NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: For those who think making abortion illegal is a good idea, I dare you to read this article!


Pro-Life Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?th&emc=th)


Published: April 9, 2006
It was a sunny midafternoon in a shiny new global-economy mall in San Salvador, the capital city of El Salvador, and a young woman I was hoping to meet appeared to be getting cold feet. She had agreed to rendezvous with a go-between not far from the Payless shoe store and then come to a nearby hotel to talk to me. She was an hour late. Alone in the hotel lobby, I was feeling nervous; I was stood up the day before by another woman in a similar situation. I had been warned that interviewing anyone who had had an abortion in El Salvador would be difficult. The problem was not simply that in this very Catholic country a shy 24-year-old unmarried woman might feel shame telling her story to an older man. There was also the criminal stigma. And this was why I had come to El Salvador: Abortion is a serious felony here for everyone involved, including the woman who has the abortion. Some young women are now serving prison sentences, a few as long as 30 years.


http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3774/abortedtried7dx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Donna Ferrato for The New York Times
D.C. had a so-called back-alley abortion in El Salvador. She wound up in the hospital — and in court.


More than a dozen countries have liberalized their abortion laws in recent years, including South Africa, Switzerland, Cambodia and Chad. In a handful of others, including Russia and the United States (or parts of it), the movement has been toward criminalizing more and different types of abortions. In South Dakota, the governor recently signed the most restrictive abortion bill since the Supreme Court ruled in 1973, in Roe v. Wade, that state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. The South Dakota law, which its backers acknowledge is designed to test Roe v. Wade in the courts, forbids abortion, including those cases in which the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Only if an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother is the procedure permitted. A similar though less restrictive bill is now making its way through the Mississippi Legislature.

In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.

There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal. Like the woman I was waiting to meet.

I was on my sixth cup of coffee when I spotted my contacts — two abortion rights advocates who work in the region and a local nurse who had heard this young woman's story. They entered the lobby surrounding another woman like Secret Service agents. A quick glance let me know that I shouldn't make a premature appearance. Even as I retreated to some large sofas, I could hear the Spanish flying — words of comfort, of being brave, of the importance that others understand what is happening in El Salvador. At last the retinue approached. I was not quite ready for what I saw. The woman, I had been told, lived in a hovel in a very poor part of the town. Somehow that had put a certain picture in my head. I don't know, call it sexism. I just didn't expect to see a tall and strikingly beautiful woman with the kind of big grin that could very well appear in one of those full-page ads you might see in an airline magazine inviting people to "Vacation in El Salvador!"

We chatted briefly about the one thing I knew we had in common — malls — before we went up to a quiet hotel room, where she and I could talk. One intermediary acted as our interpreter. I agreed to call her by her initials, D.C.; she is afraid to be identified by name, though she did agree to be photographed. (While it was impossible to confirm every detail of her story, I did later see legal records that corroborated her description of events.) D.C. sat down, and now that we were ready to talk about her experience, she started to cry. She wiped her eyes several times with a paper napkin. She spent a few minutes folding and twisting it. D.C. crossed her ankles and stared down at the shrinking napkin, now tightly compacted into a large pill. Then she began to tell me her story.

I worked in a clothing factory two years ago. I have a son, 7 years old. Well, when I found out I was pregnant, I didn't know what to do. I told my friend. She told me if I was going to have it, I needed to think about that. I had a child already. I told the father. He said he didn't want another child. He didn't want to deal with problems like this. My mother told me she would kick me out if I ever got pregnant again.

I started talking to my friend. Every day was so hard. I cried, and I didn't do anything. I didn't want to see anybody, and I didn't sleep. My friend told me to go to a man, and he gave me some pills. I was two months pregnant. He said that I could put them in my vagina. I did, and after that I just bled a couple of times. Two months more went by. I was still pregnant. I cried and didn't know what to do. When I was about four months along, my friend told me one of her friends lived near a house where there was a woman who did abortions. I felt so worried. I didn't know what to do, whether I should go talk to the woman. But then one day, I went.

With the signing of the Chapultepec Agreements in Mexico in 1992, El Salvador's civil war came to an end. As the nation turned away from its violent years, there were calls from both sides of the political divide that it was time to re-examine certain social issues. One of them was abortion. The country's abortion law, like the law in most Latin American countries at the time, was already a near-ban with only a few exceptions, specifically in cases of rape, serious fetal malformation and grave risk to the mother's life. For decades, the law was rarely discussed, and enforced quietly and somewhat subjectively. Once the issue was raised in the political arena, though, Salvadorans discovered that a brand-new kind of discourse on abortion had emerged in Latin America.

[ This article is seven pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th)! ]

Now, I would put a ban on abortion, soi long as th fetus is alive and the mother is not at risk (or perhaps allow it if the baby would have some horrific genetic disease), but El Salvador has gone... a good HUNDERED THOUSAND LIGHT-YEARS too far.

snipped for brevity

Not to indulge in needless America bashing, but it says something about the fucked up state of your body politic that you even have to make the argument for legal abortion...

But on the bright side, the coat hanger industry got a much needed boost with the ban..................




OK - that was horrible.


But there are always those who are happy to legislate their morality for the group. "For their own good" of course. :rolleyes:

Not to indulge in needless America bashing, but it says something about the fucked up state of your body politic that you even have to make the argument for legal abortion...

Not something we can help. The blessing and curse of this country is everyone has thier voice, regardless of how rational or irrational it may be. Our huge problem now are the people who feel that they need to tell others how to live are trying to or are in power.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no person should be forced to carry inside them the life of another. The issue of the life of a foetus or medical risks to mother and child are secondary

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no person should be forced to carry inside them the life of another. The issue of the life of a foetus or medical risks to mother and child are secondary

They were the people who reproduced... So it's a consequence of a choice. (If it was rape, I say allow abortion all the way, however.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no person should be forced to carry inside them the life of another. The issue of the life of a foetus or medical risks to mother and child are secondary

It's only forced if the mother is raped. If she chose to have sex [And is not in danger of dying from giving birth] it's her responsibility to have the child. I won't condemn a mother to die to let her child be born, and I can understand (though I may not like it) that a raped woman would not want to have the child, but someone who chose to have sex should then choose to have the child.

Here's something I found in a book, it's a bit long, but it's a good way of putting something I've often tried to say about abortion:

A guy is talking to a girl considering abortion [though she chose to have sex with the guy who got her pregnant] about why he feels abortion is wrong:

"'I don't think you can shirk responsibility for it the way a rape or incest victim might be justified in doing.
"But even in those cases, the solution isn't to kill the innocent party, is it? Something is wrong, really wrong, and so people defend their right to choose. What the choose, or course, is not just then end of a pregnancy, not just an abortion, it's the death of a person. But which person? One of the peopl who made a mistake? One of the people who committed a rape or incest? Or one of the people who got pregnant out of wedlock? No, the solution is always to kill the most innocent party of all.'
...
'Please don't think I said any of that to hurt you personally. Just chalk it up to somebody standing up for the rights of someone who can't defend him-or herself. If you won't stand up for your own child, somebody has to.'"

-Dr. T.LaHaye + J.B. Jenkins

They were the people who reproduced... So it's a consequence of a choice. (If it was rape, I say allow abortion all the way, however.)
I smoke. I get cancer, will you deny me chemotherapy? I mean not all people nesscarily die of cancer. But it's a result of my action, some might say my negative action?

I smoke. I get cancer, will you deny me chemotherapy? I mean not all people nesscarily die of cancer. But it's a result of my action, some might say my negative action?

Actually, cancer can happen other ways. But come on. You don't want a baby, then DON'T HAVE SEX! It's that simple. This is a life we are talking about.

The act of sex =|= wanting to have a child.

Birth control, condoms, spermicides all have a failure rate. You cannot expect a couple who do not want children and who take precautions to be forced to have a child. Birth control specifically was created to make sure people did not have unwanted children.

Unless you want to adopt and raise these cell-clusters once you've punished and forced an unwilling woman to retain the inside her until it actually becomes something recognizably human, mind your business and stay out of her uterus.

"'I don't think you can shirk responsibility for it the way a rape or incest victim might be justified in doing.
"But even in those cases, the solution isn't to kill the innocent party, is it?

Moral obligations for a person derive from choices made by said person. No one can be morally obligated by something they didn't freely choose. Women defiantly don't choose to be raped and so have no moral obligations at all towards the fetus inside them.

So, a total, unfettered right to abortion? Including partial-birth, third-trimester abortion?

Surely, there is a ponit where the phoetus becomes a human being and has rights of its own that have to be legislatively protected.

Exactly when that time comes is subject to debate.

Actually, cancer can happen other ways. But come on. You don't want a baby, then DON'T HAVE SEX! It's that simple. This is a life we are talking about.

How about if we can implant the baby into the father and force him to carry it to term. What say you?

Without his sperm, it never would have happened. And hey, if he didn't want a baby, he shouldn't have had sex.

id agree with abortion in cases like rape and the mother being in danger.. but .. i know some adults who are not propper humans yet..

So, a total, unfettered right to abortion? Including partial-birth, third-trimester abortion?

Surely, there is a ponit where the phoetus becomes a human being and has rights of its own that have to be legislatively protected.

Exactly when that time comes is subject to debate.


Who mentioned a "total, unfettered right to abortion? Including partial-birth, third-trimester abortion?"

'Please don't think I said any of that to hurt you personally. Just chalk it up to somebody standing up for the rights of someone who can't defend him-or herself. If you won't stand up for your own child, somebody has to.'"
Which is the problem in America - the populace could give a shit less about another person unless that "person" is a not-even-fully-formed fetus inside of another person. Maybe all the poor people in America should just find some huge person to crawl into and the country will support them without question.

Everytime I hear these idiotic arguments against abortion, I feel like supporting post-birth abortions - of people arguing against abortion.

I totally agree with most of those who spoke before me. Mothers should deal with the consequences of their own actions. If you choose to have sex, you choose to face the possibility of having a child. It is as simple as that. In cases of rape, and those where the mother's health is seriously threatened, we can make an exception. I think abortion should be criminalized in normal circumstances, but as some have already said, El Salvador has simply taken it too far. I mean, 30 years for an abortion?! I think that's taking it a little over the top.

Actually, cancer can happen other ways. But come on. You don't want a baby, then DON'T HAVE SEX! It's that simple. This is a life we are talking about.
sex doesnt lead to a baby.

sex SOMETIMES leads to getting pregnant. pregnancy leads to a baby

when you decide to have heterosexual sex you are dealing with the possiblity that the female partner will get pregnant from it.

if she doesnt want a baby, she can have an abortion.

I totally agree with most of those who spoke before me. Mothers should deal with the consequences of their own actions.
Which according to people like yourself, dealing with the consequences has to exclude ending the pregnancy.

Sounds like doubletalk to me.

pregnancy leads to a baby
Hell, sometimes pregnancy only sometimes leads to a baby.

Moral obligations for a person derive from choices made by said person. No one can be morally obligated by something they didn't freely choose. Women defiantly don't choose to be raped and so have no moral obligations at all towards the fetus inside them.

I didn't write that, and that wasn't the part of that paragraph that I was trying to get across. If you'd look at my first post you'll see I'm not against women who have been raped getting abortions. I may not like them aborting a baby, but I wouldn't make them carry it to term, nor would I hate them for it.

Unless you want to adopt and raise these cell-clusters once you've punished and forced an unwilling woman to retain the inside her until it actually becomes something recognizably human, mind your business and stay out of her uterus.

This implied to me, Kat- and I could be wrong - that you believe that there's an inalienable human right to abortion, in the same manner there's a right to free speech, right to bear arms, etc.

I agree with there being a right to abortion - right up to the stage where another human being enters the equation.

This implied to me, Kat- and I could be wrong - that you believe that there's an inalienable human right to abortion, in the same manner there's a right to free speech, right to bear arms, etc.

I agree with there being a right to abortion - right up to the stage where another human being enters the equation.

Then you are clearly ignoring the part immediately preceding where I stated, "Unless you want to adopt and raise these cell-clusters once you've punished and forced an unwilling woman to retain them inside her until it actually becomes something recognizably human".

I didn't write that, and that wasn't the part of that paragraph that I was trying to get across. If you'd look at my first post you'll see I'm not against women who have been raped getting abortions. I may not like them aborting a baby, but I wouldn't make them carry it to term, nor would I hate them for it.

That moves us to the second question: How would a rape exception work in practice? Would a person have to be convicted of rape, or would a woman merely have to claim she's been raped? Because if it's the former, it would be far too late for an abortion by that stage, and if it's the latter you can expect a massive increase of false claims.

The act of sex =|= wanting to have a child.

Birth control, condoms, spermicides all have a failure rate. You cannot expect a couple who do not want children and who take precautions to be forced to have a child. Birth control specifically was created to make sure people did not have unwanted children.

Unless you want to adopt and raise these cell-clusters once you've punished and forced an unwilling woman to retain the inside her until it actually becomes something recognizably human, mind your business and stay out of her uterus.

Well, at very least, forbid it based on the child's gender.

I don't understand the anti-choice qualifications for rape and incest. Why allow abortions in those instances but not in others?

I totally agree with most of those who spoke before me. Mothers should deal with the consequences of their own actions. If you choose to have sex, you choose to face the possibility of having a child. It is as simple as that.

I agree entirely. That's why we leave soldiers to die on battlefields when we could give them medical treatment. They knew they risked getting shot when they joined the army so they have no right to first-aid. I applaud your principled stand.

I don't understand the anti-choice qualifications for rape and incest. Why allow abortions in those instances but not in others?

Because it isn't about the foetus, it's about punishing the mother having sex for pleasure. They can't justify punishing a woman if she was raped.

What I don't understand is: if people are into forcing women to have a child because it's murder to kill some cells...

...then why is in NOT murder to kill these SAME cells if they are produced by rape?

The argument, once you get down to it is this: if a woman becomes pregnant unwillingly, we should punish her -- unless she's a 'good,moral' girl who would never have wanted to have sex.

Because it isn't about the foetus, it's about punishing the mother having sex for pleasure. They can't justify punishing a woman if she was raped.

Why incest, then?

I don't understand the anti-choice qualifications for rape and incest. Why allow abortions in those instances but not in others?

Because they're not willing acts and go against the wishes of the woman?*


*Has absolutely no opinion on the abortion debate, just stating.

Hell, sometimes pregnancy only sometimes leads to a baby.

thank you for the correction. pregnancy is a condition that MAY lead to the birth of a live baby.

Because they're not willing acts and go against the wishes of the woman?*


*Has absolutely no opinion on the abortion debate, just stating.

So? How is it suddenly okay to terminate an unborn child if it was the result of rape versus the result of willing sex?

That moves us to the second question: How would a rape exception work in practice? Would a person have to be convicted of rape, or would a woman merely have to claim she's been raped? Because if it's the former, it would be far too late for an abortion by that stage, and if it's the latter you can expect a massive increase of false claims.

I don't think the gov. or whoever would be able to regulate it. Or make any sort of law who could, or could not have an abortion. I was only stating who I feel should not have one. As for rape and life/death situations, I'd rather not be the one who has to judge.

Why incest, then?

Because incestuous relationships can be similar to rape, with regard to the power and influence that one member of a family can exercise over another.

Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit and they just find incest 'icky'. :rolleyes:

I don't understand the anti-choice qualifications for rape and incest. Why allow abortions in those instances but not in others?

By incest I believe it meant rape by a family member.

And if it's rape, the woman didn't choose to have sex, and therefore did not choose to accept the risk that she could get pregnant.

Oh boy , another big abortion debate. *grabs AK47 and helmet, gets in bunker*

Because it isn't about the foetus, it's about punishing the mother having sex for pleasure. They can't justify punishing a woman if she was raped.
yes in their world only sluts have abortions. horrible dirty women who have sex with anyone and everyone and use abortion as birth control

in their world its never a 15 year old who got pregnant the first time she had sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. its never a married women with 3 children who just cant afford another.

until their own 15-year-old daugher ends up pregnant, then she takes a quick trip to new york and goes back to school as if nothing happened.

By incest I believe it meant rape by a family member.

And if it's rape, the woman didn't choose to have sex, and therefore did not choose to accept the risk that she could get pregnant.

That shouldn't matter, though. How is the life of the unborn suddenly devalued based on the circumstances of the conception?

By incest I believe it meant rape by a family member.

And if it's rape, the woman didn't choose to have sex, and therefore did not choose to accept the risk that she could get pregnant.
So all it boils down to again is: The dirty whore should have kept her legs shut.

So? How is it suddenly okay to terminate an unborn child if it was the result of rape versus the result of willing sex?

*Waves white flag*

I have no idea. I have no opinion on the matter because it's so controversial. I was just stating that thats what many of them state to that question.

Please don't kill me...

By incest I believe it meant rape by a family member.

And if it's rape, the woman didn't choose to have sex, and therefore did not choose to accept the risk that she could get pregnant.
so the life of the "baby" is nothing to you, its that women should be punished for making a decision you think you wouldnt make?

i love your name by the way. it conjures up all sorts of images.

*Waves white flag*

I have no idea. I have no opinion on the matter because it's so controversial. I was just stating that thats what many of them state to that question.

Please don't kill me...

Then their opinions are logically unsound.

but someone who chose to have sex should then choose to have the child.
Heaven forbid they might actually want to have sex cause it's enjoyable. :rolleyes:

That shouldn't matter, though. How is the life of the unborn suddenly devalued based on the circumstances of the conception?

It doesn't to me, I just understand it in situations like that. The only situation I am dead set against is where the woman is fully capable of bearing the child and chose to have sex. Even if she doesn't keep it and it goes it to a foster home. Any life is better than no life.

It doesn't to me, I just understand it in situations like that. The only situation I am dead set against is where the woman is fully capable of bearing the child and chose to have sex. Even if she doesn't keep it and it goes it to a foster home. Any life is better than no life.

If any life is better than no life, then how can you justify your acceptance of abortion in the case of rape? It's either wrong all the time or acceptable all the time. You can't have an opinion in the middle ground without being hypocritical.

yes in their world only sluts have abortions. horrible dirty women who have sex with anyone and everyone and use abortion as birth control

in their world its never a 15 year old who got pregnant the first time she had sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. its never a married women with 3 children who just cant afford another.

until their own 15-year-old daugher ends up pregnant, then she takes a quick trip to new york and goes back to school as if nothing happened.

Don't be silly, women who already have three children don't have sex. They sit around at home doing the housework and knitting while their husband goes off to the factory and their children play hoopla in the streets.

so the life of the "baby" is nothing to you, its the women should be punished for making a decision you think you wouldnt make?

The life is an awful lot to me. I hate abortion in any situation, but I wouldn't and couldn't force someone to give birth to a child if it would hurt them mentally or physically.

Heaven forbid they might actually want to have sex cause it's enjoyable. :rolleyes:

Obviously only whores enjoy sex.

Because they're not willing acts and go against the wishes of the woman?*


*Has absolutely no opinion on the abortion debate, just stating.


But if a woman is unwilling to have a child, then it's ok to force her to do so.

It doesn't to me, I just understand it in situations like that. The only situation I am dead set against is where the woman is fully capable of bearing the child and chose to have sex. Even if she doesn't keep it and it goes it to a foster home. Any life is better than no life.Frankly, I think carrying a pregnancy to term and then abandoning the resulting offspring is much more irresponsible that removing a bag of non-sentient cells from a woman's uterus.

But then, since I have sex with my long-term partner but do not want to have children, I'm obviously just a slut whose opinion is clearly irrelevant.

The life is an awful lot to me. I hate abortion in any situation, but I wouldn't and couldn't force someone to give birth to a child if it would hurt them mentally or physically.

So, say a 13 year old girl gets pregnant. She willingly chose to have sex. It will ruin her life to have a child at her age. Do you let her get an abortion?

If any life is better than no life, then how can you justify your acceptance of abortion in the case of rape? It's either wrong all the time or acceptable all the time. You can't have an opinion in the middle ground without being hypocritical.


It's almost all middle ground. You can't say all women who get pregnant should have the child, especially if it will kill them, but in every case I would dearly love for the child to be born. If I must be labeled a hypocrite, then fine. But I will not say I think all women should be forced to have the baby, because in some cases that will mean taking the mother's life in exchange. If I were to get pregnant, and having the baby would kill me, I'd honestly like to say I'd give up my life for the child, but I haven't been put in that situation, and couldn't really say what I'd choose.

El Salvador has gone... a good HUNDERED THOUSAND LIGHT-YEARS too far.
At least we agree on this part of your post. :)

Not something we can help. The blessing and curse of this country is everyone has thier voice, regardless of how rational or irrational it may be. Our huge problem now are the people who feel that they need to tell others how to live are trying to or are in power.
Agreed. Any recommendations??

Because it isn't about the foetus, it's about punishing the mother having sex for pleasure. They can't justify punishing a woman if she was raped.
They can, it's just alot harder to push through popular opinion.

I don't like the idea of abortion and I would only support it in cases of rape, incest, or indangerment; however there is absolutely no way to really determine that and I'm not going to force my morals unto other people.

Stories like this are horrible and it's a shame that people have to go through things like this because their government doesn't like their life choices.

So all it boils down to again is: The dirty whore should have kept her legs shut.

No sex brings with it certian risks like many other activities have risks. So you accept that and not act try to get out of your new responsibility. The guy should have to get financially involved to so that you can say that the guy should have kept it in his pants. It DOES go both ways.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no person should be forced to carry inside them the life of another. The issue of the life of a foetus or medical risks to mother and child are secondary
Agreed. So what do we do about it??

Frankly, I think carrying a pregnancy to term and then abandoning the resulting offspring is much more irresponsible that removing a bag of non-sentient cells from a woman's uterus.

But then, since I have sex with my long-term partner but do not want to have children, I'm obviously just a slut whose opinion is clearly irrelevant.


Goodness! I do NOT think people that just have sex for the good of it are whores and sluts. Unless they get paid for it or sleep around with any old guy they can.

And giving a child up for adoption is not abandoning it.

It's almost all middle ground. You can't say all women who get pregnant should have the child, especially if it will kill them, but in every case I would dearly love for the child to be born. If I must be labeled a hypocrite, then fine. But I will not say I think all women should be forced to have the baby, because in some cases that will mean taking the mother's life in exchange. If I were to get pregnant, and having the baby would kill me, I'd honestly like to say I'd give up my life for the child, but I haven't been put in that situation, and couldn't really say what I'd choose.

If you feel there are cases where it is acceptable to terminate the pregnancy, then you admit that it is not the actual life of the child that you are ultimately concerned with.

Even if she doesn't keep it and it goes it to a foster home. Any life is better than no life.
I think you know nothing about the foster care system.

And giving a child up for adoption is not abandoning it.
Let's see: giving a child up for adoption removes you from any legal rights over the child, removes the burden of caring for it, and, usually, means you will never see it again. Might as well find the nearest wolf pack.

No sex brings with it certian risks like many other activities have risks. So you accept that and not act try to get out of your new responsibility. The guy should have to get financially involved to so that you can say that the guy should have kept it in his pants. It DOES go both ways.

You admit you are not concerned with the actual life of the unborn but with punishing people for making choices you disagree with.

It's only forced if the mother is raped. If she chose to have sex [And is not in danger of dying from giving birth] it's her responsibility to have the child. I won't condemn a mother to die to let her child be born, and I can understand (though I may not like it) that a raped woman would not want to have the child, but someone who chose to have sex should then choose to have the child.
Which would result in another El Salvarore, just with a few fewer restrictions. I don't like abortion either, but there's really no other practical way to do anything other than allow each individual woman to decide.

You admit you are not concerned with the actual life of the unborn but with punishing people for making choices you disagree with.

Zing!

Here's something I found in a book, it's a bit long, but it's a good way of putting something I've often tried to say about abortion:

A guy is talking to a girl considering abortion [though she chose to have sex with the guy who got her pregnant] about why he feels abortion is wrong:

"'I don't think you can shirk responsibility for it the way a rape or incest victim might be justified in doing.
"But even in those cases, the solution isn't to kill the innocent party, is it? Something is wrong, really wrong, and so people defend their right to choose. What the choose, or course, is not just then end of a pregnancy, not just an abortion, it's the death of a person. But which person? One of the peopl who made a mistake? One of the people who committed a rape or incest? Or one of the people who got pregnant out of wedlock? No, the solution is always to kill the most innocent party of all.'
...
'Please don't think I said any of that to hurt you personally. Just chalk it up to somebody standing up for the rights of someone who can't defend him-or herself. If you won't stand up for your own child, somebody has to.'"

-Dr. T.LaHaye + J.B. Jenkins
I know. I know. Sigh. But the only other option would be "the El Salvadore option." Is what you really want to require a woman to carry to term a child she neither wants nor loves????

But if a woman is unwilling to have a child, then it's ok to force her to do so.

*Curls up in a ball*

I don't know!

There are four lights!

*Sobs*

There are four lights!

A+ reference. Kudos.

So, say a 13 year old girl gets pregnant. She willingly chose to have sex. It will ruin her life to have a child at her age. Do you let her get an abortion?

If I knew her, I would certainly ask her to consider having the child. But I would support any decision she made. If her physical life was at risk, I probably wouldn't push for her to carry the child. But if only her social life was at risk, I would ask her to consider the child, social lives can be repared. People can transfer and move.

But I really would rather not have to judge any situation like this. As Valori said: I'm not going to push my morals on to other people.

Who mentioned a "total, unfettered right to abortion? Including partial-birth, third-trimester abortion?"
Only El Salvadore and the other countries that require a woman to carry her baby, ANY baby to term. :(

No sex brings with it certian risks like many other activities have risks. So you accept that and not act try to get out of your new responsibility. The guy should have to get financially involved to so that you can say that the guy should have kept it in his pants. It DOES go both ways.


And yet, there are those on this forum who scream that since they did not want a child, why SHOULD they have to pay for it for the next 18 years of their lives because it is destroying them financially.

These same often DON'T pay child support, and leave the mother with a financial, emotional and physical burden because they can just walk away.

If you feel there are cases where it is acceptable to terminate the pregnancy, then you admit that it is not the actual life of the child that you are ultimately concerned with.

It's all life I'm concerned with. Every single person. Even my stalkers.

If I knew her, I would certainly ask her to consider having the child. But I would support any decision she made. If her physical life was at risk, I probably wouldn't push for her to carry the child. But if only her social life was at risk, I would ask her to consider the child, social lives can be repared. People can transfer and move.

But I really would rather not have to judge any situation like this. As Valori said: I'm not going to push my morals on to other people.

You still fail to justify how you find it morally acceptable to kill the unborn in certain instances but morally unacceptable to kill it in other instances.

Which is the problem in America - the populace could give a shit less about another person unless that "person" is a not-even-fully-formed fetus inside of another person. Maybe all the poor people in America should just find some huge person to crawl into and the country will support them without question.

Everytime I hear these idiotic arguments against abortion, I feel like supporting post-birth abortions - of people arguing against abortion.
The first is definitely not true.

The second only serves to give the anti-abortionists ammunition for another "slippery slope" argument.

You admit you are not concerned with the actual life of the unborn but with punishing people for making choices you disagree with.

AUGH!! No it is both! The entire point is to keep the unborn child alive and I do not care for the arguement that the only reason pro-lifers feel that way is because of the idea that all women who have sex are whores. Perhaps they caught the goldent bullet and got pregnant the first time? Plenty of various scenarios could have happened. In the end, the couple must take responsibility because now they have another life to concern themselves with who is more important then they are.

And giving a child up for adoption is not abandoning it.If you even half give a toss about its welfare, you are always going to be wondering 'what if?'. Besides, it may try and find you later in life...and if you're giving it up for adoption because you don't want children (were abortion globally illegal) rather than through things like poverty, that is clearly something you want to avoid.

Besides, from the kid's point of view, the adoption and foster system in this country is horrendous. So many children end up in care homes rather than with families, which is not - to me - a responsible thing to consign a child to if you even remotely care about is future. Many children are adopted and live very happy lives, but a large number are not so lucky.

It's all life I'm concerned with. Every single person. Even my stalkers.

No, you are not. Were you, you would not support abortion in any case, even rape or incest.

And giving a child up for adoption is not abandoning it.


And how many children go unadopted, or forgotten in the foster care system, where they become statistics or horridly public news stories which are consequently forgotten about?

Which would result in another El Salvarore, just with a few fewer restrictions. I don't like abortion either, but there's really no other practical way to do anything other than allow each individual woman to decide.

I know...

And as much as I'd love to continue... dicussing this with all of you, I've totally eaten into my Dante Paper writing time, so I have to go.

I totally agree with most of those who spoke before me. Mothers should deal with the consequences of their own actions. If you choose to have sex, you choose to face the possibility of having a child. It is as simple as that. In cases of rape, and those where the mother's health is seriously threatened, we can make an exception. I think abortion should be criminalized in normal circumstances, but as some have already said, El Salvador has simply taken it too far. I mean, 30 years for an abortion?! I think that's taking it a little over the top.
Why?? We sometimes EXECUTE murderers! Why not women who have an abortion?

No, you are not. Were you, you would not support abortion in any case, even rape or incest.

I do not support it, but I will not tie a woman down to keep her from getting an abortion.

AUGH!! No it is both! The entire point is to keep the unborn child alive and I do not care for the arguement that the only reason pro-lifers feel that way is because of the idea that all women who have sex are whores. Perhaps they caught the goldent bullet and got pregnant the first time? Plenty of various scenarios could have happened. In the end, the couple must take responsibility because now they have another life to concern themselves with who is more important then they are.

No, it is not. You are ultimately unconcerned with the life of the unborn. If the life of the child was your concern, you would not support exceptions in cases of rape. Because, regardless of whether or not the woman was raped, in the end, she must take responsibility because now she has another life to concern herself with who is more important than she is.

Why?? We sometimes EXECUTE murderers! Why not women who have an abortion?


Ah ha. Perfect point, let me leave you all with this thought, why was Scott Peterson convicted for the MURDER of his UNBORN son?

This implied to me, Kat- and I could be wrong - that you believe that there's an inalienable human right to abortion, in the same manner there's a right to free speech, right to bear arms, etc.

I agree with there being a right to abortion - right up to the stage where another human being enters the equation.
IMHO, there's an "inalienable human right" to decide what happens to your own body.

And at what point, exactly, does "another human being enter the equation?" I honestly would like to know.

And yet, there are those on this forum who scream that since they did not want a child, why SHOULD they have to pay for it for the next 18 years of their lives because it is destroying them financially.

These same often DON'T pay child support, and leave the mother with a financial, emotional and physical burden because they can just walk away.

The courts should take a more active role in docking paychecks for those who don't pay. Perhaps more court space to make the process go faster? That would be good in all matters given how slow justice is in this country.

Ah ha. Perfect point, let me leave you all with this thought, why was Scott Peterson convicted for the MURDER of his UNBORN son?

Because people like you get laws put on the books defining unborn children as people in order to create legal quagmires such as the Scott Peterson case that you can refer back to in the abortion debate like you just did.

i think we all have lines we would draw. clear cases in our minds where abortion should not be allowed.

the question really is, what should the LAW be? and how should it be enforced?

shouldnt we allow that women are moral agents and that they dont get abortions lightly, without consideration? shouldnt it be the woman who decides rather than some legal system that cant take the individual into consideration?

The first is definitely not true.
Fooled me.
As a group mentality, Americans only give a rat's ass about other people if those "people" are developing cells in some woman's uterus. As a group mentality, American's couldn't care less for the poor, starving, and otherwise downtrodden. If I had a dime for every time I heard a person talk about how the poor have it so good because they can stay at home and get welfare and never have to work, or about how they should work more/harder/at all if they didn't want to be poor, etc, I would never have to work again.

The second only serves to give the anti-abortionists ammunition for another "slippery slope" argument.
The second is too absurd to be used in slippery slope arguments and if it is, it just proves how batshit insane the pro-lifers are.

Because it isn't about the foetus, it's about punishing the mother having sex for pleasure. They can't justify punishing a woman if she was raped.
Hey! Get this through your head: women and men are going to f**k!

What I don't understand is: if people are into forcing women to have a child because it's murder to kill some cells...

...then why is in NOT murder to kill these SAME cells if they are produced by rape?

The argument, once you get down to it is this: if a woman becomes pregnant unwillingly, we should punish her -- unless she's a 'good,moral' girl who would never have wanted to have sex.
Exactly!

Because they're not willing acts and go against the wishes of the woman?*


*Has absolutely no opinion on the abortion debate, just stating.
So what happens to those "wishes of the woman" when she's forced, against her will, to bear a baby to term???

Hey! Get this through your head: women and men are going to f**k!

I assume that this was directed at the anti-choicers rather than me?

Ah ha. Perfect point, let me leave you all with this thought, why was Scott Peterson convicted for the MURDER of his UNBORN son?

Because it is a strange law where if a woman wants the unborn child and it dies then it is murder of a life, but if a woman changes her mind in the situation and wants an abortion then the unborn is no longer a life but a parasite to rid of.

So what happens to those "wishes of the woman" when she's forced, against her will, to bear a baby to term???

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10726541&postcount=68


Furthermore: I rescind the damn comment.

I don't think the gov. or whoever would be able to regulate it. Or make any sort of law who could, or could not have an abortion. I was only stating who I feel should not have one. As for rape and life/death situations, I'd rather not be the one who has to judge.
IMHO, it would lead to open defiance of the law. I don't see that as one of those "good things." :(

No, it is not. You are ultimately unconcerned with the life of the unborn. If the life of the child was your concern, you would not support exceptions in cases of rape. Because, regardless of whether or not the woman was raped, in the end, she must take responsibility because now she has another life to concern herself with who is more important than she is.

I never gave my opinion on rape. I am against the rape exception as it is hypocritical. Which is why it comes down to not punishing the unborn child for what some asshole rapist did.

yes in their world only sluts have abortions. horrible dirty women who have sex with anyone and everyone and use abortion as birth control

in their world its never a 15 year old who got pregnant the first time she had sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. its never a married women with 3 children who just cant afford another.

until their own 15-year-old daugher ends up pregnant, then she takes a quick trip to new york and goes back to school as if nothing happened.
Very, very sad, but very, very true. Good points, Legs.

The courts should take a more active role in docking paychecks for those who don't pay. Perhaps more court space to make the process go faster? That would be good in all matters given how slow justice is in this country.
oh i think you must not have run up against this particular problem.

most states ARE very aggressive in hunting down deadbeat parents (yes mothers too) especially if the custodial parent collects any sort of public assistance.

my neice lives in nebraska. the father of her child lives in new mexico.

the state of nebraska pushed it. he cant have a drivers license, a hunting license or a bank account until he start paying support. if he goes to nebraska he'll be put in jail for non support. if he ever gets a job, his wages will be garnished. if he marries and files a joint tax return, his wife's refund will be sent to nebraska.

But if a woman is unwilling to have a child, then it's ok to force her to do so.
Heh! Yeah! Any time the population level falls below some arbitrary minimum, let's require a number of randomly selected women to have sex so they can have a baby. Morally equivalent to requiring a woman to have a baby when she's already pregnant, IMHO.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10726541&postcount=68


Furthermore: I rescind the damn comment.
LOL! Easy there, sport! I wasn't attacking you. Just asking a question! :p

Everytime I hear these idiotic arguments against abortion, I feel like supporting post-birth abortions - of people arguing against abortion.

Well done!

Just wondering, has anyone here considered how the child would be treated if it were born into the hands of an unwilling and/or, uncarring mother? And who are you to force an unwilling carrier into raising a child? Perhaps she doesn't want the child because she cannot care for it. Why force your moral obligations or religious beliefs..damn christians..onto her? Now if you were to say, ban all abortions, but, then give the child to the government, or maybe even one of you people whining about morals, i could accept that. Somewhat like adoption i suppose but hey.

And my apoligizes if this has been mentioned in another post, i don't have the time right now to read through all the pages.

Because it is a strange law where if a woman wants the unborn child and it dies then it is murder of a life, but if a woman changes her mind in the situation and wants an abortion then the unborn is no longer a life but a parasite to rid of.
Oh, that is so unkind. :(

I've known several women who had abortions and it's a rare woman who doesn't agonize over that decision, sometimes to the point where it's almost too late to abort. :(

Ah ha. Perfect point, let me leave you all with this thought, why was Scott Peterson convicted for the MURDER of his UNBORN son?

Perhaps because his unborn son was, at that point of development, capable of surviving outside the womb on his own had his mother not been murdered and duct tape wrapped around his (the baby's) throat?

Of course, rather than look at the fact that this infant was capable of survival on its own at that stage of development, it's been used by anti-woman prolifers to argue that a blastocyst is a human life.

Well done!

Just wondering, has anyone here considered how the child would be treated if it were born into the hands of an unwilling and/or, uncarring mother? And who are you to force an unwilling carrier into raising a child? Perhaps she doesn't want the child because she cannot care for it. Why force your moral obligations or religious beliefs..damn christians..onto her? Now if you were to say, ban all abortions, but, then give the child to the government, or maybe even one of you people whining about morals, i could accept that. Somewhat like adoption i suppose but hey.
Heh!

How about passing two laws: ban all abortions except for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother; and a second law requiring everyone who voted for the banning of abortion to accept at least one child born as a result?

I'm obviously jesting, but still ... !

Perhaps because his unborn son was, at that point of development, capable of surviving outside the womb on his own had his mother not been murdered and duct tape wrapped around his (the baby's) throat?

Of course, rather than look at the fact that this infant was capable of survival on its own at that stage of development, it's been used by anti-woman prolifers to argue that a blastocyst is a human life.
You are correct, but I have one small objection to your use of terminology. IMHO, it's still a baby, not a "foetus" or a "blastocyst." That's just dehumanzing.

I assume that this was directed at the anti-choicers rather than me?
Mostly, yes. But none of us can afford to bury our allegorical head in the figuritve sand. Sorry if it came across that way. :(

I am against abortions. I have never, not once been given an acceptable definition of what constitutes personhood (i.e., this is human, this is not), and it's incredibly irresponsible to make judgements based on information that I simply do not have - that no one has. In light of that I am against exceptions to a ban for reasons such as rape, because the intentions of the peope who created the life simply do not matter in determining whether it is a person or not. There are some circumstances where an abortion could be medically acceptable - like if the situation were so that it was a choice between both dying and one dying, or one having a virtual certainty of severe injury and the other will inevitably die (fetus-in-fetu etc) - but those are very few indeed.

Heh!

How about passing two laws: ban all abortions except for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother; and a second law requiring everyone who voted for the banning of abortion to accept at least one child born as a result?

I'm obviously jesting, but still ... !

I don't think you go far enough:

-Abortion is banned except for rape, incest, or medical reasons.
-Contraception is offered free of charge to anyone who wants it, paid for by a tax levied on those who voted to ban abortion.
-Comprehensive sex education in schools from the age of 12, all forms of contraception will be explained and children will be told where they can get them (no, I'm not expecting twelve year olds to have sex, I just want them to know about it well before they start). Again, this will be paid for by those who voted to ban abortion.
-Every time an unwanted child is born it will be allocated to someone who voted to ban abortion.

Afterall, the anti-choicers are always talking about "Dealing with the consequences of your actions". I'm sure they wouldn't want to be hypocritical by refusing to deal with the consequences of their actions...

Mostly, yes. But none of us can afford to bury our allegorical head in the figuritve sand. Sorry if it came across that way. :(

No problem, it was just a little unclear. I agree that we all have to be realistic.

-Contraception is offered free of charge to anyone who wants it, paid for by a tax levied on those who voted to ban abortion.I'd be interested in knowing how that's supposed to be anywhere close to legal. Selective taxation based on a vote?

No problem, it was just a little unclear. I agree that we all have to be realistic.
:fluffle:

I don't think you go far enough:

-Abortion is banned except for rape, incest, or medical reasons.
-Contraception is offered free of charge to anyone who wants it, paid for by a tax levied on those who voted to ban abortion.
-Comprehensive sex education in schools from the age of 12, all forms of contraception will be explained and children will be told where they can get them (no, I'm not expecting twelve year olds to have sex, I just want them to know about it well before they start). Again, this will be paid for by those who voted to ban abortion.
-Every time an unwanted child is born it will be allocated to someone who voted to ban abortion.

Afterall, the anti-choicers are always talking about "Dealing with the consequences of your actions". I'm sure they wouldn't want to be hypocritical by refusing to deal with the consequences of their actions...

Just popping in for a quick bit, but if that's what it took to keep as many babies alive as possible, and keep abortion down, I would gladly pay for that. [When I was of voting age and had a job other than house chores. Lol]
But I don't think many other people would... everybody already won't stop complaining about taxes.

I don't think you go far enough:

-Abortion is banned except for rape, incest, or medical reasons.
-Contraception is offered free of charge to anyone who wants it, paid for by a tax levied on those who voted to ban abortion.
-Comprehensive sex education in schools from the age of 12, all forms of contraception will be explained and children will be told where they can get them (no, I'm not expecting twelve year olds to have sex, I just want them to know about it well before they start). Again, this will be paid for by those who voted to ban abortion.
-Every time an unwanted child is born it will be allocated to someone who voted to ban abortion.

Afterall, the anti-choicers are always talking about "Dealing with the consequences of your actions". I'm sure they wouldn't want to be hypocritical by refusing to deal with the consequences of their actions...
Heh! I was being facetious. You seem to be ... serious! :eek:

I am against abortions. I have never, not once been given an acceptable definition of what constitutes personhood (i.e., this is human, this is not), and it's incredibly irresponsible to make judgements based on information that I simply do not have - that no one has. In light of that I am against exceptions to a ban for reasons such as rape, because the intentions of the peope who created the life simply do not matter in determining whether it is a person or not. There are some circumstances where an abortion could be medically acceptable - like if the situation were so that it was a choice between both dying and one dying, or one having a virtual certainty of severe injury and the other will inevitably die (fetus-in-fetu etc) - but those are very few indeed.

There is already precedent that establishes that personhood is dependant on brain activity and mental functions:

When someone is brain dead they are dead, pure and simple. They cannot be revived.

When someone is unconscious in a permanent coma then precedent dictates that they are no longer a 'person'.

Rights are given out based on mental matuity, you can have sex at 16, drive at 17, vote at 18, stand for government at 21 etc.

It logically follows that if there is no brain activity then there is no personhood and there are no rights.

I'd be interested in knowing how that's supposed to be anywhere close to legal. Selective taxation based on a vote?
Yup! It's called "poetic justice." [ nods ]

Heh! I was being facetious. You seem to be ... serious! :eek:

If abortion was declared illegal after a referendum then yes, I'm serious as hell.

I'm sick of people who go out voting all over the place but then try to avoid the consequences. :p

Just popping in for a quick bit, but if that's what it took to keep as many babies alive as possible, and keep abortion down, I would gladly pay for that. [When I was of voting age and had a job other than house chores. Lol]
But I don't think many other people would... everybody already won't stop complaining about taxes.

Then you have my respect for being consistent in your views, even if I disagree with them.

I'd be interested in knowing how that's supposed to be anywhere close to legal. Selective taxation based on a vote?

The law is extremely fair:

If you have sex and pregnancy occurs then you have a responsibility to deal with the consequences of your actions.

If you vote and victory occurs then you have a responsibility to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Anything else would be inconsistent.

Yup! It's called "poetic justice." [ nods ]

We need more poetic justice, starting with the scenario in GraveNIdle's signiture. :)

Then you have my respect for being consistent in your views, even if I disagree with them.

Well thank you. And thank you just in general for respecting views you don't agree with. I try very hard to do the same, and try especially places in like this not to attack people or their views, but just to defend my own.

There is already precedent that establishes that personhood is dependant on brain activity and mental functions:

When someone is brain dead they are dead, pure and simple. They cannot be revived.

When someone is unconscious in a permanent coma then precedent dictates that they are no longer a 'person'.So I establish the personhood of someone based on 'precedent.' Who made the precedent? What did they base their decision on? A completely arbitrary choice, I think.

And you know there is a permanent coma how? Besides, with a fetus it's nearly inevitable that, barring accidents, brain activity will be present within months - if not sooner.

Rights are given out based on mental matuity, you can have sex at 16, drive at 17, vote at 18, stand for government at 21 etc.

It logically follows that if there is no brain activity then there is no personhood and there are no rights.I'd just love to know how you can be so blithe about abortion when, while there may be no brain activity in this immediate second, that there's a virtual certainty that there will be. "Ohh, kill him now while he's asleep! He won't feel a thing!"

No, he won't ever know that he's been deprived of the rest of his life. It follows that it won't hurt him to take it.

Yeah. Well, I just kinda disagree with that line of reasoning.

So I establish the personhood of someone based on 'precedent.' Who made the precedent? What did they base their decision on? A completely arbitrary decision, I think.

And you know there is a permanent coma how? Besides, with a fetus it's nearly inevitable that, barring accidents, brain activity will be present within months - if not sooner.

I'd just love to know how you can be so blithe about abortion when, while there may be no brain activity in this immediate second, that there's a virtual certainty that there will be. "Ohh, kill him now while he's asleep! He won't feel a thing!"

No, he won't ever know that he's been deprived of the rest of his life, so it's ok.

Yeah. Well, I just kinda disagree with that line of reasoning.

So now you're arguing from potential rather than actual personhood?

So now you're arguing from potential rather than actual personhood?Nope. I find that I must treat the fetus as a person. I was just pointing out the particular flaws in your reasoning that lead me to reject it. You can't give me a definite time that a fetus is or is not a person. You can't give me a definite state that at which point personhood is reached. The only reason you gave for your position was based on precedent -as if that hasn't been wrong before. Therefore, I must err on the side of caution.

Am I the only one who's noticed that anti-choice people tend to oversimplify the issue? You talk about dealing with the consequences. I know someone who had an abortion, she was in really bad shape, mentally, afterwards. Personally, I call that dealing with the consequences.

And anyone who is against the rape exception obviously doesn't know anyone who's been raped. It's not just a matter of "I didn't want to have sex with that guy", it takes a very extreme mental and physical toll on them. From what I understand, pregnancy alone puts mental and physical strain on women. Why would you want a woman who is already going to be in therapy for years because of rape to have to go through more mental strain? Also, I've heard of many, many times when a woman who gets raped has the child, and can't stand being around the child, because every time she sees the child's face, it reminds her of the rape. She shouldn't have to deal with that every day, and you anti-choice people have no right to force her to. Rape isn't some inconvenience that you just "get over", it's with you the rest of your life.

And as far as the adoption thing, I think other pro-choicers have already pointed out the over-simplification there.

You are correct, but I have one small objection to your use of terminology. IMHO, it's still a baby, not a "foetus" or a "blastocyst." That's just dehumanzing.

Surely you recognize, however, that a blastocysthttp://www.ivf-infertility.com/images/blastocyst.jpg is very different from an embryo: http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1995/illpres/c-embryo.gif
is very different from a fetus:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/images/manipulate_fetus_l.jpg

and is quite a bit different from an infant: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/a5/260px-Baby.jpg

These are not "humanizing" or "dehumanizing" terms -- they speak to the stage of development.

I have to go and do some work now but I'll be back later .

Argue nicely now. :)

You are correct, but I have one small objection to your use of terminology. IMHO, it's still a baby, not a "foetus" or a "blastocyst." That's just dehumanzing.Not really. It's just the name for a stage in the life of a animal, in this case a human being. It doesn't change the reality of what the person is. I might call you an 'adult,' but it hardly changes who/what you are.

I'd just love to know how you can be so blithe about abortion when, while there may be no brain activity in this immediate second, that there's a virtual certainty that there will be. "Ohh, kill him now while he's asleep! He won't feel a thing!"

Your argument is flawed. There is brain activity in a sleeping person. Ergo, if the definition of a person is one with brain activity, sleeping persons are still persons.

Your argument is flawed. There is brain activity in a sleeping person. Ergo, if the definition of a person is one with brain activity, sleeping persons are still persons.There are situations where there is no measurable brain activity, yet the person recovers and is expected to recover. Sleeping was simply an example on non-conciousness. I should have clarified that I suppose.

Nope. I find that I must treat the fetus as a person. I was just pointing out the particular flaws in your reasoning that lead me to reject it. You can't give me a definite time that a fetus is or is not a person. You can't give me a definite state that at which point personhood is reached. The only reason you gave for your position was based on precedent -as if that hasn't been wrong before. Therefore, I must err on the side of caution.

I've only read a few pages, but has anyone mentioned that even when a fetus is a person it still doesn't gain the right to another person's body?

Thank you, Eutrusca. As I've always said, pro-life =/= quality of life. Why would anybody want to enforce population booms, and specifically in the population that nobody wants to see boom: poor people with no opportunities. If you're going to go pro-life, you had BETTER start shelling out more money for social welfare programs, and big time. HELLO?! IS ANYBODY LISTENING OUT THERE?!

I've only read a few pages, but has anyone mentioned that even when a fetus is a person it still doesn't gain the right to another person's body?In the vast majority of cases, the sole reason the baby is present is because of an action performed by consent. It doesn't really matter if contraception was used or not; the act was consentual and therefore both partners have a responsibility to protect/nurture the baby. It hasn't done a single harmful thing to them.

In other cases, the baby still is not responsible in any way. It is the perfect innocent. You can argue that it still doesn't 'give' the baby the right to the mother's body, and I agree. Since you are given a choice:

1. Kill the baby
2. Support it unwillingly

One is distinctly more irrevocable than the other. In other words, I feel that the temporary suffering on the part of the mother is better than arbitrarily killing a human being (an action with an effect that lasts forever). Really, your decision in this case is based on how much value you give - or how much you don't give - to human life versus the value of that life.

Thank you, Eutrusca. As I've always said, pro-life =/= quality of life. Why would anybody want to enforce population booms, and specifically in the population that nobody wants to see boom: poor people with no opportunities. If you're going to go pro-life, you had BETTER start shelling out more money for social welfare programs, and big time. HELLO?! IS ANYBODY LISTENING OUT THERE?!
a true ban on abortion would be a disaster. all of those unwanted children growing up in families that dont really want them and cant reall care for them. all of those babies given up for adoption by desperate mothers. we would need orphanages to care for those who just werent quite good enough for anyone to want to adopt them.

it would be an america that no one wants to live in.

I am against abortions. I have never, not once been given an acceptable definition of what constitutes personhood (i.e., this is human, this is not), and it's incredibly irresponsible to make judgements based on information that I simply do not have - that no one has. In light of that I am against exceptions to a ban for reasons such as rape, because the intentions of the peope who created the life simply do not matter in determining whether it is a person or not. There are some circumstances where an abortion could be medically acceptable - like if the situation were so that it was a choice between both dying and one dying, or one having a virtual certainty of severe injury and the other will inevitably die (fetus-in-fetu etc) - but those are very few indeed.
You know, I think the focus on "when does life start" is way too overrated in the discussion of abortion.

As a woman, I can tell you that that would only be one of many factors influencing my decision to get an abortion or not, and surely not the most important.

I mean, it might well make a difference in how I feel if I know I'm only a couple weeks along or already two months along.
But basically, every woman knows that an abortion means that there will be no child. Period. If I keep it, there will, if I don't, there won't.
I know what a child is, what it looks like, what it can bring in terms of both potential happiness and unhappiness, and I also know that if I choose to terminate the pregnancy, all of that will not come to pass.
I don't need any legal or medical definition of "when life starts" to tell me that.
And as long as my country isn't about to do away with abortion for good, it doesn't need them either.

If the only thing making you "anti abortion" is that you're not sure if abortion means "killing a person", then you kind of miss the point, IMHO.

It's my body (yes, I actually went there), it's my life, and I don't think anybody should have the right to mandate what to do with them. Thankfully, I have never been in the situation to have to make that decision, and I can only hope I never will, but I know that back when I was 20 (i.e. not 14), in a stable and financially well-off family (i.e. not in any kind of social or economical distress), and I slept with my boyfriend (i.e. not raped) and the condom broke (i.e. not having been careless about contraception), I *know* I would have had an abortion if I had gotten pregnant (I took the Morning After Pill, so I don't if I would have gotten pregnant.)

And yes, in light of my situation that might well have looked to anybody else like an irresponsible, self-indulgent act of someone who just couldn't face the consequences of what they had done.

But I tell you what (and yes, I am looking specifically at the men out there, who not coincidentally make up the majority of lawmakers) - as long as you've never been faced with your life being upended because of a stupid broken condom, you have no right to tell me what I can or can't do with my body. And no, having to pay alimony does not count. A man can just walk away from a child and keep on living his life exactly how he imagined, except for the inconvenience of having a a little less money and having to tell his girlfriends that, yeah, he has a kid somewhere.

A woman can't do that. Oh, sure, she can give the child up for adoption, which is actually a really worthy and excellent idea. If she feels like she could go through with carrying out the child, giving birth to it, giving it away, and live with that. You can't legislate her to do that.

And you sure shouldn't try to legislate it on the basis of when it's still a "clump of cells" and when it's "OMG a baby!".

That just doesn't make sense.

In the vast majority of cases, the sole reason the baby is present is because of an action performed by consent. It doesn't really matter if contraception was used or not; the act was consentual and therefore both partners have a responsibility to protect/nurture the baby. It hasn't done a single harmful thing to them.

I'd imagine it's been said before but the result of an action with consent does not mean they have a responsiblity to deal with it. Drivers in car accident consented to driven, do they have a responsibility to deal with the injuries?

In other cases, the baby still is not responsible in any way. It is the perfect innocent. You can argue that it still doesn't 'give' the baby the right to the mother's body, and I agree. Since you are given a choice:

1. Kill the baby
2. Support it unwillingly

Okay, assuming we're talking about past 28 weeks were you could argue it is a baby. Yes, they're given a choice. Their choice. They make the decision, and they have every right to choose either one.

One is distinctly more irrevocable than the other. In other words, I feel that the temporary suffering on the part of the mother is better than arbitrarily killing a human being (an action with an effect that lasts forever). Really, your decision in this case is based on how much value you give - or how much you don't give - to human life versus the value of that life.

It about the fact that for the time period of most abortions, it doesn't even qualify as life, so it's the mother's choice. When it does qualify, it stilll doesn't have a right to be in her body, and is still the mother's choice.

You know, I think the focus on "when does life start" is way too overrated in the discussion of abortion.

..

And you sure shouldn't try to legislate it on the basis of when it's still a "clump of cells" and when it's "OMG a baby!".

That just doesn't make sense.I think it's very important to focus on when life starts, for the sole reason of having the fetus and the mother on equal status morally. Then you can start weighing them against each other. If the fetus was not really anything, then obviously there would be no debate and I'd agree with the prochoice people. I've simply never been given a real reason as to why they are not people that deals in concrete fact.

Your opinion that makes you support abortion is, in my eyes, regrettable. I can see why you would want to see it that way. It's a case of weighing life vs. quality of life, and that's subjective. One thing I can't see, however, is how you or anyone else could determine the quality of life that the baby would have. Sure, you can see your own side, but can you see the other, so certaintly that you know it's better off dead? You can't make a good decision when you only look at one part of the problem.

I'm unconvinced that you know enough to responsibly make that decision.

<snip>
And you sure shouldn't try to legislate it on the basis of when it's still a "clump of cells" and when it's "OMG a baby!".

That just doesn't make sense.
well said.

for women, abortion isnt a lofty philosophical question ala hamlet... "is it nobler in the mind.."

its a practical, what do i want to do right now question. its "can i finish highschool with a baby?", "can i raise a child alone?", "do i have the emotional and financial strength to raise another child?"

women dont do it lightly. they dont wake up one morning and say "i think ill kill my baby". they do it because in a situation with no good solutions, they choose the one that makes the best sense to them.

making it illegal only compounds the tragedy.

I think it's very important to focus on when life starts, for the sole reason of having the fetus and the mother on equal status morally. Then you can start weighing them against each other. If the fetus was not really anything, then obviously there would be no debate and I'd agree with the prochoice people. I've simply never been given a real reason as to why they are not people that deals in concrete fact.

Your opinion that makes you support abortion is, in my eyes, regrettable. I can see why you would want to see it that way. It's a case of weighing life vs. quality of life, and that's subjective. One thing I can't see, however, is how you or anyone else could determine the quality of life that the baby would have. Sure, you can see your own side, but can you see the other, so certaintly that you know it's better off dead? You can't make a good decision when you only look at one part of the problem.

I'm unconvinced that you know enough to responsibly make that decision.

well arent you smarter than the average bear!

the mother and unborn child are morally equal when that "baby" is capable of living on its own outside of the mother. which is well reflected by the laws of most states in that abortion after a certain point is restricted to medical necessity rather than on demand.

Just another reason for abortion to be legal till a certian date. I don't know who could be against it when there is no brain still. Why not say that eggs are living creatures and everyone MUST be saved? Or how about sperm. XD

I think it's very important to focus on when life starts, for the sole reason of having the fetus and the mother on equal status morally. Then you can start weighing them against each other. If the fetus was not really anything, then obviously there would be no debate and I'd agree with the prochoice people. I've simply never been given a real reason as to why they are not people that deals in concrete fact.

I'm sure you have, at some point, and just ignore it.

Your opinion that makes you support abortion is, in my eyes, regrettable. I can see why you would want to see it that way. It's a case of weighing life vs. quality of life, and that's subjective. One thing I can't see, however, is how you or anyone else could determine the quality of life that the baby would have. Sure, you can see your own side, but can you see the other, so certaintly that you know it's better off dead? You can't make a good decision when you only look at one part of the problem.

Again, assuming you're talking about when the baby is actually alive to be killed, fine, maybe she doesn't know what "could have been" for the baby, but that doesn't remove her right to do as she pleases with it.

I'm unconvinced that you know enough to responsibly make that decision.

No one but you does, my friend. :rolleyes:

Just another reason for abortion to be legal till a certian date. I don't know who could be against it when there is no brain still. Why not say that eggs are living creatures and everyone MUST be saved? Or how about sperm. XD

Because the girl with those eggs hasn't had sex, so she needn't be punished.

well arent you smarter than the average bear!Why thank you. :)

the mother and unborn child are morally equal when that "baby" is capable of living on its own outside of the mother. which is well reflected by the laws of most states in that abortion after a certain point is restricted to medical necessity rather than on demand.Mind giving me your reasons for that view? I'm always interested, because I don't really see how dependence affects personhood, because there are plenty of people dependent on outside help to live. They are indeed considered people. Strange. No doubt you can clear that up for me.

Why thank you. :)

Mind giving me your reasons for that view? I'm always interested, because I don't really see how dependence affects personhood, because there are plenty of people dependent on outside help to live. They are indeed considered people. Strange. No doubt you can clear that up for me.
oh im sure youve read it many times in every abortion thread that has ever been on this forum. why dont save us both the time and look one up.

I'm sure you have, at some point, and just ignore it.And I'm sure you just dismiss my views, however good they are, however reasonable, because you most likely ignore them. I do try to see the points of other people's arguments. You're not even giving me an argument to see the point of - unless you mean that you're dogmatic and insulting. I get that.

Again, assuming you're talking about when the baby is actually alive to be killed, fine, maybe she doesn't know what "could have been" for the baby, but that doesn't remove her right to do as she pleases with it.If it's a person, then she obviously has no right to kill it without mitigating factors equal to the damage done by depriving it of life - life which she cannot quantify to judge against. If it isn't a person, then she does. Pretty simple.

No one but you does, my friend. :rolleyes:I'm not the one trying to shoot into the brush without checking first to see if someone's there (a very real possibility in this case). Since I can't check, and you can't check, and no one can check, it follows that we'd better not.

oh im sure youve read it many times in every abortion thread that has ever been on this forum. why dont save us both the time and look one up.I haven't assumed you know what I meant on my views, nor have I asked you to just go and look up some prolife stances elsewhere. I'd appreciate the same amount of respect from you, rather than some 'oh, go look up my argument yourself and save me some trouble.' Riiight. If you just want to say things without backing them up with an argument, here, then I have nothing to say to you - and you have nothing meaningful to say to me.

I think it's very important to focus on when life starts, for the sole reason of having the fetus and the mother on equal status morally. Then you can start weighing them against each other. If the fetus was not really anything, then obviously there would be no debate and I'd agree with the prochoice people. I've simply never been given a real reason as to why they are not people that deals in concrete fact.

Well, this is likely going to sound horrible, and be assured that I don't run through life yelling this from the hills or even consciously thinking it outside of such debates, but since you brought it up - the fetus and the mother are not on equal status morally. They're just - not.
I am a grown-up, fully formed person, and the fetus is something accidentally created by me and my partner, something that is growing inside of my body, something that is living only through me, something that I have complete control over.

However, that does not mean there would (or should) be no debate over it, because the point isn't what it is right now, but what it could be. Like I said, call it what you want, call it a clump of cells, call it a fetus, call it a person - those distinctions would only be important if abortion was illegal and you could persecute me for homicide based on the definition of "when life starts".
As for the topic at hand, the one thing that matters is that women have to choose between bringing a new life into the world or not. We know that. And we might indeed choose not to.

One thing I can't see, however, is how you or anyone else could determine the quality of life that the baby would have. Sure, you can see your own side, but can you see the other, so certaintly that you know it's better off dead?
Honestly, in most of the cases I don't think the question is if the child would be better off dead or not. I didn't even *think* about that question when I wrote my post above.
And I'm certainly not saying that most babies would be better off dead. I don't think so, in fact.
Which is exactly why no woman ever wants to be in the situation where she has to decide to keep the child or abort it. It's a terrible decision to make. And, maybe even more than adoption, it's one of which I'm sure many women will be haunted by.
That does not mean, however, that they should not be allowed to make that decision.

And just to be really polemic for a moment (and it's obviously not directed to you personally) - do you really think we would even *have* this debate if men were the ones who got pregnant and had to choose between their lives as they had imagined/planned them and having the child?

for women, abortion isnt a lofty philosophical question ala hamlet... "is it nobler in the mind.."

its a practical, what do i want to do right now question. its "can i finish highschool with a baby?", "can i raise a child alone?", "do i have the emotional and financial strength to raise another child?"

women dont do it lightly. they dont wake up one morning and say "i think ill kill my baby". they do it because in a situation with no good solutions, they choose the one that makes the best sense to them.

making it illegal only compounds the tragedy.

Yeah, that's what I mean, only much more succinct. :p

And I'm sure you just dismiss my views, however good they are, however reasonable, because you most likely ignore them. I do try to see the points of other people's arguments. You're not even giving me an argument to see the point of - unless you mean that you're dogmatic and insulting. I get that.

*sigh* There are biological criteria for being considered living. Until there's a functioning neural net, the fetus does not met these criteria as a whole, and is not a living organism. YOu're views are not reasonable, because it remains, through all points in pregnancy, the woman's choice. If you don't want an abortion, I'm fine with that, no one else has to think that though.

If it's a person, then she obviously has no right to kill it without mitigating factors equal to the damage done by depriving it of life - life which she cannot quantify to judge against. If it isn't a person, then she does. Pretty simple.

Actually, even when it is a person, she still has the right to remove it, whether it's killed in the process or not.

I'm not the one trying to shoot into the brush without checking first to see if someone's there. Since I can't check, and you can't check, and no one can check, it follows that we'd better not.

However., in this case, we know when there will be a person there, and even then, we have the right to shoot. You don't have to shoot, that's your choice.

I haven't assumed you know what I meant on my views, nor have I asked you to just go and look up some prolife stances elsewhere. I'd appreciate the same amount of respect from you, rather than some 'oh, go look up my argument yourself and save me some trouble.' Riiight. If you just want to say things without backing them up with an argument, here, then I have nothing to say to you - and you have nothing meaningful to say to me.
well ya know darlin', some people treat these forums as a version of greek hell where we are doomed to debate the same points of the same topics over and over again until the end of time.

im not one of them. i feel no need to do so. as an adult, i can opt out of any of the more tedious aspect of any topic that comes up. im sure that you can find many who willl love to repeat this debate for the 100th time.

if you see sisyphus, tell him its dinner time.

Well, this is likely going to sound horrible, and be assured that I don't run through life yelling this from the hills or even consciously thinking it outside of such debates, but since you brought it up - the fetus and the mother are not on equal status morally. They're just - not.See, this similar to my problem with religion, the requirement for belief. I just can't make myself do it, however hard I try, however hard I want it. I need facts, I need concrete realities, I need something tangible to think about. I can't do it in this case either, can't believe, because I know I could never live with myself with the fact that I might be wrong.

And just to be really polemic for a moment (and it's obviously not directed to you personally) - do you really think we would even *have* this debate if men were the ones who got pregnant and had to choose between their lives as they had imagined/planned them and having the child?I don't know. I'd like to think I'd react in the same way as I do now, because it'd be against my nature to do otherwise. I don't like for people to die, whoever they are, whatever their crime or lack thereof.

im not one of them. i feel no need to do so. as an adult, i can opt out of any of the more tedious aspect of any topic that comes up. im sure that you can find many who willl love to repeat this debate for the 100th time.The more tedius aspect, as in an actual reason for your views?

Nice talking to you then; adults are so much more refreshing than the kids. :)

However., in this case, we know when there will be a person there, and even then, we have the right to shoot. You don't have to shoot, that's your choice.I think that doing so would be classed as criminal negligence, or perhaps manslaughter if you killed someone. You apparently don't have unrestricted rights to shoot.

What I don't understand is: if people are into forcing women to have a child because it's murder to kill some cells...

...then why is in NOT murder to kill these SAME cells if they are produced by rape?

The argument, once you get down to it is this: if a woman becomes pregnant unwillingly, we should punish her -- unless she's a 'good,moral' girl who would never have wanted to have sex.
How come nobody has answered this?

How come nobody has answered this?I did, sort of, but only to say that rape doesn't make a difference in the value of the life created.

I think that doing so would be classed as criminal negligence, or perhaps manslaughter if you killed someone. You apparently don't have unrestricted rights to shoot.

Well, it's not a very good analogy, as being in a nearby bush is not the same as using your body, so I wouldn't think it'd make sense.

I did, sort of, but only to say that rape doesn't make a difference in the value of the life created.
So a raped woman should carry out the birth?

So a raped woman should carry out the birth?My original post:

In the vast majority of cases, the sole reason the baby is present is because of an action performed by consent. It doesn't really matter if contraception was used or not; the act was consentual and therefore both partners have a responsibility to protect/nurture the baby. It hasn't done a single harmful thing to them.

In other cases, the baby still is not responsible in any way. It is the perfect innocent. You can argue that it still doesn't 'give' the baby the right to the mother's body, and I agree. Since you are given a choice:

1. Kill the baby
2. Support it unwillingly

One is distinctly more irrevocable than the other. In other words, I feel that the temporary suffering on the part of the mother is better than arbitrarily killing a human being (an action with an effect that lasts forever). Really, your decision in this case is based on how much value you give - or how much you don't give - to human life versus the value of that life.

My original post:
Killing a human being and killing a person are two different things. I suppose you also believe that Terri Schiavo should have been kept on Life Support indefinitely.

My original post:
My response to said post, feel free to add:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10727014&postcount=136

See, this similar to my problem with religion, the requirement for belief. I just can't make myself do it, however hard I try, however hard I want it. I need facts, I need concrete realities, I need something tangible to think about. I can't do it in this case either, can't believe, because I know I could never live with myself with the fact that I might be wrong.We're kind of missing each other's point in this discussion, I think.

Basically, what I'm saying is that yes, this fetus in my womb would one day be a child, if I decided on keeping it. I think that's as certain and concrete and real as things can possibly get, isn't it?

By terminating the pregnancy, yes, I am terminating its chances to actually be born and be that child.

I totally agree on all that.

In consequence, I am not making my decision based on an assumption of "Eh, it's not really alive anyway, I'm pretty sure about that" or "Gee, I hope it's true that it's not really alive yet, because if science ever found out it was, I could never live with myself!"

I am making my decision in full knowledge that if I have an abortion, this child will not be born and will not live. I mean, of course I do! How could I not?
Do you really think that if I'm confronted with an unwanted pregnancy I'll sit there literally gazing at my navel and worrying about the definition of the bundle of cells growing inside me? Hell no, I'll have a billion other things racing through my mind.

The true dilemma of abortion is and always has been if I give this potential new life inside me the chance to actually be born and live its life or do I not.

And yes, it's a terrible decision to make.

One is distinctly more irrevocable than the other. In other words, I feel that the temporary suffering on the part of the mother is better than arbitrarily killing a human being (an action with an effect that lasts forever). Really, your decision in this case is based on how much value you give - or how much you don't give - to human life versus the value of that life.

This is what I'm talking about. If it's a case of rape, it's not just temporary suffering on the mother's part. People don't realize the reason why there's a need for the rape exception.

To be honest I used to be pro choice, ya know let em do what they want to. But then when my friend told me her mom was going to abort her...well that just changed my mind totally. I mean...I cannot think of what life would be like if i had never met this girl. She is the love of my life, ya know?

Now thats not to say that i believe that we should necissarily criminalize the action itself. Perhaps we could fund more groups that present the option of adoption or to just more so help the woman through her tough times.

To be honest I used to be pro choice, ya know let em do what they want to. But then when my friend told me her mom was going to abort her...well that just changed my mind totally. I mean...I cannot think of what life would be like if i had never met this girl. She is the love of my life, ya know?

Now thats not to say that i believe that we should necissarily criminalize the action itself. Perhaps we could fund more groups that present the option of adoption or to just more so help the woman through her tough times.

Ehh...Well, what if I told you Osama Bin Laden's mom was gonna abort him? Would you go back to Pro-Choice?

Oh, that is so unkind. :(

I've known several women who had abortions and it's a rare woman who doesn't agonize over that decision, sometimes to the point where it's almost too late to abort. :(

I can understand that. The term "parasite" has been used in the past by some rabid pro-choice people who use strong language like that to prove that there is nothing wrong with aborting the unborn. A couple in particular I can think of but I wouldn't want go down the path of flaming.

I found it to be an apt way of describing how the unborn child is supposively not worth saving.

I can understand that. The term "parasite" has been used in the past by some rabid pro-choice people who use strong language like that to prove that there is nothing wrong with aborting the unborn. A couple in particular I can think of but I wouldn't want go down the path of flaming.

I found it to be an apt way of describing how the unborn child is supposively not worth saving.

Eh, tis a technically sound term to use when describing a fetus, unlike terms such as "baby murderers"

Ehh...Well, what if I told you Osama Bin Laden's mom was gonna abort him? Would you go back to Pro-Choice?


nah..i mean politcall i am still leaning towards pro choice i guess..like i said don't criminalize it..but make programs to try and show some bad things about it i guess...But i have began to become more spiritual as of late, and i am seeing all life as precious not just the ones we choose to hold precious.

Eh, tis a technically sound term to use when describing a fetus, unlike terms such as "baby murderers"

I know. As I am pro-life I despise terms such as that but the baby does take nurishment from the mothers body so it could technically be called a parasite. Perhaps a joke to tell when he/she is older to make them behave. "You were a parasite on my body. You owe me." :p

Eh, tis a technically sound term to use when describing a fetus, unlike terms such as "baby murderers"

Or 'baby'.

These are not "humanizing" or "dehumanizing" terms -- they speak to the stage of development.
I am, after all, on your side in this discussion. I'm perfectly aware of all the relevant medical terminology. I just think that adding it to the general discussion about abortion only serves to elevate the rhetoric. No one I know uses those terms in day-to-day conversation.

One of the problems with the entire abortion "debate" is the level of rhetoric and the use/misuse of terminology. Both sides are very guilty of this. "Baby-killers, murder, etc." :(

I would also be rather dismayed if, in the process of slinging terminology at each other, the sides lost track of the fact that we are, in fact, discussing a human being, or at the very least a potential human being.

I might call you an 'adult,' but it hardly changes who/what you are.
Gee. Talk about being "underwhelmed!" :(

So what happens to those "wishes of the woman" when she's forced, against her will, to bear a baby to term???


Exactly. "Pro-life" isn't about saving the unborn so much as it's about controlling women.

We're kind of missing each other's point in this discussion, I think.

Basically, what I'm saying is that yes, this fetus in my womb would one day be a child, if I decided on keeping it. I think that's as certain and concrete and real as things can possibly get, isn't it?

By terminating the pregnancy, yes, I am terminating its chances to actually be born and be that child.

I totally agree on all that.

In consequence, I am not making my decision based on an assumption of "Eh, it's not really alive anyway, I'm pretty sure about that" or "Gee, I hope it's true that it's not really alive yet, because if science ever found out it was, I could never live with myself!"

I am making my decision in full knowledge that if I have an abortion, this child will not be born and will not live. I mean, of course I do! How could I not?
Do you really think that if I'm confronted with an unwanted pregnancy I'll sit there literally gazing at my navel and worrying about the definition of the bundle of cells growing inside me? Hell no, I'll have a billion other things racing through my mind.

The true dilemma of abortion is and always has been if I give this potential new life inside me the chance to actually be born and live its life or do I not.

And yes, it's a terrible decision to make.And that choice is one I've never seen not fall into the when question of when it gains its full rights. No one is capable of defining this concretely. You can't make a decision based on inadequate information unless you just decide, with little to no consideration of the baby's rights, if indeed you think it has any. Since you don't know, it's generally better to assume full rights, i.e., potentiality is eliminated. In this case, when both you and the baby have full rights, it then comes down to a 'might makes right' kind of ruling, with you as the only judge. I just don't think it is acceptable that people's entire lives are decided by one person whose temporary suffering is the sole reason given for killing them.

This is what I'm talking about. If it's a case of rape, it's not just temporary suffering on the mother's part. People don't realize the reason why there's a need for the rape exception.You realize that it's not exactly going to be a temporary bit of non-existance on the baby's part, don't you? What's done is done. The woman already has been raped, and there's nothing that can change that. You now have two people, and one may be hurt mentally by carrying to term, while the other will be stripped of their right to life if the choice is otherwise. Yes, it no doubt would hurt the mother. I don't argue with that. I think society should give far more support to them than it currently does. My point was that it would hurt the baby more.

Gee. Talk about being "underwhelmed!" :(Hehe. I'm sorry, you're right. Perhaps I should have said "senior citizen," or maybe "geriatric." :D

Exactly. "Pro-life" isn't about saving the unborn so much as it's about controlling women.I can tell you quite safely that in my case at least, you are wrong. Completely. I really don't care what people do, so long as it involves informed consent of all parties. It's not my job to be the morality police, and I won't take it upon myself to be them.

They were the people who reproduced... So it's a consequence of a choice. (If it was rape, I say allow abortion all the way, however.)

Do you consider it fair that one person (i.e. the woman) bears all of the consequences of what must have been the choices of at least two people (i.e. the man as well)?

snip.
I think I get you but what makes you right in taking away someone elses right to make this decision on their own? Do you support laws that would take away a woman's right to choose? Your arguments are obviously founded on an effort to be a good, decent person however much I may disagree with you. But how far would you be willing to go with ideas that you've come up with when it comes to forcing those ideas on other people?

Exactly. Anti-Abortion laws are idiotic because they encourage back-hand abortions, which hurt the women.

And that choice is one I've never seen not fall into the when question of when it gains its full rights. No one is capable of defining this concretely. You can't make a decision based on inadequate information unless you just decide, with little to no consideration of the baby's rights, if indeed you think it has any. Since you don't know, it's generally better to assume full rights, i.e., potentiality is eliminated. In this case, when both you and the baby have full rights, it then comes down to a 'might makes right' kind of ruling, with you as the only judge. I just don't think it is acceptable that people's entire lives are decided by one person whose temporary suffering is the sole reason given for killing them.

You realize that it's not exactly going to be a temporary bit of non-existance on the baby's part, don't you? What's done is done. The woman already has been raped, and there's nothing that can change that. You now have two people, and one may be hurt mentally by carrying to term, while the other will be stripped of their right to life if the choice is otherwise. Yes, it no doubt would hurt the mother. I don't argue with that. I think society should give far more support to them than it currently does. My point was that it would hurt the baby more.

Classic example of someone who can't see the forest because of the trees. Or more precisely, the living breathing human being is ignored in favor of the potential person.

If a pregnancy is terminated, there is no "baby" that suffers. It ceases to exist. Only a true misogynist would be so insensitive to the lives and rights of women to insists that they be forced to carry a pregnancy from rape to term. That is more than a temporary inconvenience. That is wholesale deprivation of control over ones own body. They can hardly be a more sacred right.

Life qua life is not the most important value, my friend. Liberty gives meaning to life. You would eschew liberty for the merely potentiality of life. (Or more acuractely you would deprive others of their liberty, with little or no cost to yourself.)

Classic example of someone who can't see the forest because of the trees. Or more precisely, the living breathing human being is ignored in favor of the potential person.

If a pregnancy is terminated, there is no "baby" that suffers. It ceases to exist. Only a true misogynist would be so insensitive to the lives and rights of women to insists that they be forced to carry a pregnancy from rape to term. That is more than a temporary inconvenience. That is wholesale deprivation of control over ones own body. They can hardly be a more sacred right.

Life qua life is not the most important value, my friend. Liberty gives meaning to life. You would eschew liberty for the merely potentiality of life. (Or more acuractely you would deprive others of their liberty, with little or no cost to yourself.)As a man, I would like to see some profolic female pro-lifers, as the majority are men who will never have to deal with pregnancy.

I think I get you but what makes you right in taking away someone elses right to make this decision on their own? Do you support laws that would take away a woman's right to choose? Your arguments are obviously founded on an effort to be a good, decent person however much I may disagree with you. But how far would you be willing to go with ideas that you've come up with when it comes to forcing those ideas on other people?I don't just magically get the right to take it their abilities away. I do have the right, as a citizen, to support measures which agree with my thoughts. These laws - heck, every law - is designed to impact people who may or may not agree with its position. Laws are meant to change behavior. I would have no qualms arguing for a law against abortions, but I would have problems with one that contained absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. I've already stated that sometimes it really is medically necessary that the option be there (like when there literally is no other choice; either one or none survive kind of situations), but that option should be tightly restricted for the reasons that I've given.

Thanks for actually not thinking I'm some sort of fundie saying this because of religion. I'm not. :)

Classic example of someone who can't see the forest because of the trees. Or more precisely, the living breathing human being is ignored in favor of the potential person.Not at all. I agree that it is a bad thing for the mother to have to carry the baby against her will. It's not 'right,' if you will. Unfortunately, this situation comes out to a choice between two wrongs, not a choice between a right and a wrong. I must choose the lesser wrong.

If a pregnancy is terminated, there is no "baby" that suffers. It ceases to exist.When a person is killed, that person ceases to exist as a person. There is no one around to be personally offended by the killer's actions. Yet, the deprivation of other's life is a tangible thing. We make laws based on it; we consider it wrong.

Only a true misogynist would be so insensitive to the lives and rights of women to insists that they be forced to carry a pregnancy from rape to term. That is more than a temporary inconvenience. That is wholesale deprivation of control over ones own body. They can hardly be a more sacred right.I am not any kind of mysogynist. I've never been called one in real life, though I've exposited this argument there as well. In fact, I rather love the women. They're definitely a good thing. :)

Pregnancy is temporary, however. Nine months. No more, no less. After that she can choose to end her association with the baby if she wishes. Were it possible, I'd remove it and put it in some artificial womb to let it develop. Until that time, we cannot eliminate the problem. It would be a definite wrong, both to her and to the baby, to force a relationship after it is no longer necessary for both to live.

Life qua life is not the most important value, my friend. Liberty gives meaning to life. You would eschew liberty for the merely potentiality of life. (Or more acuractely you would deprive others of their liberty, with little or no cost to yourself.)Liberty does give meaning to life, I agree. The only thing I don't like about your reasoning is the idea that a ban on killing innocents is an unwarranted infringment on personal freedoms. I think that such a ban would encourage and protect personal freedom, not end it - and a great many people agree with my position. I imagine you probably do as well. Obviously, freedom has limits. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Without such limits, I think there would be very little actual freedom going on.

And that choice is one I've never seen not fall into the when question of when it gains its full rights. No one is capable of defining this concretely. You can't make a decision based on inadequate information unless you just decide, with little to no consideration of the baby's rights, if indeed you think it has any. Since you don't know, it's generally better to assume full rights, i.e., potentiality is eliminated. In this case, when both you and the baby have full rights, it then comes down to a 'might makes right' kind of ruling, with you as the only judge. I just don't think it is acceptable that people's entire lives are decided by one person whose temporary suffering is the sole reason given for killing them.


Full rights does not include the right to anothers body.

Full rights does not include the right to anothers body.Full rights to both parties. They're in a situation where there is no way to seperate the two without violating a core right, the right to life. It so happens that either one or both of them are innocent of causing this situation to occur. It is never the baby's fault that the situation is as it is. If the sex was consentual, and both have equal rights, the 'fault,' such as it is, lies with the mother. Her actions directly led to the situation in question, regardless of whether she wanted them to or not. The baby should be allowed to live; it's unreasonable to take the baby's life as a fix for the mother's actions, even though it may make her life easier.

If they are both equally not at fault for the situation, and both have equal rights, then yes, I do think that the mother should bring the baby to term because the fetus' infringement is not willful. It's impossible for it to do other than it is doing; it has no choice. The mother most definitely has a choice. Aborting the baby would be similar to having someone chained to the inside of your house (not necessarily by you) and then shooting them because they wouldn't get out. I doubt that a judge would say you're just defending yourself and your rights. Those rights don't extend into your neighbor's nose. An unintentional infringement does not give you the right to perform an intentional, and far more grievous, infringement.

Full rights to both parties. They're in a situation where there is no way to seperate the two without violating a core right, the right to life. It so happens that either one or both of them are innocent of causing this situation to occur. It is never the baby's fault that the situation is as it is. If the sex was consentual, and both have equal rights, the 'fault,' such as it is, lies with the mother. Her actions directly led to the situation in question, regardless of whether she wanted them to or not. The baby should be allowed to live; it's unreasonable to take the baby's life as a fix for the mother's actions, even though it may make her life easier.

If they are both equally not at fault for the situation, and both have equal rights, then yes, I do think that the mother should bring the baby to term because the fetus' infringement is not willful. It's impossible for it to do other than it is doing; it has no choice. The mother most definitely has a choice. Aborting the baby would be similar to having someone chained to the inside of your house (not necessarily by you) and then shooting them because they wouldn't get out. I doubt that a judge would say you're just defending yourself and your rights. Those rights don't extend into your neighbor's nose. An unwilling infringement does not give you the right to perform an intentional, and far more grievous, infringement.

I like how the "fault" is the mother's, not the father's.

I like how the "fault" is the mother's, not the father's.The fault lies with both equally for starting the pregnancy. However, since the decision about abortions currently lies with only the mother, that is who the blame would go on if the had one performed. She must agree to it for it to happen. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Full rights to both parties. They're in a situation where there is no way to seperate the two without violating a core right, the right to life. It so happens that either one or both of them are innocent of causing this situation to occur. It is never the baby's fault that the situation is as it is. If the sex was consentual, and both have equal rights, the 'fault,' such as it is, lies with the mother. Her actions directly led to the situation in question, regardless of whether she wanted them to or not. The baby should be allowed to live; it's unreasonable to take the baby's life as a fix for the mother's actions, even though it may make her life easier.

Again after the fetus is a life this applies, and even then wherever you put the "fault" matters not, as it is the mother's right to remove the fetus, and if the mother was using the fetus, it'd be the fetus' right to remove the mother.

If they are both equally not at fault for the situation, and both have equal rights, then yes, I do think that the mother should bring the baby to term because the fetus' infringement is not willful. It's impossible for it to do other than it is doing; it has no choice. The mother most definitely has a choice. Aborting the baby would be similar to having someone chained to the inside of your house (not necessarily by you) and then shooting them because they wouldn't get out. I doubt that a judge would say you're just defending yourself and your rights. Those rights don't extend into your neighbor's nose.

It has no choice because at the time of the vast majority of abortions, it can't choose. And when it theorectically could, still the mother's right. If the person was chained to the house, there's better ways to get rid of them. A better analogy is someone who is in your house and basically lives off of you, while outside is a pack of lions waiting to eat him. He will surely die if he goes outside, but it's still your right to evict him. if we're trying to compare this to abortion.

An unintentional infringement does not give you the right to perform an intentional, and far more grievous, infringement.

Rather blanket-y...And I don't think that's how it works...

The fault lies with both equally for starting the pregnancy. However, since the decision about abortions currently lies with only the mother, that is who the blame would go on if the had one performed. She must agree to it for it to happen. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

So the father bears no responsibility for getting her pregnant in the first place?

Again after the fetus is a life this applies, and even then wherever you put the "fault" matters not, as it is the mother's right to remove the fetus, and if the mother was using the fetus, it'd be the fetus' right to remove the mother.Like I said, I haven't seen a single person who will give me a specific time that any particular fetus turns into a person and when it is not. Since I've never come across someone who can, I assume that it must be because I will not take the chance that I might be wrong.

It has no choice because at the time of the vast majority of abortions, it can't choose. And when it theorectically could, still the mother's right. If the person was chained to the house, there's better ways to get rid of them. A better analogy is someone who is in your house and basically lives off of you, while outside is a pack of lions waiting to eat him. He will surely die if he goes outside, but it's still your right to evict him. if we're trying to compare this to abortion.It would have no choice even if it did have the ability. And those are your lions; you decide whether he dies or not. Which is again an example of the 'might makes right' kind of thinking. You simply switch out the gun for lions, as if that makes you any less responsible for the man dying when you put him outside. You knew the lions were outside, and you knew they were hungry.

So the father bears no responsibility for getting her pregnant in the first place?Of course he does; I just told you that, didn't I? I simply said that the decision for abortions lies only with the woman, and therefore she is the one ultimately responsible for getting one. The man cannot force her.

Like I said, I haven't seen a single person who will give me a specific time that any particular fetus turns into a person and when it is not. Since I've never come across someone who can, I assume that it must be because I will not take the chance that I might be wrong.

Again, when it meets all requirements for being a living organism. I've been over that.

It would have no choice even if it did have the ability. And those are your lions; you decide whether he dies or not. Which is again an example of the 'might makes right' kind of thinking. You simply switch out the gun for lions, as if that makes you any less responsible for the man dying when you put him outside.

Of course you're responsible, you still have the right.

Like I said, I haven't seen a single person who will give me a specific time that any particular fetus turns into a person and when it is not. Since I've never come across someone who can, I assume that it must be because I will not take the chance that I might be wrong.


If you trip and fall.... at which point are you 'falling'? As you hit the ground, hands first, perhaps, then knees, maybe.... at which point are you 'fallen'?

If someone else is with you, and they fall at the same time... can you be sure they will be 'falling' and 'fallen' at the same time as you?

Nobody get me into a debate about morality - or when a foetus is a human etc. - But looking at it from a logical point of view - In Australia, we have a birth rate below reproducing level....and we have 100,000 abortions a year...surely that's a bad thing?

Err....That's your idea of a logical point of view on the matter? I don't remember when a fetus is a human being a morality thing.

Of course he does; I just told you that, didn't I? I simply said that the decision for abortions lies only with the woman, and therefore she is the one ultimately responsible for getting one. The man cannot force her.

Yes, but you are also saying that the father bears no moral responsibility for the abortion, because the woman makes the decision. Simple causation would suggest that if she had not gotten pregnant in the first place (through the necessary combination of her actions and the father's actions) the abortion would not be required. So even though the father does not necessarily participate in the decision, he bears some responsibility.

Again, when it meets all requirements for being a living organism. I've been over that.You mean these?

1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I can think of several situations where these are not fully met even by entities who are indeed people. Clearly, a concrete definition of life does not seem to be possible. This does not rule out that you do not, in fact, know from one point to the next whether or not a fetus is truly a person.


Of course you're responsible, you still have the right.I would personally think of that as murder, given that you knew those lions would eat him. To each his own, I guess. Good luck trying to get off the hook by saying that to a judge; it's your call.

My lawn is 'my' property. If someone stands on the edge of it, can I shove them off into the car that I see coming because they're on my lawn? How dare they stand there? I have every right to shove them off.

Nope, I disagree. In fact, if you did that, I'd want to see you in jail for a good long time.

Yes, but you are also saying that the father bears no moral responsibility for the abortion, because the woman makes the decision. Simple causation would suggest that if she had not gotten pregnant in the first place (through the necessary combination of her actions and the father's actions) the abortion would not be required. So even though the father does not necessarily participate in the decision, he bears some responsibility.You're right, he does bear some responsibility, though not so much as the person who actually decided to go through with it. I might be partially responsible for a lot of things that influence other's decisions, but am not responsible for what they decide to the degree they are. Thanks for clarifying. :)

You mean these?

1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I can think of several situations where these are not fully met even by entities who are indeed people. Clearly, a concrete definition of life does not seem to be possible. This does not rule out that you do not, in fact, know from one point to the next whether or not a fetus is truly a person.

These "several situations" being?

I would personally think of that as murder, given that you knew those lions would eat him. To each his own, I guess. Good luck trying to get off the hook by saying that to a judge; it's your call.

Well I would think you personally wouldn't do it. You have the right, doesn't mean you must exercise it. To each their own indeed.

My lawn is 'my' property. If someone stands on the edge of it, can I shove them off into the car that I see coming because they're on my lawn? How dare they stand there? I have every right to shove them off.

Property and body aren't quite the same, which is why an analogy is a little tougher. Not to mention there's probbly a space between the lawn and traffic you could push him into.

Nope, I disagree. In fact, if you did that, I'd want to see you in jail for a good long time.

Shocking. :rolleyes:

1. Yes that is my logical view on the matter

2. Re previous posting - I don't want to get into any other debate about morality, or feotuses etc.....I don't care if it is or isn't a morality debate - I was just looking at the logical point of view.

The logical point of view is looking at the population trend to decide?

pretty much - we need more children in Australia - otherwise we will face a bigger crisis than the European countries in caring for the aging.

...Err...Okay then...

wonderful - u agree.....or if u don't, u can find no logical arguments against it

Eh, I didn't think it was worth it. I'd imagine there's few that share your veiwpoint, maybe if more come up I'd see to arguing against it.

These "several situations" being?Consider a mule. It has no reproductive capability whatsoever; not a single mule will ever reproduce. It is still classified as life, even though clearly that is a requirement. It's not possible to say that those rules apply to everything, because there are clearly exceptions.

Well I would think you personally wouldn't do it. You have the right, doesn't mean you must exercise it. To each their own indeed.Is this a right similar to the one that says that you must have complete freedom, even to take the life of another, because without that ability your freedom is infringed? Because frankly, I don't think that's a right.

Property and body aren't quite the same, which is why an analogy is a little tougher. Not to mention there's probbly a space between the lawn and traffic you could push him into.Pretend there's no space, just as with the lions. He's going to die if you push him, and you know it. I would hold you responsible for murder in that situation, and so would a lot of people.

Shocking. :rolleyes:Indeed. :D

Consider a mule. It has no reproductive capability whatsoever; not a single mule will ever reproduce. It is still classified as life, even though clearly that is a requirement. It's not possible to say that those rules apply to everything, because there are clearly exceptions.

Is this a right similar to the one that says that you must have complete freedom, even to take the life of another, because without that ability your freedom is infringed? Because frankly, I don't think that's a right.

Pretend there's no space, just as with the lions. He's going to die if you push him, and you know it. I would hold you responsible for murder in that situation, and so would a lot of people.

Indeed. :D
Your instance with the mule would only be correct if it did not also produce new cells.

Really though, its not an issue whether or not the fetus is living or if it's a human being. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with considering both true of a fetus. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a certain amount of weight to the decision of whether or not to get an abortion. It is also not right to describe a fetus as a person, barring perhaps the third trimester when it begins to develop more fully. The issue is whether or not a fetus has rights and if it does, do those rights trump the rights of the mother.

You're right, he does bear some responsibility, though not so much as the person who actually decided to go through with it. I might be partially responsible for a lot of things that influence other's decisions, but am not responsible for what they decide to the degree they are. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Thanks. In this case, though, I think the responsibility is pretty direct. Also, in alot of cases, the mother's decision to have an abortion is at least partially influenced by the fact that the father is not prepared to have the child either, strengthening their responsibility. Arguably, knowing the potential consequences, it is irresponsible for a man to have sex (At least, without proper protection) with a woman who he is not prepared to raise a child with.

Actually, cancer can happen other ways. But come on. You don't want a baby, then DON'T HAVE SEX! It's that simple. This is a life we are talking about.
Pregnancy can happen other ways to. There was a case recently, where a women had previously engaged in oral sex and was later stabbed and the sperm left on her skin got into the wound and travelled into her womb. It's documented by the AMA if you want a source.

The life part is debatable. Is you heart a life? It can live independantly of your body, under the right circumstances. It will fight to survive. It contains the entire human genetic code of it's host.

Consider a mule. It has no reproductive capability whatsoever; not a single mule will ever reproduce. It is still classified as life, even though clearly that is a requirement. It's not possible to say that those rules apply to everything, because there are clearly exceptions.

There's the matter of cells, and then there's: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2290491.stm

Is this a right similar to the one that says that you must have complete freedom, even to take the life of another, because without that ability your freedom is infringed? Because frankly, I don't think that's a right.

It's more about the fetus' lack of a right to the mother's body, even if that's the only waay it'll survive.

Pretend there's no space, just as with the lions. He's going to die if you push him, and you know it. I would hold you responsible for murder in that situation, and so would a lot of people.

Well, trespassing and involuntary slavery are a bit different, but I imagine he has no right to be on your (assumed) private property.

Is this a right similar to the one that says that you must have complete freedom, even to take the life of another, because without that ability your freedom is infringed? Because frankly, I don't think that's a right.


It naturally extends from your right to life that you also have the right to the things that sustain that right to life. Conversely, you also have the right to refuse actions that would impede your ability to survive; that is the essence of the right to liberty of person. If you do not have the right to liberty, then you live only by the whim of another, which is no sure and certain basis for survival. As such, I see no particular problem with the assertion that yes, you do have the right to liberty even up to the termination of the life of another, because as surely as you have the right to kill in self-defense, you also have the right to refuse that which impedes your survival.

As another aside, when it becomes life is immaterial. Broccoli is alive, yet we don't accord it any rights on that basis. The question is when the embryo becomes rational, because that is what we base our notion of rights on, and in the case of an embryo at the end of the first trimester, the answer is: not yet. It simply doesn't have the mental capacity for rationality.

More importantly, however, having read your posts, I see two clear errors in your thinking. The first is that life is an unmitigated good, and the termination thereof is an unmitigated bad. The second is an extremely errant, if common, mistake about who aborts their fetuses and why.

The first place you err is in your assumption that death is a punishment of the fetus. I don't see why this is necessarily so. For one thing, even a cursory glance of the Bible demonstrates numerous occasions where death could have been avoided, yet people did not: Jesus, Stephen, Peter, Paul, and several others were willing to die rather than live life in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs. The same is true of non-religious great minds, like Socrates or Joan of Arc. Now, I don't say this to compare abortion to the crucifiction. Rather, I draw the analogy to point out that for people most Christians call saints, and even non-religious people call great men and women, death was not a punishment. Note that in several cases, like Jesus, Socrates, and Joan, they could have lived if only they had recanted their beliefs. They chose otherwise. If that is the case, then why is death in your view the absolute most grievous end?

Secondly, your whole notion of choice to abort assumes that women are in the circumstances to have a choice. That almost presupposes that you are talking about a middle-class person with their whole life in front of them; in point of fact, your typing almost suggests that you have in mind some cheerleader in the suburbs who fooled around with her boyfriend or something like that. The problem of course is that few people fit this stereotype, and many who do not effectively do not have a choice. For every cheerleader who gets knocked up by her high-school boyfriend, there is a working-class mother of three whose birth control failed, and whose income with her husband just isn't enough to support a fourth child. For every slut whose condom broke, there's a rape victim. For every girl who got drunk at the Girls Gone Wild college party in Tijuana, there's some fourteen year old girl (and don't give me that crap about her being fully in control of her actions; we don't let fourteen year-olds vote because we assume they aren't fully rational, but they're rational enough to raise a child?) whose parents will abandon her if she has a baby. The point is that life is not always a neat little black-and-white Sunday school lesson. Life is sometimes hard, and it often throws you a curve. When those curves come, you have to assume that some people are going to have hard choices to make, and further that some people will make the wrong choice in your estimation. Nevertheless, you have to have a law that allows them to make those hard choices, because it is the central premise of the law that this is no heaven, and men are no angels.

How come nobody has answered this?

For the same reason no one has answered my question about whether the attitudes would be the same if men could be surgically forced to carry their child to term if the woman did not want it.

Because the answer is far too hypocritical to deal with. Better to ignore it and hope it goes away.

For the same reason no one has answered my question about whether the attitudes would be the same if men could be surgically forced to carry their child to term if the woman did not want it.

Because the answer is far too hypocritical to deal with. Better to ignore it and hope it goes away.

I answered this a page or so back and I believe Shotagon and others did as well.

Anyone notice this little paragraph? (I'm not wading through 14 pages--so sue me.) It's from the bottom of page 3 of the article.
Abortion as it exists in El Salvador today tends to operate on three levels. The well-off retain the "right to choose" that comes of simply having money. They can fly to Miami for an abortion, or visit the private office of a discreet and well-compensated doctor. Among the very poor, you can still find the back-alley world described by D.C. and the others who turn up in hospitals with damaged or lacerated wombs. Then there are the women in the middle; they often rely on home-brewed cures that are shared on the Internet or on a new underground railroad that has formed to aid them. As always, if you've got money, you can get around the law. It's always poor women who get fucked by these kinds of policies--never the rich.

I answered this a page or so back and I believe Shotagon and others did as well.
did you answer that, having looked at the photos, the blastocyte (thats now how it was labled) is the moral equivalent of a 4 month old baby?

As always, if you've got money, you can get around the law. It's always poor women who get fucked by these kinds of policies--never the rich.

Isn't it always like that? The rich are always able to get away with things and have privliges that us mere peons can ever hope to have.

Anyone notice this little paragraph? (I'm not wading through 14 pages--so sue me.) It's from the bottom of page 3 of the article.
As always, if you've got money, you can get around the law. It's always poor women who get fucked by these kinds of policies--never the rich.

as it would be if abortion were outlawed here.

a "european vacation" and its all taken care of. while the poor women end up on a lifetime of government support for all the children they were forced to carry to term.

did you answer that, having looked at the photos, the blastocyte (thats now how it was labled) is the moral equivalent of a 4 month old baby?

What? I made no comments on that.

What? I made no comments on that.
oh im sorry, i thought that kat was asking why no one had commented on the post with the photos.

which post of hers DID you respond to?

There is currently NO absolutely correct answer to the conundrum of abortion. I guess I might be pro-choice. I still think that people should take responsibility for their actions, though. Maybe a yearly limit to the number of abortions any couple can have (yes, couple. no deadbeat dads, please.)

There is currently NO absolutely correct answer to the conundrum of abortion. I guess I might be pro-choice. I still think that people should take responsibility for their actions, though. Maybe a yearly limit to the number of abortions any couple can have (yes, couple. no deadbeat dads, please.)

Actually, there probably is. This is't a theology debate where, infuriatingly, nothing can be proven. Yeah...somehow, an abortion quota seems....not so well thought out? What's the reasoning behind that anyways?

oh im sorry, i thought that kat was asking why no one had commented on the post with the photos.

which post of hers DID you respond to?

I simply mentioned that I do not accept the idea of a rape exception with abortion because it is hypocritical. The unborn child's life is the most important and trying to say so at the same time as saying that those women a victim of rape can get abortions? Makes no sense. It may not be popular but I try not to act like a hypocrite myself.

I simply mentioned that I do not accept the idea of a rape exception with abortion because it is hypocritical. The unborn child's life is the most important and trying to say so at the same time as saying that those women a victim of rape can get abortions? Makes no sense. It may not be popular but I try not to act like a hypocrite myself.

Eh, makes sense...When it's a life.

Eh, makes sense...When it's a life.

Can make the arguement back and forth of it is or is not a life. What it comes down to for me is that even if it is not "alive" until it takes its first breath doesn't matter because it will become a future human being and we have no right to stop that from happening.

Actually, there probably is. This is't a theology debate where, infuriatingly, nothing can be proven. Yeah...somehow, an abortion quota seems....not so well thought out? What's the reasoning behind that anyways?

My reasoning was along the lines of "yeah, people make mistakes, but making the same mistake four times in one year is really, really dumb."

I dunno. I don't have a uterus. I don't have a girlfriend. Next time I'm in a relationship we'll discuss the matter before we go anywhere in that direction. If more people did so, I think there'd be a lot less of this problem going on.

I simply mentioned that I do not accept the idea of a rape exception with abortion because it is hypocritical. The unborn child's life is the most important and trying to say so at the same time as saying that those women a victim of rape can get abortions? Makes no sense. It may not be popular but I try not to act like a hypocrite myself.
as perhaps one wouldnt be allowed to kill an actual baby just because it is the product of rape

i also dont see the origins of the pregnancy as having any bearing on whether or not an abortion should be legal. the circumstances of conception would be far too difficult to prove.

i believe that before viability, and especially before having developed enough of a nervous system to feel pain, the decision to abort is best left to the woman alone. once she has had a reasonable chance to decide if she wants to have a baby, she shouldnt have the right to abort for any but medical reasons.

Can make the arguement back and forth of it is or is not a life. What it comes down to for me is that even if it is not "alive" until it takes its first breath doesn't matter because it will become a future human being and we have no right to stop that fromhappening.

Well, technically, we do, but this is an arguement from potential, which isn't about to work.

For example, if I were to talk about...say...Terminally ill patients:

"What it comes down to for me is that even if it is not "[dead]" until it takes its [last] breath doesn't matter because it will become a future human [cadaver] and we have..." Every right to harvest their organs now. If we treat a potential human as human, we treat a potential corpse as a corpse, or a pontential criminal as a criminal.

Well, technically, we do, but this is an arguement from potential, which isn't about to work.

For example, if I were to talk about...say...Terminally ill patients:

"What it comes down to for me is that even if it is not "[dead]" until it takes its [last] breath doesn't matter because it will become a future human [cadaver] and we have..." Every right to harvest their organs now. If we treat a potential human as human, we treat a potential corpse as a corpse, or a pontential criminal as a criminal.

I'm talking about protecting a human life. Going to extremes with an arguement is what does not work as those scenarios have nothing to do with abortion. We are talking about this one issue and to me it works and just because it obviously doesn't in other matters doesn't make it any less valid.

How about if we can implant the baby into the father and force him to carry it to term. What say you?

Without his sperm, it never would have happened. And hey, if he didn't want a baby, he shouldn't have had sex.

As strange as it may sound, frankly, if it were my child, we'd be discussing here, I'd be all for that in preference to aborting the baby. With no hesitation. I have a very definite and profound dislike for the practice of abortion. However, it's much like any major decision in life we are faced with, in that it is a private one, and the person and only that person making that decision will have to deal with the potential repercussions of that act. Ultimately we have to do what is best for ourselves. I would not attempt to make that kind of decision for her. And forcing her to carry the child to term is most definitely not the answer. She is the one that would be carrying the child to term after all.

I do however have a problem with justices of the Supreme Court writing their own laws for Americans, based on their own political beliefs. That is not why they are there. They are there to interpret the law. I think it should be left up to individual states to decide their own abortion laws, or any laws for that matter when you get down to it. That's part of the problem with the whole abortion debate. Most people seem to interpret that overturning Roe vs. Wade would automatically mean outlawing abortion. It does not. What it does mean however, is that it would then be left up to individual states to draft their own law. And given how thoroughly the U.S. Government screws up almost every other thing they touch, I think that more states' rights in all areas is a good thing. They would be more in touch to the needs of their constituents, and by necessity, held more accountable to the decisions they would make as our representatives. As opposed to how it is now.....

Then once the laws are passed, it becomes up to you to decide if you want to live under a law or laws you may personally find onerous. Then if you decide you can't live with that, you know what to do.

For the same reason no one has answered my question about whether the attitudes would be the same if men could be surgically forced to carry their child to term if the woman did not want it.

Because the answer is far too hypocritical to deal with. Better to ignore it and hope it goes away.

I'd still be anti-abortion if men had babies. It doesnt matter to me whose rights are being infinged upon, gender would not come into the equation.

A bit off tangent, but it's a curiousity.

For all Pro-Lifers:

Your argument is that if a woman has sex, and gets pregnant, then it is her responsibility as a result of a choice to have sex. However, a woman cannot get pregnant by herself.

So, thus, if the woman must be held legally responsible for the child, then so must the male. Whomever enpregated the woman must be held LEGALLY responsible, and must legally care for and provide for the child(unless both parties decide to adopt away the child). Is there any disagreement? If one does not agree that the father must be held legally accountable, it would seem inconsistent.

A bit off tangent, but it's a curiousity.

For all Pro-Lifers:

Your argument is that if a woman has sex, and gets pregnant, then it is her responsibility as a result of a choice to have sex. However, a woman cannot get pregnant by herself.

So, thus, if the woman must be held legally responsible for the child, then so must the male. Whomever enpregated the woman must be held LEGALLY responsible, and must legally care for and provide for the child(unless both parties decide to adopt away the child). Is there any disagreement? If one does not agree that the father must be held legally accountable, it would seem inconsistent.
Even if pro-lifers do think men should be legally responsible (and there are some who don't), the view is still inconsistent because, without the right to abort, the burden is absolutely unavoidable for the woman but it remains avoidable for the man.

Just think of the 1000s of deadbeat dads right now who refuse to pay a penny for the upkeep of their children despite severe state laws that would force them to. Some men are willing to go to great lengths to avoid this responsibility. They relocate to less strict states, even refuse to get jobs in order to avoid having their salaries garnished, or in extreme cases, actually go into hiding and change their identities. If they are rich, they hide their assets off shore. They have even moved to other countries to get out of US (or their home country's) jurisdiction.

Anti-choicers would claim that they want the law to bind both men and women equally, but they are still creating a situation that the man can escape and the woman can't. No equality there.

Frankly, I think the issue of how consistent anti-choicers are in their views of male and female responsibility can be answered by how often they complain about men choosing to have sex versus how often they complaing about women choosing to have sex.

My reasoning was along the lines of "yeah, people make mistakes, but making the same mistake four times in one year is really, really dumb."

I dunno. I don't have a uterus. I don't have a girlfriend. Next time I'm in a relationship we'll discuss the matter before we go anywhere in that direction. If more people did so, I think there'd be a lot less of this problem going on.
I would absolutely love to know how many women in the world have had 4 abortions in one year. I would really like to know if this is an actual problem.

I simply mentioned that I do not accept the idea of a rape exception with abortion because it is hypocritical. The unborn child's life is the most importantand trying to say so at the same time as saying that those women a victim of rape can get abortions? Makes no sense. It may not be popular but I try not to act like a hypocrite myself.
The unborn child's life is the most important -- what? The most important life? More important than the woman's? If the fetus's life is the most important thing, then I presume you would not permit abortion to save the mother's life, either. I fail to see how you can think the fetus's life is the most important of all lives in the situation and not demand that women be willing to sacrifice their own lives for its sake.

Is that your position?

yeah, i read the first 5 pages or so (i get the nyt in my email), and then i lost interest. abortion

Shotagon, you made so many statements that I'd like to respond to that I can't possibly pick out all of them, so I'm to you fresh, indirectly referencing all your posts so far.

Like Ashmoria, I have no intention of getting involved in yet another endless, circular argument over when life begins or when a fetus becomes a person. Instead, just for the sake of carrying on this particular argument, I will stipulate that the fetus is a person and ask you the following questions:

First, I'd like to state that if you say that a woman has no right to abort a pregnancy because that would kill the fetus which is a person and has the rights of a person, then you are also saying that the fetus, as a person, has a right to use a woman's body for its own purposes -- i.e. gestation -- whether she likes it or not. On the basis of this:

1. If a fetus is a person of equal value to the woman who is carrying it, then is the fetus also a person of equal value to other people, meaning men and other women?

2. If the fetus is allowed, on the basis of its personhood, to use the woman's body for its purposes, even against her will, why can't other people also be able to use the woman's body for their purposes -- blood or organ donation, surrogate motherhood -- even if it is against her will? After all, they are people, just like the fetus, right? If it has that right, why shouldn't they, especially if their lives or the lives of their children depend on it?

3. Do you believe that all people, male and female, should be forced to donate blood and organs, even if against their will? In other words, if you are saying that women should have no right control who gets to use their bodies, do you mean that nobody should have that right, or only women?

4. If you only believe that women should be denied the right to control use of their own bodies by others, how can you say that the fetus and the woman are equals as persons? You seem actually to be saying that the fetus has greater rights than the woman because you are giving it the right to use and control her.

5. If you would argue that only fetuses have the right to use women's bodies against their will (i.e. that others don't also have that right), then are you not giving the fetus greater rights than all born people?

6. What is the basis for saying people have the right to use others before they are born but not after? After all, my life might depend on getting your kidney. Why should you not be forced to give it to me if it is a match? Or let's not even go so far as a kidney. Why should I not be able to force you to donate your blood to me, if I need it and it's a match?

This will do to start with. I will be interested to read your answers.

Actually, cancer can happen other ways. But come on. You don't want a baby, then DON'T HAVE SEX! It's that simple. This is a life we are talking about.

Don't want a baby, don't have a baby. ;)

The unborn child's life is the most important -- what? The most important life? More important than the woman's? If the fetus's life is the most important thing, then I presume you would not permit abortion to save the mother's life, either. I fail to see how you can think the fetus's life is the most important of all lives in the situation and not demand that women be willing to sacrifice their own lives for its sake.

Is that your position?

There are too many possible scenarios to get into but if there is a complication with the pregnancy and it turns into either the mother or the unborn baby then since the child cannot speak the mother would have to make a choice whether to risk it or not. This however is only a tiny percentage. In most cases the mother will just have to deal with the pregnancy itself and if they do not want the child give him/her up for adoption. If the choice is either killing the unborn child or sparing the woman 9 months of pregnancy then to me there is no real choice of what is most important.

Again I say, as cold as it seems, the 'child' is nothing but a parisite in the woman's body. In fact if the 'child' didn't hyjake her body the woman's body would distroy it.
I don't like the idea of abortion at all but it should not be illegal. To many people are trying to make morallity decisions for other people and the law isn't for morallity, it is for legality.
I personally would like to to be allowed upto the end of the first trimester. But that is just my opinion. No real reason why the 1st trimester. Probably becuase it would be easier on all the parties involved.

There are too many possible scenarios to get into but if there is a complication with the pregnancy and it turns into either the mother or the unborn baby then since the child cannot speak the mother would have to make a choice whether to risk it or not. This however is only a tiny percentage. In most cases the mother will just have to deal with the pregnancy itself and if they do not want the child give him/her up for adoption. If the choice is either killing the unborn child or sparing the woman 9 months of pregnancy then to me there is no real choice of what is most important.
This is a rather flabby dodge. Let's try it again. You stated that the fetus's life is the most important. Well, is it or isn't it? If the woman gets to kill the fetus to save herself, then the fetus's life is not the most important life, is it?

Again I say, as cold as it seems, the 'child' is nothing but a parisite in the woman's body. In fact if the 'child' didn't hyjake her body the woman's body would distroy it.
I don't like the idea of abortion at all but it should not be illegal. To many people are trying to make morallity decisions for other people and the law isn't for morallity, it is for legality.
I personally would like to to be allowed upto the end of the first trimester. But that is just my opinion. No real reason why the 1st trimester. Probably becuase it would be easier on all the parties involved.
most abortions are legal somewhat past the first trimester. but its still in the "no harm no foul" zone. there isnt a baby yet, just the start of one. the fetus doesnt suffer. what could have ended up as a baby now won't.

as pregnancy tests get better (the one on the tv says it can tell that a woman is pregnant before she even misses a period) abortions get earlier. the later ones are reserved for women who wanted a baby but have found out that the fetus has some kind of problem that they feel would be better avoided by having an abortion.

Again I say, as cold as it seems, the 'child' is nothing but a parisite in the woman's body. In fact if the 'child' didn't hyjake her body the woman's body would distroy it.
I don't like the idea of abortion at all but it should not be illegal. To many people are trying to make morallity decisions for other people and the law isn't for morallity, it is for legality.
I personally would like to to be allowed upto the end of the first trimester. But that is just my opinion. No real reason why the 1st trimester. Probably becuase it would be easier on all the parties involved.
The bolded phrase is one of the most important aspects of this entire issue. Thanks for mentioning it (cool wording, btw). Anti-choicers are trying to impose morality through law, but it cannot be done. Prohibition of alcohol is just one recent, dramatic example of how morality laws fail disastrously. I know of no morality law success stories. All countries that outlaw abortions will end up like El Salvador, or else with a hypocritical wink-and-nod system of non-enforcement of laws that are nothing but moralistic window-dressing. Either way, such laws would be repealed, but not until they had done terrible damage to society, like the organized crime legacy of Prohibition.

BTW, early in the first trimester is when the vast majority of abortions are done. The anti-choice movement seeks to undermine a woman's right to control her own reproductive life, using propaganda based on a small minority of usually non-elective procedures.

I will never understand the logic behind the pro-lifers' assertion that a small collection of undifferentiated cells is already a full-fledged human being.

It's pretty flimsy logic completely on conjecture from religious beliefs.

COMMENTARY: For those who think making abortion illegal is a good idea, I dare you to read this article!


Pro-Life Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?th&emc=th)


Published: April 9, 2006
It was a sunny midafternoon in a shiny new global-economy mall in San Salvador, the capital city of El Salvador, and a young woman I was hoping to meet appeared to be getting cold feet. She had agreed to rendezvous with a go-between not far from the Payless shoe store and then come to a nearby hotel to talk to me. She was an hour late. Alone in the hotel lobby, I was feeling nervous; I was stood up the day before by another woman in a similar situation. I had been warned that interviewing anyone who had had an abortion in El Salvador would be difficult. The problem was not simply that in this very Catholic country a shy 24-year-old unmarried woman might feel shame telling her story to an older man. There was also the criminal stigma. And this was why I had come to El Salvador: Abortion is a serious felony here for everyone involved, including the woman who has the abortion. Some young women are now serving prison sentences, a few as long as 30 years.


http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3774/abortedtried7dx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Donna Ferrato for The New York Times
D.C. had a so-called back-alley abortion in El Salvador. She wound up in the hospital — and in court.


More than a dozen countries have liberalized their abortion laws in recent years, including South Africa, Switzerland, Cambodia and Chad. In a handful of others, including Russia and the United States (or parts of it), the movement has been toward criminalizing more and different types of abortions. In South Dakota, the governor recently signed the most restrictive abortion bill since the Supreme Court ruled in 1973, in Roe v. Wade, that state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. The South Dakota law, which its backers acknowledge is designed to test Roe v. Wade in the courts, forbids abortion, including those cases in which the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Only if an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother is the procedure permitted. A similar though less restrictive bill is now making its way through the Mississippi Legislature.

In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.

There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal. Like the woman I was waiting to meet.

I was on my sixth cup of coffee when I spotted my contacts — two abortion rights advocates who work in the region and a local nurse who had heard this young woman's story. They entered the lobby surrounding another woman like Secret Service agents. A quick glance let me know that I shouldn't make a premature appearance. Even as I retreated to some large sofas, I could hear the Spanish flying — words of comfort, of being brave, of the importance that others understand what is happening in El Salvador. At last the retinue approached. I was not quite ready for what I saw. The woman, I had been told, lived in a hovel in a very poor part of the town. Somehow that had put a certain picture in my head. I don't know, call it sexism. I just didn't expect to see a tall and strikingly beautiful woman with the kind of big grin that could very well appear in one of those full-page ads you might see in an airline magazine inviting people to "Vacation in El Salvador!"

We chatted briefly about the one thing I knew we had in common — malls — before we went up to a quiet hotel room, where she and I could talk. One intermediary acted as our interpreter. I agreed to call her by her initials, D.C.; she is afraid to be identified by name, though she did agree to be photographed. (While it was impossible to confirm every detail of her story, I did later see legal records that corroborated her description of events.) D.C. sat down, and now that we were ready to talk about her experience, she started to cry. She wiped her eyes several times with a paper napkin. She spent a few minutes folding and twisting it. D.C. crossed her ankles and stared down at the shrinking napkin, now tightly compacted into a large pill. Then she began to tell me her story.

I worked in a clothing factory two years ago. I have a son, 7 years old. Well, when I found out I was pregnant, I didn't know what to do. I told my friend. She told me if I was going to have it, I needed to think about that. I had a child already. I told the father. He said he didn't want another child. He didn't want to deal with problems like this. My mother told me she would kick me out if I ever got pregnant again.

I started talking to my friend. Every day was so hard. I cried, and I didn't do anything. I didn't want to see anybody, and I didn't sleep. My friend told me to go to a man, and he gave me some pills. I was two months pregnant. He said that I could put them in my vagina. I did, and after that I just bled a couple of times. Two months more went by. I was still pregnant. I cried and didn't know what to do. When I was about four months along, my friend told me one of her friends lived near a house where there was a woman who did abortions. I felt so worried. I didn't know what to do, whether I should go talk to the woman. But then one day, I went.

With the signing of the Chapultepec Agreements in Mexico in 1992, El Salvador's civil war came to an end. As the nation turned away from its violent years, there were calls from both sides of the political divide that it was time to re-examine certain social issues. One of them was abortion. The country's abortion law, like the law in most Latin American countries at the time, was already a near-ban with only a few exceptions, specifically in cases of rape, serious fetal malformation and grave risk to the mother's life. For decades, the law was rarely discussed, and enforced quietly and somewhat subjectively. Once the issue was raised in the political arena, though, Salvadorans discovered that a brand-new kind of discourse on abortion had emerged in Latin America.

[ This article is seven pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th)! ]

Go El Salvador!:cool:

Go El Salvador!:cool:

yeah thats the kind of country *I* want to live in

especially this part
the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal. Like the woman I was waiting to meet.

wouldnt you LOVE to live in a country with vagina inspectors? where women are spied on to make sure they fulfill their reproductive mandate? where the desperately poor can end up in prison for 30 years for making the kind of decision that is legal in most of the rest of the world?

Wow, Muravyets, you're the first person to actually come straight out and agree with me. *preen preen*
Thanks for seeing my logic. :D

Wow, Muravyets, you're the first person to actually come straight out and agree with me. *preen preen*
Thanks for seeing my logic. :D
Don't get too cocky. We haven't corresponded enough to know it it will ever happen again. ;) :p

Don't get too cocky. We haven't corresponded enough to know it it will ever happen again. ;) :p
But my superior logic has completely killed this thread... ;) :p BWAA HAA HAA...
:eek: Wait. That's not a good thing. I wanted to hear other's opinions. :(

Can make the arguement back and forth of it is or is not a life. What it comes down to for me is that even if it is not "alive" until it takes its first breath doesn't matter because it will become a future human being and we have no right to stop that from happening.

But in all seriousness, that is the "every sperm is sacred..." arguement. If just because it can become a human gives it the right to life, then any form of contreception is immoral, as it 'kills' the baby that might have been born. And the same with not having sex when you are both fertile, if you do not, you're killing the child. Think that arguement through to its logical conclusions.

I'm talking about protecting a human life. Going to extremes with an arguement is what does not work as those scenarios have nothing to do with abortion. We are talking about this one issue and to me it works and just because it obviously doesn't in other matters doesn't make it any less valid.

Darn, no one else took this up? If it doesn't work in other situations, it does mean it isn't vaild. If you have "if p, then q" and you have "p" you should always get "q". You might say

p-->q
q
therefore p.

And it might be right in some situations, but it's not always right, so it's not valid. In this case the arguement is "X + time = Y, therefore X =Y" Or something to that effect, arguement from potential. If it's a valid arguement, it should have made sense when I used it too.

Can make the arguement back and forth of it is or is not a life. What it comes down to for me is that even if it is not "alive" until it takes its first breath doesn't matter because it will become a future human being and we have no right to stop that from happening.

But, that is an illogical argument.

You can't use 'potential' as a platform for logical debate.

One day you will die, therefore, 'logically' since you are already a 'potential' corpse... you should be stripped of all your rights and possessions?

We live in a society with clearly defined stages. We are a species with clearly defined stages.

Normally we have no problems differentiating the 'before' from the 'after'.

I am conceived. The 'before' and 'after' stages are worlds apart.

I am born - my existence is VERY different 'before' and 'after'.

I go through puberty. My body even 'works' differently before and after this change.

I learn to drive. 'Before' I am not allowed to take a car on the road, but 'after' I am.

I'm old enough to vote. 'Before', my opinion wasn't considered worthy for shping the government, but 'after' it is.

All the way through our existence, we are clearly (and sometimes, not SO clearly) delineated into 'before' stages and 'after' stages.

The most telling of these, are 'conception', 'birth' and 'death'... and yet the ONLY one that people make this hypocritical 'potential' argument for, is birth.

There are too many possible scenarios to get into but if there is a complication with the pregnancy and it turns into either the mother or the unborn baby then since the child cannot speak the mother would have to make a choice whether to risk it or not. This however is only a tiny percentage. In most cases the mother will just have to deal with the pregnancy itself and if they do not want the child give him/her up for adoption. If the choice is either killing the unborn child or sparing the woman 9 months of pregnancy then to me there is no real choice of what is most important.

I agree.

No real choice... the woman wins hands down.

There is no other case where we expect a human body to contain a parasitic entity that the 'host' has stated they wish to have removed.