NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree, mostly because past that point, it's been WAY too long --- make a decision before the damn thing develops a brain.
I too agree.

I think that 1-5 months is damn enough time to make a choice; after 6, there is no reason to abort it, unless there is a medical issue.

And not that it matters, but I think you're lying. 9 posts a day for over threee years, EVERY single day, just smacks of someone still in middleschool. Unless you're on welfare.

This is why I love these abortion discussions. I actually collect more souls from the debate than from the abortions...

do you support abortion?

I support the abortion of unoriginal threads.

They cannot possibly confirm any such thing - considering that embryos have either no nervous system or merely a reflexive one, and early fetuses have no higher order processes. At the time of most abortions, it is biologically impossible for the embryo/fetus to control its own movement, much less "choose" anything.


I believe you're either dealing with a child or a troll. Abortion videos are obviously faked, and many have ADMITTED to being fake over the years. Also, the images of "aborted fetuses" on many protest posters are in fact STILLBORN INFANTS Photoshopped to look "cute" with some blood added.

Ahh now we get to insults.

I accept your surrender.


He forgot this place becomes overrun with college students, retirees, and people who work nights. Minus ten points from...whoever that guy was.

I believe you're either dealing with a child or a troll. Abortion videos are obviously faked, and many have ADMITTED to being fake over the years. Also, the images of "aborted fetuses" on many protest posters are in fact STILLBORN INFANTS Photoshopped to look "cute" with some blood added.
I would believe that they look still born. After all, what provider would honestly, assuming that they support the woman's choice, abort a fetus that is the size of a trimester fetus? Unless there was a medical reason...

I would believe that they look still born. After all, what provider would honestly, assuming that they support the woman's choice, abort a fetus that is the size of a trimester fetus? Unless there was a medical reason...

Beyond that, what provider would distribute PHOTOGRAPHS of the results of an abortion? Not only is that unethical, but it's flat out stupid.

I've noticed something in many abortion debates, on various forums -- the pro-choice side is under the assumption that the debate is over abortions in the first and second trimester, and the "pro-life" or "anti-choice" side is under the assumption that the debate is over abortions only in the third trimester.

Of course, hasn't someone pointed this out before?

The Celts absolutely were Indo-European. In fact, the only Europeans who are not of Indo-European heritage are the Maltese...

And the Hungarians.

And the Basques.

Beyond that, what provider would distribute PHOTOGRAPHS of the results of an abortion? Not only is that unethical, but it's flat out stupid.

I've noticed something in many abortion debates, on various forums -- the pro-choice side is under the assumption that the debate is over abortions in the first and second trimester, and the "pro-life" or "anti-choice" side is under the assumption that the debate is over abortions only in the third trimester.

Of course, hasn't someone pointed this out before?
Isn't it also a breach of privacy rights if the provider circulated those? Further, why would they have photos in the first place? Research maybe? Even if it was research, they wouldn't release those online; they're just too grotesque and would made an otherwise neutral medical paper bias.

I agree. Many who are pro-choice (and pro-abortion) all think "early" pregnancy, where the uncertaintly exists. That uncertainty stems from circumstances that vary, thus, a one-size fits all solution doesn't work.

This is why I tend to only reply to pro-choicers because they seem to have an understanding about the difference between their opinion and the right of someone else to do what is right for themselves.

Pro-lifers tend to be really preach-y.

Isn't it also a breach of privacy rights if the provider circulated those? Further, why would they have photos in the first place? Research maybe? Even if it was research, they wouldn't release those online; they're just too grotesque and would made an otherwise neutral medical paper bias.

I agree. Many who are pro-choice (and pro-abortion) all think "early" pregnancy, where the uncertaintly exists. That uncertainty stems from circumstances that vary, thus, a one-size fits all solution doesn't work.

This is why I tend to only reply to pro-choicers because they seem to have an understanding about the difference between their opinion and the right of someone else to do what is right for themselves.

Pro-lifers tend to be really preach-y.

I'm fairly certain it would indeed be a breach of privacy. The only reason photographs would be taken would usually be in the event of a severe or rare deformity, or during the early stages of implementing a new procedure. In either case, the images would likely be made into diagrams, pointing out differences from earlier methods or research.

In either case, it would be virtually impossible for rabid, often uneducated protesters to access those images, much less enlarge them for posters and picket signs.

I agree -- I've personally run into my share of preachy pro-lifers. The thing I find bizarre is that some (not all) of the same people who will yell at me for being pro-choice, will also support the death penalty. It leads me to the conclusion that some pro-lifers don't care about what happens after birth.(To me, MANY of them don't -- the adoption system is royally fucked, birth control isn't 100% effective, and children born into poverty are likely to have substandard housing, clothing, medical care, etc). Personally, I'd rather know that I WASN'T bringing another life into that realm of problems. Children are EXPENSIVE, which only makes poverty WORSE.

I'm going to take a break now before I go off on another rant..

I'm fairly certain it would indeed be a breach of privacy. The only reason photographs would be taken would usually be in the event of a severe or rare deformity, or during the early stages of implementing a new procedure. In either case, the images would likely be made into diagrams, pointing out differences from earlier methods or research.

In either case, it would be virtually impossible for rabid, often uneducated protesters to access those images, much less enlarge them for posters and picket signs.
Too bad there isn't a law prohibiting protesters from showing such images.

I mean, the pro-lifers would likely be the ones to cry wolf if a woman's breast was exposed on national television during prime time. But, yet, displaying images of mutilated fetuses...? What a messed up sensed of ethical decency.

Too bad there isn't a law prohibiting protesters from showing such images.

I mean, the pro-lifers would likely be the ones to cry wolf if a woman's breast was exposed on national television during prime time. But, yet, displaying images of mutilated fetuses...? What a messed up sensed of ethical decency.

Some would argue that an average person would find an image of a mutilated fetus obscene, and therefore there would be a law against it. However, I'm not sure if this has ever made it to court.

As much as human life should be valued, abortion should be allowed if the mothers life is at stake, or if the baby is incredibly sick and will not survive for very long after birth.

Of course it may be difficult to predict the latter, but if a baby is perfectly healthy, then it should not be aborted.

My two cents on the matter...

First, although I believe that the right to choose to have an abortion up to the point where the baby can survive independently from the mother is an important one that can not be revoked. I also believe though that my opinion as a man, is not as important as the woman who is pregnant and is struggling to make the decision. I cannot make the decision for her, only she can make it.

Now regarding the thread to this point: (Actually, only to about page 20 or so, I got tired of reading)
okay a mother and father have the right to kill there own child because they do not want to care for it, that spells lazy right there. our society is lazy, fat, and un traditional
Nothing is wrong with being untraditional. A society can never make progress if they remain completely traditional.

I support abortions, because I've invented a time machine and have used devious social machinations to ensure that every abortion terminates a future evil dictator. Unfortunately, my time machine only had enough gas to get back to the 1980s or so, so I couldn't do anything about Hitler. Sorry about that, but some moronic political party entering its last throes around this time spent decades preventing any real action on conservation, so there just wasn't enough gas left for aborting Hitler.

If you don't support abortions, then you're supporting the future dictators they'll grow up to be. I had proof, but I left it in the trunk of my time machine and now I forgot where I parked. OH NOES!
Actually, unless I'm mistaken the doctor attending to Hitler's mom actually recommended an abortion. She choose not to. That was her right.

abortion has killed more people than all the wars in the west put together
Now, are you talking about all the wars held in the west or all wars the west has fought in? If you define the fetus to be a person then I may believe the wars fought in the west might have a slim chance of being low enough (but still not bloody likely), but if it is all wars fought by the west then there is no way that is accurate. Think of the American Revolution, The war of 1812, the American civil war, the war between America and Mexico (I can't remember what it was called right now), the wars in South and Central America, then WWI and WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, and the list goes on.
But I suppose that it is dependent on when you consider the fetus to be a person.

you have a warped view on society since you are a homosexual that supports harvesting baby parts in abortion clinics (which they do)
Please don't revert back to the Gay Parade debate. Remember you got banned for three days because of that, I suspect you won't be able to avoid your second warning/final strike if it resurfaces. And where do you get that they 'harvest baby parts'?

the earth was created by the big bang, dumbass
Actually, no. The Earth was created by the condensing of a cloud of dust and gas that circled Sol, a second generation yellow star in an outer spiral arm of the spiral galaxy which we call the Milky Way. This process began approximately 4.6 billion years ago, about 13 billion years after the big bang.

If they do, it's because the abortion specialist didn't do thier damn job right. This is why I miss the wire coathanger days. You stab, then suck. Combining them is just lazy.

What makes it different is that the kid is still inside. It's not murder, it's an eviction!
Agreed. The Ferengi consider pregnancy to be a rental. Now if the landlord chooses to end the contract (due to some clause in the fine print) then that is perfectly legal. The abortion does not kill the fetus. The abortion is merely the act of kicking a freeloader out, much like you would kick your free-loading 24 year old son or daughter out. The only difference is that the 24 year old will adapt and survive on their own. Since the fetus is not yet a person they are incapable of adapting and will perish. An unfortunate side effect yes. The cut off point for abortion comes when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Then it is called 'induced labour' but it is still an eviction.

Oh and would someone please answer me, why is it that all the radicals on here always come from Canada? I have lived here all my life and I've never seen one of these people, but now all of a sudden they spring out of the woodwork to revoke rights and freedoms, to destroy the progress that we have made. Please Disturnn, Red Tory States, do us a favour and go back into hiding. Please. Perhaps you can get some virtual reality equipment and live the rest of your life in "the good old days"

I support abortion. In fact, I would support making it remain avaliable a short period of time after birth. But then, I would also want it to be made compulsory, and have people who then tried to procreate sterilized.

you have a warped view on society since you are a homosexual that supports harvesting baby parts in abortion clinics (which they do)

What parts do they supposedly harvest? I really must know.

Try to adopt a healthy white baby in the US. (Please don't turn this into a race issue, it's not) Every person I know who has adopted recently has either gone to eastern Europe or adopted a black kid (in a state that has less that 5% black population. The system, at least in my neck of the woods, IS out of babies.

Your problem is bolded.

Now, try to adopt a child that is not an infant. Or a sick infant. Or a black infant. There will most likely be no shortage.

What parts do they supposedly harvest? I really must know.

Ew I missed that comment. Tell me too!

Ew I missed that comment. Tell me too!
What do you expect from someone so strongly opposed on "moral grounds" to abortion? A logical argument?

Pro-lifers tend to be really preachy.
Which doesn't mean they cannot be right in certain points, just like people who are pro-choice may be right on others. In a passionate debate like this, particular one that involves the meaning of "life", I doubt that either side will be innocent of being "preachy".

On one hand, you have a group that associates Pro-choice with the devaluation of the foetus's life and the freedom to use and abuse abortion as a replacement to contraception and/or to remediate unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life is mainly associated with the state, or a ruling majority, interfering with the individual freedom of not wanting a child, punishing women who terminate pregnancies with jail sentences. From such extreme positions, it is really hard to have a rational argument, never mind reaching any consensus or, at least, a compromise. It's a bit like placing an ultra-right wing and an ultra-left wing politician in a small room and ask them to come to an agreement. They're more likely to jump at each other's throats than to begin addressing the problem.

My problem with the Abortion issue is, first and foremost, that we seem to be trying to decide on two (or more) problems at the same time and that, under such polarised positions, it is hard to address ONE issue, never mind two. It's also not rare to see arguments being used and debunked, before they re-emerge. We can't tell what's accurate from what is false or exaggerated, we can't tell what's objective from what's subjective.

1. Should we allow or not allow abortions?
2. If we do, in what conditions?
3. If we don't, what are the penalties?

Right now, all we have is full freedom (to use and abuse) or full oppression. We must step back...

Is it right for a woman to perform a dozen (or more) abortions in her lifetime?
Is it right to penalise women who cannot afford contraception?
Is it right to jail a woman for performing an abortion?
Is it right to single out women, when conception takes two to tango?
Is it accurate to say life starts at birth?

Personally, I would answer "no" to all questions. Still, I believe a highly developed society would eradicate (or minimise) the need to perform abortions. I think both sides really need to consider that their positions, as they currently stand, may not be able to offer society the inevitable compromise that is needed. In my opinion, neither we can allow abortion and foetuses to become a freely used commodity nor we can allow for women to become the scapegoat of EVERYONE's failure on reaching a compromise.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer a straightforward solution, only my humble opinion that both positions may be fundamentally flawed.

They're more likely to throw at each other's throats...

Huh?

only my humble opinion that both positions may be fundamentally flawed.

Becuase that alone is always helpful. "I don't have an idea, but you both might be wrong."

P.S.


Is it right for a woman to perform a dozen (or more) abortions in her lifetime?
Is it right to singular out women, when conception takes two to tango?

Personally, I would answer "no" to all questions.

1. Why?
2. Only women tend to get pregnant.

What do you expect from someone so strongly opposed on "moral grounds" to abortion? A logical argument?

Now, now. I am strongly opposed to most abortions on moral grounds. I simply realize that my moral viewpoints are not held by all others - and that because I cannot prove them to be true, I have no business forcing them on anyone.


Right now, all we have is full freedom (to use and abuse) or full oppression.

I'm not sure this is true. I've seen very few on the pro-choice side that would extend "full freedom." It is always, "full freedom, up until this point...".

And, in truth, there are precious few in the opposition who support "full oppression." Most often, we see what has affectionately been called the "Dirty whore" argument, where a person etends the right to an abortion to women who are raped, but says that the woman who chooses to have sex deserves to be punished by baby.

Now, now. I am strongly opposed to most abortions on moral grounds. I simply realize that my moral viewpoints are not held by all others - and that because I cannot prove them to be true, I have no business forcing them on anyone.
Yes, you're the type I don't mind; the type that lives and let lives, as opposed to the righteous type that won't let the rest of us breath freely.

Huh?
Meant "jump at each other's throats".
Becuase that alone is always helpful. "I don't have an idea, but you both might be wrong."
Should be helpful, if indeed you'v reached a stalemate and need to move on to common ground; addressing each other's concern's, not just your own.
1. Why?
Why what? Why would I say "no"?
2. Only women tend to get pregnant.
So if a woman becomes pregnant, because neither she nor her sexual partner can afford contraception and they BOTH want an abortion, the woman is the only one jailed?

Should be helpful, if indeed you'v reached a stalemate and need to move on to common ground; addressing each other's concern's, not just your own.

Depends on what you consider a stalemate...

Why what? Why would I say "no"?

Yeah, what makes too many abortions?

So if a woman becomes pregnant, because neither she nor her sexual partner can afford contraception and they BOTH want an abortion, the woman is the only one jailed?

You asked, "Is it right to singular[sic] out women, when conception takes two to tango?". I assumed that meant why is the focus on women in general, it didn't specify jailing.

As far as I feel, I would personally never have an abortion. Of course, I don't know if I actually would because I've never been put in that position. But as far as I know I wouldn't.

But I don't think it's my job to tell other people how to live. So I fully support abortion legally.

I support abortion. In fact, I would support making it remain avaliable a short period of time after birth.My view is something similar. I'd actually like to see a lot more accidental pregnancies aborted, for a multitude of reasons. However, that opinion is based on my own personal view of things, so I would not like to see it translated into law; it is much easier, and fairer, if we simply allow the process to remain (or become) legal, and allow those afflicted to decide for themselves what to do about their pregnancy.

Depends on what you consider a stalemate...
Two sides of the argument not being able to reach a compromise.
Yeah, what makes too many abortions?
More than those that can be avoided.
You asked, "Is it right to singular[sic] out women, when conception takes two to tango?". I assumed that meant why is the focus on women in general, it didn't specify jailing.
It could be jailing or fining. Whatever punishment you choose, currently it falls solely on women, thus maybe unfair.

Two sides of the argument not being able to reach a compromise.

*shrug* People like to be obstinate

More than those that can be avoided.

Umm...Do you mean 'can't'?

It could be jailing or fining. Whatever punishment you choose, currently it falls solely on women, thus maybe unfair.

It doesn't even specify punishment. It just says "singular [sic] out women".

Me, I would never have an abortion.

Mainly because I don't have a uterus. Which incidentally renders my opinion on this absolutely worthless. Pro-choice it is.

I am strongly opposed to most abortions on moral grounds. I simply realize that my moral viewpoints are not held by all others - and that because I cannot prove them to be true, I have no business forcing them on anyone.
I agree, with one reservation. All my life I've been educated to recognise the utmost value of life. I am the first one to say everyone has the right to "live and to be let live", but this rings bells for people who are both Pro-choice and Pro-life. When I look at it from the position of an unborn life (after the 3rd month, I personally view it as unborn human child), I have to withdraw that right from it to allow an abortion. When I look at it from the position of a pregnant woman, I have to withdraw that right from her if I do not allow or punish an abortion. Here, already we have several issues; how does one define human life?

At the same time, I do have some doubts on the accuracy of saying "I/you have no business forcing morals on anyone" because the fact is we do. Otherwise, what stops us from shooting each other? Before anyone flames me, I am NOT comparing Abortion to Murder, though no one can contest that BOTH result in one life being lost (at least). What I am saying is that we do force morals, and rightly so, particularly when they involve individual life.
I'm not sure this is true. I've seen very few on the pro-choice side that would extend "full freedom." It is always, "full freedom, up until this point... And, in truth, there are precious few in the opposition who support "full oppression".
Maybe, in this respect, we are writing from a different context. Where I am, women risk a 3 year jail sentence for terminating an unwanted pregnancy, outside very particular circumstances. It's only allowed up to the third month and only in case of a pregnancy being a risk to the mother's health, serious foetus malformation or a pregnancy following rape.
Umm...Do you mean 'can't'?
Any abortion that could have been avoided... easier :D
It doesn't even specify punishment. It just says "singular [sic] out women".
Obviously, I wrongfully assumed that would be implied, from the previous two questions.:D

then, regardless of whether or not every knocked-up guy actually got one, you can bet that access to abortion would be readily available, probably gov't subsidised, and nowhere near as stigmatised as it is now. "Should abortions be allowed" cannot be asked without also being looked at in another way-- "who should have control over a pregnant woman's body?" Or more basically, "who should have control over my/your/anyone's body?" The answer, of course-- barring self-destructive mental illness-- is you/me/whoever it is whose body we're talking about. If anyone has the right to tell a pregnant woman that her body is effectively under the control of the state, then the entire foundation of personal sovereignty and your right to decide the fate of your own body is undermined.

One might not like the idea of potential people being aborted, might see it as murder or whatever-- it might be unpleasant, it might be ugly-- but you also have to face the fact that if you try to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to have, if you try to exert state control over her body by denying her medical intervention in the form of an abortion, then she's going to find a way to terminate her pregnancy. And if she sustains life-threatening injury in the process, then that's on the head of those who tried to force their values on her.

Or more basically, "who should have control over my/your/anyone's body?"

I don't think the state or anyone should have rights on anyone else's body. My doubts are when you replace the words "anyone else's body" with "an unborn child's body"? Just as with the sentence "live and let live", what you just said can be applied to both sides of the argument, all purelly based on subjective values:

1. When does the foetus become someone?
2. At what point do we award it the right to live? (do we have that right?)
3. Who is responsible for the welfare of this new life?

Personally, very personally:
I am in favour of allowing women to terminate their pregnancies up to the third month.
I am undecided about establishing certain conditions, like "only when the life of the foetus or the mother is at stake and in cases of rape".
Ultimately, if I favoured the above conditions, I would also favour an exception to women who proved they did not have the economic means to use contraceptives.

However, if we're to consider conditional abortion (instead of fully liberated abortion), we need to consider how the state prevents and how it reacts to "illegal" abortions:
1. I am against jail terms to punish abortions.
2. I am in favour of asking women who wanted to do a legal abortion, to take part in a non-religious counselling program for a day or week or so, followed by an equal period of reflection, before terminating the pregnancy. During this period, the woman should be informed (hopefully in a non-biased way) of the several options and consequences of her decision.
3. I would be in favour of suggesting to the woman the possibility of completing the pregnancy and handing the child to social care (up to a limit of course). This is because I believe that, if I had been that foetus I like to think I would have been given this opportunity (right?) to live. Is this such an abuse of women's rights? I prefer to abstain to answer that question and hear your opinions instead.
4. I would certainly be in favour of banning taxes on contraceptives and creating a small national industry of contraceptives to distribute free among the poor.

I wouldn't nessacarily run about saying "Yay! Abortions for All!" However, if a woman felt truly desperate regarding the baby, I wouldn't prevent her from having an abortion. I've never liked the idea of aborting a child, but it's better than some alternatives ( eg: women attempting their own abortions with cleaning products and clothes hangers).

1. When does the foetus become someone?
When it's a living organism

2. At what point do we award it the right to live? (do we have that right?)
Well...I suppose when it's living

3. Who is responsible for the welfare of this new life?

The same people responsible after birth?


[I]This is because I believe that, if I had been that foetus I would have liked to have been given this opportunity to live.
Actually, you wouldn't. You didn't have a functioning system for thought when you'd allow abortions.

Actually, you wouldn't. You didn't have a functioning system for thought when you'd allow abortions.

Sorry, I meant I could have been that foetus and I like to think [today] I would have been given [then] that opportunity (right?) to live.

Sorry, I meant I could have been that foetus and I like to think I would have been given that opportunity (right?) to live.

True, most living people would like to live.

True, most living people would like to live.
Too much too ask?

I agree, with one reservation. All my life I've been educated to recognise the utmost value of life. I am the first one to say everyone has the right to "live and to be let live", but this rings bells for people who are both Pro-choice and Pro-life. When I look at it from the position of an unborn life (after the 3rd month, I personally view it as unborn human child), I have to withdraw that right from it to allow an abortion.

Why the 3rd month? Or are we talking about the 3rd trimester?

In the US, at least, 3rd trimester abortions are illegal in every state that I know of - unless they are necessary for the health or life of the mother, or the fetus has qualifying defects. While I disagree with some of the "defects" that count, I do agree with this restriction.

Here, already we have several issues; how does one define human life?

A good question. The most logical answer I have seen are those who use the same requirements we use to define death. Once a person's brain function has stopped, that person is declared dead. Thus, many would argue that, once a fetus' brain function begins, it is a human life.

At the same time, I do have some doubts on the accuracy of saying "I/you have no business forcing morals on anyone" because the fact is we do.

Yes, we do, when we can objectively show that the action being restricted harms a human being, or needlessly causes other types of harm. What we have no business doing is saying (as I would have to if I were to support the anti-choice movement) "I personally believe that the potential embodied in an embryo is important - and deserving of protection. I personally believe that, at some point in development, the embryo/fetus is granted a soul, and this makes it important to me. I can't prove any of this. I can't even really back it up with evidence. But I'm going to force it on you anyways."

With something like murder, it is obvious that a human being is harmed. With abortion, it is not - and the arguments that it is (for most abortions anyways) are based in the subjective values placed by the individual making the argument.

Too much too ask?

Nah, but we're hardly neutral sources on things like wanting to live.

I don't think the state or anyone should have rights on anyone else's body. My doubts are when you replace the words "anyone else's body" with "an unborn child's body"?

The problem with that question is that the woman's body is always involved. Any legal protections of the embryo/fetus necessarily remove the rights of the woman to her own body - and instead grant the embryo/fetus rights to her body. Thus, the real question is not, "Who has rights to the unborn?" but "At what point, if any, does the unborn have rights to the woman's body?"

Ultimately, if I favoured the above conditions, I would also favour an exception to women who proved they did not have the economic means to use contraceptives.

What if they used contraceptives and the contraceptives failed?

2. I am in favour of asking women who wanted to do a legal abortion, to take part in a non-religious counselling program for a day or week or so, followed by an equal period of reflection, before terminating the pregnancy. During this period, the woman should be informed (hopefully in a non-biased way) of the several options and consequences of her decision.

I certainly agree that a woman should be informed of all options. However, taking even a period of more than one day could make it impossible for her to get an abortion. Suppose she has a job that she cannot get much time off from? Suppose that the nearest place for her to receive an abortion is hundreds of miles away (not unusual, even in some areas in the US). Requiring several days could make it impossible for the woman to do it without losing her livelihood - which would mean she would be likely to turn to illegal measures instead....

Most women think long and hard about this before they ever go to the clinic.

3. I would be in favour of suggesting to the woman the possibility of completing the pregnancy and handing the child to social care (up to a limit of course). This is because I believe that, if I had been that foetus I like to think I would have been given this opportunity (right?) to live. Is this such an abuse of women's rights? I prefer to abstain to answer that question and hear your opinions instead.

Personally, I am just as opposed to someone giving a child up for adoption as I am to having an abortion - possibly more so. I am in favor of presenting this option to the woman, but I don't think it should necessarily be encouraged.

4. I would certainly be in favour of banning taxes on contraceptives and creating a small national industry of contraceptives to distribute free among the poor.

I've got no problems with this. While no measures taken will prevent all unwanted pregnancies (except for mass abstinence - which simply isn't going to happen), the best situation is for all men and women to be educated on the issues, and have access to contraceptives.

As a "Good Catholic" and a sane, rational human being, (yes, such people exist), I find myself in a quandry. Still, I've got to say, abortion needs to continue to be legal... whatever the pope says. (If God disagrees with that, then how can he be merciful?)
Of course, there have to be limits... basically, I'm taking the view that you shouldn't be able to get rid of "it" when it could survive outside of the womb if born prematurely... at that point, there isn't much of an arguement that it's a "he" or a "she", and not an "it".

Why the 3rd month?
Thus, many would argue that, once a fetus' brain function begins, it is a human life.
Personally, I associate these two ideas even though I'm not certain of how accurate this is. Dare I say "it's my ignorant safe bet", as horrible as the possible consequences of my bet not being safe may be. Three months should be enough time for a woman to realise she's pregnant, unless she's inexperienced and very isolated from other women who have been mothers. In such extremes cases, the exercise of the law should never be to punish but to help both mother and child, if possible.
"I can't even really back it up with evidence. But I'm going to force it on you anyways."
I don't agree with that either.
With something like murder, it is obvious that a human being is harmed. With abortion, it is not - and the arguments that it is (for most abortions anyways) are based in the subjective values placed by the individual making the argument.
With abortion is not obvious because we argue whether it's right or wrong to take a possible life, often without discussing or understanding neither subjective or objective definitions of life. If we can't agree on the subjective values, let us focus on the objective. Let's agree that brain activity starts at X month. Let's conclude that after that month X, some level of physical pain during an abortion will be inevitable. Let's recognise that from that point it is inherently cruel (however unintended) and let's be conscious that a human life will suffer, if we want to go ahead with an abortion.

I am all for liberating abortion but, if we really do believe in the value of human life, I feel we shouldn't allow one child to die through abortion, without us doing everything in our power to - at leasy - ask the young mother to consider having the child and hand it over to social care. Expensive? I doubt it's more expensive than raising one soldier, but that's another issue. Question is, how much do we value life after all? Obviously, as I said before, there has to be a limit on this and this is best achieved if there is a free-contraceptive policy for the poor.
Thus, the real question is not, "Who has rights to the unborn?" but "At what point, if any, does the unborn have rights to the woman's body?"
Well, I think both questions take us back to extreme and conflicting positions and, as such, I rather leave it unanswered. I don't think there is an issue about anyone having the right on the other's body. I rather ask, on what basis and under which circumstances do we take the right to live from the baby?
What if they used contraceptives and the contraceptives failed?
Ask them to produce a failed used condom?... *throws idea out of the window... :D
I certainly agree that a woman should be informed of all options. However, taking even a period of more than one day could make it impossible for her to get an abortion. Suppose she has a job that she cannot get much time off from?
Enforce a law that allows for pregnant women some time off work to sort the issue out (1 or 2 hours or half a day, every day for a week). If we do it for pregnancies, why not for abortions? I doubt that any sane woman will fake the need for an abortion to get time off work, when she might need it one month later... Give counselling training to local doctors and social officials, so they can act as a first stop, before the clinic. In any case, an abortion should be always supervised by your family doctor.
Most women think long and hard about this before they ever go to the clinic.
But do most women talk with medical or social staff, whose primary income source ISN'T performing abortions, before going to the clinic?
Personally, I am just as opposed to someone giving a child up for adoption as I am to having an abortion - possibly more so. I am in favour of presenting this option to the woman, but I don't think it should necessarily be encouraged.
I beg to differ. I personally don't agree that giving a child to adoption is necessarily as bad as deciding that a child shouldn't live. Assuming the crazy possibility you could leave a note to your next life's parents, would you write to them asking to consider handing you over to adoption, instead of aborting you? I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I would probably prefer not to live again (but that's just me). Obviously, I don't think that foster homes should be dumps for unwanted children.
Except for mass abstinence - which simply isn't going to happen.
Let's all turn monks and nuns... :D Don't get me wrong. I am all for liberation, I just feel sometimes that the pro-choicers often fail to hear to the LEGITIMATE concerns of the pro-lifers and vice versa of course. Ultimately, a woman should be given alternatives (including termination) but I would honestly hope that what she hears from counselling should have such a strong impact on her, that she would never again lay in bed with a man without thinking either "contraception" or "baby".

Do I ever.
It's a great way of reducing poverty and crime.

Hear, hear!

Do I ever. It's a great way of reducing poverty and crime.
Hear, hear!
I beg to differ. I feel it is one the worst ways to do it, as efficient as it may be.

I beg to differ. I feel it is one the worst ways to do it, as efficient as it may be.

Efficiency is Godliness. :p

Seriously, if I were to say that I'd had an abortion, what would you say?

So, 96 people here supports outright murder. :gundge:

So, 96 people here supports outright murder. :gundge:

Yep. We're here, we're murderous, get over it!

So, 96 people here supports outright murder. :gundge:

Dictionary definition - Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

I fail to see how an abortion is malicious. In many cases it's in the best interest of the foetus to be aborted. If a person doesn't have the financial ability to raise a child then it's best not to let the foetus develop into a person. You may say that if a person doesn't want to use protection, they shouldn't be having sex. But is ruining the lives of both the parents and the baby a fit punishment? Of course not. It's extremism.

Dictionary definition - Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

I fail to see how an abortion is malicious. In many cases it's in the best interest of the foetus to be aborted. If a person doesn't have the financial ability to raise a child then it's best not to let the foetus develop into a person. You may say that if a person doesn't want to use protection, they shouldn't be having sex. But is ruining the lives of both the parents and the baby a fit punishment? Of course not. It's extremism.

Yes, THANK you.

Yes, but not as a means of birth control; only as a means of killing innocents.

Efficiency is Godliness. :p
Seriously, if I were to say that I'd had an abortion, what would you say?
So, 96 people here supports outright murder.
I think this kind and all-knowing soul provided you with his ONE answer... :D

Well... "I say I should not say a lot, based solely on such a simple statement." :D

I say "It was a shame it wasn't prevented through contraception (regardless of why it wasn't)." I say "that it would have been a shame if if you had one without being informed about considering handing the child for adoption; making an informed decision". I say "I think the past is past and what's important is that we look to the future, to avoid as many abortions as possible." Last, but certainly not least, I say "I hope that you wish you never ever have to do it again"...

I fail to see how an abortion is malicious.
I kind of feel it may become a bit malicious when private clinics start profiting on it. Also, while it may not be malicious (from the mother's point of view), we cannot look at the law to argue non-malicious=non-punishment. To provoke someone's death through negligence is also an offence punished with jail terms, at the eyes of the law. Of course I agree that jailing parents isn't the answer either.
In many cases it's in the best interest of the foetus to be aborted. If a person doesn't have the financial ability to raise a child then it's best not to let the foetus develop into a person.
Yet, if one mother could be convinced to have her baby to hand it over to adoption, and this baby came out to be you, wouldn't you - at least - rethink about what you just said?
But is ruining the lives of both the parents and the baby a fit punishment? Of course not. It's extremism.
It's making it worse, because then you ruin two or three lives.

hey guys, have read the majority of this topic, but have skipped to the end to have my say as there was a lot of one-line posts.

first, background - im a 24 year old englishmen who grew up in a non-religious family but who has been exposed to a lot of christianity at school. i myself have chosen another path, as espoused by Buddhist doctrine. im rational and logical in most things.

ok then, abortion is a REALLY horrible experience for women beyond a certain date in a pregnancy. anybody who would willing use it as a form of contraception really needs to have their head examined (re: miss "11-abortions"). however i have known several women who have chosen to have abortions. one of them was because the pregnancy was as a result of rape, fair enough, a really harrowing experience, and i dont blame her. the others were because they felt they wouldnt be able to care for the child, from a secular stand point, a good idea, there are more than enough children in this world that are suffering horrendously for one reason or another, why bring another unwanted child into the world?

from a christian stand point having an abortion is the ULTIMATE in self sacrifice. ok, it might end up in the mother going to hell, but it GUARANTEES the entrance of the child into heaven. as Jesus freed humanity from original sin, the feotus/embryo (henceforth referred to as baby/child) will be TOTALLY free from sin upon death and will thus enter into paradise. The mother has in fact sacrificed her eternity in paradise to ensure her child doesnt risk theirs. the child cannot grow up, sin and then be punished by god.

in my opinion that is an incredible sacrifice for a mother to make, sacrificing not just her life, but an eternity, wow.

now, my actual opinion on the matter is this, "pro-lifers" dont have abortions if you dont want them, simple as that, if you get pregnant, raise the child or have it adopted.

leave everyone else alone, the ambiguity in research into abortion proves the matter is not an open and shut case, it proves it is scientifically difficult to pin down, and any law needs to be strictly defined.

any attempt to "promote" pro-life perspectives (demonstrations, picket rallies outside clinics) is a form of harrassment, let alone an attempt to restrict an individuals freedom of choice/ religous expression.

whilst england does allow termination of a child before a certain date in the pregnancy, their is a country VERY close by that didnt (not sure on its perspective now), Ireland. women from Ireland used to travel to england to receive treatment.

and now, food for thought:

a perspective on pregnancy (not mine):

a child in the womb is a parasite, a foreign organism that prevents the hosts full functionality and that will one day burst out to ruin the hosts life. the placenta exists to prevent rejection of a feotus by the host body. if we take drugs to destroy other unwanted parasites (tapeworm), then why not an unwanted feotus? any other perspective serves only to artificially seperate humankind from other animals needlessly.

(paraphrased from the defunct website "misanthropicbitch.com", yes the host of the site is a women, with a christian background and is fully in favour of abortion)

darkside

-- SNIPPITY SNIP SNIP --
Wow, just wow. Very nicely written and I have to say that I agree with you.

It did make me think of something else while I was reading it and that is the whole approach to contraceptives and sexual relations in general that the conservatives and religious right tend to assume.

If they were truly concerned about protecting unborn life, they they should endorse birth control pills, since the pills themselves are inhibiters that prevent ovulation. The egg isn't release while the woman takes this inhibiter.

Wow, just wow. Very nicely written and I have to say that I agree with you.

thank you, i try my best :p

and on the matter of other contraceptives, it makes sense doesnt it? the more people who use contraceptive the less unwanted pregnancies there will be and thus the less abortions, possible the best response to this sort of thing by the church would be to give the contraceptive-pill away to women for free?

and on a related note i believe the catholic church has made a turn around on the matter of condoms, specifically in the use of them to prevent the spread of STD's.

darkside

I'll tell you what I don't support: titles with unnecessary question marks and no capital letter.

Personally, I associate these two ideas even though I'm not certain of how accurate this is.

Very inaccurate. At three months, you have a very rudimentary nervous system - a spinal cord and part of the brain stem, essentially, but none of the higher order portions of the brain are even formed, much less functional.

Three months should be enough time for a woman to realise she's pregnant, unless she's inexperienced and very isolated from other women who have been mothers. In such extremes cases, the exercise of the law should never be to punish but to help both mother and child, if possible.

It all depends. A woman is not feeling movement at three months, and probably isn't showing. If she has always been irregular or is still getting normal periods (yes, it does happen), then she may not know.

Of course, most women do know before 3 monhts - and most abortions (in the states, at least - some 80%) occur before that point.

Let's agree that brain activity starts at X month. Let's conclude that after that month X, some level of physical pain during an abortion will be inevitable. Let's recognise that from that point it is inherently cruel (however unintended) and let's be conscious that a human life will suffer, if we want to go ahead with an abortion.

We are aware of these things, and this is a large part of the reason that 3rd trimester abortions are only carried out (again, in the US) for medical reasons. They are no longer legally available for elective reasons.

Well, I think both questions take us back to extreme and conflicting positions and, as such, I rather leave it unanswered.

The problem is that this is the question to be answered. Even if we decide that an embryo/fetus has a right to life, the only way it can live (prior to being viable) is to take over the woman's body. Thus, the question always comes down to - at what point do we give it rights over the woman's body, as that is the only way it can live?

I don't think there is an issue about anyone having the right on the other's body. I rather ask, on what basis and under which circumstances do we take the right to live from the baby?

This question would only work if the purpose of an abortion were to "kill the baby". It isn't. The purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy - to end the involvement of the woman's body. If an embryo/fetus could be removed intact and incubated elsewhere, that would still be an abortion.

Enforce a law that allows for pregnant women some time off work to sort the issue out (1 or 2 hours or half a day, every day for a week).

Good luck. There are all sorts of things that employers are legally supposed to give time off for. Many employees, however, especially in lower-income jobs, do not. Enforcement is almost impossible.

If we do it for pregnancies, why not for abortions?

You think no woman has ever lost her job taking time off to give birth?

But do most women talk with medical or social staff, whose primary income source ISN'T performing abortions, before going to the clinic?

The idea that there are medical or social staff who have a primary income source of abortions is a myth. People like to call women's clinics "abortion clinics", but that is very innaccurate. They are women's clinics - and generally provide all manner of reproductive care to women. The so-called "abortion clinics" do everything from routine pap smears and prescriptions for contraceptives to abortions, pre-natal care, and sometimes adoption counselling. Every woman I know who has ever had an abortion has been presented with *all* options in her first visit to the clinic.

I beg to differ. I personally don't agree that giving a child to adoption is necessarily as bad as deciding that a child shouldn't live.

In one case, that child never comes to actual existence - removing the potential. In the other, a parent brings a child into this world, and then irresponsibly hands off that child to someone else to take care of.

Obviously, I don't think that foster homes should be dumps for unwanted children.

But they are. Such is the reality.

I'll tell you what I don't support: titles with unnecessary question marks and no capital letter.
Oh, careful. RTS may resort to flaming you for 'bashing him for his dyslexia'. :rolleyes: That is, if he ever gets back. I did see that The Most Glorious Hack Deleted one of his posts a ways back, perhaps he's been banned again. If so the only question is if this is strike two or three. *prays for strike three*

Oh, careful. RTS may resort to flaming you for 'bashing him for his dyslexia'. :rolleyes: That is, if he ever gets back. I did see that The Most Glorious Hack Deleted one of his posts a ways back, perhaps he's been banned again. If so the only question is if this is strike two or three. *prays for strike three*

He's been given another 3 day ban I think.

Women, as Gawain discovers, want to choose for themselves. :D

http://www.silver-branch.org/ssbcreations/GawainLL.html

Very inaccurate. At three months, you have a very rudimentary nervous system - a spinal cord and part of the brain stem, essentially, but none of the higher order portions of the brain are even formed, much less functional.
While I do not doubt that accuracy of your statement (I'm not a neuroscientist), your description is far "cooler" from what plenty of future mothers are being told by the 3rd month:

"By twelve weeks the head is around a third of the size of the body.
Baby's tiny feet can now kick, but you are unlikely to be able to feel it yet."

My point being, there is brain activity, there is movement and there is life. At what point does it become human? From another source, at the "age" of 3 months:

"Nails start to develop and earlobes are formed. Fetus develops recognizable form. Arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet and toes are fully formed. Eyes are almost fully developed. His fingers and toes have separated and he has begun swallowing and kicking. The basic structures of all his organs are in place and beginning to function."

You see, I don't personally feel so detached...
We are aware of these things, and this is a large part of the reason that 3rd trimester abortions are only carried out (again, in the US) for medical reasons. They are no longer legally available for elective reasons.
Who's we? Are all women aborting aware of these things? I don't mean "told these things"; I mean conscious of them.
Thus, the question always comes down to - at what point do we give it rights over the woman's body, as that is the only way it can live?
You fail to take into account the outcome of both options. The foetus is not necessarily asking for the mother to give her life, only her body for 9 months. The mother is...
I don't think there is an issue about anyone having the right on the other's body. I rather ask, on what basis and under which circumstances do we take the right to live from the baby?
This question would only work if the purpose of an abortion were to "kill the baby". It isn't. The purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy - to end the involvement of the woman's body.
Purpose is not the only thing that is punishable by law, where "taking the right to exist" occurs; negligence is also punishable. Based solely on law, this is not a valid argument. I don't agree with jail terms, in these cases. In gross negligence cases maybe. My point is you cannot say "death didn't occur because there wasn't a purpose."
If an embryo/fetus could be removed intact and incubated elsewhere, that would still be an abortion.
No it wouldn't, it would be called a premature birth.
Good luck. There are all sorts of things that employers are legally supposed to give time off for. Many employees, however, especially in lower-income jobs, do not. Enforcement is almost impossible.
What's a life worth, hey?... THAT is reality.
You think no woman has ever lost her job taking time off to give birth?
I know my sister-in-law had to keep quiet about her pregnancy, until her contract was renovated, so that she wouldn't lose hers.
Every woman I know who has ever had an abortion has been presented with *all* options in her first visit to the clinic.
Still, I doubt that every women do and I rather hear those options FIRST from a non-biased source that wasn't taking my money for it.
In one case, that child never comes to actual existence - removing the potential. In the other, a parent brings a child into this world, and then irresponsibly hands off that child to someone else to take care of.
You obviously say existence starts at birth, I personally hold that a human life starts to form and exist in the womb.
Obviously, I don't think that foster homes should be dumps for unwanted children.
But they are. Such is the reality.
Yet, if you had been raised in one of the nicer foster homes, I wander if you would be here defending your own abortion. Maybe you would... Maybe we should find one of those foster homes and ask every single child if they would rather not exist.

Listen, ultimately, I am liberal towards abortion. What I dislike is how mainstream pro-life movements disregard the mother completely and are happy to send her to jail while pro-choice movements show little or no concern towards the child, reducing it to a non-existent human who is little more that bone and tissue. I recently saw an ecography of my 3 months future nephew and it was nothing like this. It was alive and it moved. Liberation yes, irresponsible anarchism no.

This has probably already been said but the poll needs to be more specific: I am against abortion but in support for the right to abort.

This has probably already been said but the poll needs to be more specific: I am against abortion but in support for the right to abort.
Your my kind of guy/girl.... :D

While I do not doubt that accuracy of your statement (I'm not a neuroscientist), your description is far "cooler" from what plenty of future mothers are being told by the 3rd month:

My point being, there is brain activity, there is movement and there is life. At what point does it become human? From another source, at the "age" of 3 months:

Movement does not equate to brain activity. At that point, only the barest of neural structures have formed. The movement is largely reflexive. None of it requires higher order brain function (which is good, since the higher order portions of the brain have not yet been formed).

My description may seem "cool", but that is because it intentionally has no emotion in it. The scientific perspective is not an emotional one. While I can certainly relate to the emotions a woman feels when she is told that her unborn can now kick its feet (considering that I can't wait to be pregnant myself), her emotional response has little to do with the facts of the situation.

You see, I don't personally feel so detached...

And you assume I do? I thought we were discussing facts here, not emotions. From an emotional point-of-view, I would get attached the moment I knew I was pregnant - most likely well before 3 months. From a scientific view, I know what the levels of development actually equate to.

Who's we? Are all women aborting aware of these things? I don't mean "told these things"; I mean conscious of them.

Actually, they are generally given sources much like the one you are quoting, which implies much further level of development than that which has actually been reached, unless one recognizes on one's own the difference between reflexive and conscious movement. I do believe that women are often told of the studies suggesting that pain can be felt after about 5 months, but very few women are seeking abortions at that stage anyways.

You fail to take into account the outcome of both options. The foetus is not necessarily asking for the mother to give her life, only her body for 9 months. The mother is...

I don't fail to do any such thing. First of all, the effects of a pregnancy are not "9 months and then you're back to normal." Carrying a pregnancy to term causes life-long changes in a woman's body - and always carries a risk to her. When we restrict abortions, we give the embryo/fetus the right to cause thos changes and impose that risk - without the woman's consent. You may not like the way it sounds, but there is no logical way to suggest that this is not giving the embryo/fetus rights to the woman's body.

Purpose is not the only thing that is punishable by law, where "taking the right to exist" occurs; negligence is also punishable. Based solely on law, this is not a valid argument. I don't agree with jail terms, in these cases. In gross negligence cases maybe. My point is you cannot say "death didn't occur because there wasn't a purpose."

I didn't say that, so I guess we've got no problem.

You want the only quesiton in the abortion debate to be, "When does the entity have a right to live?" The problem is that this is not the only question, or even the most pertinent one. Even if we were to answer that question, we would still hvae to answer, "When and why does the entity have rights over the woman's body." No entity but a fetus is ever granted the right to another human being's body against their will - so when and why do we grant such a right?

Most people agree that, at a certain point, it should be granted. But the when and why is always under dispute.

No it wouldn't, it would be called a premature birth.

No, it wouldn't, as the embryo/fetus would still have to be incubated in a womb or womb-like device. We aren't talking about viable fetuses here (in which case, it would be a C-section, and it would be called premature birth).

Still, I doubt that every women do and I rather hear those options FIRST from a non-biased source that wasn't taking my money for it.

The source would end up getting paid regardless of the decision, in most cases.

You obviously say existence starts at birth,

I say no such thing, nor have I implied this. Try again.

I personally hold that a human life starts to form and exist in the womb.

Of course it does. But at what point is it formed enough to be a human person? At what point does an actual human being exist.

Until you can objectively prove your personal viewpoint, we have to go with the most objective definition we can figure out.

Yet, if you had been raised in one of the nicer foster homes, I wander if you would be here defending your own abortion. Maybe you would... Maybe we should find one of those foster homes and ask every single child if they would rather not exist.

Arguments like this are spurious and completely illogical. Most people would rather exist. However, abortion, had it occurred, would have occurred before they had the ability to even consider the question.

What I dislike is how mainstream pro-life movements disregard the mother completely and are happy to send her to jail

They also disgregard the child completely. Oh, they care when it is an embryo/fetus in the womb. But once a child is born, they generally could care less what the welfare of that child is. It simply "isn't their problem."

while pro-choice movements show little or no concern towards the child,

Pro-choice movements generally show quite a bit of concern towards children, often stating that every child should be wanted and well-treated.

What they may show less concern for is an embryo/early fetus.

reducing it to a non-existent human who is little more that bone and tissue.

At the stage of most abortions, it really is little more than tissue with the potential to become more. Many of us have emotional attachments to that potential - and value it, but in reality, that is what it is. As it begins to develop further, it gains the traits we generally recognize. But keep in mind that the majority of abortions occur before 8 weeks. The vast majority occur before 13. We aren't talking about late-term pregnancies here.

I recently saw an ecography of my 3 months future nephew and it was nothing like this. It was alive and it moved. Liberation yes, irresponsible anarchism no.

At 3 months? Yes. And that is why most in the pro-choice camp start stricter regulation at the end of the 1st trimester - moving to even stricter regulation at the end of the 2nd.

You seem to think that the pro-choice movement involves completely free access to abortion up until the moment of birth. While there are a few radicals out there who have suggested this, it is not the case for most pro-choicers.

I'm sorry for the really really long post (the longest I've ever written), but values such as Life, Freedom and Responsibility deserve it, as corny as this may sound. :D Seriously, it's just impossible to cut such a difficult issue short.

I really want anyone who bothers reading this last will and testament, to understand this: I am not against choice; I'm just not with pro-choicers yet. Why? Because I want them to be a little bit more moderate and show a bit more concern towards legitimate pro-life issues, just as I would like pro-lifers to do the same towards legitimate pro-choice issues. Right now, all I see is that both sides are largely failing to listen to each-other's legitimate issues.

[About a 3rd month foetus] Movement does not equate to brain activity, [...] only the barest of neural structures have formed. The movement is largely reflexive. None of it requires higher order brain function (which is good, since the higher order portions of the brain have not yet been formed). My description may seem "cool", but that is because it intentionally has no emotion in it. The scientific perspective is not an emotional one. While I can certainly relate to the emotions a woman feels when she is told that her unborn can now kick its feet (considering that I can't wait to be pregnant myself), her emotional response has little to do with the facts of the situation.
From a scientific view, I know what the levels of development actually equate to.
As I've said, I am no scientist. So, after reading your reply, I was close to just write "You sound very informed and scientific, so I'll hope you're pretty certain about what you are talking about and will take your word for it, with some reserved relief (because I do not know you)". For a moment, I honestly hoped you had a good reason to feel so confident that "pain can be felt after about 5 months", though what I really wanted to hear from you was something more like "they don't feel pain at 3 months". Then, my goddamned curiosity was stronger [again] and I turned to Google. When I read what you're about to read, I gasped:

a) 4-6 weeks:
Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over."
J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. ’91, pg. 16

b) 6 weeks:
Brain waves recorded by EEG (electro-encephalograph) in the human embryo 40 days after fertilisation.
H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, Journal of the American Medical Association, 12 October 1964.

c) 6-7 weeks:
"If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part."
L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954

d) 8 weeks:
"if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus."
A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26

e) 9 weeks:
"The baby is well enough formed to bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand. In response to a touch on the sole of his foot he will curl his toes or bend his hips and knees to move away from the touching object. At 12 weeks he can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of his thumb"
H.B. Valman and J.F. Pearson. "What the foetus feels", British Medical Journal, 26 January 1980.

f) 9-10 weeks:
"foetus has started to acquire a sentient capacity perhaps as early as six weeks, certainly by nine to ten weeks of gestation. Anatomical examination of such foetuses indicates the probability that differentiation sufficient for reception, transmission and perception of primitive pain sensation has already occurred."
Peter McCullagh, The Fetus as Transplant Donor--Scientific, Social and Ethical Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons 1987. p. 132.

British Medical Journal and Journal of the American Medical Association sound like (in)credible sources to an average person like me. I must admit that, after reading these for the first time, I felt so angry and deceived that, by the next day, I had to rewrite the draft of my reply completely. After stepping back and cooling down my head, I faced myself with the task of completing the sentence:

Either this evidence is fake or ________________________.
1. Dempublicents1 isn't aware of it.
2. Dempublicents1 doesn't want to recognise the validity of the research.

But surely the only way to choose option 2 is:
1. Based on further documented research that produced contradicting results (objective).
2. Personal judgement of the source (subjective).

Please remember, I am not "against you"; I'm just not "with you" yet. I neither wish to discredit you nor that you disprove this evidence to me because - in a sense - it's unlikely you can convince me of anything. Unless, of course, there is overwhelming contradicting evidence to claim these references are rubbish. Now, when I mean you may not be able to convince me, it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because I'm not a scientist and until I am personally confident that there is a clear scientific consensus on what happens to a X month's old foetus/baby, during an abortion, I don't feel confident to place my bets anywhere.

I think that pro-choicers should show a bit more awareness of this ethical dilemma, when asking for public support. An informed and responsible choice on this issue requires scientific knowledge which is beyond my non-science qualifications, just as it is beyond most people's. Without a clear and unbiased scientific consensus, what qualifications have I got to pick one side or the other? So, while it's fair and democratic to do a referendum on abortion, the fact is that this is an ethical issue for which the public is not scientifically qualified to answer. The harsh truth is that a referendum on abortion is a poll on people's personal and subjective perspectives on the issue.

At what point does it become human? From another source, at the "age" of 3 months:
"Nails start to develop and earlobes are formed. Fetus develops recognizable form. Arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet and toes are fully formed. Eyes are almost fully developed. His fingers and toes have separated and he has begun swallowing and kicking. The basic structures of all his organs are in place and beginning to function."
You see, I don't personally feel so detached...
And you assume I do? I thought we were discussing facts here, not emotions.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I had asked "at what point does it become human?" so I meant "I don't personally feel so detached [from the fact that a 3rd month foetus/baby is human]."
I do believe that women are often told of the studies suggesting that pain can be felt after about 5 months, but very few women are seeking abortions at that stage anyways.
If women want to avoid pain and suffering to their unborn foetus/baby, any abortion after 2.5 months is too late, according to the above evidence at least.
Thus, the question always comes down to - at what point do we give it rights over the woman's body, as that is the only way it can live?
You fail to take into account the outcome of both options. The foetus/baby is not necessarily asking for the mother to give her life, only her body for 9 months. The mother is...
I don't fail to do any such thing. First of all, the effects of a pregnancy are not "9 months and then you're back to normal." Carrying a pregnancy to term causes life-long changes in a woman's body - and always carries a risk to her. When we restrict abortions, we give the embryo/fetus the right to cause thos changes and impose that risk - without the woman's consent. You may not like the way it sounds, but there is no logical way to suggest that this is not giving the embryo/fetus rights to the woman's body.
I take your point about the life-long changes. Still, women should never argue that the right "to keep their bodies unchanged" is more fundamental than the "right to live". While I understand women's concerns for their bodies (I worry about mine), giving a woman the right to take a life is unethical, in principle, based on anything other than a real threat to her own life. Also, women who have a healthy lifestyle and take care of their bodies on a daily basis, before, during and after a pregnancy, have a very good chance to maintain a healthy body after term. Also, you cannot say "without the woman's consent", unless the pregnancy resulted from non-consensual sex (i.e. rape). Every woman should know that sex carries a risk of conception. So, if a pregnancy results from consensual sex, women were part-responsible because they accepted the risk of conception of the foetus/baby.

"When we don't avoid 2nd trimester abortions, we give the woman the right to cause pain and death - without the foetus/baby's consent. You may not like the way it sounds, but there is no logical way to suggest that this is not giving the woman rights to cause pain and death to the unborn foetus/baby."

See, your argument can be turned against you... Saying pregnancy carries a risk of death to the mother is ok but comparing a woman's risk of suffering pain and death through a pregnancy (in a developed country) to the foetus/baby's risk through abortion doesn't look very good for women;
Foetus/Baby's death risk during a legal abortion: 1 in 1
Woman's death risk through pregnancy: 1 in 2800
Want me to give you a more convincing pro-choice argument?
Woman's death risk through pregnancy: 1 in 2800
Woman's death risk through legal abortion: 1 in 166000
Want me to give you a more honest pro-choice argument? (the kind I like)
Foetus/Baby's death risk during a legal abortion: 1 in 1
Woman's death risk through pregnancy: 1 in 2800
Woman's death risk through legal abortion: 1 in 166000

On what basis and under which circumstances do we take the right to live from the baby?
This question would only work if the purpose of an abortion were to "kill the baby". It isn't. The purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy - to end the involvement of the woman's body.
My point is you cannot say "death didn't occur because there wasn't a purpose."
I didn't say that, so I guess we've got no problem.
So why did you say the question doesn't work? The most fundamental law of every civilised society is to protect the individual's right to life, without which organised society cannot exist. We've already agreed that the lack of purpose [to kill] neither gives someone the right to take someone else's life nor removes responsibility for the result (death). You cannot argue that the question doesn't work because there isn't a purpose [to kill]. Why? Because the logical result of your argument sounds like this:

We cannot decide on which basis and under which circumstances we take the right to live from a foetus/baby because there isn't a purpose to kill.
This sentence doesn't make any sense.

1. We can decide we take that right when there are life-threatening pregnancy complications.
2. We can decide we don't take that right if the foetus/baby is X months old.
3. These are just some examples...

You want the only question in the abortion debate to be, "When does the entity have a right to live?"
Sorry, but now it's my turn to say "I say no such thing, nor have I implied this." I've said about a hundred times (slight exaggeration :D): I am in favour of liberating abortion from a responsible and informed position, which is the same as saying "Inform and make women aware of their ethical responsibilities before performing an abortion".

The problem is that this is not the only question, or even the most pertinent one.
Please, be reasonable. Who decides that it is less pertinent to ask "when does the foetus/baby have a right to live?" You're the one risking to sound impertinent... The "right to live" is right No.1 of any civilised society. You may ask "on what basis and under which circumstances do we give/take that 'right No.1'" not whether it's more or less pertinent to ask that question. That implies a personal bias. Worse, arguing that it's less pertinent to question someone's right to live is the kind of argument that borders dangerous fanaticism. I wouldn't like to see you joining them.

Even if we were to answer that question, we would still have to answer, "When and why does the entity have rights over the woman's body." No entity but a fetus is ever granted the right to another human being's body against their will - so when and why do we grant such a right?
When we recognise that, ultimately, the existence of the baby is a consequence of a conscious action - consensual sex - involving one woman and one man. They may not have had the purpose to have a child but they certainly had the purpose to have sex. They have a responsibility because they chose to do it and took their chances. Also, they got something out of it in return (pleasure).

Also, I could say "no entity but a woman is ever granted the right to take another human's life, against their will - so when and why do we grant such a right?"
Unless you are self-defence from a present life-threatening action. The only entity that is allowed to break this supposely sacred rule to take a life against its will is the State, if they can enforce an execution (for whatever reason), and ourselves, when the State sends us to war...

Most people agree that, at a certain point, it should be granted. But the when and why is always under dispute.
Because each side never attempts to listens to the other side's worries. Their sole purpose is winning the argument, not settling it...

If an embryo/fetus could be removed intact and incubated elsewhere, that would still be an abortion.
No it wouldn't, it would be called a premature birth.
No, it wouldn't, as the embryo/fetus would still have to be incubated in a womb or womb-like device. We aren't talking about viable fetuses here (in which case, it would be a C-section, and it would be called premature birth).
Well, I worry your wording may be slightly tainted by medical terminology, so we're talking different languages: I am talking plain English (trying my best :D) while you just spoke in Medical American English. In American medical dictionaries, Abortion is first and foremost the action of terminating a pregnancy before the foetus/baby is viable (can survive with respirators only, right?). It's not the foetus/baby itself. In UK medical dictionaries, the action Abortion implies the death of the foetus/baby. While you can say an Abortion is "an aborted organism", it wouldn't be very objective - in the example you gave - to call a living foetus/baby an abortion because "an aborted organism" implies interrupted organism, thus dead. Still, Abortion and Premature birth are two different non-exclusive things. I cannot see why one cannot say:

"An induced abortion was the cause of the premature birth of John."
If John survived, this sentence makes more plain English sense than calling John an abortion. I think we should be talking plain English, if we want to reach and inform as many people as possible...

Every woman I know who has ever had an abortion has been presented with *all* options in her first visit to the clinic.
Still, I doubt that every women do and I rather hear those options FIRST from a non-biased source that wasn't taking my money for it.
The source would end up getting paid regardless of the decision, in most cases.
I meant that counselling on an action that terminates a life should not be given by the people providing and profiting from the termination. However well intentioned the medical staff may be, there is a clear conflict of interests between the clinic's financial interests and the foetus/baby's right to life. Also, there is a difference from saying "you have the option" and "presenting the option in a way the mother can consider it seriously". If you want women to make a responsible and informed choice, you must present *all* options with individual (+) and (-), not only for the woman but also for the foetus/baby. Most pro-choice websites I've found don't go much further than mentioning the word "adoption" as an option, at 2nd or 3r levels of information, while splashing the word "abortion" on the front page. Hardly non-bias...

You obviously say existence starts at birth, I personally hold that a human life starts to form and exist in the womb.
I say no such thing, nor have I implied this. Try again.
Sorry, you didn't say "existence starts at birth".
Sorry, but you did imply it. You said:
In one case [abortion], that child never comes to actual existence - removing the potential.

In the other, a parent brings a child into this world, and then irresponsibly hands off that child to someone else to take care of.
No-no-no... The way you worded that implies that all women that give their baby for adoption are irresponsible. You cannot say that. Say a woman became pregnant because she forgot to use a morning after pill and - worse - her boyfriend had condoms but in heat of the moment they did sex without. Why isn't it responsible to give the child a little hope of finding a home, instead of certain death, if the unwanted pregnancy is a result of the couple's irresponsibility? Why is it more responsible to do something that, in practice, ends up using this life as the scapegoat for the couple's irresponsibility?

There are women out there who honestly felt they had a treasure in their hands yet still found the courage and strength to let go and hand it over to adoptive parents. What you just said is disrespectful to these women and to the adopted children as well... You want women's choice to be liberated and people to respect your choice but you're not respecting the choice of those women who decided for adoption. Basically, you make it sound like pro-choice is really pro-abortion because not *all* choices are responsible. Choices aren't responsible. People are or not, depending how they use their choices. This only reinforces my worries about clinics selling legal abortions with profit and simultaneously doing the counselling.
I personally hold that a human life starts to form and exist in the womb.
Of course it does. But at what point is it formed enough to be a human person? At what point does an actual human being exist. Until you can objectively prove your personal viewpoint, we have to go with the most objective definition we can figure out.
:D For the record, you asked for the most objective definition of "at what point does an actual human being exist" If we're going to be objective, strip any moral and personal views and look it from a purely unbiased scientific perspective, what is then a "human being existing?"

hu·man n. 1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
be·ing adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
ex·is·tence n. 1. The fact or state of existing; being. 2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.

I suppose then "A living member of the human race." Can't be more objective than that. An unborn foetus/baby lives/exists and is certainly a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Obviously, I don't think that foster homes should be dumps for unwanted children.
But they are. Such is the reality.
Yet, if you had been raised in one of the nicer foster homes, I wander if you would be here defending your own abortion. Maybe you would... Maybe we should find one of those foster homes and ask every single child if they would rather not exist.
Arguments like this are spurious and completely illogical. Most people would rather exist. However, abortion, had it occurred, would have occurred before they had the ability to even consider the question.(...)
Let me rephrase that. There are happy children living today who have that ability to consider the question, thanks to their biological mother handing them over for adoption. On the other hand, with every abortion dies a unique potential person. These potential people won't get a second chance to live (unless they are buddhist :D). This is why life must be more precious, even for those that don't believe in God. While my argument was pure speculation, my point isn't illogical. It just shows how your thoughts are more from a woman's perspective and less from the child's. If you really want to be neutral and objective, you have to either take both stands or none.

[Pro-life movements] disregard the child completely. Oh, they care when it is an embryo/fetus in the womb. But once a child is born, they generally could care less what the welfare of that child is. It simply "isn't their problem."
Please read this page (http://stories.adoption.com/story/general-2.html) and then restate here what you just said; that Pro-life movements "disregard the child completely". Pro-life movements were created to save already existing lives, not manage them. For the later, we have free elections every X years. If you don't want to face this fact, whatever your personal/professional motifs are, I respect that. However, you cannot say how my arguments "are spurious and completely illogical." If you really want to point fingers, point at the people elected to manage the children (who instead decided to waste tax money in wars) or at the people profiting from the sale of contraceptives. Don't point them at the people saving lives. Want my advice? If they point fingers at you, listen first to what they have to say and then raise your own finger, instead of pointing back...

Pro-choice movements generally show quite a bit of concern towards children, often stating that every child should be wanted and well-treated.
I hear what you are saying and I accept some may do, but I don't think that's what is coming out... When the polemic "Women on Waves" came to Portugal, I applauded their courage and enterprise. Today, a bit wiser on the subject, I still view them as courageous but I would rather applaud them if I felt they were telling women that abortion wasn't the only way out. They do state "all pregnancies should be wanted pregnancies and each child a wanted child" but anyone would have to be a monster if they didn't think that. Unfortunately, not a word about adoption - as a legitimate option - on their website. Where's the choice, I ask?

What [pro-choice movements] may show less concern for is an embryo/early fetus.
This is exactly where they are failing. Change this attitude and they (and you) will conquer more hearts; just do it with truth and not to win votes (don't take the example of our politicians). Don't show "less concern" for the foetus/baby. Be more moderate and neutral; that's true choice.
At the stage of most abortions, it really is little more than tissue with the potential to become more. Many of us have emotional attachments to that potential - and value it, but in reality, that is what it is. As it begins to develop further, it gains the traits we generally recognize. But keep in mind that the majority of abortions occur before 8 weeks. The vast majority occur before 13. We aren't talking about late-term pregnancies here.
While I've always argued for 12 weeks maximum as a responsible abortion, after I read the evidence above I actually feel closer to 8 weeks (your fault :D). Still, my conscience weights a bit when I read this again:

d) 8 weeks:
"if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus."
A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26

He's flicking his head back, this is no longer the 'total pattern response' or moving the whole body (like at 6-7 weeks). This suggests possibility of local feeling/discomfort/pain and movement. We cannot tell to what extent is reflexive or not; but it's possible that it isn't only reflexive anymore. From an ethical perspective, when this possibility is plausible, it is you who should be proving to me that no pain will be caused to the foetus/baby, if you want to say "I don't mind abortions between 8 and 12 weeks". Unless there is significant evidence saying otherwise, we must consider the possibility of a 8 weeks foetus/baby feeling pain during an abortion and how ethical it is to do and say things as if it doesn't, when we don't know for certain (either way).

Consider this hypothesis: In a "survival + food + sex" Darwinistic world, the brain mechanisms behind feeling and pain are among the first to develop.
Pure speculation of mine but not completely illogical, don't you agree?

And that is why most in the pro-choice camp start stricter regulation at the end of the 1st trimester - moving to even stricter regulation at the end of the 2nd.
Which is closer to where I stand now (8 weeks). However, before I would openly support Pro-choice, I would have to be more confident that they are informing women about their responsibilities and the possible suffering caused to a foetus/baby 8-9 weeks old, during an abortion. If women know this, they are much more likely to seek an earlier abortion.

I just say "Don't be as one sided as Pro-life people and will conquer my heart (and I'm a tough cookie to crack)". If any woman decides to delay an abortion till after 8 weeks, after reading the stories from adopted people and their biological mothers and being told of how abortions cause suffering to the foetus after 8 weeks, then it's her conscience that will have to live with the fact, not mine, and I do think she has the right to choose (even if not without at least some verbal reprimand. But if this woman repeats a second abortion after 8 weeks, it's because she wasn't made conscious of these things and - then - it's starting to border gross negligence. But whose? The mother's only? It's not enough to liberate women, you have to educate them of how to use that freedom with responsibility.

You seem to think that the pro-choice movement involves completely free access to abortion up until the moment of birth. While there are a few radicals out there who have suggested this, it is not the case for most pro-choicers.
In all honesty, I don't assume that either they or you think that. What I argue is that the overall pro-choice argument "My body, my choice", isn't doing women any favours. My professional perspective (communication design) tells me that this message is over simplistic and too self-centred and suggests that women are becoming as egocentric, sexist and blind as men have been for thousands of years. You see, women are shouting "my body, my choice" but a choice implies two options and you only mention one ("my body"). The real message is "My body or a life; my choice". It sounds awful, I know, but that is reality. Women used to be the intelligent and love caring ones [and I'm not being sarcastic].

This is an positive message for Pro-choice (and women)
Pro-choice = Freedom with responsibility to choose Parenthood+Adoption+Abortion.

This is a negative message for Pro-choice (and women)
Pro-choice = Freedom to choose Abortion (+Parenthood+Adoption.)

1. Parenthood because some women may be willing to take the risks of a pregnancy and keep the child.
2. Adoption because some women may not feel able to raise a child, but may be willing to take the risk of a pregnancy to save a life.
3. Abortion because some women may not want or cannot risk her body and/or life in a pregnancy. This should always be the last option because it's the only one to cause certain death.

The order I presented isn't a as measure based on morality, it's a measure of increasing "risk of one death". Risks to the mother should be presented side-by-side with the risks to the foetus/baby.

On timings, people might feel more comfortable if they heard pro-choicers saying:

1. A woman should always do her best to terminate pregnancies within 6-7 weeks, to avoid unnecessary pain to the foetus/baby.
2. A woman aborting after 8 weeks should be informed of the possibility of causing suffering to the foetus/baby.
3. A woman aborting twice after 8 weeks should be informed of her recklessness, if it's clear that she had been aware of the pregnancy and had all the conditions to perform the abortion earlier.

Personally, I believe women should be jailed for an abortion as much as they should be free to do 11 abortions while society turns a blind eye. I believe that a foetus is a complete human being as much as it is a piece of tissue and bone. I believe in an almighty God looking upon our shoulder as much as in that He simply doesn't exist. I am not bound by faith or lack of faith. I do not have or will ever have children, unless it's through adoption, because I believe the world doesn't need more children. This is why I feel I can take a side-step, listen to both arguments and agree with none completely.

You see, I am pro-life and pro-choice, not anti-choice and anti-life, so I don't fit in either side. I would rather like to see them turning one, if they only cared to listen to eachother...

Life, Freedom and Responsibility
So we can all have peace of mind.

Yes, but not as a means of birth control; only as a means of killing innocents.
I think you have an attitude problem...

Unfortunately, I had a long reply to this nearly completed, and then lost the post. So this won't be nearly as detailed as it would have been.


Right now, all I see is that both sides are largely failing to listen to each-other's legitimate issues.

What legitimate issues are not being listened to?

As I've said, I am no scientist. So, after reading your reply, I was close to just write "You sound very informed and scientific, so I'll hope you're pretty certain about what you are talking about and will take your word for it, with some reserved relief (because I do not know you)". For a moment, I honestly hoped you had a good reason to feel so confident that "pain can be felt after about 5 months", though what I really wanted to hear from you was something more like "they don't feel pain at 3 months".

I do. Recent studies have come to the conclusion that the earliest a fetus can feel pain is most likely 20-22 weeks. Note, this is actually feeling pain, not responding to stimulus.

Then, my goddamned curiosity was stronger [again] and I turned to Google. When I read what you're about to read, I gasped:

Understandable. It is easy to misinterpret science when you do not know it well - especially when rather misleading terms are used.

British Medical Journal and Journal of the American Medical Association sound like (in)credible sources to an average person like me. I must admit that, after reading these for the first time, I felt so angry and deceived that, by the next day, I had to rewrite the draft of my reply completely. After stepping back and cooling down my head, I faced myself with the task of completing the sentence:

Either this evidence is fake or ________________________.
1. Dempublicents1 isn't aware of it.
2. Dempublicents1 doesn't want to recognise the validity of the research.

But surely the only way to choose option 2 is:
1. Based on further documented research that produced contradicting results (objective).
2. Personal judgement of the source (subjective).

There are several possibilities you don't consider. One is that you are misinterpreting your sources (I'll explain below). Another is that there is a huge amount of further research, considering that the newest somewhat valid source you quote is nearly 20 years old. You must understand that, in biology, a source that is 5 years old is probably extremely outdated. Something that is 10 years old is most likely useless, unless it refers to the basics. Something that is 20 years old is basically ancient history. Anything that is 20 years old and has actually stood the test of time has probably become such an ingrained part of biology that it doesn't even have to be cited anymore.

From your sources:

(a) Dobson is not a legitimate source for anything really - and definitely is not a legitimate source for biology.

(b) This one is a little misleading. An EEG will pick up *any* neural signals - they need not actually come from the brain. Typically, an EEG is used to measure brain signals, and we call them brainwaves. Considering that embryology texts are clear that synapses have not yet been made in the brain at this point, it is fairly clear that the measurements being taken here were spinal neurons, not brain neurons. Of course, your source is so very old that they may not have known that - as they would not have had many of the techniques we now use to stain these things.

(c), (d), and (e) all describe responses to stimulus - something I never claimed a fetus, after a certain point, cannot do. Not a single one of them actually refers to pain - only to movement in response to stimulus. I understand that you don't know the biology behind all of this, but I can assure you that all responses are not pain responses.

(f) Has several problems. One is its age and the fact that much later, more elegant research has contradicted it. Another is that, while I cannot currently access the particular source you cited, a quick search on the author reveals that critiques of his papers have included the problem that he used a very nonstandard definition of pain. Apparently, to this author, *any* response to injury was considered a pain response. Of course, this is not biologically accurate. The pain response is a very specific set of processes.

I don't currently have access to the full text of these, as I am at home, but I will be happy to look over them tomorrow:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16613970&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16538756&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

This research was widely reported only a few months ago, and the conclusions were as I described above.

Please remember, I am not "against you"; I'm just not "with you" yet. I neither wish to discredit you nor that you disprove this evidence to me because - in a sense - it's unlikely you can convince me of anything. Unless, of course, there is overwhelming contradicting evidence to claim these references are rubbish.

Not rubbish, except for perhaps the Dobbson (pretty much everything that man says is rubbish) and the last paper. In the case of the last paper, using such a broad definition of pain can only point to a bias of the author. The rest are simply better understood now than they were at the time of their writing - and didn't say what you think them to say even before further research.

I think that pro-choicers should show a bit more awareness of this ethical dilemma, when asking for public support. An informed and responsible choice on this issue requires scientific knowledge which is beyond my non-science qualifications, just as it is beyond most people's.

Scientific knowledge is not beyond those who are not trained in science. It may take time for you to understand the research - but the sources are out there. You may not be able to carry out the research yourself, but you can certainly examine a paper to see its strengths and weaknesses.

If women want to avoid pain and suffering to their unborn foetus/baby, any abortion after 2.5 months is too late, according to the above evidence at least.

According to the last source, you might think that. But, again, that source not only used an incredibly broad definition of pain, but is also "ancient history" in the biology and medicine world - with much more recent sources contradicting it.

I take your point about the life-long changes. Still, women should never argue that the right "to keep their bodies unchanged" is more fundamental than the "right to live".

Can I be forced to give my organs to a dying person? After all, that person's right to live is more important than my own rights to my own body? And that person is undeniably a human person - with all the rights therein.

Also, you cannot say "without the woman's consent", unless the pregnancy resulted from non-consensual sex (i.e. rape). Every woman should know that sex carries a risk of conception. So, if a pregnancy results from consensual sex, women were part-responsible because they accepted the risk of conception of the foetus/baby.

Consenting to the risk of conception is not the same as consenting to remaining pregnant. If a woman does not wish to remain pregnant, and she is forced to do so - that is *against her will*.

"When we don't avoid 2nd trimester abortions, we give the woman the right to cause pain and death - [i]without the foetus/baby's consent.

First of all, as I have already shown, we aren't really talking about pain - at least not according to the research. Meanwhile, the fetus is incapable of consent.

So why did you say the question doesn't work?

Because, even if you answer the question, there is a further question to ask. In no other case does one entity have rights over the body of another human being. So, even if we establish a "right to life" for the embryo/fetus, we must discuss at what point and why it has rights over the woman's body.

The most fundamental law of every civilised society is to protect the individual's right to life, without which organised society cannot exist.

And yet I can refuse to donate my kidney - even if it means that someone dies. I can refuse to give blood -even if it means that someone dies. It seems that the right to life is not the most fundamental - if it were, then every other right of every person would be inferior to it in law.

We cannot decide on which basis and under which circumstances we take the right to live from a foetus/baby because there isn't a purpose to kill.
This sentence doesn't make any sense.

No, it doesn't. Of course, it is not and has never been my argument. I have simply pointed out that, even if we answer the question - at what point a fetus has the rights of a human person, we still must answer the question of when and why it has rights over the body of another human person.

Please, be reasonable. Who decides that it is less pertinent to ask "when does the foetus/baby have a right to live?"

I am being reasonable. Even if we answer that question, the larger question we must answer is "When does the embryo/fetus have the right to control over the woman's body?" If, at any point, we restrict the woman from ending a pregnancy, we have granted the embryo/fetus rights over her body. There is no logical way to argue that this is not true. On top of that, the embryo/fetus cannot exercise these rights, so we must exercise the rights for it - meaning that we actually end up with control over her body.

When we recognise that, ultimately, the existence of the baby is a consequence of a conscious action - consensual sex - involving one woman and one man.

And, ultimately, the existence of a broken leg is the consequence of a conscious action - going skiing, for instance. But a person who has what they consider an unfavorable accident while skiing has the right to the medical treatment that they seek.

They have a responsibility because they chose to do it and took their chances.

I agree with this. I also think it is something that cannot be enforced on another. I also think that a man and a woman have a responsibility to keep sex in a monogamous, loving, long-term relationship - but I would not legislate as such.

Also, I could say "no entity but a woman is ever granted the right to take another human's life, against their will - so when and why do we grant such a right?"

You, on the other hand, would be wrong. If a born person were going to do to a woman what a pregnancy does - against her will - she would be well within her rights to kill that person to protect herself - if it were the only way she could see out of it. And, in that case, we are talking about a born human being with the philosophical question of whether or not it has rights well answered.

Because each side never attempts to listens to the other side's worries.

Being pro-life myself, I already know what the worries of the anti-choice argument is (aside from the "Dirty Whore" argument). I simply don't think they should be forced upon others.

Well, I worry your wording may be slightly tainted by medical terminology, so we're talking different languages: I am talking plain English (trying my best :D) while you just spoke in Medical American English. In American medical dictionaries, Abortion is first and foremost the action of terminating a pregnancy before the foetus/baby is viable (can survive with respirators only, right?). It's not the foetus/baby itself. In UK medical dictionaries, the action Abortion implies the death of the foetus/baby.

You are going to have to source this one. I doubt very seriously that an abortion in the UK is defined differently from that in the US - the termination of a pregnancy. In medical terms, there is even the existence of a "spontaneous abortion".

"An induced abortion was the cause of the premature birth of John."
If John survived, this sentence makes more plain English sense than calling John an abortion. I think we should be talking plain English, if we want to reach and inform as many people as possible...

The way you have used it in this sentence is exactly the same way I am using it. An "induced abortion" would be an induced end of pregnancy - a medical abortion.

I meant that counselling on an action that terminates a life should not be given by the people providing and profiting from the termination.

(a) At early stages, whether an abortion actually terminates a life is well up for debate - considering that it cannot meet the biological definition of an organism - as it does not show all the signs of life.

(b) One might just as easily say that the person who will profit from giving prenatal care should notbe the one that counsels a woman on the possibility of continuing the pregnancy. Clinics and hospitals are generally going to profit no matter what decision the woman makes.

Most pro-choice websites I've found don't go much further than mentioning the word "adoption" as an option, at 2nd or 3r levels of information, while splashing the word "abortion" on the front page. Hardly non-bias...

"Most pro-choice websites" are not medical professionals counselling their patients. They have a rather clear agenda, if they are "pro-choice websites". Your comment is like complaining that pro-voting websites don't talk about the option of running for office.

Sorry, you didn't say "existence starts at birth".
Sorry, but you did imply it. You said:

That doesn't in any way imply that existence starts at birth. It implies that the use of the word "child" comes into play at birth. I would hardly claim that the embryo and fetus do not exist before that.

Your implication is just as if I had said, "If a child dies, no adult results," and you complained that I said existence starts at adulthood.

No-no-no... The way you worded that implies that all women that give their baby for adoption are irresponsible.

A person who makes an irresponsible decision is not necessarily irresponsible. Sometimes, a list of irresponsible choices are all that is left to them, and they must try and choose the least irresponsible of them. Being the least irresponsible, however, does not make the action responsible.

The only way to be responsible when bringing a child into this world is to take care of it. Anything else is giving up that responsibility - being irresponsible.

There are women out there who honestly felt they had a treasure in their hands yet still found the courage and strength to let go and hand it over to adoptive parents.

Yes. They had the strength to choose the least irresponsible choice. Most likely, in these cases, they were unable to keep the child, so attempting to do so would have been even more irresponsible.

These women were in an unfortunate situation - where they had no good options, and simply had to choose the "least worst" option.

What you just said is disrespectful to these women and to the adopted children as well...

How so?

You want women's choice to be liberated and people to respect your choice but you're not respecting the choice of those women who decided for adoption.

How am I not respecting their choice? I am claiming that it is their choice. They are in a bad situation with no "good" choice among them. They simply have to decide what the best choice out a group of bad choices is.

Basically, you make it sound like pro-choice is really pro-abortion because not *all* choices are responsible.

Did I say that abortion is responsible?

People are or not, depending how they use their choices.

A person can be responsible by choosing irresponsibility - if irresponsibility is the only choice before them.

I suppose then "A living member of the human race." Can't be more objective than that. An unborn foetus/baby lives/exists and is certainly a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Actually, an embryo, by the strictest definition, does not live - at least not in a way different from my kidney.

Can you define life for me in a way that includes an embryo, but does not include an organ, count twins as a single life, or count chimeras as at least two? You cannot use an argument from potential.

Let me rephrase that. There are happy children living today who have that ability to consider the question, thanks to their biological mother handing them over for adoption.

They have no such thing. It is impossible for the living to be able to say what they would have wanted at the fetal stage - not the least of which because there is no such capability.

You are trying to take the capabilities of born human beings and apply them to an entity with no such capability. It is like asking whether a plant wants its flowers to be white or purple, or asking a person if they would have rathered be born as a cockroach - the question doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, with every abortion dies a unique potential person. These potential people won't get a second chance to live (unless they are buddhist :D).

They won't get a first chance to live either. Some of us value that potential - others do not.

If you really want to be neutral and objective, you have to either take both stands or none.

I don't think you understand the term objective.

Please read this page (http://stories.adoption.com/story/general-2.html) and then restate here what you just said; that Pro-life movements "disregard the child completely".

I don't have time to read it now, but I will later. Of course, a pro-life group or two would not disprove the idea of pro-lifers generally not caring. Most of those who argue vehemently anti-choice positions also argue that welfare should be abolished, that we should continue to stuff children into an overfilled orphanage and foster home system - but would not adopt such a child themselves. And when they do talk about adoption, they only care about a healthy newborn of their same ethnicity.

Where's the choice, I ask?

With the woman making it.

This is exactly where they are failing.

Who are you to tell someone else what they should and should not value? If a person does not value the potential in the embryo/early fetus, they will certainly value the life of a human person with all the rights therein over that potential.

I do value the potential, but I will not force my values upon others.

Change this attitude and they (and you) will conquer more hearts; just do it with truth

Once again you try to attribute an attitude to me.

Meanwhile, all I have discussed here is truth. For the most part, I haven't mentioned my personal beliefs - and for that reason, you have tended to completely mischaracterize me.

He's flicking his head back, this is no longer the 'total pattern response' or moving the whole body (like at 6-7 weeks). This suggests possibility of local feeling/discomfort/pain and movement.

And further research supports the idea that it is still reflexive action - and no actual discomfort can be felt.

We cannot tell to what extent is reflexive or not; but it's possible that it isn't only reflexive anymore.

We can't? We do have ways of measuring these things - of figuring out what receptors are responsible, what synapses are involved, etc. At the time that your source was written, many of these techniques were unavailable. They are not any longer.

From an ethical perspective, when this possibility is plausible, it is you who should be proving to me that no pain will be caused to the foetus/baby, if you want to say "I don't mind abortions between 8 and 12 weeks".

Read the research.

Unless there is significant evidence saying otherwise,

There is.

when we don't know for certain (either way).

We never know *anything* for certain. But evidence would suggest very strongly that your worries are unfounded.

Consider this hypothesis: In a "survival + food + sex" Darwinistic world, the brain mechanisms behind feeling and pain are among the first to develop.
Pure speculation of mine but not completely illogical, don't you agree?

Not completely illogical, but rather at odds with the evidence.

You see, women are shouting "my body, my choice" but a choice implies two options and you only mention one ("my body").

Hardly. "My body" encompasses many choices. A woman can choose not to have sex or to have sex. She can choose to use birth control or not to. She can choose to continue a pregnancy or not to. She choose the method and place of birth, if that is what she chooses. She can choose to breastfeed or bottle feed. And so on.....

The point is that she is the master of her own body - as we are all masters of our own bodies. The alternative is slavery.

Pro-choice = Freedom with responsibility to choose Parenthood+Adoption+Abortion.

This is already the message. Only abortion, however, is being attacked and the only option that is being taken away from women (in most countries anyways) is abortion.

The pro-choice movement is clear that the removal of any of these choices is a problem - which is why the practice in China of the government forcing a woman to abort is seen as just as much of a problem as someone forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy.

On timings, people might feel more comfortable if they heard pro-choicers saying:

Some of what you want pro-choicers to say would be innaccurate. It would be effectively removing the choice of abortion by giving them inaccurate information about the abilities of the embryo/fetus.

I believe that a foetus is a complete human being as much as it is a piece of tissue and bone.

And your belief is your right. I assume you would make your choices based on it, as I would make my choices based on my beliefs.

But until you can demonstrate something more objective that "I believe"....

You see, I am pro-life and pro-choice, not anti-choice and anti-life, so I don't fit in either side. I would rather like to see them turning one, if they only cared to listen to eachother...

Once again, you completely mischaracterize entire movements. One can be pro-life (or, more accurately, anti-abortion) and pro-choice - I am. One can be pro-choice and pro-abortion (although this is extremely rare). One can be anti-abortion and anti-choice (the "pro-life" movement). I suppos one could anti-choice and anti-life, although I'm not sure how this would work out.

You seem to think that anyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion, when that simply isn't the case. The vast majority on the pro-choice side think that abortions should be safe, legal, and RARE.

Me pick the middle one...