NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is an expression of pro-choice. Pro-choice supporters may not like the way I said this, but this is my opinion.


For as long as I can remember, there has always been a war between two worlds. The people for abortion, and the people against abortion. The fact is, the side I am on is the side of more Americans than none. Choice. The government has not a single right to the uterus of any woman on the face of this nation. Who is to say the government has control over your flesh and blood? Going even further than that, if the government can't control the fact that abortions are happening, than why won't they stop wasting their time trying to outlaw one thing when they could be helping people with another? The government is too busy trying to put an end to abortion that they have lost sight of the fact that during this time stem cells, medicines and civil rights issues have been silenced. The government has also lost sight of the fact that parenting is harder than it sounds. Teenagers get pregnant. I'm not saying that I have pity on every teenager who gets pregnant because sometimes it is their own fault. I am saying that there are a lot of girls who are raped against their will and they end up carrying a child. This happens more often than you hear about it. They are not always fit to become mothers. They don't know the smart desicions to make for a child. Would you want a child to grow up with no common sense? Would you want a child to grow up making horrible desicions potentially leading to a life of depression and nihilistic behavior? You know where I stand on this issue and if NS ever has another resolution at vote that has to do with abortion, I urge everyone to support CHOICE!

For as long as I can remember, there has always been a war between two worlds. The people for abortion, and the people against abortion. The people for abortion tend to have closer ties within the church and especially within the sect of Catholicism. From what I have seen, the people against abortion, or the right to choose tend to be liberals. That is all fine and dandy on both parts.

Um....I think you said this backwards. And please replace "for abortion" with "for choice." Very few people are "for abortion."

Going even further than that, if the government can't control the fact that abortions are happening, than why won't they stop wasting their time trying to outlaw one thing when they could be helping people with another? The government is too busy trying to put an end to abortion that they have lost sight of the fact that during this time, stem cells could easily be used for the advancement of research for diseases in the United States and the World.

For the record, stem cell research has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

The people for abortion tend to have closer ties within the church and especially within the sect of Catholicism. From what I have seen, the people against abortion, or the right to choose tend to be liberals.
You have that backwards, my friend.

I urge everyone to support CHOICE!
And pro-life people urge everyone to support LIFE! Their argument is that life comes before liberty and property. Which I find a very compelling argument, and have not yet figured out how to counter, but I am still pro-choice.

And you're not going to convince anyone with this argument. And you forgot the scenerio of broken or faulty condoms.

why do people keep posting the same arguments for or against abortion

please people, get creative, think for yourselves

there are only so many aspects to the one issue.

What right does the government have to decide what the people do?

Okay, what right does the government have to tell me I can't go out and kill someone?

See if the woman wasn't pregnant, she can go throw herself off a cliff for all I care, as long as she doesn't land on anything important, since then yes, she is only hurting herself.

However, with an abortion, it's not just what she does with herself, it's what she does to the unborn child.

People don't seem to be able to make the distinction between doing something to yourself, and doing something to yourself that affects someone else.

However, with an abortion, it's not just what she does with herself, it's what she does to the unborn child.

People don't seem to be able to make the distinction between doing something to yourself, and doing something to yourself that affects someone else.

You have made the moral and religious decision to consider the embryo/fetus the same as a born human being.

Many people make the moral and religious decision to not consider it as such. Science agrees with these people, so you can't force your personal moral and religious decision on other people. As far as science is concerned, you are not harming another human being.

"(an opiniated view)" LMAO

Then why is killing a pregnant women considered 2 murders...?

Tell me, where is your proof that strictly scientifically speaking, a fetus is not a human being? What definition of human are you using?

Perhaps we could argue babies aren't really human beings either? Let's kill babies! Or maybe seniors?

Abortion is not only murder, but irresponsible. I mean, to wake up with a baby inside of you and decide to have an abortion is irresponsible, seeing as how there are multiple forms of contraceptives. In the case of rape, abortion should be legal, and if having a baby will harm the mother it should be legal as well.

Another note: a heartbeat from a baby can be heard after 21 days. Heartbeat = life.

Then why is killing a pregnant women considered 2 murders...?

It wasn't until very recently, is only considered thus in a few places, and generally is only considered thus if the fetus is viable.

Tell me, where is your proof that strictly scientifically speaking, a fetus is not a human being? What definition of human are you using?

Well, to me (and most rational people), a human being is an organism. An embryo is not an organism, as it does not meet all the requirements to be considered an organism. It does not meet these requirements until about the end of the 1st trimester, when elective abortions are generally disallowed.

Yeah, I do see abortion as irresponsible, but what can pro-life people do? If abortion is outlawed there will only be back-alley clinics making the situation even worse.

*Sets up flameproof bunker in anticipation of a flamefest*

Abortion is not only murder, but irresponsible. I mean, to wake up with a baby inside of you and decide to have an abortion is irresponsible, seeing as how there are multiple forms of contraceptives.

You do realize that you could use every single contraceptive there is, properly, and still have a chance of pregnancy?

Another note: a heartbeat from a baby can be heard after 21 days. Heartbeat = life.

Only according to your personal definition.

You do realize that you could use every single contraceptive there is, properly, and still have a chance of pregnancy?



Only according to your personal definition.

1. Yes, contraceptives are not always reliable, but the chances of using every single contraceptive and getting pregnant are very slim.

2. So, you're saying that if someone's heart is beating, it means they could be dead?

I believe in women's choice, but abortion is murder, plain and simple.

I am saying that there are a lot of girls who are raped against their will and they end up carrying a child.

There aren't, really. The vast, vast majority of abortions are because of irresponsibility.

1. Yes, contraceptives are not always reliable, but the chances of using every single contraceptive and getting pregnant are very slim.

And yet I know someone who used the birth control pill, a condom, a sponge, and a diaphragm and still got pregnant her second or third time ever having sex.

2. So, you're saying that if someone's heart is beating, it means they could be dead?

You need to learn a little logic here. A heartbeat is *necessary* for human life, but is not *sufficient* for human life.

I believe in women's choice, but abortion is murder, plain and simple.

This is the most contradictory statement I have ever seen.

The proper way to state it would be, "I believe in a woman's choice, but *I believe* abortion is murder."

Abortion is not only murder, but irresponsible. I mean, to wake up with a baby inside of you and decide to have an abortion is irresponsible, seeing as how there are multiple forms of contraceptives.

Contraceptives, unlike God and the Pope ;) are not infallible.

Arguing that the government "has no right" to regulate what people do with their own body seems somewhat flawed. Ask yourself if the government tries to dictate whether or not you can put cocaine into your system. They catch you high on cocaine, they throw you in the slammer. Never mind that it's "your body." Never mind your personal views on recreational drugs. What if I wanted to rig my body with explosives? It's my body; don't tell me what to do with it. The point is, that argument against regulating abortion is not iron-clad.

Of course, that was just me playing devil's advocate. I am not in favor of banning abortion if only because it would be horribly impractical to do so at this time. Aside from that, it's religious fundies who are clamoring for it more than anyone, and why would we give into them?

Contraceptives, unlike God and the Pope ;) are not infallible.
I will worship you now. That may very well be one of the best quotes I've ever witnessed. Kudos!

Originally Posted by Haloman
2. So, you're saying that if someone's heart is beating, it means they could be dead?

I die. I donate my heart to someone else, and the heart beats within him. My heart is beating, but I am still dead. Heartbeat does not necessarily mean life.

Then why is killing a pregnant women considered 2 murders...?



So that the anti-choice crowd could use that as an argument. Even the bible sets the penalty for killing a fetus as less than killing a woman. Of course it sets the penality for killing a woman as less than killing a man, and as so makes a piss-poor way of determining what is and what is not murder.

So that the anti-choice crowd could use that as an argument. Even the bible sets the penalty for killing a fetus as less than killing a woman. Of course it sets the penality for killing a woman as less than killing a man, and as so makes a piss-poor way of determining what is and what is not murder. The Bible is also diluted through the prophets that told it.

Anyway: I agree that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body. But the unborn child is not her body! You say it can't be determined whether it's alive or not. Well, I really don't know for certain that you count as "alive" (an idiot in the Independent said that saying that it was alive based on biological functions was "crude anthromorphism" - that's like saying that determining whether someone is alive through whether they are actually walking and breathing is fallible).

Anyway. I digress. Basically, foetuses have been shown to move around and twist their faces early on. If that doesn't show life, nothing can be conclusively proven. There are also the cases of foetuses gripping doctors' hands (generally in other operations to correct faults, not always abortions) when they are really small.
I also don't like being categorised (not accusing anyone here in particular) as not caring about women if I'm against abortion - just as I don't categorise pro-choicers as merciless infanticidal murderers (well… not most).
I know that an unplanned pregnancy and a seriously disadvantaged childhood would be bad for the woman and the child - but I don't believe that justifies a killing.

Anyway, this is going to go round and round in circles just like the other one.

PS: Ooh, "science" agrees with these people? Well, "science" has also been used to justify the holocaust (in the Nazi regime - no, I am not comparing you to a Nazi), and also to show abortion to be wrong. Where does that leave us, now? :headbang:

The Bible is also diluted through the prophets that told it.

Anyway: I agree that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body. But the unborn child is not her body! You say it can't be determined whether it's alive or not. Well, I really don't know for certain that you count as "alive" (an idiot in the Independent said that saying that it was alive based on biological functions was "crude anthromorphism" - that's like saying that determining whether someone is alive through whether they are actually walking and breathing is fallible).

Anyway. I digress. Basically, foetuses have been shown to move around and twist their faces early on. If that doesn't show life, nothing can be conclusively proven. There are also the cases of foetuses gripping doctors' hands (generally in other operations to correct faults, not always abortions) when they are really small.
I also don't like being categorised (not accusing anyone here in particular) as not caring about women if I'm against abortion - just as I don't categorise pro-choicers as merciless infanticidal murderers (well… not most).
I know that an unplanned pregnancy and a seriously disadvantaged childhood would be bad for the woman and the child - but I don't believe that justifies a killing.

Anyway, this is going to go round and round in circles just like the other one.

PS: Ooh, "science" agrees with these people? Well, "science" has also been used to justify the holocaust (in the Nazi regime - no, I am not comparing you to a Nazi), and also to show abortion to be wrong. Where does that leave us, now? :headbang:


Please do not compare aborted fetii to the Holocaust. They are NOT the same thing. The victims of the Holocaust were living, already born people and it was called genocide because a particular group of people were mass-murdered simply for their religion, ethnicity, and even sexual orientation. Fetii are not born beings, and must live off another until they're ready to pop out. Using the Holocaust analogy just throws your own arguement out the window.

Also calling women who abort because they don't want to be pregnant mass-murderers is the epitome of stupidity. Would you have rather they leave their newborn babies out to die in the elements instead? I would like to think that's FAR more inhumane, but that's just me...

Yeah, I do see abortion as irresponsible, but what can pro-life people do? If abortion is outlawed there will only be back-alley clinics making the situation even worse.

*Sets up flameproof bunker in anticipation of a flamefest*

I agree, it'd be like the prohibition...but without blindness as the worst side effect of the back alley goings on. If a woman winds up on the wrong side of a wire hanger abortion, she could not only never be able to have children again, she could DIE!

Anyway. I digress. Basically, foetuses have been shown to move around and twist their faces early on. If that doesn't show life, nothing can be conclusively proven. There are also the cases of foetuses gripping doctors' hands (generally in other operations to correct faults, not always abortions) when they are really small.

*All* of this occurs *after* a rudimentary nervous system is developed, which, in all states but one or two is *after* elective abortions are permitted. In other words, at the time that these movements are possible, the mother is not allowed to have an abortion without a health risk to back her up. Therefore, these arguments have already been made - put into law, and are useless in this discussion.

PS: Ooh, "science" agrees with these people? Well, "science" has also been used to justify the holocaust (in the Nazi regime - no, I am not comparing you to a Nazi), and also to show abortion to be wrong. Where does that leave us, now? :headbang:

In a question that people have different moral and religious beliefs on, we must fall back on the objectivity of science for *law*. And when I say science, I mean *true* science, not flawed science meant to prove something.

*All* of this occurs *after* a rudimentary nervous system is developed, which, in all states but one or two is *after* elective abortions are permitted. In other words, at the time that these movements are possible, the mother is not allowed to have an abortion without a health risk to back her up. Therefore, these arguments have already been made - put into law, and are useless in this discussion.



In a question that people have different moral and religious beliefs on, we must fall back on the objectivity of science for *law*. And when I say science, I mean *true* science, not flawed science meant to prove something.
Lol most science is meant to “prove something” just got to accept when it turns out to dis-prove it also 

Lol most science is meant to “prove something” just got to accept when it turns out to dis-prove it also 

No, it really isn't. There is a hypothesis involved, but there is no *stake* involved in getting either result (that the hypothesis is backed up or disproven). Any scientist trying to *prove* something is a poor scientist.

No, it really isn't. There is a hypothesis involved, but there is no *stake* involved in getting either result (that the hypothesis is backed up or disproven). Any scientist trying to *prove* something is a poor scientist.
I think we are taking two different pov on prove … they make a hypothesis and try to PROVE it correct if not … refine the hypothesis (I just state it like this … I am sure there are other ways to state it because of the influence of humans to want their guess to be right) the trick comes in giving it up if the facts don’t back you up and refining the guess to fit all the facts

People don't seem to be able to make the distinction between doing something to yourself, and doing something to yourself that affects someone else.

Sorry to whomever I'm stealing this example from, I know I did see it on this board:

In that case, would you support a law saying that if you refuse to donate an organ to someone, knowing they will die without it, it's murder? Hmph. The abortion itself doesn't kill the fetus; being outside the womb without nutrients from the mother does. I can refuse to donate an organ, and I can refuse to donate an organ to my own child, knowing they will die without it,* and it is not considered criminal. Whether that is a moral decision to make, can be debated. However, given this state of legality, why should my decision not to donate an organ be specifically criminalized only when I am pregnant AND it is my uterus in question?

I understand that if you answer yes to the initial question, you won't be convinced by my argument. Yes, it can be debated whether this* is a moral decision to make, but that's exactly what this whole debate is about, and I'm saying that it's up to the person, or in the case of abortion, the mother.

I agree, it'd be like the prohibition...but without blindness as the worst side effect of the back alley goings on. If a woman winds up on the wrong side of a wire hanger abortion, she could not only never be able to have children again, she could DIE!

at the most liberal count (planned parenthood) there were 10,000 abortions a year before it was leagalised, now there are over 1.1 million a year

before abortion was legalised an average of 37 women a year died from illegal abortions

save well over a million lives at the cost of 37 = we'll take it

before abortion was legalised an average of 37 women a year died from illegal abortions

save well over a million lives at the cost of 37 = we'll take it
You are sick. Think about what you said.

Seriously.

save well over a million lives at the cost of 37 = we'll take it

You'll take it because *your* *personal* moral and religious beliefs lead you to feel that non-organisms can be considered human lives.

In many people's *personal* moral and religious beliefs, it is not - meaning that we would be sacrificing those women for *nothing*.

While you may believe that your *personal* decision is correct, you have no right to force it upon others.

It is also silly to assume that there would be the same number now as there were then, considering the time in between when it was legalized. You would have a *much* larger black market in abortions if it were made illegal today which would mean *many* more back-alley procedures.

Dempublicents, there's no point arguing with him. Schrandtopia just said he'd kill women to save zygotes. He's hopeless.

You'll take it because *your* *personal* moral and religious beliefs lead you to feel that non-organisms can be considered human lives.

In many people's *personal* moral and religious beliefs, it is not - meaning that we would be sacrificing those women for *nothing*.

While you may believe that your *personal* decision is correct, you have no right to force it upon others.

It is also silly to assume that there would be the same number now as there were then, considering the time in between when it was legalized. You would have a *much* larger black market in abortions if it were made illegal today which would mean *many* more back-alley procedures.
Kind of thinking along the same lines … personally I am in a grey area where I am working out what I think is right for this particular topic

But either way its not right to impose whatever I decide on other people (through force … including laws)

So irregardless this it is my PERSONAL morals not necessary those of others


Here is a question what do people think about tax money going for abortions? Different though (and kind of comes under the imposing ones morals on others)

(oh yeah and beyond regulation agency to make sure abortions are safe … that money doesn’t count)

Dempublicents, there's no point arguing with him. Schrandtopia just said he'd kill women to save zygotes. He's hopeless.

He can believe that all he wants, but unless he is an incredibly dishonest person, he must admit that such is his personal moral and religious belief, wiht nothing other than "I say so!" to back it up. As such, he has no right to force that belief upon others.

Dempublicents, there's no point arguing with him. Schrandtopia just said he'd kill women to save zygotes. He's hopeless.
Not exactly if you are going to be strict it is that he/she was willing to accept the risk that women would take the risk of killing themselves over an abortion

Less emotionally loaded


Anyways just arguing the statement not the underlying abortion argument

Here is a question what do people think about tax money going for abortions? Different though (and kind of comes under the imposing ones morals on others)

(oh yeah and beyond regulation agency to make sure abortions are safe … that money doesn’t count)

Ah, now that is a sticky question!

I guess what it really comes down to, is the following questions:

Is healthcare a basic right which the government should ensure?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want tax dollars going to anyone's health care, as people should pay for themselves.

If the answer is yes,

Are elective procedures also covered under the basic right of healthcare?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want certain elective procedures covered, be it elective abortions, dental cleaning, or Viagra. However, necessary abortions *would* be covered.

If the answer is yes, then tax dollars would go to elective abortions as well.

I suppose, however, that the only condition under which tax dollars would never go to abortion would be if health care is not a basic right which should be ensured to all people.

Ah, now that is a sticky question!

I guess what it really comes down to, is the following questions:

Is healthcare a basic right which the government should ensure?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want tax dollars going to anyone's health care, as people should pay for themselves.

If the answer is yes,

Are elective procedures also covered under the basic right of healthcare?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want certain elective procedures covered, be it elective abortions, dental cleaning, or Viagra. However, necessary abortions *would* be covered.

If the answer is yes, then tax dollars would go to elective abortions as well.

I suppose, however, that the only condition under which tax dollars would never go to abortion would be if health care is not a basic right which should be ensured to all people.

Very well thought out

My personal response would be yes then no
(yes to basic right no to elective ) but that’s me
(also started a thread on it cause I thought it would be intresting

Not exactly if you are going to be strict it is that he/she was willing to accept the risk that women would take the risk of killing themselves over an abortion

Less emotionally loaded


Anyways just arguing the statement not the underlying abortion argument
Emotionally loaded, perhaps my retort was, but his thing about "37 versus a million, we'll take it" just sent a wee chill up my spine.

Emotionally loaded, perhaps my retort was, but his thing about "37 versus a million, we'll take it" just sent a wee chill up my spine.
Oh I agree another ends justifies the means sort of thing going on

You (Dempublicents) say that Schrandtopia is in the wrong because they believe that an unborn child is a human nonetheless, on the basis that moral and religious belief lead them to want to protect the baby over the mother. I don't know if it has anything to do with religious belief, but it is a moral decision regardless. You also have made a moral decision to believe that the mother's life is more important than the baby's, and that the father has no say in the birth or death of his children. If Schrandtopia viewpoint is invalid because it is based on moral or religious beliefs, then anything that you have to say is equally invalid. As far as religious and moral beliefs go, I feel that I am obligated to defend the defenseless and the innocent. You just don't get much more defenseless or innocent than a pre-born child. If you chose not to believe in any religion, that is also moral choice. Even if you don't believe in a religion, it is not beyond the scope of imagination that you could feel compassion for a life that has not yet breathed air. My son recognized my voice in the womb. He responded differently to different types of music, he got upset when my wife and I argued. Even before he was born, he demonstrated intelligence and awareness of his environment. Before I became a father, I believed as you that in the end it was a woman’s body and that no one has a right to tell her what to do with it. I still believe that no one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own body; but now I understand that when a woman is with child, there are two bodies involved. Her child is no more her, (or her property) before birth than after. For that matter did you know that a mother and child only share nutrients through the umbilical cord? They can have entirely different blood types!

It is a free country and you do have the right to your opinion, but it is still just your opinion. Regardless of your disdain for its basis, Schrandtopia's opinion is just as valid.

Exquisitely put, Grumbling Marmots.

Originally Posted by Chodolo
Dempublicents, there's no point arguing with him. Schrandtopia just said he'd kill women to save zygotes. He's hopeless.
We were all once zygotes (unless you had a very strange childhood)

As for the question of medical care, I'd say that the government should provide (or at least assist with) necessary medical procedures, including "necessary" abortions.

When is it necessary? Well, I suppose that would be if the mother and child stood a severe risk of death or major injury, and even then, the mother should have the choice of taking that risk. Or in the case of rape or forced incest, of course.

We were all once zygotes (unless you had a very strange childhood)
I started out as an itch in daddy's pants. You did too, right?

I started out as an itch in daddy's pants. You did too, right?
Nope it was all mommy’s sex drive

You (Dempublicents) say that Schrandtopia is in the wrong because they believe that an unborn child is a human nonetheless, on the basis that moral and religious belief lead them to want to protect the baby over the mother.

Actually, I never said any such thing.

I don't know if it has anything to do with religious belief, but it is a moral decision regardless.

A moral decision with nothing objective to back it up.

You also have made a moral decision to believe that the mother's life is more important than the baby's, and that the father has no say in the birth or death of his children.

I have made no such decision. The fact that I am pro-choice says absolutely nothing about my personal view towards abortion or what moral and religious decisions *I* have made. I simply realize that Schrandtopia has his opinion, I have mine, some other woman has hers, you have yours, and they are *all* simply moral *opinions*. When it comes down to such, an objective view must be used - and the objective (scientific) view validates early-term abortions.

If Schrandtopia viewpoint is invalid because it is based on moral or religious beliefs, then anything that you have to say is equally invalid.

Science is based in neither moral nor religious beliefs, so no - you would be wrong here. My personal view on abortion is equally valid/invalid to Schrand's, and since there is a possiblity for disagreement, science wins out.

My son recognized my voice in the womb. He responded differently to different types of music, he got upset when my wife and I argued. Even before he was born, he demonstrated intelligence and awareness of his environment.

Your son did none of the above before the end of the first trimester, as the embryo/fetus did not have the capabilities to do so.

It is a free country and you do have the right to your opinion, but it is still just your opinion. Regardless of your disdain for its basis, Schrandtopia's opinion is just as valid.

Again, I will point out that *no* opinion based soley in religion can be forced upon another. The objective view of science backs up the idea that early-term abortions should be legal. I have no disdain per se for Schrand's viewpoint - only his belief that he can force it upon other people.

I also point out that you are making completely unfounded assumptions about my personal view of abortion.

I was born 19 years ago, in December of 1985. About a month before my birth my mother was diagnosed with HELPS syndrome. A life threatening condition in which it was probable that she'd bleed to death when I was born.

This is where my views on the issue come into sharpest focus. The doctor offered my parents two options. A partial birth abortion, or a highly experimental procedure that no one was really certain about.

As it can be clearly noted, I am here today, rambling away on the forums, so my parents clearly didn't choose the partial-birth abortion. My mother lived, and had my two younger sisters with no complications. As the procedure was experimental and part of a study, my parents paid no extra money.

So, can you guess my views on abortion?

So, can you guess my views on abortion?

I can guess your *personal* view on what you would *personally* do.

However, what you would do has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you believe in forcing your *personal* views on others.

Meh. My life could have been erased by a condom.

I've come to the conclusion that potential life is fairly meaningless...all that matters is actual life.

Meh. My life could have been erased by a condom.

I've come to the conclusion that potential life is fairly meaningless...all that matters is actual life.
Reminds me of schrodinger's 'cat

You have made the moral and religious decision to consider the embryo/fetus the same as a born human being.

Many people make the moral and religious decision to not consider it as such. Science agrees with these people, so you can't force your personal moral and religious decision on other people. As far as science is concerned, you are not harming another human being.
Just curius(sp) but just what does science describe as a human being?

In my ideal world, we could just remove the fetus from the womb and put it in a nice, friendly artificial womb type thing and put it up for adoption if the mother didn't want the kid. But yeah, I view the life of the child as more important than the "choice" of the mother (if they didn't want a kid, then they should have used a condom, or pill, or diaphragm, or whatever, why should the kid have to pay for their parents incompetence?)

Just curius(sp) but just what does science describe as a human being?

A human being is more of a philosophical term but I can state that, scientifically, it must be a human organism. An organism must meet several requirements, among them the ability to (as an organism) sense and respond to stimuli. In human beings, the nervous system is used to sense and respond to stimuli. Thus, the fetus cannot be a human organism until it meets the requirements to be an organism - which is not until around the end of the first trimester, when the basic (reflexive) nervous system is functional.

In my opinion until a fetus is born it is only a symbiote, it needs its mother/womb to survive thus it is not a true living being. As for morals, morals are a learned response to the world thats all There is NO right to life. Ask any dying person about their right to life. Morals are just a belief that this is how something should be done. Is murder bad? Only in some cases, namely for monetary gain, selfish reasons, etc. If someone wants to kill me survival instinct kicks in and i'll try to kill them before they kill me. I don't agree with abortion being another type of contraceptive/ birth control but i do think that pro-choice is the way to go.

In my ideal world, we could just remove the fetus from the womb and put it in a nice, friendly artificial womb type thing and put it up for adoption if the mother didn't want the kid.
That would be ideal, especially for late term fetuses.

However, it seems hard to justify such measures for zygotes. I look at a zygote, it's comprised of one cell...I really wouldn't see much reason to bring it to term. In fact, I'd hardly feel bad about washing the petri dish off into the sink. I don't see how that could be called murder.

If Schrandtopia viewpoint is invalid because it is based on moral or religious beliefs, then anything that you have to say is equally invalid. As far as religious and moral beliefs go, I feel that I am obligated to defend the defenseless and the innocent.
...

It is a free country and you do have the right to your opinion, but it is still just your opinion. Regardless of your disdain for its basis, Schrandtopia's opinion is just as valid.


Well said! You don't have to morally approve of abortion to be pro-choice. You only have to recognize the right to an invalid opinion and exercise that right responsibly. I hope I never find myself in a situation where I have to make a moral decision regarding abortion. But if I do, I will draw on every foolish and idiotic notion I have about right, wrong, sanctity and profanity to draw conclusions about life, ensoulment, biology, and other things no human being knows anything about. Those conclusions will be correct, in my eyes. I have the right to consider them correct. In return, I will respect the conclusions that my fellow ignoramuses formulate based on the relevant books, studies, revelations, and philosophies developed by the ignoramuses before them. If someone else's opinion is invalid or otherwise problematic, I don't want it to limit my ability to act on my own principles.

What are pro-lifers to do in such an environment? They are to choose life. If they want to save the lives of these unborn babies, they must convince others to choose life.

This argument is ridiculous to some people. How can the right to make moral decisions override the right to life? Well, everyone's opinion is ridiculous to someone. Debate makes little difference, and I have to go to bed.

That would be ideal, especially for late term fetuses.

However, it seems hard to justify such measures for zygotes. I look at a zygote, it's comprised of one cell...I really wouldn't see much reason to bring it to term. In fact, I'd hardly feel bad about washing the petri dish off into the sink. I don't see how that could be called murder.
I admit zygotes don't count. But once it reaches embryonic stage, I feel there's no turning back.

I admit zygotes don't count. But once it reaches embryonic stage, I feel there's no turning back.
I don't really care till it develops a brain. But even then, I have other reasons for still being pro-choice up to birth, although I don't particularly like abortion at that point, and would greatly prefer it was done earlier. Namely, the fact that the fetus is leeching off the mother's organs against her will (and I don't believe the circumstances of conception should have any bearing on whether or not abortion is legal).