may not do to themselves on its soil. I find it ironic and amusing, and yet frightening that middle-aged (and older) men are the ones deciding what a woman making $15.000 annually is allowed to do to itself. It's like making suicide (attempts) illegal; rubbish!

There are no valid arguments against abortion. When a child is created is unimportant - we might as well claim the use of the pill, diaphragm or condom to be murder (which has been pointed out before in this thread)!

Educate the masses and ban religion (for enslaving women, oppressing minorities and telling blatant lies) as a first step towards a happier planet.

Same here. When I was in seventh grade the youth pastor of the church I was forced to go to three times a week so my new stepmom could screw my dad, showed the sickening movie, "The Silent Scream", to us I was horrified not because of the counselors that badgered the poor rape victim, the tongs that reached inside to crush the baby's skull and move it into place to be removed [hence the name because it opened its mouth on the screen] or seeing her in stirrups while having a vaccuum hose rammed into her womanhood. I was horrified because I was thirteen. So, I'm uncertain to this day for it because of the way those religious nuts presented me with it. The reason for the abortion was valid but the brutality was stomach turning.

You know... c-section births are just as ooky looking (they slice you open and prod your insides, you know...). And *I* was removed from my mother with giant-ass forceps that were rammed into her and tugged on (I came out ear-first... apparently all the doctors told my mum it was amazing my neck didn't snap). That's pretty damn gruesome, but there's no group against forcep-aided births. Women also die during childbirth, and giving birth is in the top ten list of causes of death for women in the Western world (even worse in third world countries).

We really can't judge something by the ickyness of it.

You know... c-section births are just as ooky looking (they slice you open and prod your insides, you know...). And *I* was removed from my mother with giant-ass forceps that were rammed into her and tugged on (I came out ear-first... apparently all the doctors told my mum it was amazing my neck didn't snap). That's pretty damn gruesome, but there's no group against forcep-aided births. Women also die during childbirth, and giving birth is in the top ten list of causes of death for women in the Western world (even worse in third world countries).

We really can't judge something by the ickyness of it.

You know, I'm pretty sure everything involved with babies is icky period. Yeah, everything.

People who talk about how cute all babies are usually don't have them, or their babies are grown up and they've forgotten :p

You know, I'm pretty sure everything involved with babies is icky period. Yeah, everything.

People who talk about how cute all babies are usually don't have them, or their babies are grown up and they've forgotten :p

Lord, I second that. All I see when I see babies is drool... so much drool.

And if it's not covered in a protective layer of slime, it's BRIGHT, RETINA-BURNING PINK.

Personally, I'm only ever having kids if I find a guy with genes worth passing on (who'll stoop to seeing me, that is :p)

I don't know the case you refer to (I am in the UK). However, my explanation for being pro-choice is very simple. I don't want to have children. My partner (who does not want to be a parent either) and I of course use contraception, something that abortion should *not* be, but if for whatever reason that fails, it's the contraception's fault - not mine (and yes, I do use it as stated). Why, therefore, should I have to go through 9 months of misery for something I don't want, that I do not consider a human life (and neither does the law, until 24 weeks)? Why should I have to bring a child into the world when it isn't wanted? That's unfair on both it and me (and my partner).

Adoption? I will always know that something that shares my genes is out there, and I don't want to. It may also be offended by the fact it wasn't wanted - hardly fair, is it? Abstinence from sex? I fail to see why two genuinely loving people shouldn't share something like that regardless of the small potential of a resulting pregnancy; in such a relationship, there is a wonderful bond created through sex that no one deserves to miss out on. Get the snip? I'm on the NHS waiting list (ridiculously long of course!); if I had the money, I would *definitely* go private.

Some people inevitably regret abortion, as the thread-starter pointed out. What (s)he fails to acknowlege is that the majority of women who have gone through, while having found it traumatic, do not regret it - they feel it was the right thing for them at the time. Anyway, life is a gamble - we take risks, and sometimes they pay off and sometimes they don't. We regret some things, we don't regret others. This applies to *anything*, not just abortion!

You may see my attitude as selfish, but I don't see why my life should be ruined, and why a kid that is not wanted should have to go through the misery of knowing that. I don't want children; that doesn't mean I'm evil, as so many people seem to see it.

EDIT: An afterthought...I don't want children, and yet I suppose I would be in a fairly good position financially and in familial terms to bring one up once I finally graduate and get a job. That doesn't mean I should have one, but the point I am making is that some people are *a lot* less fortunate than I am, and they're still expected to go through pregnancy, childbirth and 18 subsequent years of crap according to pro-lifers. There have been a vast number of abortion threads here, and not one of them has adequately explained why this should be the case.

My partner (who does not want to be a parent either) and I of course use contraception, something that abortion should *not* be, but if for whatever reason that fails, it's the contraception's fault - not mine (and yes, I do use it as stated).Not to turn this into an anti-sex promo, but regardless of whether you use it correctly, no method of contraception is 100.0% preventative, save abstinence; all other methods have at least some chance of failure, and you have to be aware of that.

Think of it as playing Russian Roulette with a 1000-chamber pistol. If you happen to get the incredibly unlikely bullet, does it mean it's not your fault? Does it mean you can skip out on taking responsibility?

Not to turn this into an anti-sex promo, but regardless of whether you use it correctly, no method of contraception is 100.0% preventative, save abstinence; all other methods have at least some chance of failure, and you have to be aware of that.

Think of it as playing Russian Roulette with a 1000-chamber pistol. If you happen to get the incredibly unlikely bullet, does it mean it's not your fault? Does it mean you can skip out on taking responsibility?

So... you're saying that people who shoot themselves in the head should be refused treatment, even if the bullet can be removed and they can then recover?

Sounds pretty heartless.

Personally, I'm only ever having kids if I find a guy with genes worth passing on (who'll stoop to seeing me, that is :p)

*flees in terror*

:D

So... you're saying that people who shoot themselves in the head should be refused treatment, even if the bullet can be removed and they can then recover?

Sounds pretty heartless.No, I'm not saying that they should be refused treatment, just that they should have take responsibility for their choices/actions.

No, I'm not saying that they should be refused treatment, just that they should have take responsibility for their choices/actions.

Let me guess... by refusing them treatment?

And way to turn a child into a punishment. That's putting a great value on human life /sarcasm

*flees in terror*

:D

Gasp! I've been.... insulted... I.............. think

Wait. What was the question?

Gasp! I've been.... insulted... I.............. think

Wait. What was the question?

No, I was not at Woodstock.

No, I was not at Woodstock.

Yeah, well cheese midgets to you too!

*sulks*

Yeah, well cheese midgets to you too!

*sulks*

No! Lemon meringue! Always lemon meringue!

No! Lemon meringue! Always lemon meringue!

But... cheese.... midgets? *looks hopelessly lost*

Let me guess... by refusing them treatment?

And way to turn a child into a punishment. That's putting a great value on human life /sarcasmOK... let's try a different analogy. :cool:

Let's say you just bought a new car. The you throw a bowling ball up into the air in the general vicinity of the car; there is a chance that the ball will land on the car. If it does, does that mean you can return the car to the dealer, claiming that it's defective/dented? Unless you have an awesome dealership, they're going to laugh at you, and you'll be left holding the repair bill.

Pregnancy as a result of concentual sex falls under the 'intential damage' category, regardless of whether it was planned or not, regardless of whether the contraception failed or not. Abortion in this case is basically emergency contraception (see earlier posts).

That is the point to my ramblings.

But... cheese.... midgets? *looks hopelessly lost*

Och... you have much to learn, young one.
You must abuse the horse...or something?

OK... let's try a different analogy. :cool:

Let's say you just bought a new car. The you throw a bowling ball up into the air in the general vicinity of the car; there is a chance that the ball will land on the car. If it does, does that mean you can return the car to the dealer, claiming that it's defective/dented? Unless you have an awesome dealership, they're going to laugh at you, and you'll be left holding the repair bill.

Pregnancy as a result of concentual sex falls under the 'intential damage' category, regardless of whether it was planned or not, regardless of whether the contraception failed or not. Abortion in this case is basically emergency contraception (see earlier posts).

That is the point to my ramblings.

But I DO have the option of getting the car fixed - I just have to pay for it myself. Just because I caused the damage doesn't mean I can't take steps to correct the problem.

Contraception can only occur before the embryo stage, by definition it is 'something that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb'. Abortion, quite clearly, is not contraception.

Och... you have much to learn, young one.
You must abuse the horse...or something?

Well, I do collect My Little Ponies.... does that count?

Well, I do collect My Little Ponies.... does that count?

Of course.

But I DO have the option of getting the car fixed - I just have to pay for it myself. Just because I caused the damage doesn't mean I can't take steps to correct the problem.

Contraception can only occur before the embryo stage, by definition it is 'something that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb'. Abortion, quite clearly, is not contraception.Shhh.... it's quiet hours.

Instead of pro-choicers explaining, let's see a pro-lifer explain why abortion is wrong, without reference to god if at all possible.

Shhh.... it's quiet hours.

Hee, I'm actually really enjoying conversing with you and RPP alternately. It's letting me burn off all the excess hyper-ness from my exam today.

Oh, and ignore me if I'm snappy - I've been in this debate wayyyy too long. Just replace anything flame-ish with <I am tired, please, help me save my melting brain>, because that's really what it means

:p

Instead of pro-choicers explaining, let's see a pro-lifer explain why abortion is wrong, without reference to god if at all possible.

Ok, seriously, we've all heard the 'but it's liiiiiiiiiiife' argument wayyyy too many times for you to be encouraging it.

I want an argument that doesn't involve objective morals, that is backed by science, and doesn't contradict any current laws or standards.

*Then* we'd be in business.

Of course, that could only happen if the whole place was pro-choice...

Illegalizing abortions would cause about as much damage as having a population limit and compulsory abortions of a certain sex. If a person is against abortion, and I can't emphasize this enough, YOU NEVER HAVE TO GET AN ABORTION!!! Pro-choice legislation doesn't affect you, so do something more constructive with your time. And, coming from a man, I don't think men should have near as much say in abbortion debates and they do now.

Hee, I'm actually really enjoying conversing with you and RPP alternately. It's letting me burn off all the excess hyper-ness from my exam today.

Oh, and ignore me if I'm snappy - I've been in this debate wayyyy too long. Just replace anything flame-ish with <I am tired, please, help me save my melting brain>, because that's really what it means

:p

Mmmmm...delicious brain.

Instead of pro-choicers explaining, let's see a pro-lifer explain why abortion is wrong, without reference to god if at all possible.At the risk of sounding overly technical, or sounding like I wouldn't like to see the exact same thing, the name of this thread is "Pro Choicers, Explain Yourselves", so what we're doing is basically what we're supposed to be doing. :D

But, since I haven't seen any pro-lifers for a while, I'll toss out what I see as probably the biggest point in their favor:

They consider the unborn fetus to be a living human being (or something that will eventuall become one), and aborting it causes it to die. Causing death to another human is murder; therfore, abortion = murder.

The biggest challenge to this is, of course, when life actually begins, which was covered a couple pages ago.

Illegalizing abortions would cause about as much damage as having a population limit and compulsory abortions of a certain sex. If a person is against abortion, and I can't emphasize this enough, YOU NEVER HAVE TO GET AN ABORTION!!! Pro-choice legislation doesn't affect you, so do something more constructive with your time. And, coming from a man, I don't think men should have near as much say in abbortion debates and they do now.

I don't disagree with the general point that you're making, but why shouldn't men have as much of a say in abortion debates as we do? If it's my child that's going to be aborted, I want a say. Sure, in the end, it should be the woman's choice alone, but men have as much to do with making babies as women do.

Mmmmm...delicious brain.

You know... if my brain wasn't melted, I wouldn't be pointing out that my exams are over.

But then, my brains are melted, so I'm just going to hope you've forgotten about the thing with the brain and the exams and... things (gah! mellllllting!)

You know... if my brain wasn't melted, I wouldn't be pointing out that my exams are over.

But then, my brains are melted, so I'm just going to hope you've forgotten about the thing with the brain and the exams and... things (gah! mellllllting!)

No such luck. It's brain pie time.

*attempts to flee*

Sure, in the end, it should be the woman's choice alone, but men have as much to do with making babies as women do.I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Men have an active involvement of a few minutes; Women are stuck with it for 9 months, then childbirth itself.

1 Baby = (1 Woman)*(9 months)*(Room & Board) + (1 Man)*(1 Tbsp semen)

Personally, I like being on the male side of the equation.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Men have an active involvement of a few minutes; Women are stuck with it for 9 months, then childbirth itself.

Personally, I like being on the male side of the equation.

I said they have just as much to do with making babies.

I said they have just as much to do with making babies.What do you think is happening the duration of pregnancy? The nine months is not just baking the bun.

The baby isn't 'made' right away; it only starts with the egg and sperm.

I do see where you're coming from, though. Both man and woman are equally important to get the ball rolling, but to say that a man contributes as much as a woman in the development leading up to birth... I don't know how many women would agree with you.

What do you think is happening the duration of pregnancy? The nine months is not just baking the bun.

The baby isn't 'made' right away; it only starts with the egg and sperm.

I do see where you're coming from, though. Both man and woman are equally important to get the ball rolling, but to say that a man contributes as much as a woman in the development leading up to birth... I don't know how many women would agree with you.

I was joking.

I was joking.Well, fine. Be that way. Make me type up a long rebuttal for nothing. :)

Oh, I also updated my earlier post to include a nifty equation.

You know... c-section births are just as ooky looking (they slice you open and prod your insides, you know...). And *I* was removed from my mother with giant-ass forceps that were rammed into her and tugged on (I came out ear-first... apparently all the doctors told my mum it was amazing my neck didn't snap). That's pretty damn gruesome, but there's no group against forcep-aided births. Women also die during childbirth, and giving birth is in the top ten list of causes of death for women in the Western world (even worse in third world countries).

We really can't judge something by the ickyness of it.

But your head didn't get crushed or your body shreaded to be easier to fit through a sucker hose. And, I was thirteen. Now I have a phobia of pregnancy and child birth. Those Christian advocates did a great job. -thumbs up-