NationStates Jolt Archive

When it comes to the abortion debate both sides (to me) seem constrained by their priorities. The pro-lifers are concerned with the rights of the fetus while the pro-choicers are concerned with the rights of the woman. Each side is so determined to protect their charge's rights (the fetus' v. the woman's) the discussion ends in a stalemate.
I'll be upfront and say I'm in the pro-life camp. What I want to know from pro-choicers is what would appease you. What would have to be done for you to say, "Hey, now that's happened there's no need for an abortion."
Would you want guaranteed support for the mother to take care of the child?
Would you want guaranteed removal of the child to another family after birth?
Would you want a technique to remove the fetus before birth?
Something else?
Don't be constrained only by what's possible today. Think outside the box. Be creative.
How do we protect the rights of the woman at same time as protecting the life of the baby?

I'll be up front, I'm pro-choice, NOT pro-abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion, and would much rather see a child go to a loving family through adoption.

But since I'm pro-choice, I will support the rights of the woman to make that decision for what happens to her body, even if I don't like it.

I'll be up front, I'm pro-choice, NOT pro-abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion, and would much rather see a child go to a loving family through adoption.

But since I'm pro-choice, I will support the rights of the woman to make that decision for what happens to her body, even if I don't like it.
Right, but what could be offered to make an abortion unnecessary. I think both sides agree that abortions aren't a good thing, and ideally none would be necessary.

when there is a technique to remove the fetus from the uterus that is as safe and easy as a current vacuum abortion. when its free. when the fetus is guaranteed a loving home. when all birth defects are correctable. when rape and incest are eliminated.

there are probably more

I am pro-abortion. I think it is a perfectly viable choice to be made and in many times is definitely the best choice.

What would make me comfortable with the abortion issue:

1. the end of the fascination with the fetus and the realization that it is not a person

2. the complete ability of a woman to end a pregnancy when she wanted

Right, but what could be offered to make an abortion unnecessary. I think both sides agree that abortions aren't a good thing, and ideally none would be necessary.

Like I said, I would fully support adoption as an alternative.

When it comes to the abortion debate both sides (to me) seem constrained by their priorities. The pro-lifers are concerned with the rights of the fetus while the pro-choicers are concerned with the rights of the woman. Each side is so determined to protect their charge's rights (the fetus' v. the woman's) the discussion ends in a stalemate.
I'll be upfront and say I'm in the pro-life camp. What I want to know from pro-choicers is what would appease you. What would have to be done for you to say, "Hey, now that's happened there's no need for an abortion."
Would you want guaranteed support for the mother to take care of the child?
Would you want guaranteed removal of the child to another family after birth?
Would you want a technique to remove the fetus before birth?
Something else?
Don't be constrained only by what's possible today. Think outside the box. Be creative.
How do we protect the rights of the woman at same time as protecting the life of the baby?


The same deterrent to all murderers: Don't commit infanticide and we won't give you life in prison/capital punishment.

I am pro-abortion. I think it is a perfectly viable choice to be made and in many times is definitely the best choice.

What would make me comfortable with the abortion issue:

1. the end of the fascination with the fetus and the realization that it is not a person

2. the complete ability of a woman to end a pregnancy when she wanted



...someone is actually pro-abortion?

Err... isn't the removal of the fetus before birth almost an abortion?

The thing is that I think the woman should be allowed to choose whether she wants the baby or not. But the thing is that if we say 'no abortion, yes adoptions' then what happens is Yes. Abortions will not be necessary (yeah right. Like a woman is going to give up her body and possibly die carrying a baby if she doesn't want to), but then the question will become 'Is adoption necessary?'

I haven't voted, by the way /:

...someone is actually pro-abortion?

I see only benefits to abortion as long as the woman is well informed of the health risks.

Err... isn't the removal of the fetus before birth almost an abortion?

The thing is that I think the woman should be allowed to choose whether she wants the baby or not. But the thing is that if we say 'no abortion, yes adoptions' then what happens is Yes. Abortions will not be necessary (yeah right. Like a woman is going to give up her body and possibly die carrying a baby if she doesn't want to), but then the question will become 'Is adoption necessary?'

I haven't voted, by the way /:

if the fetus can be removed without killing it and put into either a willing woman or an artificial uterus then it changes the whole equation for me. the womans right to not be pregnant does not override the fetus's right to have a chance at life (as it does now)

The way I see it...

Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion: Against abortion in all cases.
Pro-Choice: Allowing the choice for abortion, even if they do not agree.
Pro-Abortion: See abortion as the ideal way of dealing with pregnancy.

Free, safe, effective, available contraceptives for all. The morning after pill should also be free and available.

You'd have no abortions at all if unwanted pregnancies were prevented in the first place.

if the fetus can be removed without killing it and put into either a willing woman or an artificial uterus then it changes the whole equation for me. the womans right to not be pregnant does not override the fetus's right to have a chance at life (as it does now)

A "right to have a chance at life"? How can something have rights before it has life?

The way I see it...

Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion: Against abortion in all cases.
Pro-Choice: Allowing the choice for abortion, even if they do not agree.
Pro-Abortion: See abortion as the ideal way of dealing with unwanted pregnancy.

It is not like I want to stop women from having babies.

A "right to have a chance at life"? How can something have rights before it has life?


It does have life. It has life even before it becomes human. Anything organic that moves and strives to further itself is life. Even the simplest bacterium has life.

I see only benefits to abortion as long as the woman is well informed of the health risks.


*sigh* Have you no conscience? Even the pro-choice people are opposed to abortion itself.

In the UK the legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks; babies have survived when born prematurely far younger than that.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario here. A premature baby is born at 21 weeks, and has intensive care from the hospital to keep it alive. Two and a half weeks later, the mother decides she doesn't want the baby, takes a sharp knife and cuts it into little pieces.

We hear claims that a 23-week-old foetus is not a 'life' when the current abortion law is defended.

Would those pro-abortionists support the mother's right to take the action described above?

*sigh* Have you no conscience? Even the pro-choice people are opposed to abortion itself.

Erm..No, I'm not opposed to it, so please stop attempting to put words in my mouth or others who happen to be pro-choice with generalizations.

If scientists/medical workers can transfer out the fetus within the first few weeks of pregnancy, and into another host, as well as have the procedure paid for, then I can see abortion coming to an end.

A "right to have a chance at life"? How can something have rights before it has life?
because while its not a baby and its not a person it is HUMAN and if it can be done without interfering with the rights of other people, it should have the chance to be born.

A "right to have a chance at life"? How can something have rights before it has life?
Hmm, my opinion on why abortion should be allowed is a tad different.
It's rather irrelevant whether or not it is alive. We kill living things for our own benefit quite often. Whenever we eat meat, whenever we treat a bacterial infection, etc.
I don't think that merely the quality of being alive gives something the same rights as a human has.

It does have life. It has life even before it becomes human. Anything organic that moves and strives to further itself is life. Even the simplest bacterium has life.

Well that also shows how unreasonable the "right to have a chance at life" is.

But I was referring to life in the context that I figured Ashmoria was getting at, life independent of the mother. It does not make sense to me to say that an extension of a person's body deserves a "right to life." Your appendix is alive, remove it and it will die, but it seems ridiculous to say it has a right to life.

*sigh* Have you no conscience? Even the pro-choice people are opposed to abortion itself.

Then why are there so many abortions?

As for me, I have no problem with putting a stop to something unwanted before it exists.

It is not like I want to stop women from having babies.

You're absolutely right. It was not my intention to convey that you did. Thank you for correcting me.

Hmm, my opinion on why abortion should be allowed is a tad different.
It's rather irrelevant whether or not it is alive. We kill living things for our own benefit quite often. Whenever we eat meat, whenever we treat a bacterial infection, etc.
I don't think that merely the quality of being alive gives something the same rights as a human has.

I agree with you there. I actually made the point on another abortion thread that being alive doesn't guarantee your rights.

However, they were trying to say that there is a right to have a chance at life, which seems like a ridiculous statement.

It does have life. It has life even before it becomes human. Anything organic that moves and strives to further itself is life. Even the simplest bacterium has life.

So if all life is sacred to you - you will never kill mold or bacteria or an ant or fly? You won't support war or the death penalty? You will refuse to eat meat from dead animals or products from dead plants?

Do you promise to cease all activity that might end the life of anything?

I value life in varying degrees. Obviously I value the life of a living human over a cow. However, I acknowledge that the cow is a living being, and value it's life as a food source and for its potential for clothing.

In the same sense, I value a zygote as the begining of sentient life. But since the zygote itself is not sentient, and has no brain-functions whatsoever, I cannot see how someone can place its rights above the rights of a woman.

I don't particularly LOVE the idea of abortion, but in the early stages, I do not see it as terminating life, so much as halting it.

Well that also shows how unreasonable the "right to have a chance at life" is.

But I was referring to life in the context that I figured Ashmoria was getting at, life independent of the mother. It does not make sense to me to say that an extension of a person's body deserves a "right to life." Your appendix is alive, remove it and it will die, but it seems ridiculous to say it has a right to life.



Then why are there so many abortions?

As for me, I have no problem with putting a stop to something unwanted before it exists.
a fetus is an independant entity within the mothers uterus. it has seperate dna, seperate body, seperate blood supply. it is in no way the same thing as an appendix.

a fetus is an independant entity within the mothers uterus. it has seperate dna, seperate body, seperate blood supply. it is in no way the same thing as an appendix.

I acknowledge that in the late stages of pregnancy, a fetus is a separate, living being. And there is evidence of brain functions in this stage.

I don't support abortion at this point unless there is extreme, imminent risk to the mother.

Abortion is mostly about selfishness (a mom choosing her wants over her baby's life). Since that includes the "inconvenience" of being pregnant, there's probably not much that anyone can offer to convince her to even give birth except cold hard cash.

Abortion is mostly about selfishness (a mom choosing her wants over her baby's life). Since that includes the "inconvenience" of being pregnant, there's probably not much that anyone can offer to convince her to even give birth except cold hard cash.

Oh, now that's not fair. Not every woman has an abortion because she doesn't want to carry.

-Medical
-Financial
-Environment
-Family
-Emotional

These are just a few off the top of my head.

I acknowledge that in the late stages of pregnancy, a fetus is a separate, living being. And there is evidence of brain functions in this stage.

I don't support abortion at this point unless there is extreme, imminent risk to the mother.
i am personally quite supportive of the roe v. wade restrictions on abortions. in the first trimester(ish) its a womans business. as the fetus grows toward viability the woman's right to terminate is gradually eliminated until you get to a point where there IS no right to abort. (as in, a woman who is 9 months pregnant with a healthy fetus that is no danger to her life cant get an abortion)

but the question was what would have to change to make me feel that a woman would never have the right to terminate a pregnancy. it seems to me that a fetus conceived with consentual sex, when that fetus could be easily removed and put into another host, would pretty much eliminate any objection i would have to making abortion illegal. (as long as there were no birth defects to consider and the born child would have a guarantee of a loving home)

Abortion is mostly about selfishness (a mom choosing her wants over her baby's life). Since that includes the "inconvenience" of being pregnant, there's probably not much that anyone can offer to convince her to even give birth except cold hard cash.
abortion is a tragedy that a woman endures because in her judgement it is a better choice than carrying the fetus to term. its not done lightly or without careful consideration.

abortion is a tragedy that a woman endures because in her judgement it is a better choice than carrying the fetus to term. its not done lightly or without careful consideration.

More or less what I was saying earlier. I have known FEW women to take this thing lightly.

Abortion is mostly about selfishness (a mom choosing her wants over her baby's life). Since that includes the "inconvenience" of being pregnant, there's probably not much that anyone can offer to convince her to even give birth except cold hard cash.

The fetus is not a baby. If the fetus is terminated before it is born it never becomes a baby, so saying that the mother chooses her own wants over the baby's life is a ridiculous statement since there is no baby to have life.

I picked option B.

It just makes the most sense. If the government prize the unborn, and would want some woman who originally would have had an abortion, to have a baby, the government should be willing and prepared to take the otherwise aborted baby off her hands.

The last thing I want is some underpaid, sick mother who can't even feed herself, being stuck with some baby that she was FORCED to have.

-Asylum Nova

I picked option B.

It just makes the most sense. If the government prize the unborn, and would want some woman who originally would have had an abortion, to have a baby, the government should be willing and prepared to take the otherwise aborted baby OFF HER HANDS.

-Asylum Nova

Err...potential for raising little soldiers...not good...

Err...potential for raising little soldiers...not good...

Point. But it could work the other way as well...especially if the government had a good adoption program, and keep children in the hands of those who will appreciate them.

-Asylum Nova

Supporting only sexual education classes that teach factual information about the full spectrum of contraceptive options.

Promoting the use of contraceptives that have little to no chance of user error, i.e., intrauterine devices and sterilization. More doctors allowing young women to choose those options for herself.

Supporting only sexual education classes that teach factual information about the full spectrum of contraceptive options.

Promoting the use of contraceptives that have little to no chance of user error, i.e., intrauterine devices and sterilization. More doctors allowing young women to choose those options for herself.

Good point. Why worry about abortion when you can teach how to prevent unwanted pregnacy in the first place?

I didn't read most of this, but I'll just post my conditions:

Instead of abortion either
1. Birth control (the obvious one)
2. Death of the child after birth.
3. Time travel

The problem with any option that allows the child to live is that any child who would have otherwise been aborted is not likely to have a very good life, even if they are put into the foster care system. For those of you who have read Harry Potter, how do you think the world would be different if Voldemort's mom had access to abortion?

Good point. Why worry about abortion when you can teach how to prevent unwanted pregnacy in the first place?

Unwanted pregnancy is not always due to negligence. As those who would like to have abstinence only education tought would say, no sex is (completely) safe sex.

Ok I'll make a quote here. Please excuse any inappropriate language used.

KILL THE FUCKING GOO...if you need to. Hey that rhymes. An abortion is a blessing to another organism, which will now have food.

Unwanted pregnancy is not always due to negligence. As those who would like to have abstinence only education tought would say, no sex is (completely) safe sex.

Agreed, abstinence is the only true 100% effective means of contraception. But, to be honest, it is unrealistic. I'm gonna have sex...nothing ANYBODY says is going to change my mind. But at least I can be knowledgable and educated on sexuality and contraception.

Unwanted pregnancy is not always due to negligence. As those who would like to have abstinence only education tought would say, no sex is (completely) safe sex.


yes but then for that to work you have to force you beliefs on someone else.

Ok I'll make a quote here. Please excuse any inappropriate language used.

KILL THE FUCKING GOO...if you need to. Hey that rhymes. An abortion is a blessing to another organism, which will now have food.

Ugh...Sorry...but really dude...this WAS going great...

*sigh*

What I want to know from pro-choicers is what would appease you.
It would take a lot. You would have to find viable chemo-treatments that woud not necessitate termination of pregnancy. You would have to completely eliminate rape. You would have to wipe out prenatal disorders that cause high morbidity rates. You would have to know exactly what's going on in each woman's situation which leads her to choose abortion. You would have to know what it's like to follow a pregnancy to term, then give the baby up. You would have to educate the youth on real sex education- I'm talking about STI Prevention, comprehensive education on contraceptive methods, and so on. You would have to stop following the dictates of a theocracy in teaching the youth about their bodies and their sexuality. When all those things are done you would be able to significantly lower abortion rates. But you can never realistically eliminate abortion.

Agreed, abstinence is the only true 100% effective means of contraception. But, to be honest, it is unrealistic. I'm gonna have sex...nothing ANYBODY says is going to change my mind. But at least I can be knowledgable and educated on sexuality and contraception.

yes but then for that to work you have to force you beliefs on someone else.

Both of you are right. It is completely unrealistic to expect people to not have sex, and that is fine with me, as long as they are educated on the risks and risk reducers involved with sex.

But I was just trying to say that allowing complete and full education concerning sex would still not satisfy what I see as a need for abortion for our society. It is wonderful to have people be educated, but it is not the fix all.

Here's the way I see it: The human fetus is the most fragile human being. It is alive and it is human, it simply requires it's mother to live (which before formulas and other stuff could have been of all infants as well). These are humans with the same rights as any citizen of the country its parents are from. Therefore killing the fetus is worse even than infantcide.

Why are abortions available in the first place? It seems like a rather stupid idea in the first place. First, you have those women who got knocked up and don't want to deal with the child. If you didn't want to risk having a child, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. It's your own damn fault, live with the consequences. The modern people think that they can get away with decadent shit without paying the price. Not true.

Secondly, you have the victims of rape and incest. I really do feel sorry for these people. They were violated. But why is the answer to a pregnancy caused by rape or incest always to kill the most innocent party. The fetus didn't rape you. If you can't deal with raising a baby that came about by rape, put it up for adoption

And then you have the deformed/deficient fetuses. Their life still has a chance at being happy. They might not be fully able, but they'll probably learn to appreciate life more, rather than take it for granted like the rest of us do.

To end, I am pro-choice. That's the choice a woman faces when she's about to have sex. She can have unprotected sex, "safe sex", or not have sex at all. That's your choice. It's the same as men have.

To end, I am pro-choice. That's the choice a woman faces when she's about to have sex. She can have unprotected sex, "safe sex", or not have sex at all. That's your choice. It's the same as men have.
Uh. No buddy. You said it yourself; There are rape victims- that's not a choice in my book. And seriously, now. You're really going to tell a rape victim she's got to carry the pregnancy to term? You think that's alright? I don't.

Uh. No buddy. You said it yourself; There are rape victims- that's not a choice in my book. And seriously, now. You're really going to tell a rape victim she's got to carry the pregnancy to term? You think that's alright? I don't.

I was saying I'm pro women's choice if they want to have sex. Which means not only that I'm against a woman who chose to have sex and then abort their pregnancy, but I'm also against rape (which is a given). And it's like I said, it's not the child's fault the woman was raped. People are given responsibilities they didn't ask for all the time, that doesn't mean they can just get rid of it.

Here's the way I see it: The human fetus is the most fragile human being. It is alive and it is human, it simply requires it's mother to live (which before formulas and other stuff could have been of all infants as well). These are humans with the same rights as any citizen of the country its parents are from. Therefore killing the fetus is worse even than infantcide.

Does a fetus have a right to liberty or a right to property? In fact the fetus's right to life is seriously hindered by the fact that, depending on the point in the pregnancy, were the fetus removed in tact from the mother's womb it would not be able to live.

And are you trying to say that killing a person becomes worse depending on its fragility? Would that not mean that killing a comotose ninety-year-old would be far worse than killing a ten-year-old child?

Why are abortions available in the first place? It seems like a rather stupid idea in the first place. First, you have those women who got knocked up and don't want to deal with the child. If you didn't want to risk having a child, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. It's your own damn fault, live with the consequences. The modern people think that they can get away with decadent shit without paying the price. Not true.

It is your puritan ideas on forcing people to deal with the unnecessary consequences of their mistakes that are not true.

Secondly, you have the victims of rape and incest. I really do feel sorry for these people. They were violated. But why is the answer to a pregnancy caused by rape or incest always to kill the most innocent party. The fetus didn't rape you. If you can't deal with raising a baby that came about by rape, put it up for adoption

At least you are consistent.

And then you have the deformed/deficient fetuses. Their life still has a chance at being happy. They might not be fully able, but they'll probably learn to appreciate life more, rather than take it for granted like the rest of us do.

Nothing like forcing a child to grow up confused and outcast and a mother to accept a child she may secretly resent and will certainly make her life excrutiatingly difficult.

If they are terminated they will have never known the difference because they would have never existed as a person. So you have one person who is fictional, so cannot be harmed, and one person who is helped. Viola! Abortion makes a bad situation better.

To end, I am pro-choice. That's the choice a woman faces when she's about to have sex. She can have unprotected sex, "safe sex", or not have sex at all. That's your choice. It's the same as men have.

If I were to read deeply into that, I would say that you had a mysogynistic streak to you, but I don't want to make assumptions. Instead I will direct you to the comment I made about your puritan beliefs.

People are given responsibilities they didn't ask for all the time, that doesn't mean they can just get rid of it.
So then you are saying a woman should be requred to carry a rape-pregnancy to term. Was it not bad enough that the woman got raped to begin with? Clearly you must be male.

Uh. No buddy. You said it yourself; There are rape victims- that's not a choice in my book. And seriously, now. You're really going to tell a rape victim she's got to carry the pregnancy to term? You think that's alright? I don't.

and why tramatize the victim even farther?, The victim could get any number of these if an abortion is performed:

A LIST OF MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SEQUELAE OF ABORTION (1)


REQUIREMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT:

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among aborted women. Most significant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)

Since many post-aborted women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care. These repressed feelings may cause psychosomatic illnesses and psychiatric or behavioral in other areas of her life. As a result, some counselors report that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems. (5)

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD or PAS): A major random study found that a minimum of 19% of post- abortion women suffer from diagnosable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Approximately half had many, but not all, symptoms of PTSD, and 20 to 40 percent showed moderate to high levels of stress and avoidance behavior relative to their abortion experiences. (6) Because this is a major disorder which may be present in many plaintiffs, and is not readily understood outside the counseling profession, the following summary is more complete than other entries in this section. PTSD is a psychological dysfunction which results from a traumatic experience which overwhelms a person's normal defense mechanisms resulting in intense fear, feelings of helplessness or being trapped, or loss of control. The risk that an experience will be traumatic is increased when the traumatizing event is perceived as including threats of physical injury, sexual violation, or the witnessing of or participation in a violent death. PTSD results when the traumatic event causes the hyperarousal of "flight or fight" defense mechanisms. This hyperarousal causes these defense mechanisms to become disorganized, disconnected from present circumstances, and take on a life of their own resulting in abnormal behavior and major personality disorders. As an example of this disconnection of mental functions, some PTSD victim may experience intense emotion but without clear memory of the event; others may remember every detail but without emotion; still others may re-experience both the event and the emotions in intrusive and overwhelming flashback experiences. (7)

Women may experience abortion as a traumatic event for several reasons. Many are forced into an unwanted abortions by husbands, boyfriends, parents, or others. If the woman has repeatedly been a victim of domineering abuse, such an unwanted abortion may be perceived as the ultimate violation in a life characterized by abuse. Other women, no matter how compelling the reasons they have for seeking an abortion, may still perceive the termination of their pregnancy as the violent killing of their own child. The fear, anxiety, pain, and guilt associated with the procedure are mixed into this perception of grotesque and violent death. Still other women, report that the pain of abortion, inflicted upon them by a masked stranger invading their body, feels identical to rape. (8) Indeed, researchers have found that women with a history of sexual assault may experience greater distress during and after an abortion exactly because of these associations between the two experiences. (9) When the stressor leading to PTSD is abortion, some clinicians refer to this as Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS).

The major symptoms of PTSD are generally classified under three categories: hyperarousal, intrusion, and constriction.

Hyperarousal is a characteristic of inappropriately and chronically aroused "fight or flight" defense mechanisms. The person is seemingly on permanent alert for threats of danger. Symptoms of hyperarousal include: exaggerated startle responses, anxiety attacks, irritability, outbursts of anger or rage, aggressive behavior, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilence, difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep, or physiological reactions upon exposure to situations that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic experience (eg. elevated pulse or sweat during a pelvic exam, or upon hearing a vacuum pump sound.)

Intrusion is the re-experience of the traumatic event at unwanted and unexpected times. Symptoms of intrusion in PAS cases include: recurrent and intrusive thoughts about the abortion or aborted child, flashbacks in which the woman momentarily re-experiences an aspect of the abortion experience, nightmares about the abortion or child, or anniversary reactions of intense grief or depression on the due date of the aborted pregnancy or the anniversary date of the abortion.

Constriction is the numbing of emotional resources, or the development of behavioral patterns, so as to avoid stimuli associated with the trauma. It is avoidance behavior; an attempt to deny and avoid negative feelings or people, places, or things which aggravate the negative feelings associated with the trauma. In post-abortion trauma cases, constriction may include: an inability to recall the abortion experience or important parts of it; efforts to avoid activities or situations which may arouse recollections of the abortion; withdrawal from relationships, especially estrangement from those involved in the abortion decision; avoidance of children; efforts to avoid or deny thoughts or feelings about the abortion; restricted range of loving or tender feelings; a sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect a career, marriage, or children, or a long life.); diminished interest in previously enjoyed activities; drug or alcohol abuse; suicidal thoughts or acts; and other self-destructive tendencies.

As previously mentioned, Barnard's study identified a 19% rate of PTSD among women who had abortions three to five years previously. But in reality the actual rate is probably higher. Like most post-abortion studies, Barnard's study was handicapped by a fifty percent drop out rate. Clinical experience has demonstrated that the women least likely to cooperate in post-abortion research are those for whom the abortion caused the most psychological distress. Research has confirmed this insight, demonstrating that the women who refuse follow-up evaluation most closely match the demographic characteristics of the women who suffer the most post-abortion distress. (10) The extraordinary high rate of refusal to participate in post-abortion studies may interpreted as evidence of constriction or avoidance behavior (not wanting to think about the abortion) which is a major symptom of PTSD.

For many women, the onset or accurate identification of PTSD symptoms may be delayed for several years. (11) Until a PTSD sufferer has received counseling and achieved adequate recovery, PTSD may result in a psychological disability which would prevent an injured abortion patient from bringing action within the normal statutory period. This disability may, therefore, provide grounds for an extended statutory period.

SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION: Thirty to fifty percent of aborted women report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions. These problems may include one or more of the following: loss of pleasure from intercourse, increased pain, an aversion to sex and/or males in general, or the development of a promiscuous life-style. (12)

SUICIDAL IDEATION AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS: Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study. The identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term, and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers.(13)

INCREASED SMOKING WITH CORRESPONDENT NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS: Post-abortion stress is linked with increased cigarette smoking. Women who abort are twice as likely to become heavy smokers and suffer the corresponding health risks. (14)

Post-abortion women are also more likely to continue smoking during subsequent wanted pregnancies with increased risk of neonatal death or congenital anomalies. (15)

ALCOHOL ABUSE: Abortion is significantly linked with a two fold increased risk of alcohol abuse among women. (16) Abortion followed by alcohol abuse is linked to violent behavior, divorce or separation, auto accidents, and job loss. (17) (see also New Study Confirms Link Between Abortion and Substance Abuse)

DRUG ABUSE: Abortion is significantly linked to subsequent drug abuse. In addition to the psycho-social costs of such abuse, drug abuse is linked with increased exposure to HIV/AIDS infections, congenital malformations, and assaultive behavior. (18)

EATING DISORDERS: For at least some women, post-abortion stress is associated with eating disorders such as binge eating, bulimia, and anorexia nervosa. (19)

CHILD NEGLECT OR ABUSE: Abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse. (20)

DIVORCE AND CHRONIC RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS: For most couples, an abortion causes unforeseen problems in their relationship. Post-abortion couples are more likely to divorce or separate. Many post-abortion women develop a greater difficulty forming lasting bonds with a male partner. This may be due to abortion related reactions such as lowered self-esteem, greater distrust of males, sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, and increased levels of depression, anxiety, and volatile anger. Women who have more than one abortion (representing about 45% of all abortions) are more likely to require public assistance, in part because they are also more likely to become single parents. (21)

REPEAT ABORTIONS: Women who have one abortion are at increased risk of having additional abortions in the future. Women with a prior abortion experience are four times more likely to abort a current pregnancy than those with no prior abortion history. (22)

This increased risk is associated with the prior abortion due to lowered self esteem, a conscious or unconscious desire for a replacement pregnancy, and increased sexual activity post-abortion. Subsequent abortions may occur because of conflicted desires to become pregnant and have a child and continued pressures to abort, such as abandonment by the new male partner. Aspects of self-punishment through repeated abortions are also reported. (23)

Approximately 45% of all abortions are now repeat abortions. The risk of falling into a repeat abortion pattern should be discussed with a patient considering her first abortion. Furthermore, since women who have more than one abortion are at a significantly increased risk of suffering physical and psychological sequelae, these heightened risks should be thoroughly discussed with women seeking abortions.


NOTES:

1. An excellent resource for any attorney involved in abortion malpractice is Thomas Strahan's Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion (Rutherford Institute, PO Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482, (804) 978-388.) This resource includes brief summaries of major finding drawn from medical and psychology journal articles, books, and related materials, divided into major categories of relevant injuries.

2. Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122, (1980).

3. Badgley, et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Ottawa:Supply and Services, 1977)pp.313-321.

4. R. Somers, "Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage," Dissertation Abstracts International, Public Health 2621-B, Order No. 7926066 (1979); H. David, et al., "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions," Family Planning Perspectives 13:88-91 (1981).

5. Kent, et al., "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4.

6. Catherine Barnard, The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion, Portsmouth, N.H.: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990).

7. Herman, Trauma and Recovery, (New York: Basic Books, 1992) 34.

8. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95.

9. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987); Makhorn, "Sexual Assault & Pregnancy," New Perspectives on Human Abortion, Mall & Watts, eds., (Washington, D.C.: University Publications of America, 1981).

10. Adler, "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psycho-social Sequelae of Abortion: How great a problem." Journal of Social Issues, 1979, 35, 100-110.

11. Speckhard, "Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging Public Health Concern," Journal of Social Issues, 48(3):95-119.

12. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion, Sheed & Ward, Kansas City: MO, 1987; and Belsey, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Soc. Sci. & Med., 11:71-82 (1977).

13. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion, Sheed & Ward, Kansas City: MO, 1987; Gissler, Hemminki & Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996.C. Haignere, et al., "HIV/AIDS Prevention and Multiple Risk Behaviors of Gay Male and Runaway Adolescents," Sixth International Conference on AIDS: San Francisco, June 1990; N. Campbell, et al., "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence, 23(92):813-823 (1988); H. Vaughan, Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion Syndrome, Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1991; B. Garfinkel, "Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota," Responding to High Risk Youth, Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota (1986).

14. Harlap, "Characteristics of Pregnant Women Reporting Previous Induced Abortions," Bulletin World Health Organization, 52:149 (1975); N. Meirik, "Outcome of First Delivery After 2nd Trimester Two Stage Induced Abortion: A Controlled Cohort Study," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavia 63(1):45-50(1984); Levin, et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, 243:2495-2499, June 27, 1980.

15. Obel, "Pregnancy Complications Following Legally Induced Abortion: An Analysis of the Population with Special Reference to Prematurity," Danish Medical Bulletin, 26:192- 199 (1979); Martin, "An Overview: Maternal Nicotine and Caffeine Consumption and Offspring Outcome," Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Tertology, 4(4):421-427, (1982).

16. Klassen, "Sexual Experience and Drinking Among Women in a U.S. National Survey," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(5):363-39 ; M. Plant, Women, Drinking and Pregnancy, Tavistock Pub, London (1985); Kuzma & Kissinger, "Patterns of Alcohol and Cigarette Use in Pregnancy," Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Terotology, 3:211-221 (1981).

17. Morrissey, et al., "Stressful Life Events and Alcohol Problems Among Women Seen at a Detoxification Center," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 39(9):1159 (1978).

18. Oro, et al., "Perinatal Cocaine and Methamphetamine Exposure Maternal and Neo-Natal Correlates," J. Pediatrics, 111:571- 578 (1978); D.A. Frank, et al., "Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Prevalence and Correlates," Pediatrics, 82(6):888 (1988); H. Amaro, et al., "Drug Use Among Adolescent Mothers: Profile of Risk," Pediatrics 84:144-150, (1989)

19. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion, Sheed & Ward, Kansas City: MO, 1987; J. Spaulding, et al, "Psychoses Following Therapeutic Abortion, Am. J. of Psychiatry 125(3):364 (1978); R.K. McAll, et al., "Ritual Mourning in Anorexia Nervosa," The Lancet, August 16, 1980, p. 368.

20. Benedict, et al., "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse," Child Abuse and Neglect, 9:217-224 (1985); P.G. Ney, "Relationship between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 24:610-620, 1979; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 129-30, describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger.

21. Shepard, et al., "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science, 11:289-302 (1979); M. Bracken, "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Delay," J. Biosocial Science, 7:473-491 (1975); S. Henshaw, "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives, 20(4):158-168 (1988); D. Sherman, et al., "The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives, ed. W.F. Finn, et al., (New York: Praeger Publ. 1985), pp98-107; E.M. Belsey, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Social Science and Medicine, 11:71- 82 (1977); E. Freeman, et al., "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 55(5):630-636 (1980); C. Berger, et al., "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives 16(2):70-75 (1984).

22. Joyce, "The Social and Economic Correlates of Pregnancy Resolution Among Adolescents in New York by Race and Ethnicity: A Multivariate Analysis," Am. J. of Public Health, 78(6):626-631 (1988); C. Tietze, "Repeat Abortions - Why More?" Family Planning Perspectives 10(5):286-288, (1978).

23. Leach, "The Repeat Abortion Patient," Family Planning Perspectives, 9(1):37-39 (1977); S. Fischer, "Reflection on Repeated Abortions: The meanings and motivations," Journal of Social Work Practice 2(2):70-87 (1986); B. Howe, et al., "Repeat Abortion, Blaming the Victims," Am. J. of Public Health, 69(12):1242-1246, (1979).

Rather then risk all that, i would say have the kid and if you don't want him/her put the child up for adoption.

People are given responsibilities they didn't ask for all the time, that doesn't mean they can just get rid of it.
So then you are saying a woman should be requred to carry a rape-pregnancy to term. Was it not bad enough that the woman got raped to begin with? Clearly you must be male.

So I'm just throwing something up there. My idea involves vasectomy of males or sterilization of women in developed nations with extensive adoption programs from underdeveloped/overpopulated countries. Who knows, it might solve the abortion issue and solve some hunger/child povery issues.

and why tramatize the victim even farther?, The victim could get any number of these if an abortion is performed:

Regardless of whether all of those risks were documented and true, (I didn't read them or the sources) as long as the woman is well informed as to what the risks of an abortion are, any possible side effects would not be a viable reason to outlaw abortions.

and why tramatize the victim even farther?, The victim could get any number of these if an abortion is performed:

A LIST OF MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SEQUELAE OF ABORTION (1)...



Shall I list all possible complications of pregnancy? They outnumber those of abortion (both medication and surgical combined) by far. Good try, darling.

So then you are saying a woman should be requred to carry a rape-pregnancy to term. Was it not bad enough that the woman got raped to begin with? Surely, you must be male.

Rape/Incest constitute only 1% of the abortions. But no, they shouldnt because it wasnt their choice in the first place.

As for the other 99%...they could always:
1) Take the pill
2) Take the morning after pill
3) Wear protection and take the pill
4) Not have sex until you can care for a child, are prepared emotionally for a child, or until will not be scrutinized for having a child out of wedlock.

Rape/Incest constitute only 1% of the abortions. But no, they shouldnt because it wasnt their choice in the first place.

As for the other 99%...they could always:
1) Take the pill
2) Take the morning after pill
3) Wear protection and take the pill
4) Not have sex until you can care for a child, are prepared emotionally for a child, or until will not be scrutinized for having a child out of wedlock.

To address your options:

1) If by "the pill" you're referring to RU487, you're still talking about an abortion- it's instead an induced stillbirth up until eight weeks, five days of gestation. If by "the pill," you're referring to oral contraceptive methods, not all women are eligable for this. And in the cases of abstinance only education- how are the youth to know that it's available?
2) The Emergancy Contraceptive Pill (ECP) is only viable until five days after intercourse. Most women do not know that they're pregnant until they miss their period- up to a month afterwards, if their cycle is normal.
3) If only 'protection' were presented as socially acceptable, this would probably work- though there are still instances of ineffective barrier methods, or missed pills, etc. i.e. accidents happen in all cases. Again, this goes back to education.
4)abstinance would be ideal. But is it realistic? In your culture, maybe.

I'll just say what I read on a bench add sinc eit's right to the point of what I want to say. Adoption, not Abortion:D I mean, yeah, I'm pro-abortion and all, but wouldn't the woman giving her baby to a family who actually wants it instead of the mother killing it? What if it was going to be the next president or king/queen of a country if it lived? You just have to ask yourself that before going into some room and some strange people doing whatever in that room.

Doesn't getting an abortion discriminate the woman by doctors and nurses while killing her baby? I could see if the baby had defects and wouldn't live very long, the abortion would be for the mother's sake and to save the baby from pain and such if it was beyond help.

Besides, it's the woman's fault she's pregnant. I mean, she's the one who had sex and she's paying for it by getting herself pregnant and then discriminating herself by killing it. Wouldn't it be easier and save money if she hadn't gotten pregnant before marriage?

Why are abortions available in the first place? It seems like a rather stupid idea in the first place. First, you have those women who got knocked up and don't want to deal with the child. If you didn't want to risk having a child, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. It's your own damn fault, live with the consequences. The modern people think that they can get away with decadent shit without paying the price. Not true.

What about the people who aren't modern. Young girls who live on streets because they're poor and get violated by drunk or drugged men.

Secondly, you have the victims of rape and incest. I really do feel sorry for these people. They were violated. But why is the answer to a pregnancy caused by rape or incest always to kill the most innocent party. The fetus didn't rape you. If you can't deal with raising a baby that came about by rape, put it up for adoption

Would you rather have a woman/girl who was violated have a pregnancy discard the child and maybe be scarred for the rest of her live, never wanting to have a child again in fear of what had happened before? Or Maybe give the child to an orphanage with a possibility for the child to live there, growing bitter and resentful, maybe to become a criminal because of it? Or live, unwanted with a mother who has other children and cares for them more?

Uh. No buddy. You said it yourself; There are rape victims- that's not a choice in my book. And seriously, now. You're really going to tell a rape victim she's got to carry the pregnancy to term? You think that's alright? I don't.



Better than telling her she can kill an innocent 3rd party, no?

Better than telling her she can kill an innocent 3rd party, no?

That's going back to whether you consider a zygote to be a third party. This is why the issue is so complex. The fetus ranges in the first trimester from a clump of cells- literally- to a fetus resembling a chicken embryo- to a semblance of a human; complete with a beating heart and reflexes. In any of the above stages of gestation, however, yeah- i'd say go for it- kill the third party. I mean, wasn't that third party not days before half rape-semen? I don't feel bad for it, I'm sure the mother wouldn't.

Better than telling her she can kill an innocent 3rd party, no?
Do you weep every time you see a bug get squished? Then get off your high horse and stop pretending that a fetus is the same as a human. It is unconcious (brain activity does not mean conciousness) and until about 7.5 months in can not survive outside without medical attention.

Now, to answer the original poster- the only way to satisfy everyone is to change humanity. It would be nice if babies were put up for adoption, but not everyone thinks. On the spur of the moment, some mothers just leave their babies in the dumpster. It would be nice if more people who can't have kids would adopt, but many go to extreme scientific measures so that they can have a baby, instead of just getting one which needs a home.

Unfortunately, people are selfish.

You know- just a thought. Many of you pro-natalists (pro lifers, anti-choice, whatever your word du jour is) say to follow the pregnancy through and put the baby up for adoption. Are you not the same people that disapprove of homosexuals adopting children? I think it's odd that the group of people that wants to disallow abortion also wants to limit adoption to WASPish couples. Am I the only one out there that doesn't see the sense in that?

Here's my view on abortion:
I am not the one carrying it
It's a personal issue
It's none of my fucking concern
:)

Here's my view on abortion:
I am not the one carrying it
It's a personal issue
It's none of my fucking concern
:)

I like the way you think :) Perfectly summed up.

P.S: Those of you who think rape victims should be forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will as well as undergoing the substantial physiological dangers of any pregnancy........i'm simply speechless......

Here's my view on abortion:
I am not the one carrying it
It's a personal issue
It's none of my fucking concern
:)

That argument works horribly on those who feel that abortion is the killing of a human with rights. (Not that any argument does work with them, that one is just especially bad.)

That argument works horribly on those who feel that abortion is the killing of a human with rights. (Not that any argument does work with them, that one is just especially bad.)

I think his/her statement indicates that they do NOT view a foetus as a human life, and that the mother's life takes precedence, and her wishes and rights are the determining factor. At least, that's what i read into it ;)

You know- just a thought. Many of you pro-natalists (pro lifers, anti-choice, whatever your word du jour is) say to follow the pregnancy through and put the baby up for adoption. Are you not the same people that disapprove of homosexuals adopting children? I think it's odd that the group of people that wants to disallow abortion also wants to limit adoption to WASPish couples. Am I the only one out there that doesn't see the sense in that?

Mbeki, you really need to stop fucking generalizing, because you're offending the shit out of me. I'm pro-gay rights. One reason why I'm so for adoption is because there are so many gay couples who can't have children otherwise. You need to shut the fuck up. I can't believe you would say something as idiotic as that. You're almost as bad as Vittos calling me a misogynist.

Also the comment "to a fetus resembling a chicken embryo" you don't suppose it doesn't just look like an embryo, like it is? It looks like a chicken embryo because, oh my god, they're both embryos.

Do you weep every time you see a bug get squished? Then get off your high horse and stop pretending that a fetus is the same as a human. It is unconcious (brain activity does not mean conciousness) and until about 7.5 months in can not survive outside without medical attention.

Actually, I try not to kill insects. And a fetus is human, just like a chicken embryo is a chicken, or a giraffe embryo is a giraffe. It is a HUMAN embryo, which implies that it is HUMAN. There's no pretending anything.

foetus
Queens English, eh? :)

Do you weep every time you see a bug get squished? Then get off your high horse and stop pretending that a fetus is the same as a human. It is unconcious (brain activity does not mean conciousness) and until about 7.5 months in can not survive outside without medical attention.

Now, to answer the original poster- the only way to satisfy everyone is to change humanity. It would be nice if babies were put up for adoption, but not everyone thinks. On the spur of the moment, some mothers just leave their babies in the dumpster. It would be nice if more people who can't have kids would adopt, but many go to extreme scientific measures so that they can have a baby, instead of just getting one which needs a home.

Unfortunately, people are selfish.



Please cite a credible scientific source that states fetuses are unconscious 24/7. Because I'm finding myself having a hard time believing it.

And a fetus is human, just like a chicken embryo is a chicken, or a giraffe embryo is a giraffe.

No. A chicken embryo is an EGG. :)

That's going back to whether you consider a zygote to be a third party. This is why the issue is so complex. The fetus ranges in the first trimester from a clump of cells- literally- to a fetus resembling a chicken embryo- to a semblance of a human; complete with a beating heart and reflexes. In any of the above stages of gestation, however, yeah- i'd say go for it- kill the third party. I mean, wasn't that third party not days before half rape-semen? I don't feel bad for it, I'm sure the mother wouldn't.



Depends on how long she waits to terminate it. I'm not a person who considers a zygote human life but, over halfway through the first trimester, it's inexcusable.

Queens English, eh? :)

Wot ho, pip pip! :D

Those extra vowels make words so much more plush :)

Mbeki, you really need to stop fucking generalizing, because you're offending the shit out of me. I'm pro-gay rights. One reason why I'm so for adoption is because there are so many gay couples who can't have children otherwise. You need to shut the fuck up. I can't believe you would say something as idiotic as that. You're almost as bad as Vittos calling me a misogynist.

Also the comment "to a fetus resembling a chicken embryo" you don't suppose it doesn't just look like an embryo, like it is? It looks like a chicken embryo because, oh my god, they're both embryos.


I generalize, unfortunately, becuase it generally holds true. I'm sorry if it upsets you- but wake up. As far as the chicken embryo bit goes- Well done mate, you were able to piece together my reference. Yes- they are both embryos, at that stage they resemble each other- as opposed to... say- full term? Got it? Good. Now to address your vulgarity. Is that really necessary? Really? Grow up.

I think his/her statement indicates that they do NOT view a foetus as a human life, and that the mother's life takes precedence, and her wishes and rights are the determining factor. At least, that's what i read into it ;)
Correct.

I think his/her statement indicates that they do NOT view a foetus as a human life, and that the mother's life takes precedence, and her wishes and rights are the determining factor. At least, that's what i read into it ;)

That is what I gathered as well. But considering society's role to protect the rights of the people, those who believe that the fetus has rights would not accept that is out of society's jurisdiction to outlaw abortion.

So saying that it is a person opinion skips right over the opinions of most anti-abortionists.

Personally, I agree Kervoskia, unfortunately that argument is a moot point without addressing the underlying nature of the fetus.

You're almost as bad as Vittos calling me a misogynist.

I apologize, I wish you would have defended yourself.

Hopefully you are not holding back a reply because of that one comment.

Grow up? I'm not the one jumping on people because of typos. I'm not the one generalizing people because of their views. Not once have I said to you "Oh you must be a woman." Not once have I said to someone here who is pro-choice, "You must hate men." I may be using strong language, but I tend to do that when I get worked up. A lot of people do, no matter their age.

Please cite a credible scientific source that states fetuses are unconscious 24/7. Because I'm finding myself having a hard time believing it.

Conscious or unconscious, we don't know do we, since none of us are foeti? Or can remember the experience. Some believe foeti are lives...others not....so why should one group legislate against the other? Hence I'm pro-choice, as only individual choice based on individual beliefs can result in the best outcome for the individuals concerned.

Depends on how long she waits to terminate it. I'm not a person who considers a zygote human life but, over halfway through the first trimester, it's inexcusable.

Even when you've got to choose between chemotherapy or following the pregnancy to term? Or did you not know that chemo cannot be administered during a pregnancy? What about those ectopic pregnancies? Should the mother be forced to die from internal bleeding when she finds out that she's got a tubal pregnancy during the second trimester? Things are not as simplistic as you might like them to be.

I apologize, I wish you would have defended yourself.

Hopefully you are not holding back a reply because of that one comment.

I didn't defend because I didn't think it worthy of a reply. But I do accept your apology.

Well, if you don't want the baby you could always sell it to a needy family.

Grow up? I'm not the one jumping on people because of typos. I'm not the one generalizing people because of their views. Not once have I said to you "Oh you must be a woman." Not once have I said to someone here who is pro-choice, "You must hate men." I may be using strong language, but I tend to do that when I get worked up. A lot of people do, no matter their age.
Buddy- that wasn't a typo- it's proper English. Bone up. When did i ever use the word hate? Oh, that's right- didn't. And just for the record- I don't hate men, I am a man. Who's generalizing now?

Well, if you don't want the baby you could always sell it to a needy family.

Naughty Neo Kervoskia....do i sense someone pouring petrol on the flames? :D

Buddy- that wasn't a typo- it's proper English. Bone up. When did i ever use the word hate? Oh, that's right- didn't. And just for the record- I don't hate men, I am a man. Who's generalizing now?

Since I wasn't actually saying those things about you or anyone, I wasn't generalizing. I was using examples of generalization. And I realized too late that it wasn't a typo, so I apologize for that remark, which seems to be the smallest issue here.

I didn't defend because I didn't think it worthy of a reply. But I do accept your apology.

My comment about you maybe being a misogynist stemmed from your comment "Its the same choice that men have." It made you sound like you resented any chance a woman had to avoid the responsibility of sex.

Can you respond to that, now that I have made a reasonable explanation of my comment?

I personally believe that there should be a time set, so that after the set time an abortion would be illegal, thereby insuring a woman's right to choose wheather she wants the child or not and yet not letting the fetus devolp enough to be a human.

Since I wasn't actually saying those things about you or anyone, I wasn't generalizing. I was using examples of generalization. And I realized too late that it wasn't a typo, so I apologize for that remark, which seems to be the smallest issue here.
Well enough. Back to the issue then. Wait... what was the issue again? I'm kidding. Do we expect to change each others minds, though?

My comment about you maybe being a misogynist stemmed from your comment "Its the same choice that men have." It made you sound like you resented any chance a woman had to avoid the responsibility of sex.

Can you respond to that, now that I have made a reasonable explanation of my comment?

I do think men need to own up to these unwanted pregnancies just as much as women should. I should have said that before. Having been raised almost single handedly by my mother, I think men who do not own up to their responsibility deserve up to a couple of years of (to quote one of my favorite movies) "federal -pound-me-in-the-ass prison." And any man who delibirately causes a miscarriage deserves the same punishment as a murder, although I do not agree with the death penalty in any situation (I am an extreme pro-lifer in all cases except immediate self-defence).

I personally believe that there should be a time set, so that after the set time an abortion would be illegal, thereby insuring a woman's right to choose wheather she wants the child or not and yet not letting the fetus devolp enough to be a human.
It is law- abortion is legal until twenty-something weeks- depending on municipality, state, etc. After this time, there are only few cases in which abortion is performed. At least in the USA. I couldn't tell you about the law in other lands.

Well enough. Back to the issue then. Wait... what was the issue again? I'm kidding. Do we expect to change each others minds, though?

Of course not! I am steadfast in my beliefs! Err, what were my beliefs again? Someone please tell me so i don't look silly......

Well enough. Back to the issue then. Wait... what was the issue again? I'm kidding. Do we expect to change each others minds, though?

I don't expect any such thing. To ask someone to change their views when they feel so strongly about them is foolish. I'm merely putting up my side of the argument. Maybe we can get each other to think about the issue more, encourage ourselves to stand up for what we believe in, and all that good stuff. I really only came here because I don't often get to debate these issues with people of differing views. I love debating, I need the frustration. I guess I'm kind of a masochist that way (although I believe the professional term is "writer" ;) )

I don't expect any such thing. To ask someone to change their views when they feel so strongly about them is foolish. I'm merely putting up my side of the argument. Maybe we can get each other to think about the issue more, encourage ourselves to stand up for what we believe in, and all that good stuff. I really only came here because I don't often get to debate these issues with people of differing views. I love debating, I need the frustration. I guess I'm kind of a masochist that way (although I believe the professional term is "writer" ;) )
Well put.

I do think men need to own up to these unwanted pregnancies just as much as women should. I should have said that before. Having been raised almost single handedly by my mother, I think men who do not own up to their responsibility deserve up to a couple of years of (to quote one of my favorite movies) "federal -pound-me-in-the-ass prison." And any man who delibirately causes a miscarriage deserves the same punishment as a murder, although I do not agree with the death penalty in any situation (I am an extreme pro-lifer in all cases except immediate self-defence).

1. I agree with you on the role of men in a pregnancy. I believe they should have all the rights and responsibilities of the woman. I even support paper abortions for men who do not want to be responsible for the child. As long as they give the woman enough time to come to a decision on her own, the man should also have the legal right to end his part in a pregnancy.

2. I was also raised solely by my mother, and for those who do not follow through with a paper abortion and then neglect the child, I support jailtime.

3. As for deliberately causing a miscarriage, because of my views on the nature of a fetus, I disagree with charging it as murder.

4. I am glad you are consistent with your pro-life beliefs. It would appear I am consistent with my pro-death beliefs as I support the death penalty.

4. I am glad you are consistent with your pro-life beliefs. It would appear I am consistent with my pro-death beliefs as I support the death penalty.

Well, I'm glad we're beginning to understand each other. It would seem (though please don't hold it against me if I'm wrong) that you take a more practical standpoint, whereas I take a more faith-based standpoint.

It would appear I am consistent with my pro-death beliefs

Does "pro-death" beliefs sound disturbing to anyone else? :D Not the idea of the death penalty....just the term..."pro death" beliefs.... :D

Well, I'm glad we're beginning to understand each other. It would seem (though please don't hold it against me if I'm wrong) that you take a more practical standpoint, whereas I take a more faith-based standpoint.

No, I could tell from the beginning that our differences would be something like that. I just misjudged how "traditional" you were in your beliefs when I overanalyzed the "same choice as men" comment.

Faith vs. reason or practicality is normally where the divide is in this argument. You assign a greater value to a person as you see every person as being divinely created. So you see the fetus as a transitional phase, as the beginning of a definite person. I see the fetus as the potential to be a person who doesn't exist yet. So where I see a zero sum result with abortion, you see one dead person.

Does "pro-death" beliefs sound disturbing to anyone else? :D Not the idea of the death penalty....just the term..."pro death" beliefs.... :D

It certainly does sound disturbing, I said it as kind of a joke.

But seriously, I see death as an end of existence, so when someone dies they are just gone. That means that I see the death penalty as an easy way of removing someone who cannot live within society but cannot be trusted to stay out of it. With abortion, I see it as insuring the person never exists.

It certainly does sound disturbing, I said it as kind of a joke.

But seriously, I see death as an end of existence, so when someone dies they are just gone. That means that I see the death penalty as an easy way of removing someone who cannot live within society but cannot be trusted to stay out of it. With abortion, I see it as insuring the person never exists.

The main problem I have with the Death penalty is that someone has to carry out the execution, hence in turn becoming a murderer. Don't like the hypocrisy. Also the chance of innocent people being irreversibly punished, like that Brazilian tourist who was shot in London last week because they thought he was a terrorist.

It certainly does sound disturbing, I said it as kind of a joke.

But seriously, I see death as an end of existence, so when someone dies they are just gone. That means that I see the death penalty as an easy way of removing someone who cannot live within society but cannot be trusted to stay out of it. With abortion, I see it as insuring the person never exists.

We're starting to get off topic now, though we pretty much already beat the abortion horse well beyond death.

Anyway, when I hear someone say that their view on death are such, I'll usually leap to one of two conclusions: 1) They see existence as mostly worthless, or 2) They appreciate all life further, knowing* that all life is limited. But I'm guessing you're somewhere in the middle?

*I use knowing as a relative term, since none of us truly knows.

The main problem I have with the Death penalty is that someone has to carry out the execution, hence in turn becoming a murderer. Don't like the hypocrisy. Also the chance of innocent people being irreversibly punished, like that Brazilian tourist who was shot in London last week because they thought he was a terrorist.

Yes, I believe that there should be conclusive proof that the individual in question merits the death penalty.

However, as the person who carries out the execution is working in the expressed interest of society, they are not a murderer. However, they are a killer, but assuming they are not forced into the position, they apparently have no moral qualms with that.

We're starting to get off topic now, though we pretty much already beat the abortion horse well beyond death.

Anyway, when I hear someone say that their view on death are such, I'll usually leap to one of two conclusions: 1) They see existence as mostly worthless, or 2) They appreciate all life further, knowing* that all life is limited. But I'm guessing you're somewhere in the middle?

*I use knowing as a relative term, since none of us truly knows.

I see life as pretty much worthless on its own. I don't value the existence of an animal other than that of a pet or food; I don't see a person who merely lives as having any value. I see self-awareness and consciousness as being the only value our lives have. Now those are broad terms and characteristics, and I'm not even sure if I could quite explain them.

But anyways, I don't relate any of that value to fetuses, so you can see why I don't value them as a person.

Over the next sixty years...

As long lasting, nearly perfect birth-control methods get better and better and easier to obtain (shots, genetic inserts under the skin, temporary surgery etc.,), the American society’s attitude toward unwanted pregnancies will change.

We will continue to increase the penalty to criminals who induces a woman to miscarry, eventually, it will simply be declared a murder the same as any other death caused by misconduct.

Then, Americans will pass the pre-born right to life act, and it will be included as an amendment clarification if need be.

Then, in that day and age, when children in middle-schools are taught the logic and arguments you people used today for continuing the so called 'pro-choice' and right to abortions movement, they will view it as the monstrosity that it is. The same as you view pro-slavery arguments from a hundred years ago... no matter how well they worded it or tried to justify their postion, we can all see now that they were just short sighted bastards and deserved to lose...

Over the next sixty years...

As long lasting, nearly perfect birth-control methods get better and better and easier to obtain (shots, genetic inserts under the skin, temporary surgery etc.,), the American society’s attitude toward unwanted pregnancies will change.

We will continue to increase the penalty to criminals who induces a woman to miscarry, eventually, it will simply be declared a murder the same as any other death caused by misconduct.

Then, Americans will pass the pre-born right to life act, and it will be included as an amendment clarification if need be.

Then, in that day and age, when children in middle-schools are taught the logic and arguments you people used today for continuing the so called 'pro-choice' and right to abortions movement, they will be view it as the monstrosity that it is. The same as you view pro-slavery arguments from a hundred years ago... no matter how well they worded it or tried to justify their postion, we can all see now that they were just short sighted bastards and deserved to lose...

Yeah, but first we need those better birth-control methods you described. Without them, it will still seem practical to do abortions.

Yes, I believe that there should be conclusive proof that the individual in question merits the death penalty.

However, as the person who carries out the execution is working in the expressed interest of society, they are not a murderer. However, they are a killer, but assuming they are not forced into the position, they apparently have no moral qualms with that.

See, there's my problem. Pre-meditated killing, whether state-sanctioned or not, is still as much a crime as a free individual's pre-meditated killing. The only difference is certain people (i.e. lawyers) telling us certain killers should be executed for their actions, but executioners should be commended for theirs. It's clear double standards where the rule of law does not appear to apply to all of its citizens. Either have one law for all, or for none. "Society's best interests" is a debatable concept.

Over the next sixty years...

As long lasting, nearly perfect birth-control methods get better and better and easier to obtain (shots, genetic inserts under the skin, temporary surgery etc.,), the American society’s attitude toward unwanted pregnancies will change.

We will continue to increase the penalty to criminals who induces a woman to miscarry, eventually, it will simply be declared a murder the same as any other death caused by misconduct.

Then, Americans will pass the pre-born right to life act, and it will be included as an amendment clarification if need be.

Then, in that day and age, when children in middle-schools are taught the logic and arguments you people used today for continuing the so called 'pro-choice' and right to abortions movement, they will view it as the monstrosity that it is. The same as you view pro-slavery arguments from a hundred years ago... no matter how well they worded it or tried to justify their postion, we can all see now that they were just short sighted bastards and deserved to lose...

I disagree completely. People will continue to grow in their view of the fetus as merely a bundle of cells, incapable of possessing rights as a person. They will slowly lose the spiritual connotation that is assigned to human life universally, and begin assigning on a more personal level, where a person learns to know their own spirituality, not where they are born with it. Therefore, people will respect the life of something that is not really a person less and less.

Then, in that day and age, when children in middle-schools are taught the logic and arguments you people used today for continuing the so called 'pro-choice' and right to abortions movement, they will view it as the monstrosity that it is. The same as you view pro-slavery arguments from a hundred years ago... no matter how well they worded it or tried to justify their postion, we can all see now that they were just short sighted bastards and deserved to lose...


Time will tell whether you're right or wrong won't it? In my view, in 60 years time the imposition of religious values on others by the state may well be viewed as "the monstrosity that it is" and religion may be a thing of the past. And who's to say that we might not be genetically engineering our own children, with little need for the process of pregnancy at all? Abortion may become perfectly commonplace, with extensive genetic manipulation taking place before births occur at all? Like I said, time will tell...and we'll see whom are viewed as monsters.

See, there's my problem. Pre-meditated killing, whether state-sanctioned or not, is still as much a crime as a free individual's pre-meditated killing. The only difference is certain people (i.e. lawyers) telling us certain killers should be executed for their actions, but executioners should be commended for theirs. It's clear double standards where the rule of law does not appear to apply to all of its citizens. Either have one law for all, or for none. "Society's best interests" is a debatable concept.

Lawyers and judges only act within those laws that are set down by society.

It is the nature of society. Society protects those citizens that agree to observe the laws. That means that the citizens retain their government protected rights when they respect those rights that the government protects for others. The person who commits a crime loses his rights, as he has shown his incapability to respect the rights of others.

So a murderer violates the rights of a protected member of society. The executioner protects the rights of the members of society by killing the person who is threatening them.

That is where I see the difference.

I disagree completely. People will continue to grow in their view of the fetus as merely a bundle of cells, incapable of possessing rights as a person. They will slowly lose the spiritual connotation that is assigned to human life universally, and begin assigning on a more personal level, where a person learns to know their own spirituality, not where they are born with it. Therefore, people will respect the life of something that is not really a person less and less.

A long term look through history and infanticide (for example), and slavery, and other promotions of ‘non-human’ status advocacy for someone that is clearly human, suggests that you are more than just wrong, you are a dinosaur in your ideology.

As far as I can tell you grabbed your theory straight from the ancient Greeks... They ended up dismissing lots of things as not being 'fully' human and not deserving of, or protection for, their rights and citizenship. Such reasons as, not being male and Greek, for one.

It does have life. It has life even before it becomes human. Anything organic that moves and strives to further itself is life. Even the simplest bacterium has life.

It doesn't mean it gets rights.

Vittos, you make me think of John Locke and what he says about atheists. I'd go into more detail, but I only know a small amount of Locke's writings and I'm getting tired.

A long term look through history and infanticide (for example), and slavery, and other promotions of ‘non-human’ status advocacy for someone that is clearly human, suggests that you are more than just wrong, you are a dinosaur in your ideology.

As far as I can tell you grabbed your theory straight from the ancient Greeks... They ended up dismissing lots of things as not having 'fully' human and not deserving of protection rights and citizenship. Such a reason as, not being male and Greek, for one.

The fetus is incapable of holding rights, that you cannot deny. It cannot vote, it cannot have a religion, it cannot form ideas, it cannot speak, there is not one right that a fetus can hold.

All of the classification of non-humans you listed were perfectly competent to hold and use their rights.

The ideology of denying women the right to use their own bodies as they see fit in order to benefit some religious connotation that is added to a completely incompetent human being will be ushered out.

I hate making predictions where I can't collect on a bet or even get a simple "I told you so."

In the UK the legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks; babies have survived when born prematurely far younger than that.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario here. A premature baby is born at 21 weeks, and has intensive care from the hospital to keep it alive. Two and a half weeks later, the mother decides she doesn't want the baby, takes a sharp knife and cuts it into little pieces.

We hear claims that a 23-week-old foetus is not a 'life' when the current abortion law is defended.

Would those pro-abortionists support the mother's right to take the action described above?

A long term look through history and infanticide (for example), and slavery, and other promotions of ‘non-human’ status advocacy for someone that is clearly human, suggests that you are more than just wrong, you are a dinosaur in your ideology.

As far as I can tell you grabbed your theory straight from the ancient Greeks... They ended up dismissing lots of things as not having 'fully' human and not deserving of protection rights and citizenship. Such a reason as, not being male and Greek, for one.

That's your opinion. You can't predict the future and who will be right in 60 years time. If you can, I'd like to know next week's lottery numbers please? :) I see how you're trying to construct your point, but it's spurious in this context. The debate of what does/does not constitute life cannot be answered by either of us, and our attitudes towards this conception of life will depend entirely on our own moral and scientific decisions at the time. (say 60 years time.) Your point of view may well turn out to not be accepted by wider society in future, and there's no need to attempt to insult those who disagree with you.

The fetus is incapable of holding rights, that you cannot deny. It cannot vote, it cannot have a religion, it cannot form ideas, it cannot speak, there is not one right that a fetus can hold.

Absolutely. And whilst we're at it, why not execute all hospital patients who have the misfortune to find themselves in a coma?

I have a question about this pro-abortion/pro-choice thing. You're saying you're pro-choice, not pro-abortion, but why not? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, then what's wrong with supporting it? After all, if it's NOT a living human being in there, what's wrong with abortion as birth control? The pro-choice argument is that the fetus has no worth as human life. So, why not be pro-abortion? It's not like you're doing anything wrong, right? I keep hearing pro-choicers saying abortion is a right, but should be used rarely. Is there any other RIGHT we want to see LESS of?! The right to a fair trial? the freedom of speech and religion? No, we want to see LESS abortion because we know it's wrong.

Actually, I try not to kill insects. And a fetus is human, just like a chicken embryo is a chicken, or a giraffe embryo is a giraffe. It is a HUMAN embryo, which implies that it is HUMAN. There's no pretending anything.

When I was little I used to smash acorns... I suppose I was clearcutting oak forests?

Absolutely. And whilst we're at it, why not execute all hospital patients who have the misfortune to find themselves in a coma?
Right.. because I suppose an infant child can vote, have a religion, etc. Oh, by the way, I'm an Atheist, does that make me less human too? d

Absolutely. And whilst we're at it, why not execute all hospital patients who have the misfortune to find themselves in a coma?

Semantics. At least hospital patients have previously demonstrated an ability to display those traits.

Semantics. At least hospital patients have previously demonstrated an ability to display those traits.
Like I said, prematurely born infants, or just regular infants, STILL can't speak, vote, pray, etc.. the only difference is that they were INSIDE... they were still just as alive!

Right.. because I suppose an infant child can vote, have a religion, etc. Oh, by the way, I'm an Atheist, does that make me less human too? d

A coma patient cannot vote. They cannot choose a religion, etc.
Neither can a foetus.

If we accept the killing of a foetus on the grounds that it cannot vote, choose a religion, etc. then logically a coma patient or indeed an infant child has no more rights.

Vittos, you make me think of John Locke and what he says about atheists. I'd go into more detail, but I only know a small amount of Locke's writings and I'm getting tired.

I am a huge fan of Locke, but his comments on atheists and agnostics are the one glaring thing that I disagree with him about. I am not sure if it is what you are referring to, but he believed that atheists held no rights. He felt that moral law and the obligation of social contract was upheld by God and thusly did not apply to atheists or agnostics.

A coma patient cannot vote. They cannot choose a religion, etc.
Neither can a foetus.

If we accept the killing of a foetus on the grounds that it cannot vote, choose a religion, etc. then logically a coma patient or indeed an infant child has no more rights.
Sorry- I meant to quote the guy you were rebutting against.. I agree with you!

[QUOTE=Anser]Semantics.QUOTE]

No. Logic.

The fetus is incapable of holding rights, that you cannot deny. It cannot vote, it cannot have a religion, it cannot form ideas, it cannot speak, there is not one right that a fetus can hold.

All of the classification of non-humans you listed were perfectly competent to hold and use their rights.

The ideology of denying women the right to use their own bodies as they see fit in order to benefit some religious connotation that is added to a completely incompetent human being will be ushered out.

I hate making predictions where I can't collect on a bet or even get a simple "I told you so."

Well if it isnt anything , why not leave it alone...rather than chop off its arms, legs and stop its heart from beating. That is exactly what an abortion does. The woman doesnt get her limbs torn off the BABy does. Why is adoption such a horrible solution? There are many centers out there to assist these unfortunate women. ((I am a woman and yes I have had unplanned pregnancies and kept my children)) There are support systems. NO..too inconvenient -chop it up! They are lives and they do count and are important. Hold the men responsible..it can be done. But if you could chop up your child rather than give it to a loving family you are pretty cold hearted. Dont argue that noone takes American babies anymore...there are waiting lists years long..that is why they are going overseas. Supply and demand. This is NOT a form of birth control and if one keeps having one after another then they deserve to be sterile!!

I have a question about this pro-abortion/pro-choice thing. You're saying you're pro-choice, not pro-abortion, but why not? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, then what's wrong with supporting it? After all, if it's NOT a living human being in there, what's wrong with abortion as birth control? The pro-choice argument is that the fetus has no worth as human life. So, why not be pro-abortion? It's not like you're doing anything wrong, right? I keep hearing pro-choicers saying abortion is a right, but should be used rarely. Is there any other RIGHT we want to see LESS of?! The right to a fair trial? the freedom of speech and religion? No, we want to see LESS abortion because we know it's wrong.

No, pro-choice means just that. Giving the individuals the CHOICE to make their own decisions. Pro-abortion implies that abortion is imposed on others, perhaps because it's believed to be a better contraceptive method. Pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion, it simply gives the mother the right to decide.

Also, I don't think those who want to see less abortion do so because it's wrong. That's like saying those who wish to see fewer operations, think operations are wrong. Both have risk, but both are necessary in certain situations. You have to look at the individual's circumstances.

So, Vittos, now I don't understand what you're saying. Would you say that killing an infant is fine, since life is nothing and they can't even demonstrate any rights? I guess I can't understand how, if you have experienced life in all its pain and glory, you can say life is nothing.

What if you were about to die? Would you feel that it's nothing, you didn't really exist in the first place? Or would you want to live, to keep going because life is beautiful. And if you don't care about life at all, why even bother worrying about politics? Surely it doesn't matter in the end, since human life means nothing.

Just trying to understand.

Besides, it's the woman's fault she's pregnant. I mean, she's the one who had sex and she's paying for it by getting herself pregnant and then discriminating herself by killing it. Wouldn't it be easier and save money if she hadn't gotten pregnant before marriage?

Funny, I was under the impression human beings were incapable of asexual reproduction... :rolleyes:

On the actual topic, I can't really imagine a way abortions could ever be entirely unnecessary. I don't like them one bit, but until rape no longer exists, until sexual education is perfect, until contraception is 100% effective, until all pregnancies can be made safe, and until all medical procedures can be carried out during pregnancy, some women are still going to need to have that option available to them.

Well if it isnt anything , why not leave it alone...rather than chop off its arms, legs and stop its heart from beating. That is exactly what an abortion does. The woman doesnt get her limbs torn off the BABy does. Why is adoption such a horrible solution? There are many centers out there to assist these unfortunate women. ((I am a woman and yes I have had unplanned pregnancies and kept my children)) There are support systems. NO..too inconvenient -chop it up! They are lives and they do count and are important. Hold the men responsible..it can be done. But if you could chop up your child rather than give it to a loving family you are pretty cold hearted. Dont argue that noone takes American babies anymore...there are waiting lists years long..that is why they are going overseas. Supply and demand. This is NOT a form of birth control and if one keeps having one after another then they deserve to be sterile!!

I am unsure of the process of abortion because I don't care. If you think it is better to induce labor and let the fetus die on its own, that is okay by me too. As long as a person doesn't have to sacrifice their rights to a non-person.

So, Vittos, now I don't understand what you're saying. Would you say that killing an infant is fine, since life is nothing and they can't even demonstrate any rights? I guess I can't understand how, if you have experienced life in all its pain and glory, you can say life is nothing.

What if you were about to die? Would you feel that it's nothing, you didn't really exist in the first place? Or would you want to live, to keep going because life is beautiful. And if you don't care about life at all, why even bother worrying about politics? Surely it doesn't matter in the end, since human life means nothing.

Just trying to understand.

I disagree with Vitto's definition of characteristics which constitute life, as they are hardly definitive e.g voting, speaking etc. But the basis behind his point was really, what is the definition of sentience/life? And who decides at what stage it is or isn't life? I don't see a fertilised egg as a life, in the same way that I don't see an egg as the same as a chicken. An egg is not living, and why is a human egg more precious than that of another species? To a chicken, I'm sure it's eggs are far more precious than us humans. It's a question of perspective.

No, pro-choice means just that. Giving the individuals the CHOICE to make their own decisions.

I can't agree. It takes two to produce the foetus, but only the mother has this 'choice'. What of the father, who would be delighted to have a baby son or daughter, to raise the baby alone if need be, who sees the baby he helped to create being consigned to the dustbin before it's even born?

....................

Back to my earlier question, which I've asked twice and no-one has yet attempted to answer.

When a baby is born prematurely (below the age threshold for abortion - 24 weeks in the UK) would it be morally acceptable for the mother to go and visit the child in an incubator, and chop it into little pieces with a sharp knife? Provided of course that the killing takes place before the end of the 24th week of the pregnancy.

I don't see a fertilised egg as a life, in the same way that I don't see an egg as the same as a chicken. An egg is not living, and why is a human egg more precious than that of another species? To a chicken, I'm sure it's eggs are far more precious than us humans. It's a question of perspective.

The logical conclusion of that argument would be to consider that eating meat is murder (or cannibalism).

On the actual topic, I can't really imagine a way abortions could ever be entirely unnecessary. I don't like them one bit, but until rape no longer exists, until sexual education is perfect, until contraception is 100% effective, until all pregnancies can be made safe, and until all medical procedures can be carried out during pregnancy, some women are still going to need to have that option available to them.

But is it necessary, or is it just a luxury? In most cases it seems to be the easy way out, at least at first. In the case of rape/incest victims, no they shouldn't have to go through the pain of labor, and they definitely shouldn't have had to go through thee pain of being raped in the first place. My heart goes out to those victims, especially those who are incest victims, as they face twice the horror. And in these cases I wouldn't dare consider it a luxury to perform an abortion, but that doesn't mean I approve of abortion even in these cases. Thinking about how hard it must be for young girls who have been violated in this way, I know I'll never be able to truly fathom it.

I can't agree. It takes two to produce the foetus, but only the mother has this 'choice'. What of the father, who would be delighted to have a baby son or daughter, to raise the baby alone if need be, who sees the baby he helped to create being consigned to the dustbin before it's even born?

....................

Back to my earlier question, which I've asked twice and no-one has yet attempted to answer.

When a baby is born prematurely (below the age threshold for abortion - 24 weeks in the UK) would it be morally acceptable for the mother to go and visit the child in an incubator, and chop it into little pieces with a sharp knife? Provided of course that the killing takes place before the end of the 24th week of the pregnancy.

That question is more to do with how early premature babies can survive outside of the womb. As medical Science improves, and our ability to keep babies alive at younger ages improves, the abortion limit should be accordingly moved back. However, as the law stands, it probably would be legal for someone to abort the child before 24weeks, although they wouldn't have to chop it to pieces, they'd simply have to remove life support. In any case, the reason why the limit is at 24weeks now, is because babies born any earlier have a very high risk of serious complications which can lead to a very painful and drawn-out death.

So, Vittos, now I don't understand what you're saying. Would you say that killing an infant is fine, since life is nothing and they can't even demonstrate any rights? I guess I can't understand how, if you have experienced life in all its pain and glory, you can say life is nothing.

You understand fine, as you have come to the achilles of my reasoning. I understand what you are saying about infants, as they are not very different at all from a pregnancy in the third trimester. I cannot come up with a reason why they should be protected, but I cannot stand for infanticide. I don't know if my emotion is getting in the way of my reasoning, or if my reasoning is just not strong enough to come to a solution.

What if you were about to die? Would you feel that it's nothing, you didn't really exist in the first place? Or would you want to live, to keep going because life is beautiful. And if you don't care about life at all, why even bother worrying about politics? Surely it doesn't matter in the end, since human life means nothing.

Just trying to understand.

I love existence. I love being able to learn and grow as a person, and I would not want it to end. However, I don't fear it ending, as I know I will not feel pain or remorse at it ending.

I guess I mean that life is not intrinsically good, that people aren't happy because they are simply alive. People are happy because of their experiences.

My interest in politics, for example, is the complete protection of free will and rights. I think that experience is maximized when people are allowed to be as free as possible.

So I feel that the experience should be protected, and while that means that life is valuable, it is only as valuable the experience makes it. Since a fetus hasn't known of any existence yet, it's life has no value.

This whole post was just one audible thought process, I am sure it rambled, but I hope it helps you get where I am coming from.

As long as a person doesn't have to sacrifice their rights to a non-person.

In the UK, abortions are carried out for free on the National Health Service. In other words, I pay for other people's abortions in my taxes.

Even IF you believe in a 'woman's right to choose', surely I have a right not to be forced to pay for that choice.

I can't agree. It takes two to produce the foetus, but only the mother has this 'choice'. What of the father, who would be delighted to have a baby son or daughter, to raise the baby alone if need be, who sees the baby he helped to create being consigned to the dustbin before it's even born?

Most of us would agree that, whenever possible, the decision should be made by both parents, but the final choice has to lie with the person whose body is being co-opted as a residence for nine months. (And I don't think your invented scenario is terribly realistic - that may happen now and then, but I suspect fathers who desperately want to support children that mothers want to abort are pretty rare.)

I can't agree. It takes two to produce the foetus, but only the mother has this 'choice'. What of the father, who would be delighted to have a baby son or daughter, to raise the baby alone if need be, who sees the baby he helped to create being consigned to the dustbin before it's even born?

That's a different question, and I agree that the man should have a choice. But in the end, it is the woman's body and life that are at risk, and she should have the final choice. There are many men in patriarchal societies who would insist on their wives giving birth even though they might be too weak to survive the birth. She should have the final choice.

In the UK, abortions are carried out for free on the National Health Service. In other words, I pay for other people's abortions in my taxes.

Even IF you believe in a 'woman's right to choose', surely I have a right not to be forced to pay for that choice.

Unfortunately, we both live in this democracy, where even if we don't like the decisions made by our country, we abide to agree with the "majority rules" ideal. I myself never voted Labour, but that doesn't mean I won't obey their laws.

as the law stands, it probably would be legal for someone to abort the child before 24weeks, although they wouldn't have to chop it to pieces, they'd simply have to remove life support. In any case, the reason why the limit is at 24weeks now, is because babies born any earlier have a very high risk of serious complications which can lead to a very painful and drawn-out death.

Chopping to pieces is the best analogy for what happens during an abortion. I am aware that there is a high risk of serious complications below 24 weeks.

My question wasn't about legality or illegality. I was asking whether pro-abortionists would consider the woman's action in that case to be morally acceptable or unacceptable.

I disagree with Vitto's definition of characteristics which constitute life, as they are hardly definitive e.g voting, speaking etc. But the basis behind his point was really, what is the definition of sentience/life? And who decides at what stage it is or isn't life? I don't see a fertilised egg as a life, in the same way that I don't see an egg as the same as a chicken. An egg is not living, and why is a human egg more precious than that of another species? To a chicken, I'm sure it's eggs are far more precious than us humans. It's a question of perspective.

My thoughts are a little jumbled and I have trouble expressing them clearly.

With my comments on rights, I was not trying to show that people are living due to their ability to hold rights. I was just trying to show that it is impossible for a fetus to hold rights, as it is impossible for them to use them effectively. There has to be a comprehension of rights for them to exist.

As for the characteristics that determine life, they are very easy. However, in a previous post, I have stated that I don't find life valuable by itself. It is the consciousness, self awareness, and experience that I find valuable and those are much harder to define. But I am doubtless that a fetus does not qualify.

Absolutely. And whilst we're at it, why not execute all hospital patients who have the misfortune to find themselves in a coma?

Because every fetus is aborted, right? In some cases, yes, they should 'have the plug pulled'.

It is my belief that there are already going to be enouogh humans on Earth. Killing or preventing a few is probably going to do better for the world than bad.

Unfortunately, we both live in this democracy, where even if we don't like the decisions made by our country, we abide to agree with the "majority rules" ideal. I myself never voted Labour, but that doesn't mean I won't obey their laws.

Again, we are not discussing what the law is currently. We are discussing what it should be.

In the UK, abortions are carried out for free on the National Health Service. In other words, I pay for other people's abortions in my taxes.

Even IF you believe in a 'woman's right to choose', surely I have a right not to be forced to pay for that choice.

I agree with you there for reasoning completely unrelated to my stance on abortion.

Vittos, I still can't understand, knowing know how you feel about life, you would want to keep others from possibly experiencing a similar life, full of all the things that make life great. Even if it's a small possibility, isn't that enough?

Also, by your reasoning, would you say that someone who is very old deserves to live more because they've experienced more? From now on I'm just going to take it for granted that you know I'm simply trying to understand, rather than taking jabs.

In the UK, abortions are carried out for free on the National Health Service. In other words, I pay for other people's abortions in my taxes.

Even IF you believe in a 'woman's right to choose', surely I have a right not to be forced to pay for that choice.

That would be an issue with how the government spends your money on the national health service rather than the legality of the operation I think.

Because every fetus is aborted, right? In some cases, yes, they should 'have the plug pulled'.

Except that the vast majority of abortions are carried out on perfectly viable foetuses. The fair analogy is with coma patients who are expected to make a full recovery.

It is my belief that there are already going to be enouogh humans on Earth. Killing or preventing a few is probably going to do better for the world than bad.

I won't even go far enough to make that argument, and I am an amoral prick on a lot of issues.

If you want to eliminate abortions, eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

But is it necessary, or is it just a luxury? In most cases it seems to be the easy way out, at least at first. In the case of rape/incest victims, no they shouldn't have to go through the pain of labor, and they definitely shouldn't have had to go through thee pain of being raped in the first place. My heart goes out to those victims, especially those who are incest victims, as they face twice the horror. And in these cases I wouldn't dare consider it a luxury to perform an abortion, but that doesn't mean I approve of abortion even in these cases. Thinking about how hard it must be for young girls who have been violated in this way, I know I'll never be able to truly fathom it.

I don't exactly approve of it myself, but I understand it. I don't think abortion is a luxury, and while some people may take it as an "easy way out," I believe most women who have abortions decide to do so after a lot of soul-searching and agonizing, and probably don't like the choice they had to make much. Very few people endorse abortion-as-birth-control; very few people actually think things like "eh, I won't bother asking him to wear a condom - I can always abort!" (And honestly, would we really want the sort of person who would think that way responsible for a child?)

I very, very strongly feel that rape/incest victims and women whose lives are threatened by their pregnancies MUST be allowed to abort if our society is to consider itself remotely civilized. I have some personal reasons for feeling this way - I've been sexually assaulted, and as it was, it nearly killed me. When I imagine how bad things would have been if I'd been forced to have a permanent reminder of the experience in my own body - I can't even find words for what that would have done to me. I don't know if I could have gotten an abortion, but the option must, must, must be open for other women.

Chopping to pieces is the best analogy for what happens during an abortion. I am aware that there is a high risk of serious complications below 24 weeks.

My question wasn't about legality or illegality. I was asking whether pro-abortionists would consider the woman's action in that case to be morally acceptable or unacceptable.

Morals will vary from person to person. And though unpleasant, I think most pro-abortionists would continue to support the 24week limit. If a 23wk old which was meant to be aborted is present, then withdrawal of life-support would also be supported.

It's the difference between allowing someone euthanasia, or hacking them to pieces, which seems unneccessarily sadistic.

Absolutely. And whilst we're at it, why not execute all hospital patients who have the misfortune to find themselves in a coma?
BIG difference here, they once did vote, did have rights, did worship whatever. However Brain dead or permantly comatose people should die.


Personally I think, any Law passed by the instructions of a one group of a Religious Base is wrong. So I'm against all laws forcing Abortions to be illegal because of 'God'

That would be an issue with how the government spends your money on the national health service rather than the legality of the operation I think.

It rather affects the scale though, doesn't it? If I recall, in the UK there are well over a hundred thousand abortions a year - funded by me, against my will.

Ideally I would like to see abortion banned altogether with the following exceptions:
1. Incest
2. Carrying the baby to term would risk killing the mother.
3. (Possibly) Severe disability of foetus
4. (Possibly) Rape
These combined are a tiny fraction of all abortions.

If that is not possible, at the very least I believe that the law should be changed to prevent public funding being spent on what abortionists claim is a woman's lifestyle choice. When I choose to buy a new car, the taxpayer doesn't fund it.

Vittos, I still can't understand, knowing know how you feel about life, you would want to keep others from possibly experiencing a similar life, full of all the things that make life great. Even if it's a small possibility, isn't that enough?

I don't see them as "others". I don't see them as existing at all. If they are prevented from living, they feel neither happiness nor regret, so it is zero-sum.

This what I am getting at, you see them as a person from the moment of conception, I see them as nothing until they develop the ability to be a person.

Also, by your reasoning, would you say that someone who is very old deserves to live more because they've experienced more? From now on I'm just going to take it for granted that you know I'm simply trying to understand, rather than taking jabs.

It is not so much past experiences that I go by, but the quality of the present experience. And before it gets asked, I mean the person's own value of their current experience. I would not use this reasoning to validate the killing of the poor and destitute (although I do support euthenasia).

And I am usually pretty calm and don't get defensive (I sometimes get a little offensive when I am testing someone out), so don't worry about that. You are asking extremely good question that are benefitting me more than anyone.

If you want to eliminate abortions, eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

Do abortion threads usually get this screwed up? This thread has gotten a little stranger than any of the abortion threads I have dropped in on before.

I very, very strongly feel that rape/incest victims and women whose lives are threatened by their pregnancies MUST be allowed to abort if our society is to consider itself remotely civilized. I have some personal reasons for feeling this way - I've been sexually assaulted, and as it was, it nearly killed me. When I imagine how bad things would have been if I'd been forced to have a permanent reminder of the experience in my own body - I can't even find words for what that would have done to me. I don't know if I could have gotten an abortion, but the option must, must, must be open for other women.

I suppose, if it came down to it, that would be my one compromise. I still believe in right to life for all fetuses, including those who were conceived by rape/incest. I wouldn't like it, but if I was in office, and we had to reach an agreement, I would allow it.

That would be an issue with how the government spends your money on the national health service rather than the legality of the operation I think.

Yes, that was my point. You may feel that there are many other areas the government spends out money on, that you'd rather they didn't. I'd have rather they didn't spend all those millions on invading Iraq, and would have preferred them to spend it here more productively. No government is ever going to agree with all of your beliefs, so it's your duty to vote in those who're as close as possible to your interests.

Do abortion threads usually get this screwed up? This thread has gotten a little stranger than any of the abortion threads I have dropped in on before.

Don't all NS threads get screwed up? :p

BIG difference here, they once did vote, did have rights, did worship whatever. However Brain dead or permantly comatose people should die.


Personally I think, any Law passed by the instructions of a one group of a Religious Base is wrong. So I'm against all laws forcing Abortions to be illegal because of 'God'

Three points.

1. I didn't mention God.

2. This difference does not apply to young babies. They can't vote, worship, etc - so are we saying it's acceptable to kill them?

3. You say it's a BIG difference - but why is past history relevant at all anyway? Medicine is about prognosis, not reminiscense.

Do abortion threads usually get this screwed up? This thread has gotten a little stranger than any of the abortion threads I have dropped in on before.
Why was my post screwed up? Someone suggested practically the same thing on the first page (except that they provided some ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies) but really, the only way to eliminate most abortions is to find some sort of magical contraceptive that works 100% of the time, is dirt cheap and/or free and is so easy to use, a moron could do it properly. Even this won't get them all, however, as you will still get people who change their minds or have medical reasons to abort.

Don't all NS threads get screwed up? :p

That is true, maybe my thoughts are getting a little jumbled tonight.

Just a few posts ago, I stated that I wasn't sure if I could reasonably denounce infanticide.

It rather affects the scale though, doesn't it? If I recall, in the UK there are well over a hundred thousand abortions a year - funded by me, against my will.

Mmmm, that depends on what is normally charged for an abortion in a private clinic then doesn't it? If it is relatively affordable to just about all segments of society, taking away government funding might not change anything.


If that is not possible, at the very least I believe that the law should be changed to prevent public funding being spent on what abortionists claim is a woman's lifestyle choice. When I choose to buy a new car, the taxpayer doesn't fund it.

Mmm, it is not really just a lifestyle choice you realize? In some cases, it can really make the difference between just scraping by and spiralling into debt.

Besides, if abortions were illegalized, even if it became very hard to get them, you would still have abandoned baby scenarios. And I don't mean abandoned by being put in an orphanage. Unwanted children, no matter how you try to paint it, are just that. Unwanted. Making abortions illegal just forces the demand to go elsewhere or substitutes to appear, such as the case of abandoned babies, post birth. Some survive, many don't.

Why was my post screwed up? Someone suggested practically the same thing on the first page (except that they provided some ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies) but really, the only way to eliminate most abortions is to find some sort of magical contraceptive that works 100% of the time, is dirt cheap and/or free and is so easy to use, a moron could do it properly. Even this won't get them all, however, as you will still get people who change their minds or have medical reasons to abort.

I didn't direct that at your comment. That was perfectly reasonable. I only quoted you so that you would notice my question, as you are someone I recognized as usually being involved in abortion threads.

What I meant was that the rest of this thread has been pretty squirrely, veering all over the place.

Yes, that was my point. You may feel that there are many other areas the government spends out money on, that you'd rather they didn't. I'd have rather they didn't spend all those millions on invading Iraq, and would have preferred them to spend it here more productively. No government is ever going to agree with all of your beliefs, so it's your duty to vote in those who're as close as possible to your interests.

Or stand for election yourself.

Your comments are true, but they are relevant to any thread about any political issue. The whole point of the thread is to discuss the ideal of what 'should' be permitted in society.

If we must get into the nature of democracy, I suggest that since no government will ever agree with all my beliefs (or with the majority all the time even) the public should be able to call a legally-binding referendum on important social issues.

You are right the world doesn't need abortions now. We need lots more babies. 6 billion people ain't nearly enough.

I didn't direct that at your comment. That was perfectly reasonable. I only quoted you so that you would notice my question, as you are someone I recognized as usually being involved in abortion threads.

What I meant was that the rest of this thread has been pretty squirrely, veering all over the place.
Ah.

I haven't read the entire thread so far.

But usually they end up with pairs of people arguing each other for pages on end with someone else randomly jumping in and arguing against one person or the other, or talking about something entirely unrelated to what the current conversation is about.

Either that or they descend into flames and religious arguments and people pretending to be better than one another.

I don't see them as "others". I don't see them as existing at all. If they are prevented from living, they feel neither happiness nor regret, so it is zero-sum.

This what I am getting at, you see them as a person from the moment of conception, I see them as nothing until they develop the ability to be a person.

Okay, forget I used the word others. Instead let's just say the possibility of life, because I don't think you can deny that, even if they are not yet alive by your reasoning. So they can't feel anything. But the fact that something could have existed, but didn't, that doesn't affect you negatively, knowing what your life is?

It is not so much past experiences that I go by, but the quality of the present experience. And before it gets asked, I mean the person's own value of their current experience. I would not use this reasoning to validate the killing of the poor and destitute (although I do support euthenasia).

And I am usually pretty calm and don't get defensive (I sometimes get a little offensive when I am testing someone out), so don't worry about that. You are asking extremely good question that are benefitting me more than anyone.

I won't continue this line of questioning anymore, at least for now, as I don't see anymore knowledge I could gain from it.

But, while I cannot argue that I am benefitting more, I can at least say that I am benefitting from this, and thank you for your time and answers. I like to try to understand what motivates people, what they believe and why they believe it.

Mmm, it is not really just a lifestyle choice you realize? In some cases, it can really make the difference between just scraping by and spiralling into debt.

Besides, if abortions were illegalized, even if it became very hard to get them, you would still have abandoned baby scenarios.

1. The system provides a huge amount of funding for families on low incomes. And I am suggesting that the mother should be able to give the child up for adoption once it's born.

2. Tell the abandoned baby scenario to a couple who's tried fertility treatment for years and got nowhere...and then tried to adopt. There are far more loving couples desperate to bring a baby up as their own, to love the child and to be a 'normal' family than there are babies available for adoption. The abandoned baby scenario need not be the case.

Okay, forget I used the word others. Instead let's just say the possibility of life, because I don't think you can deny that, even if they are not yet alive by your reasoning. So they can't feel anything. But the fact that something could have existed, but didn't, that doesn't affect you negatively, knowing what your life is?

That is a good point. I would feel better knowing that there are more people having a good life out there, but I cannot make myself feel bad that there are people who don't exist that could have lead good lives. Every sperm, every egg is the potential for someone to exist, and while it does affect me negatively to not have sex, it is not because I am failing to bring people into existence.

You are right the world doesn't need abortions now. We need lots more babies. 6 billion people ain't nearly enough.

In almost every Western country the birth rate is significantly lower than what would be needed to keep the population constant in the long term. The problem of an ageing population can't be solved by keeping the birth rate down.

Perhaps we might be best to look at the countries which ARE seriously overcrowded and promote contraception in those countries.

Adding a couple of million to the US or UK population is hardly going to make a big difference to the world population!

Besides, if abortions were illegalized, even if it became very hard to get them, you would still have abandoned baby scenarios. And I don't mean abandoned by being put in an orphanage. Unwanted children, no matter how you try to paint it, are just that. Unwanted. Making abortions illegal just forces the demand to go elsewhere or substitutes to appear, such as the case of abandoned babies, post birth. Some survive, many don't.

Um, excuse me, but not all pregnancies that were unwanted remain unwanted after the child is born, or after the child has grown a bit. Mother's instinctually feel the need to protect their children, and, in an environment that is safe for the child, they may come to do just that, given a few months.

Given the circumstances of the relationship between my mother and father throughout the years, I am fairly certain, though not absolutely sure, that my brother and I were mistakes. That doesn't mean my mom and dad don't want us, though my dad could show it a bit more.

Ah.

I haven't read the entire thread so far.

But usually they end up with pairs of people arguing each other for pages on end with someone else randomly jumping in and arguing against one person or the other, or talking about something entirely unrelated to what the current conversation is about.

Either that or they descend into flames and religious arguments and people pretending to be better than one another.

In the threads I am used to, the posts usually grow as you continue to counter points with one other person. You stay on topic reasonably, and continue to argue the same points throughout.

Here, there are just random points popping up all over the place, and the topic seems to shift from post to post.

Every sperm, every egg is the potential for someone to exist, and while it does affect me negatively to not have sex, it is not because I am failing to bring people into existence.

Don't knock it...could be a good chat-up line!

Seriously, there is a difference. After conception, the wheels have been set in motion and the natural conclusion is the birth of a baby.

Before conception, 99.9999% (or so) of sperm are destined never to make contact with an egg. The natural conclusion is the waste of a lot of perfectly good sperm.

1. The system provides a huge amount of funding for families on low incomes. And I am suggesting that the mother should be able to give the child up for adoption once it's born.

Mmm, of course that also means suggesting that all pregnancies be carried to full term.


2. Tell the abandoned baby scenario to a couple who's tried fertility treatment for years and got nowhere...and then tried to adopt.

Why tell them when they can read about it in the newspapers? It shows up every now and then around here in page 4 or so.


There are far more loving couples desperate to bring a baby up as their own, to love the child and to be a 'normal' family than there are babies available for adoption. The abandoned baby scenario need not be the case.

Funny. Are you sure on this? I've never seen an empty orphanage before. Truthfully speaking, there are a lot more children without parents than parents willing to adopt them.

Besides, just because something doesn't have to be the case doesn't mean it won't happen. And trust me, it will happen.

Of course, I realize that neither of us are actually going to come to terms on this particular debate. Looking at trends, I would say we would only end up exhausting ourselves arguing with no real movement on either side. Would you agree to disagree then?

Don't knock it...could be a good chat-up line!

Seriously, there is a difference. After conception, the wheels have been set in motion and the natural conclusion is the birth of a baby.

Before conception, 99.9999% (or so) of sperm are destined never to make contact with an egg. The natural conclusion is the waste of a lot of perfectly good sperm.

While I recognize there is a difference, it is not within the reasoning. The idea that abortion is wrong because it keeps someone from having a happy existence would also mean that we are wrong for not constantly creating babies.

I mean who are we to deny someone existence by not having sex?

I really could use that at the bar.

I am pro-abortion. I think it is a perfectly viable choice to be made and in many times is definitely the best choice.

What would make me comfortable with the abortion issue:

1. the end of the fascination with the fetus and the realization that it is not a person

2. the complete ability of a woman to end a pregnancy when she wanted


let me guess, you think these pictures :
Warning: Graphic photos.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/
http://blackgenocide.org/photos.html

are ketchup on small doll parts? Was at a pro-choice site last night. Many said just that. Absolutely ridiculous. When a woman is pregnant.. that heart beat inside her womb isn't from a "bloody lima bean"(another quote I saw at that site).

I would remove the links I posted with the pictures, since they are disturbing or were to me anyway. But would be pointless to do so, since the post has been quoted since. I will however apologize for any distress I may have caused anyone viewing these photos from my links in this thread.

That is a good point. I would feel better knowing that there are more people having a good life out there, but I cannot make myself feel bad that there are people who don't exist that could have lead good lives. Every sperm, every egg is the potential for someone to exist, and while it does affect me negatively to not have sex, it is not because I am failing to bring people into existence.

You were right before when I define life as beginning at conception, and there are far too many sperm and eggs to get upset over every one lost. They were meant to make reproduction possible as often as possible, and I would advise against trying to have children for every egg your girlfriend/wife will ovulate.

My point is, once you get to conception, the possibility of any life existing dramatically increases. That includes good lives. And even bad lives can be turned around. I wish, just once, we could all feel the abortion of a fetus, and all the consequences. And by consequences I mean the termination of a possibly magnificent life, or whatever life that fetus might have had had it had a life.

Um, excuse me, but not all pregnancies that were unwanted remain unwanted after the child is born, or after the child has grown a bit. Mother's instinctually feel the need to protect their children, and, in an environment that is safe for the child, they may come to do just that, given a few months.


Nice try at changing the subject. Abandoned baby scenarios usually happen just after birth, at least the ones that make the news do. Illegalizing abortions won't suddenly reduce the number of these cases from happening. If anything, a country that cracked down on abortion would probably see a rise of such cases.

let me guess, you think these pictures :

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/
http://blackgenocide.org/photos.html

are ketchup on small doll parts? Was at a pro-choice site last night. Many said just that. Absolutely ridiculous. When a woman is pregnant.. that heart beat inside her womb isn't from a "bloody lima bean"(another quote I saw at that site).

A reasonable argument.

I guess my argument that abortion doesn't create bloody fetuses is shot to hell.

let me guess, you think these pictures :

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/
http://blackgenocide.org/photos.html

are ketchup on small doll parts? Was at a pro-choice site last night. Many said just that. Absolutely ridiculous. When a woman is pregnant.. that heart beat inside her womb isn't from a "bloody lima bean"(another quote I saw at that site).

Aha! These photos were taken for abortions in 2nd and 3rd trimester which are non-elective. The first link itself has that claim. 1st trimesters look nothing at all like that.

Nice try at the gross=evil argument Naturality. Shame on you for trying such an old and overused trick. NS has a sharper crew than that.

Nice try at changing the subject. Abandoned baby scenarios usually happen just after birth, at least the ones that make the news do. Illegalizing abortions won't suddenly reduce the number of these cases from happening. If anything, a country that cracked down on abortion would probably see a rise of such cases.

In terms of sheer numbers, sure, but not necessarily proportionally.

Side note: Wow, for the first time I feel sorry for politicians. This one issue in and of itself is enough to drive one mad. I can't imagine, for a living, having to discuss this and many other issues constantly.

There are so many people who want children and cant have them, that this seems a better answer with todays technology
i took option 3

My point is, once you get to conception, the possibility of any life existing dramatically increases. That includes good lives. And even bad lives can be turned around. I wish, just once, we could all feel the abortion of a fetus, and all the consequences. And by consequences I mean the termination of a possibly magnificent life, or whatever life that fetus might have had had it had a life.

We just see these things differently. I really can't see it as a wasted opportunity because I just can't see it as a one shot thing. Since life is such a easy thing to create or take away, I don't see it as being that valuable.

But I have now gotten too tired to discuss this adequately. It has been a good discussion, maybe we can pick it up again.

We just see these things differently. I really can't see it as a wasted opportunity because I just can't see it as a one shot thing. Since life is such a easy thing to create or take away, I don't see it as being that valuable.

But I have now gotten too tired to discuss this adequately. It has been a good discussion, maybe we can pick it up again.

Yeah, it has been good. Glad to have had this conversation. Maybe we can discuss more another time. I meant to go to bed after my post on Locke, but I got too caught up in this. Night everyone, happy debating.

Aha! These photos were taken for abortions in 2nd and 3rd trimester which are non-elective. The first link itself has that claim. 1st trimesters look nothing at all like that.

Nice try at the gross=evil argument Naturality. Shame on you for trying such an old and overused trick. NS has a sharper crew than that.

I'm not trying to trick anyone into doing anything. Do what you will. But instead of making up all sorts of excuses to make you feel better about doing it, or make you feel better about other people doing it, be honest and acknowledge that life. I have had an abortion. I knew before hand as well as right now that I killed that living being inside of me. I'm not proud of it..it hurts me, but what's done is done. I have learnt from that. I'm not saying that women shouldn't have the right to have an abortion, I'm saying dammit own up to what you are doing.

I'm not trying to trick anyone into doing anything. Do what you will. But instead of making up all sorts of excuses to make you feel better about doing it, or make you feel better about other people doing it, be honest and acknowledge that life. I have had an abortion. I knew before hand as well as right now that I killed that living being inside of me. I'm not proud of it..it hurts me, but what's done is done. I have learnt from that. I'm not saying that women shouldn't have the right to have an abortion, I'm saying dammit own up to what you are doing.

Ahhh, so THAT's what you were getting at. Well then, I apologize for that. I thought you were trying to add to the anti-choice argument by using the images to provoke an emotive response.

Ahhh, so THAT's what you were getting at. Well then, I apologize for that. I thought you were trying to add to the anti-choice argument by using the images to provoke an emotive response.


No problem. You didn't offend me, I have "thick skin" so to speak, I appreciate your apology though.

I choose none of the above. None of the options addresses a right to bodily integrity, the issue on which abortion rights are based.

That's your opinion. You can't predict the future and who will be right in 60 years time. If you can, I'd like to know next week's lottery numbers please? :) I see how you're trying to construct your point, but it's spurious in this context. The debate of what does/does not constitute life cannot be answered by either of us, and our attitudes towards this conception of life will depend entirely on our own moral and scientific decisions at the time. (say 60 years time.) Your point of view may well turn out to not be accepted by wider society in future, and there's no need to attempt to insult those who disagree with you.


Actually, wasn't it the point of the thread? What would it take to make abortions unneeded...

The fetus is incapable of holding rights, that you cannot deny. It cannot vote, it cannot have a religion, it cannot form ideas, it cannot speak, there is not one right that a fetus can hold.


The essence of rights is summarized in the very right to Life itself (Liberty is nice too), it includes the Right to Grow and Age. How many months does it take for a refugee immigrant to apply for citizenship? Give the fetus the same number of months and you prove yourself wrong...

All of your examples try to express why they are not people now and is based around the theory that you can stop it from happening (stop them from becoming people), but your position fails because your analogy is in error. They already exist, it has already occurred.

Once the fetus is in the womb, then we as a society are no longer standing in the store choosing and thinking of buying a bag of seeds and considering whether or not we want to plant them in our field (as your theory would have it). But once the fetus is in the womb, we are not choosing what and when to grow because it is already done, we can’t decide to not plant after the seeds are already spread in the fields and growing. You're argument tries to express the idea that we can choose to not grow even after the children are planted and are already growing. What you are really advocating is driving the tractor back out into the field and plowing under the crop that is already there.

I believe a woman has the right to end her participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If there were a way to remove a fetus from her body intact, with no greater risk of injury or death to the mother, then I would support such an option over abortion (provided her doctor felt it was possible/appropriate, of course).