NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, I know this has been done alot, but I would like to see people reasoning as to why they are against abortion and why that reasoning is good enough to be forced upon everyone.

Or to rephrase why do you think abortion should be illegal?

Yeah, I know this has been done alot, but I would like to see people reasoning as to why they are against abortion and why that reasoning is good enough to be forced upon everyone.

Or to rephrase why do you think abortion should be illegal?

IF an unborn child = a human being THEN to kill one is to kill a human being.

Murder is universally considered a crime

Therefore, IF you believe the unborn to Be a person, THEN you believe abortion should be illegal.

It really is that simple, despite what some people want you to think.

Is there anyone who's pro-abortion? I mean seriously. The anti-choice lobby likes to use the terms pro and anti abortion, but no one is pro-abortion, until they end up pregnant.

Simple fact is abortions will happen whether you outlaw it or not, may as well do them safely. Plus unwanted kids aren't a good thing.

*sits holding a bucket of popcorn, hungry to watch a good fiery action*

*hands out sodas*

*sits holding a bucket of popcorn, hungry to watch a good fiery action*

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm anti-pregnancy.

Reasoning: Overpopulation is ruining the environment, increasing unemployment, spreading poverty and disease, and fosters worker-unfriendly environments. If future generations limited their progeny to, say, one or two children apiece, and those with serious genetic defects were banned from reproduction, the world population would stabilise and prevent overcrowding. At least until we succeed in establishing viable colonies on celestial bodies.

So long as there are inadequate policies in place regarding sexual education and childcare, abortion will exist and will be a necessary evil. Until healthcare, education and childcare issues are addressed so people feel comfortable supporting an extra child, abortion will remain necessary even when outlawed.

I'm anti-abortion (elective, anyways) because of the value I feel an embryo and its potential have. I also do believe in the soul, but do not know at what point ensoulment occurs.

I do not feel that abortion should be illegal, however. There are plenty of things I personally disagree with that I don't seek to make illegal. I also realize the fact that, no matter what the personhood status of an embryo might be, no one has the right to use another's body against that person's will.

*hands out sodas*
Thanks. If this thread would catch fire I might be able to roast some hotdogs and marshmallows.

IF an unborn child = a human being THEN to kill one is to kill a human being.

Murder is universally considered a crime

Therefore, IF you believe the unborn to Be a person, THEN you believe abortion should be illegal.

It really is that simple, despite what some people want you to think.

Killing a human being =/= murder. That's where the flaw comes into that argument.

The Bible approves of abortion if the father is fine with it. Therefor it must be evil and wrong - after all, it is the Bible ;)

Killing a human being =/= murder. That's where the flaw comes into that argument.I'd have gone with unborn child =/= person.
(Of course it eventually turns into one, and there's no clear divide. But certainly the first few months I wouldn't consider it one.)

The circumstances are a bit odd if you consider it a person and don't consider the killing murder. It would would have to be some form of justifiable homicide. In some cases it can clearly be self-defense (if it endangers your health), but in other cases it's harder to say.

Thanks. If this thread would catch fire I might be able to roast some hotdogs and marshmallows.

Okay, who's bringing the hotdogs? How about the marshmallows?

I'd have gone with unborn child =/= person.
(Of course it eventually turns into one, and there's no clear divide. But certainly the first few months I wouldn't consider it one.)

The circumstances are a bit odd if you consider it a person and don't consider the killing murder. It would would have to be some form of justifiable homicide. In some cases it can clearly be self-defense (if it endangers your health), but in other cases it's harder to say.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.

How is it hard?

Okay, who's bringing the hotdaogs? How about the marshmallows?
We can worry 'bout that later, we'll wait for the fire first. While we wait, have some popcorn. :)

We can worry 'bout that later, we'll wait for the fire first. While we wait, have some popcorn. :)
You had to quote it before I fixed the spelling, didn't you?

*takes some popcorn*

The Bible approves of abortion if the father is fine with it. Therefor it must be evil and wrong - after all, it is the Bible ;)

Actually the bible says a number of things both for and against it

The circumstances are a bit odd if you consider it a person and don't consider the killing murder. It would would have to be some form of justifiable homicide. In some cases it can clearly be self-defense (if it endangers your health), but in other cases it's harder to say.

The problem here is that you make the assumption that the purpose of abortion is to kill the embryo. It isn't. It is to end a pregnancy.

Meanwhile, legally, self-defense includes situations in which your life is not in immediate danger. If someone is trying to use my body against my will, I can use whatever level of force is necessary to stop them from doing so. In some cases, I can even legally use a greater level of force than necessary.

The problem here is that you make the assumption that the purpose of abortion is to kill the embryo. It isn't. It is to end a pregnancy. I don't think I made that assumption; just that (something considered) a person dies.
So you opt negligent homicide or something? It just happens someone dies in the process that wasn't at all considered?

Meanwhile, legally, self-defense includes situations in which your life is not in immediate danger. If someone is trying to use my body against my will, I can use whatever level of force is necessary to stop them from doing so. In some cases, I can even legally use a greater level of force than necessary.*nods* makes sense.

I'd have gone with unborn child =/= person.
(Of course it eventually turns into one, and there's no clear divide. But certainly the first few months I wouldn't consider it one.)

The circumstances are a bit odd if you consider it a person and don't consider the killing murder. It would would have to be some form of justifiable homicide. In some cases it can clearly be self-defense (if it endangers your health), but in other cases it's harder to say.

Justifiable homicide?!

If it is illegal to kill your children after they are born, why should it be legal to kill them before hand? Pregancy is a direct result of something that the woman, whom is pregnant, was partially responsible for. Why is it that you can escape the responsibility of raising a child because you just don't want to have a baby?

Actually the bible says a number of things both for and against it

The most obvious example is the famous eye for an eye passage. There are two popular translations for that - one stating that the father can demand a fine if someone causes his wife to miscarry, the other one equating the killing of an unborn with murder.
Since the overall tendency of the Bible is to have no regard whatsoever for the potential existence of unborn children when killing a woman (for instance because she was raped within a city) the first translation best fits Biblical context. The unborn child only has worth if the husband thinks so.

I don't think I made that assumption; just that (something considered) a person dies.

But a person dying isn't necessarily homicide.

So you opt negligent homicide or something? It just happens someone dies in the process that wasn't at all considered?

It isn't homicide at all.

First of all, unwanted children are bad for the economy, so I'm pro-choice.

That said, the pro-life argument goes like this.

The foetus is a human.
Killing a human is murder.
A foetus cannot defend itself.
Standing by and allowing a murderer to kill a defenseless victim is abhorrent.
Therefore, they must stop all abortions.

It really makes perfect sense.

If it is illegal to kill your children after they are bornIf they threaten your life, and the only way to safe yourself is to kill them, surely killing your children would be justifiable homicide. It is not illegal per se.
But let's hope your kids are raised better than that.

[pquote]Pregancy is a direct result of something that the woman, whom is pregnant, was partially responsible for. Why is it that you can escape the responsibility of raising a child because you just don't want to have a baby?[/QUOTE]Quite irrelevant.
Besides, undergoing an abortion is just another kind of dealing with the consequences. Why would you allow only for one kind of responsibility? It's quite irresponsible to bring children into this world in the first place ;)

But a person dying isn't necessarily homicide.



It isn't homicide at all.

But it is at the very least manslaughter. Is it not?

If they threaten your life, and the only way to safe yourself is to kill them, surely killing your children would be justifiable homicide. It is not illegal per se.


But realistically with todays medical technologies, do you know of a single instance when an unborn child was a true threat to the mother's existence?

But a person dying isn't necessarily homicide.True. But there is no way to perform an abortion that doesn't lead to the death of the fetus. It doesn't die unrelated to the procedure or unexpectedly; the act of abortion is directly responsible to the death.
Maybe if you could convince me (if you want) by finding an analogy where an act leads unavoidably to death (and not doing it doesn't) where it is not homicide.

But realistically with todays medical technologies, do you know of a single instance when an unborn child was a true threat to the mother's existence?

Yes.

First of all, unwanted children are bad for the economy, so I'm pro-choice.

That said, the pro-life argument goes like this.

The foetus is a human.
Killing a human is murder.
A foetus cannot defend itself.
Standing by and allowing a murderer to kill a defenseless victim is abhorrent.
Therefore, they must stop all abortions.

It really makes perfect sense.

Except for that whole part where the woman's body is being used against her will (conveniently left out of the pro-ban argument, of course).


But it is at the very least manslaughter. Is it not?

No.

But realistically with todays medical technologies, do you know of a single instance when an unborn child was a true threat to the mother's existence?

Yes. Ectopic pregnancies are one easy example. The last time I looked up the numbers on late-term abortions, preeclampsia was at the top of the list.

There are deaths due to pregnancy or childbirth. Are you going to pretend that they don't exist?

True. But there is no way to perform an abortion that doesn't lead to the death of the fetus. It doesn't die unrelated to the procedure or unexpectedly; the act of abortion is directly responsible to the death.
Maybe if you could convince me (if you want) by finding an analogy where an act leads unavoidably to death (and not doing it doesn't) where it is not homicide.

This guy needs a kidney or he will die. I am the only person on Earth who can give him a kidney. He takes my kidney. I can legally take it back, even though doing so will result in his death.

But realistically with todays medical technologies, do you know of a single instance when an unborn child was a true threat to the mother's existence?Well, it hijacks the mothers body. As Dem said, someone is entitled to defend herself if someone, even without threatening her life, tries to take undue control over her life.
It is not something a person is allowed to do to another person. Not even with prior consent if the person changes her mind.

True. But there is no way to perform an abortion that doesn't lead to the death of the fetus. It doesn't die unrelated to the procedure or unexpectedly; the act of abortion is directly responsible to the death.
Maybe if you could convince me (if you want) by finding an analogy where an act leads unavoidably to death (and not doing it doesn't) where it is not homicide.

OK, a robber breaks into my house and threatens to kill me, in response I chop his head off. I have killed the robber, but I am not guilty of murdering him.

This guy needs a kidney or he will die. I am the only person on Earth who can give him a kidney. He takes my kidney. I can legally take it back, even though doing so will result in his death.Thanks.
I really should have remembered that one (there's a rather famous argument similar to this one).

OK, a robber breaks into my house and threatens to kill me, in response I chop his head off. I have killed the robber, but I am not guilty of murdering him.I wasn't talking about murder, though. This sounds to me as justifiable homicide.
Or do I have my terms mixed up?

I wasn't talking about murder, though. This sounds to me as justifiable homicide.
Or do I have my terms mixed up?

That case is self-defense. If the robber threatened to kill, say, your wife, and you chopped his head off, that would be justifiable homicide.

True. But there is no way to perform an abortion that doesn't lead to the death of the fetus.

And that is precisely why it isn't murder or homicide or any such thing. The woman has the right to deny the use of her body to others, even if they will die without it. Since there is no way to do that in early term without the destruction of the embryo/fetus, that is the only way she can assert her rights over her own body.

If the only way I can keep from being raped, for instance, is to kill my attacker, I can do that. It isn't homicide or murder or manslaughter. It is self-defense.

Maybe if you could convince me (if you want) by finding an analogy where an act leads unavoidably to death (and not doing it doesn't) where it is not homicide.

Suppose a patient is dying of leukemia, but can be cured by a bone marrow transplant. They check the entire registry and all of his friends and family. The man's sister is a match. She could let them stick her with a big needle, take some tissue - tissue that she will regenerate - and give it to him to save his life. She chooses not to. He dies.

Now, switch it up. She agrees. He is irradiated in preparation. At that last minute, she refuses. He dies.

Are either of these homicide?

why abort someone if you don't want the child then just put the baby up for adoption and let another family raise him or her

why abort someone if you don't want the child then just put the baby up for adoption and let another family raise him or her

Why let the child come into existence in the first place ? It is not like we have a shortage of adoptable children.

why abort someone if you don't want the child then just put the baby up for adoption and let another family raise him or her

Come back when you've successfully pissed a softball. That a similar proportion, I believe.

Khadgar asked if there's anyone who's pro-abortion? And said that no one is pro-abortion, until they end up pregnant.

I'm pro-abortion. And I haven't been pregnant. Nor will be, since I'm a male.
An unborn foetus who is aborted at the first few months of pregnancy has nervous system development and brain development to a very minimal extent. At the most extreme cases of abortion, perhaps the foetus reaches the nervous system and brain development equivalent to that of a cow. If you are strictly against killing any mammals whatsoever, I can see your argument against abortion. If you are pro-killing of cows and other such mammals, and don't advocate some sort of crazy philosophy of 'let's make the human species as large as possible and have as many babies as we can so that we can run out of resources faster and all die out', then I have no choice but to call you a HYPOCRITE.

True. But there is no way to perform an abortion that doesn't lead to the death of the fetus. It doesn't die unrelated to the procedure or unexpectedly; the act of abortion is directly responsible to the death.
Maybe if you could convince me (if you want) by finding an analogy where an act leads unavoidably to death (and not doing it doesn't) where it is not homicide.

I wasn't talking about murder, though. This sounds to me as justifiable homicide.
Or do I have my terms mixed up?

:confused:

Semantics, semantics, semantics. All designed to avoid the reality of the situation.

The problem here is that you make the assumption that the purpose of abortion is to kill the embryo. It isn't. It is to end a pregnancy.

I shot the driver in the face so I could take his car. I should only be charged with GTA however, since my actions were to steal the vehicle, not end a life.


Meanwhile, legally, self-defense includes situations in which your life is not in immediate danger. If someone is trying to use my body against my will, I can use whatever level of force is necessary to stop them from doing so. In some cases, I can even legally use a greater level of force than necessary.
Well, it hijacks the mothers body. As Dem said, someone is entitled to defend herself if someone, even without threatening her life, tries to take undue control over her life.
It is not something a person is allowed to do to another person. Not even with prior consent if the person changes her mind.

Used for what? Rape? Killing someone who's trying to rape you is justifiable homicide becuse you might have reasonable belief that your life is also in imminent danger. That's the key. If I knock you out and use your body as a stepstool, I assure you, you'll be imprisoned if you kill me over it.

Except for that whole part where the woman's body is being used against her will (conveniently left out of the pro-ban argument, of course).

You have a singular penchant for trying to cast a pregnant woman as some sort of victim. My wife is pregnant. I've asked her if she feels like the victim of her pregnancy. She finds that funny.


This guy needs a kidney or he will die. I am the only person on Earth who can give him a kidney. He takes my kidney. I can legally take it back, even though doing so will result in his death.

Not so. You'll be charged with homicide since 1) The death penalty isn't an applicable sentence for theft of a kidney (see above) and 2) There's no due process.

And that is precisely why it isn't murder or homicide or any such thing. The woman has the right to deny the use of her body to others, even if they will die without it. Since there is no way to do that in early term without the destruction of the embryo/fetus, that is the only way she can assert her rights over her own body.


Your rights do not supercede someone else's life. Ever. (except in cases of self-defense where it's imminently your life or theirs.)


Suppose a patient is dying of leukemia, but can be cured by a bone marrow transplant. They check the entire registry and all of his friends and family. The man's sister is a match. She could let them stick her with a big needle, take some tissue - tissue that she will regenerate - and give it to him to save his life. She chooses not to. He dies.

Now, switch it up. She agrees. He is irradiated in preparation. At that last minute, she refuses. He dies.

Are either of these homicide?

No, because in both cases the direct cause of death is still Lukemia, not any action on the part of the sister. She simply chooses not to take action to intervene in that.

In an abortion death of the baby occurs as a direct and deliberate action on the part of the abortionist.

Why let the child come into existence in the first place ? It is not like we have a shortage of adoptable children.

Nor a shortage of parents looking to adopt. Why else do they go to Russia, China and Africa to find kids to adopt?

Because they are. Incidentally, their opinions are not likely to change, so this is a waste of time of the highest order.

For starters I think it goes against the first of the three unalienable rights rights of mankind on which the country was founded on: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can one accomplish this when one gets murdered?

Secondly i think it's murder, just because a fetus can't say "hey wait i want to live" doesn't make it not a person. It's a person the whole time just not fully developed.

Thirdly because I think people should take more responsibility for their actions. I mean just stop and think what you're are doing and if you could support a child if this occured and it's not like there aren't other alternatives out there like adoption.

I shot the driver in the face so I could take his car. I should only be charged with GTA however, since my actions were to steal the vehicle, not end a life.

Different situation. That is homicide in commission of a crime. Both shooting someone (other than self-defense) and stealing a car are crimes.

Choosing not to be pregnant, on the other hand, is not a crime.

Used for what? Rape? Killing someone who's trying to rape you is justifiable homicide becuse you might have reasonable belief that your life is also in imminent danger. That's the key. If I knock you out and use your body as a stepstool, I assure you, you'll be imprisoned if you kill me over it.

How could I kill you? I'm knocked out?

If, however, a reasonable person might see killing you as the only way to keep you from using them as a step-stool, they'd have the right to do so.

You have a singular penchant for trying to cast a pregnant woman as some sort of victim. My wife is pregnant. I've asked her if she feels like the victim of her pregnancy. She finds that funny.

Of course she does. She wants to remain pregnant. I wouldn't feel like a victim if I was pregnant either, because it wouldn't be against my will. But talk to a woman who never wants to be pregnant, who finds the very idea abhorrent, and see how she feels about it.

It's like the difference between consensual sex and rape. I choose to have sex with my husband, so I do not feel like a victim. If, on the other hand, I did not want to do so and it was forced upon me, I would feel like a victim. See the difference?

Your rights do not supercede someone else's life. Ever. (except in cases of self-defense where it's imminently your life or theirs.)

Actually, your rights supercede someone else's life all the time. That's why the government can't force you to save lives. Even the dead get the respect of not having their bodies used against their will - and people die because of it.

No, because in both cases the direct cause of death is still Lukemia, not any action on the part of the sister.

You don't think irradiation contributes to death? Strange, that.

In an abortion death of the baby occurs as a direct and deliberate action on the part of the abortionist.

Only because it is the only possible way for the woman to refuse use of her body.

Secondly i think it's murder, just because a fetus can't say "hey wait i want to live" doesn't make it not a person. It's a person the whole time just not fully developed.

Ok, that's your opinion. Now tell me why a "not fully developed" person should have more rights than a fully developed person. Why should it have rights to use another person's body against that person's will? Why should it have rights to make irreversible changes to that other's body and put her at greater risk for diseases later in life if she does not choose to allow it to do so?

Different situation. That is homicide in commission of a crime. Both shooting someone (other than self-defense) and stealing a car are crimes.

Choosing not to be pregnant, on the other hand, is not a crime.


I would argue that killing the baby is a crime.

Killing an unborn baby is not logically equivalent to choosing not to be pregnant. In fact, trying to paint it as such is goofy. If a train conductor suddenly chooses not to be emplyed by Amtrak that isn't a crime. Making that choice and hopping off of a moving train that he's responsible for is...

...surprisingly, even if there aren't any people aboard. Funny, that. His right not to work for that employer does NOT supercede the property rights or lives of anyone affected by a train rolling out of control.


If, however, a reasonable person might see killing you as the only way to keep you from using them as a step-stool, they'd have the right to do so.


No, they wouldn't. You can't just make this stuff up because it sounds good for your argument. The only legally recognized justification for taking another human being's life is if your life, or the life of another, is reasonably believed to be in imminent danger AND there's no other reasonable alternative to taking the attacker's life.


Of course she does. She wants to remain pregnant. I wouldn't feel like a victim if I was pregnant either, because it wouldn't be against my will. But talk to a woman who never wants to be pregnant, who finds the very idea abhorrent, and see how she feels about it.


Abstinence works wonders for avoiding pregnancy.

Rape Victims have the morning-after pill.

And your argument doesn't escape the dozens of silly posts I've seen on threads like this where people cite physical changes in the woman's body as an example of victimhood, since those apply as much to my wife as to someone who doesn't want to be pregnant. For the argument to work, it must always apply.


It's like the difference between consensual sex and rape. I choose to have sex with my husband, so I do not feel like a victim. If, on the other hand, I did not want to do so and it was forced upon me, I would feel like a victim. See the difference?


If sex and pregnancy were a 1:1 relationship, you'd have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

Don't try and confuse the issue by citing the obvious and then playing it like a revelation to your opponent.


Actually, your rights supercede someone else's life all the time. That's why the government can't force you to save lives. Even the dead get the respect of not having their bodies used against their will - and people die because of it.


Again, you're confusing the cause of death by omission of action with direct action. More on that following.


You don't think irradiation contributes to death? Strange, that.


How many points did you expect to score with that? It doesn't respond to my point.


Only because it is the only possible way for the woman to refuse use of her body.

Well, other than abstinence, that is... But self-control is so yesterday. Not in style at all these days.

Ok, that's your opinion. Now tell me why a "not fully developed" person should have more rights than a fully developed person. Why should it have rights to use another person's body against that person's will? Why should it have rights to make irreversible changes to that other's body and put her at greater risk for diseases later in life if she does not choose to allow it to do so?

So a person who has a congenital defect of being born with one arm has rights of lesser weight than t hose of us with two arms...

Does that mean that English guy with 6 fingers has greater rights than I do?

For that matter, why restrict it to congenital defects at all? I mean, if I lose a leg in an accident do It hen lose status as a non-fully formed person? Or does it only matter what I'm born with?

Heyyyyy... what if I get a sex change? Going from having a penis to having it removed would incur a loss of rights otherwise... but maybe that's where sexism comes from, right? Well how unjust! I gain 2 breasts so that should be a net increase...

</sarcasm>

BTW breastfeeding has been shown to reduce incidents of breast cancer.

So a person who has a congenital defect of being born with one arm has rights of lesser weight than t hose of us with two arms...

Does that mean that English guy with 6 fingers has greater rights than I do?

For that matter, why restrict it to congenital defects at all? I mean, if I lose a leg in an accident do It hen lose status as a non-fully formed person? Or does it only matter what I'm born with?

Heyyyyy... what if I get a sex change? Going from having a penis to having it removed would incur a loss of rights otherwise... but maybe that's where sexism comes from, right? Well how unjust! I gain 2 breasts so that should be a net increase...

</sarcasm>

BTW breastfeeding has been shown to reduce incidents of breast cancer.

Err...what? Since when is "not fully developed" synonymous with "exactly the same, genetically, as all other humans"? That doesn't even make any sense.

Killing an unborn baby is not logically equivalent to choosing not to be pregnant.

If it's the only way to stop being pregnant, yes, it is.

In fact, trying to paint it as such is goofy. If a train conductor suddenly chooses not to be emplyed by Amtrak that isn't a crime. Making that choice and hopping off of a moving train that he's responsible for is...

And, once again, your analogy stinks. Doing so is not the only way he can quit.

No, they wouldn't. You can't just make this stuff up because it sounds good for your argument. The only legally recognized justification for taking another human being's life is if your life, or the life of another, is reasonably believed to be in imminent danger AND there's no other reasonable alternative to taking the attacker's life.

I'm not making things up. What a "reasonable person" would think is actually a big part of the law.

Meanwhile, your life being in imminent danger is not the only recognized justification. Someone might be trying to rape you without any indication that they will actually kill you, and you are allowed to use lethal force to prevent that. A person can use lethal force to get away from a kidnapper, if it is the only way to get away. And so on.

Abstinence works wonders for avoiding pregnancy.

But it doesn't do anything for a pregnancy already in progress, now does it.

And your argument doesn't escape the dozens of silly posts I've seen on threads like this where people cite physical changes in the woman's body as an example of victimhood, since those apply as much to my wife as to someone who doesn't want to be pregnant. For the argument to work, it must always apply.

Now that is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Once again, your wife has chosen to have those physical changes occur. She has chosen to take on the risk factors associated with pregnancy. There is quite a bit of difference between choosing to do so and being forced to do so against your will.

If sex and pregnancy were a 1:1 relationship, you'd have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

Don't try and confuse the issue by citing the obvious and then playing it like a revelation to your opponent.

Huh?

I was talking about the difference between having something happen to you with your consent and without it. It didn't have to be sex.

Here's another example. If I choose to go to and stay at a person's house, I am not a victim. If they force me to do so, I am a victim.

And another. If I choose to take medication and accept all of the risks associated, I am not a victim. If someone forces it down my throat, I am.

And another. If I want to give money to someone, I am not a victim. If they take it from me against my will, I am.

And so on...

You said that your pregnant wife doesn't see herself as a victim. Of course she doesn't. She has chosen to remain pregnant and to take on all of the physical ramifications of that choice. Now talk to someone who is being forced to do so against her will and ask what she thinks.

Again, you're confusing the cause of death by omission of action with direct action. More on that following.

I'm not confusing anything. Analogies aren't perfect. There is no true equivalent to having someone else use your body as an incubator against your will, but organ/tissue donation and the like comes close.

So a person who has a congenital defect of being born with one arm has rights of lesser weight than t hose of us with two arms...

Someone completely missed the point.

I didn't say anything about lesser rights. I asked why it should have more rights than any other human being - why it should have rights that no human being has.

No human being has the right to use another's body against his will. Why should an embryo have that right, even if it is a full human person?

I take a different stance on abortion!

I think it's not effective enough. I desire more chainsaws.

The argument being put forward by Dempublicents is brilliant. I've never heard it described so well.

If the foetus is a person, it can only require support from the mother by consent. If the mother didn't consent, she can't be beholden to the foetus without violating the mother's individual freedom.

I like it. Well done.

I am tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions.
Which is why I do not support it unless there are extenuating circumstances.

However, I also feel that no one should have more children than needed to replace themselves, because of rampant overpopulation.

Abortion may be necessary in that case..

So I am in a bit of a quandary.

But realistically with todays medical technologies, do you know of a single instance when an unborn child was a true threat to the mother's existence?


1.5% mortality rate in birthing? >.>

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm

Of course, this link suggests that abortions produce a higher mortality rate than live births or miscarriages:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm

Though, it tends to suggest to me that pregnancy in general is risky, and reaffirms my stance that I wont marry any man who isn't snipped ¬¬

I would argue that killing the baby is a crime.

Killing an unborn baby is not logically equivalent to choosing not to be pregnant. In fact, trying to paint it as such is goofy. If a train conductor suddenly chooses not to be emplyed by Amtrak that isn't a crime. Making that choice and hopping off of a moving train that he's responsible for is...

...surprisingly, even if there aren't any people aboard. Funny, that. His right not to work for that employer does NOT supercede the property rights or lives of anyone affected by a train rolling out of control.


Looking at it from a slightly different angle, if a conductor was told to guide the train along a route that he knew was unsafe, does his responsibility to his employer override his own safety? Theoretically he could wear a helmat and encase himself in bubble wrap to protect himself against a crash, but that's hardly 100% safe, huh?

The main problem with the anti-abortion crowd is that they talk as if abortion is just some throwaway decision. Hence they talk of 'lack of responsibility' and 'the fetus' right to life'.

It's a goddamn hard decision to make, seen as a last resort not as a handy non-responsibility tool. I wouldn't wish the decision on anyone.

If the means to correct an error is available, it should be made available, especially when that error has the enormous consequences pregnancy does.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that a woman cannot terminate a pregnancy.

IF an unborn child = a human being THEN to kill one is to kill a human being.

Murder is universally considered a crime

Therefore, IF you believe the unborn to Be a person, THEN you believe abortion should be illegal.

It really is that simple, despite what some people want you to think.

Murder by definition is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life, No duh it is considered a crime, it would not be murder if it was not

The government should never have the ability to make crucial decisions concerning a womans right to choose.

Period.

I also do believe in the soul, but do not know at what point ensoulment occurs.

I believe that somewhere in the bible it says that the soul enters with the first breath, that the fetus is "soulless".

First of all, unwanted children are bad for the economy, so I'm pro-choice.

That said, the pro-life argument goes like this.

The foetus is a human.
Killing a human is murder.
A foetus cannot defend itself.
Standing by and allowing a murderer to kill a defenseless victim is abhorrent.
Therefore, they must stop all abortions.

It really makes perfect sense.

I completely agree with your points Llewdor.

But I would also like to add something of my own.There seems to be alot of people here that are concerned with a women's choice in abortion.In my opinion the woman, nor any one else should have the authority to kill a fetus.
Fetuses as (previously stated) are totally defenseless. The women who decide to undergo abortion are evil,conceded,b**ches(pardon my French!)they make me sick to my stomach!Yes,yes I know!Some of you, especially the women,are going to say,"What about the Girls that are raped". Well not to sound mean or anything,but to bad! Rapists are #1 on my hate list. But women that choose abotion and racists are right up there with'em.It's simple as this ladies, if you don't want the kid wait until it's born, then put it up for adoption!How hard is that!All pro-abortionists are sick,inhumane pigs that deserve to suffer for the countless little lives they love to destroy!

I believe that somewhere in the bible it says that the soul enters with the first breath, that the fetus is "soulless".

Interesting. The more I hear about the Bible, the less it seems to support the anti-choice argument.

Personally, I go with the so-called "quickening", which apparently begins in the last half of pregnancy, well after the point at which abortion stops being an elective choice anyway. That cut-off is not just in most places' laws, but also in most people's minds. As to precisely when ensoulment occurs (btw, I also believe souls exist), I do not believe it is a precise thing at all. Perhaps it can occur at any time between the onset of "quickening" and the first breath, but I would have a hard time believing -- or caring much -- that it could occur before an even partially functional body existed to support it.

Of course, that might be metaphysically interesting, but it is irrelevant. Dempublicents has already made my argument for me: Even if an embryo is a person, fully invested with a soul and all, it still does not have a right to use my body for its purposes against my will. No more than any born person has.

I'm not challenging you on this point, just getting my foot into the conversation. :)

I completely agree with your points Llewdor.

But I would also like to add something of my own.There seems to be alot of people here that are concerned with a women's choice in abortion.In my opinion the woman, nor any one else should have the authority to kill a fetus.
Fetuses as (previously stated) are totally defenseless. The women who decide to undergo abortion are evil,conceded,b**ches(pardon my French!)they make me sick to my stomach!Yes,yes I know!Some of you, especially the women,are going to say,"What about the Girls that are raped". Well not to sound mean or anything,but to bad! Rapists are #1 on my hate list. But women that choose abotion and racists are right up there with'em.It's simple as this ladies, if you don't want the kid wait until it's born, then put it up for adoption!How hard is that!All pro-abortionists are sick,inhumane pigs that deserve to suffer for the countless little lives they love to destroy!

*Pat pats*
So many assumptions in this jumbled mass of pointless ranting where to start
Your opinion is your own, we are questioning why an opinion should become law
Of course we are worried about a womans choices, it is her body on the line why should we NOT be concerned about it?
"Waiting until it is born" has a huge health impact on the woman and risks both now and later on in life ... you have yet to provide a good reason why your opinion should take a higher precedence then theirs especially with their health on the line
More conjecture and name throwing, not much of a debater are you?

I completely agree with your points Llewdor.

But I would also like to add something of my own.There seems to be alot of people here that are concerned with a women's choice in abortion.In my opinion the woman, nor any one else should have the authority to kill a fetus.
Fetuses as (previously stated) are totally defenseless. The women who decide to undergo abortion are evil,conceded,b**ches(pardon my French!)they make me sick to my stomach!Yes,yes I know!Some of you, especially the women,are going to say,"What about the Girls that are raped". Well not to sound mean or anything,but to bad! Rapists are #1 on my hate list. But women that choose abotion and racists are right up there with'em.It's simple as this ladies, if you don't want the kid wait until it's born, then put it up for adoption!How hard is that!All pro-abortionists are sick,inhumane pigs that deserve to suffer for the countless little lives they love to destroy!
I am so sick of the "put them up for adoption" argument. People who use that line are so disgustingly ignorant of what millions of orphans and abandoned children go through in this world. When I think of the abuses suffered by unwanted children, I can't help but interpret a little part of the adoption argument as implying that it is too horrible to destroy a little life before it has begun, when you could bring that little life into the world, toss it to the fucking wolves and let them destroy it slowly over time, with pain and misery and all kinds of deprivations. Yeah, the suffering of unwanted children, that would be way more fun for some people, I guess.

Deal with this: Adoption and abortion are two totally different things. They have nothing at all to do with each other. They are done for totally different reasons. Adoption is NOT, repeat NOT, a substitute for abortion. And it is NOT, repeat NOT, a happy choice for the child, either.

And since you are so willing to condemn rape victims to bear the fruits of the crime committed against them, tell me, are you also willing to let women die by forcing them to continue pregnancies that are going wrong and putting their lives at risk? Do you give a damn about the lives of women at all?

Sorry to anyone who may have been offended by my earlier post(I'm absolutely against abortion of any and all forms)


Muravyets,I also somewhat believe in sprits ,but even with religon and spirituality aside,it's sickening to me how people try to justifiy murder.A human is a human, including fetuses.Women who are raped claim the baby is violating there body.No!Not the poor innocent child,but the disguisting rapist father was the violator!The babies should be carried into this world no matter how they came to be.
I'm not unsypathetic to womem's needs,but killing kids is not cool. However you try to make it seem right.I give a damn about human life period!Life its self is a risk and so is preganancy to start with!You've made a very good point on my abortion vs.adoption arguement,but tell me You would rather kill the baby then let it experince life at all?Would you also approve of hunting those orphans you mentioned down and aborting their lives too!?
P.S Wow,I sound suprisingly religious for an Atheist don't I!

Nor a shortage of parents looking to adopt. Why else do they go to Russia, China and Africa to find kids to adopt?

Because the rules there are far less strict ?
Let us put it this way: every 3 seconds a child dies of starvation or something directly related to shortage of good food and water. Those are real, living, breathing children. Not mere clumps of cells that have not yet achieved the capacity to experience things.

Let us save those existing children first. Then we can start worrying if those potential children are worth protecting. They themselves think not - since they cannot think at all. So it is all up to us.

.A human is a human, including fetuses.

Human tissue yes. Person no.

oops - I am starting to agree with the Bible here....

Sorry to anyone who may have been offended by earlier post(I'm absolutely against abortion of any and all forms)


Muravyets,I also somewhat believe in sprits ,but even with religon and spirituality aside,it's sickening to me how people try to justifiy murder.
This has been discused incorrect emotive language is not cared for here. It is not currently in most western countries murder

A human is a human, including fetuses.Women who are raped claim the baby is violating there body.No!Not the poor innocent child,but the disguisting rapist father was the violator!The babies should be carried into this world no matter how they came to be.

P.S Wow,I sound suprisingly religious for an Atheist don't I!
And if she is not in a place to support it? The adoption system is already flooded as is, what do you propose to do with the new influx?

I like to call the two camps "Pro-murder" and "Anti-freedom". It gets 'em all riled up whenever you use those terms in front of 'em. It's great.

So long as there are inadequate policies in place regarding sexual education and childcare, abortion will exist and will be a necessary evil. Until healthcare, education and childcare issues are addressed so people feel comfortable supporting an extra child, abortion will remain necessary even when outlawed.

I'd say education in general needs to be improved, but that's a minor quibble.

I wholeheartedly agree with this post. As long as this nation is completely unprepared to deal with the social ramifications of making abortion illegal, I will support a woman's right to choose, despite my own moral stance against abortion.

If it's the only way to stop being pregnant, yes, it is.


An ounce of prevention...


And, once again, your analogy stinks. Doing so is not the only way he can quit.

And if it were? It would still hardly justify the action.


I'm not making things up. What a "reasonable person" would think is actually a big part of the law.

Meanwhile, your life being in imminent danger is not the only recognized justification. Someone might be trying to rape you without any indication that they will actually kill you, and you are allowed to use lethal force to prevent that. A person can use lethal force to get away from a kidnapper, if it is the only way to get away. And so on.


You're still talking about scenarios where a reasonable person might believe their life was in danger. You mention a scenario where someone's being raped but haven't any indication they'll be killed. I don't think that's realistic.


But it doesn't do anything for a pregnancy already in progress, now does it.


An ounce of prevention...


Now that is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Once again, your wife has chosen to have those physical changes occur. She has chosen to take on the risk factors associated with pregnancy. There is quite a bit of difference between choosing to do so and being forced to do so against your will.


"Forced against your will" in a context outside of rape it actually amusing to me. It almost brings to mind an image of a baby heavily armed with a battering ram storming the gates... "You're gonna gestate me and like it! RAR!"

I just can't take it seriously. That baby didn't make it happen. The mom did. (Well, mom and dad but we've conveniently pushed his opinion out of the way in our legal system, haven't we?) SHE brought about the situation. SHE made a series of decisions that she KNEW carried the potential for a pregnancy to result. And now you want to cast her as the victim, as if the fact that her own choices led her to this point suddenly becomes irrelevant and the only choice that matters is the one where she kills the baby in order to escape the result of her actions.

Oh, I'm all for choice. I just happen to think that once pregnancy has resulted, it's time to live with that choice.


Huh?

I was talking about the difference between having something happen to you with your consent and without it. It didn't have to be sex.

Here's another example. If I choose to go to and stay at a person's house, I am not a victim. If they force me to do so, I am a victim.

And another. If I choose to take medication and accept all of the risks associated, I am not a victim. If someone forces it down my throat, I am.

And another. If I want to give money to someone, I am not a victim. If they take it from me against my will, I am.

And so on...

You said that your pregnant wife doesn't see herself as a victim. Of course she doesn't. She has chosen to remain pregnant and to take on all of the physical ramifications of that choice. Now talk to someone who is being forced to do so against her will and ask what she thinks.


The bolded part makes my point for me.

I find it grimly amusing that you're using all the language that would apply to a rape scenario, but you're not talking about rape.


I'm not confusing anything. Analogies aren't perfect. There is no true equivalent to having someone else use your body as an incubator against your will, but organ/tissue donation and the like comes close.


An ounce of prevention...


Someone completely missed the point.

I didn't say anything about lesser rights. I asked why it should have more rights than any other human being - why it should have rights that no human being has.

No human being has the right to use another's body against his will. Why should an embryo have that right, even if it is a full human person?
Err...what? Since when is "not fully developed" synonymous with "exactly the same, genetically, as all other humans"? That doesn't even make any sense.

Did you guys completely miss the "</sarcasm>" tag? Or can I conclude from this that you're not really bothering to read carefully? If that's so let me know so I won't waste my time.

Sorry to anyone who may have been offended by my earlier post(I'm absolutely against abortion of any and all forms)


Muravyets,I also somewhat believe in sprits ,but even with religon and spirituality aside,it's sickening to me how people try to justifiy murder.A human is a human, including fetuses.Women who are raped claim the baby is violating there body.No!Not the poor innocent child,but the disguisting rapist father was the violator!The babies should be carried into this world no matter how they came to be.
I'm not unsypathetic to womem's needs,but killing kids is not cool. However you try to make it seem right.I give a damn about human life period!Life its self is a risk and so is preganancy to start with!You've made a very good point on my abortion vs.adoption arguement,but tell me You would rather kill the baby then let it experince life at all?Would you also approve of hunting those orphans you mentioned down and aborting their lives too!?
P.S Wow,I sound suprisingly religious for an Atheist don't I!

Who are you to tell me who is allowed to do what to my body?
Who gave you authority to decide who can use my blood, my organs, my nutrition and my health for his/her benefit without my consent?

Who are you to tell me who is allowed to do what to my body?
Who gave you authority to decide who can use my blood, my organs, my nutrition and my health for his/her benefit without my consent?

Probably a higher source than that which gives you the authority to end a life without his/her consent.

Probably a higher source than that which gives you the authority to end a life without his/her consent.

So you'd be one of those who'd advocate mandatory organ donations, right?
And mandatory blood donations?

So you'd be one of those who'd advocate mandatory organ donations, right?
And mandatory blood donations?

Nope.

I'd say education in general needs to be improved, but that's a minor quibble.

I wholeheartedly agree with this post. As long as this nation is completely unprepared to deal with the social ramifications of making abortion illegal, I will support a woman's right to choose, despite my own moral stance against abortion.

Yes, how true.

Most pro-choicers would rather abortion not be used but we don't want to restrict it because of the consequences of not being prepared to deal with the influx of unwanted children and an increase in medical costs to care for high-risk pregnancies.

Education is also a big factor because without a sound one, there will be many who have children they cannot support. So long as equal access to education and childcare exists, as well as a support network, there would be a reduction in abortion. It would still happen but only in a limited number of special cases.

Childcare is expensive. Period. If it was properly funded with enough spaces as well as a good amount of paid maternity leave, we might see a true reduction because then the mother would feel that there is a true support system in place.

If birth control was widely available as well as emergency contraceptives, we wouldn't need abortion. Make it easily accessible for women to get; remove the hurdles.

What's worse, taking a morning-after pill, gambling on the fact that maybe something happened, even if the chances are it didn't, or waiting to find out then having to make the decision? The morning after pill merely acts as an inhibitor. It doesn't actually abort, it just prevents the fertilized egg from implanting itself, much like how the birth control pill prevents the egg from being fertilized in the first place.

If there were truly pro-women policies in place, there would be more options for pregnant women. Instead, we are still limited in many ways.

Nope.

So you have no problem letting a born person die because you understand that you cannot use another person's body without consent.
But you demand that women let their bodies be used on a regular basis without consent? How does that go together? Why extend more rights to an unborn than to a living, breathing person?

Abortion is murder. If you don't abort the child, what will become of it? Will it become a fish? NO it will become a HUMAN BEING. Aborting a baby before it is born is murder as I said, if you don't abort it, it will become a human, therefore aborting a baby is murder of a human being.

Dyakovo, I'm guessing you are 20ish? Let's say 20ish years ago there was a woman who was pregnant. She decided, "Nah, I dont want this baby!All it is. is a little piece of worthless scum. I'll abort it!"

Guess what. You are not here.

So you have no problem letting a born person die because you understand that you cannot use another person's body without consent.
But you demand that women let their bodies be used on a regular basis without consent? How does that go together? Why extend more rights to an unborn than to a living, breathing person?

Your argument ignores a basic point: If I refuse to donate an organ or blood, that doesn't somehow make me at fault for their death. They died from a disease/injury. I had no part in that. It's callous, but that's how it is.

On the other hand, an abortion is a direct and deliberate act against an innocent person who, by the way, isn't even the one to blame for the circumstance.

Your argument ignores a basic point: If I refuse to donate an organ or blood, that doesn't somehow make me at fault for their death. They died from a disease/injury. I had no part in that. It's callous, but that's how it is.

On the other hand, an abortion is a direct and deliberate act against an innocent person who, by the way, isn't even the one to blame for the circumstance.

Thank you ^was what I was looking for.
"Why extend more rights to an unborn than to a living, breathing person?"

All the liberals and everybody argues for equality. Well if you want equality, why don't we kill those who kill innocent people. Why don't we have equality for and unborn persona and a born person?

Yes, how true.

Most pro-choicers would rather abortion not be used but we don't want to restrict it because of ..<snip>..If there were truly pro-women policies in place, there would be more options for pregnant women. Instead, we are still limited in many ways.

I agree with some of this point, but I'm uncomfortable with the implication that somehow the Government is the entity that must step in and make the situation all better.

Frankly, I think the Government has made things worse. I know a lot of people hate the idea of actually teaching abstinence but it works better than some care to admit. Would there still be unwanted pregnancies? Yeah, but at a lower rate than what we have now. Think about it. Kids are all but encouraged ins chools to have sex with the Sex Ed mentality being "we can't stop you so here's how you use a condom." Young people see that as a green light, taking risks that many may not otherwise have. Combined with a mentality of abortion being an option for a sort of retroactive birth control, and laws preventing parents from knowing when their own children are in such trouble, how can anyone be surprised at the outcome?

We, as individuals, have to take a stand to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Each and every one of us deserves better than to be in a position where a bunch of well-meaning but myopic politicians are being made responsible for the well-being of our kids and, for that matter, us.

A lot of people like to bash religious institutions as being a sort of overly strict and judgmental form of control, where an out of wedlock pregnancy results in all sorts of social and interpersonal attack. Maybe some churches are like that, but mine isn't, and I suspect many others as well. Frankly I think a lot of you would be amazed at just how supportive and helpful a church can be during a difficult time like that. Check out LDS Family Services sometime if you're curious. It doesn't have to be a disaster of epic proportions if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, and the solution doesn't have to involve abortion. It just doesn't.

There are better options. I agree with you that the situation sucks, and I believe you when you say alot of pro choice people would rather there not be abortions, so let's see what we can do, and work together on a solution rather than burning up energy and time trying to have it all.

IF an unborn child = a human being THEN to kill one is to kill a human being.

Murder is universally considered a crime

Therefore, IF you believe the unborn to Be a person, THEN you believe abortion should be illegal.

It really is that simple, despite what some people want you to think.

I'm female. I'm pro-life. I figure I don't have a right to decide the fate of someone else. The fate of myself, yes, but I have no right to destroy a life to make my life more convenient for me. If I made the choice to put myself up against those odds, its my responsibility. I do believe in birth control and the plan B thing (because some people don't choose to have sex), because birth control prevents sperm from entering the egg or the egg attatching, and plan b will NOT work if the sperm has already reached the egg and attatched.

So if you aren't on birth control or use protection or both, then sorry. I have no sympathy for you.

and comparing a baby/embreyo to an organ? That's rather absurd. Your mother doesn't still think that you are a possession and has every right over you does she? You are your own person, correct? So is that child. And you have no right to decide if it lives or dies. If you dont' want it, take the precautions or put it up for adoption after it is born. If you are pro-abortion then you are either exceptionally selfish (ie. oh if i fuck up and something happens, I'm not going to let it inconvenience me. kill it and let me get on with my life) or for a guy (oh i don't want to take care of it or have that responsibility!), or morally disturbed.

Abortion is murder. If you don't abort the child, what will become of it? Will it become a fish? NO it will become a HUMAN BEING. Aborting a baby before it is born is murder as I said, if you don't abort it, it will become a human, therefore aborting a baby is murder of a human being.

Wrong.
It might become a human being. The majority of pregnancies end in natural abortions, many without the woman even knowing.
A possibility cannot be granted rights as a person.


Dyakovo, I'm guessing you are 20ish? Let's say 20ish years ago there was a woman who was pregnant. She decided, "Nah, I dont want this baby!All it is. is a little piece of worthless scum. I'll abort it!"

Guess what. You are not here.

Yes. So?

Your argument ignores a basic point: If I refuse to donate an organ or blood, that doesn't somehow make me at fault for their death. They died from a disease/injury. I had no part in that. It's callous, but that's how it is.

On the other hand, an abortion is a direct and deliberate act against an innocent person who, by the way, isn't even the one to blame for the circumstance.

So you would opt in favour of compulsory organ donation if the donor was at fault of the injury caused?
Say, in a traffic accident that cause one of the victims to both kidneys?

So far, the law universally disagrees with you there.

Thank you ^was what I was looking for.
"Why extend more rights to an unborn than to a living, breathing person?"

All the liberals and everybody argues for equality. Well if you want equality, why don't we kill those who kill innocent people. Why don't we have equality for and unborn persona and a born person?

You're in fact trying to promote more rights for an unborn than a born right there, and that's what I'm having a problem with.

Wrong.
It might become a human being. The majority of pregnancies end in natural abortions, many without the woman even knowing.
A possibility cannot be granted rights as a person.



Yes. So?
so I am not posting.... he is dead same thing for you.

So your saying (most=more than 50%) more than 50% of pregnancies result in natural abortion?! What planet are you from?

There are better options. I agree with you that the situation sucks, and I believe you when you say alot of pro choice people would rather there not be abortions, so let's see what we can do, and work together on a solution rather than burning up energy and time trying to have it all.

I couldn't agree more, but I believe that the best option is to provide all options for a pregnant female, no matter what the circumstances. I don't believe anybody or any institution has the right to dictate what she has to do with her body.

she did it to her body first! The child is innocent on all accounts and you're going to kill it?

*sits holding a bucket of popcorn, hungry to watch a good fiery action*

*shamelessly grabs a handful, begins passing out cheese and crackers*

so I am not posting.... he is dead same thing for you.

I still believe it would have been better for all involved if my mom had made that decision... but that's what you get for being Catholic...


So your saying (most=more than 50%) more than 50% of pregnancies result in natural abortion?! What planet are you from?

Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy. Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[12] In most cases, they occur so early in the pregnancy that the woman is not even aware that she was pregnant.

Planet Earth, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Incidence)it would seem

Then why add to the total by doing human enforced abortions?

And I'm not Catholic...

she did it to her body first! The child is innocent on all accounts and you're going to kill it?

Oh, right... so people who attempted suicide should not be granted medical assistance cause they "did it to their body first"?
People in car crashs, too? It was their decision to get in the car in the first place, right?

Or is it only woman who have had sex who deserve their autonomy taken away from them?

Then why add to the total by doing human enforced abortions?

And I'm not Catholic...

Why enforce either? Do you think women should not be allowed to decide for themselves?

So you would opt in favour of compulsory organ donation if the donor was at fault of the injury caused?
Say, in a traffic accident that cause one of the victims to both kidneys?

So far, the law universally disagrees with you there.

I dunno about the traffic accident. Maybe an argument could be made that the person responsible SHOULD be somehow responsible for that kidney replacement. Seems to me like there's a system in place already through a lawsuit to cover medical costs.

Beisdes, this debate really isn't about law. The law says abortion is legal. Nobody disputes that.

I couldn't agree more, but I believe that the best option is to provide all options for a pregnant female, no matter what the circumstances. I don't believe anybody or any institution has the right to dictate what she has to do with her body.

I think this is probably the best result we can expect from a debate like this, where we can agree that the situation itself sucks. Where we disagree is on how to handle it, and that's based on our disparate worldviews. :)

A possibility cannot be granted rights as a person.

So, if a coma patient only has a possibility of waking up then (s)he shouldn't be afforded same rights as a healthy person? :p

So your saying (most=more than 50%) more than 50% of pregnancies result in natural abortion?! What planet are you from?

I'm pretty sure it's an impossible case to study properly considering most of these...abortions...would happen before there's any evidence of pregnancy and without the potential mother ever knowing.


I personally don't like abortions as having one is usually a consequence of person's own careless actions but then again having one isn't exactly my concern. In the end though, I think having abortion is OK as long as the fetus isn't well developed enough to survive outside the womb and both parties - yes, both parties - in a relationship* are more or less comfortable with the idea.

* in case of a short affair/one night stand accident I don't care so much if the other party isn't informed

"Do you think women should not be allowed to decide for themselves?"
They made the desicion in the first place.

"Oh, right... so people who attempted suicide should not be granted medical assistance cause they "did it to their body first"?
People in car crashs, too? It was their decision to get in the car in the first place, right?

Or is it only woman who have had sex who deserve their autonomy taken away from them?"

Those are totally different from abortion. Abortion is the killing of another human being, car crashes are not voluntary. Suicides are just plain stupid.

The only people who are against abotion are women-hating bible thumpers but natural selection will take care of them. :)

So, if a coma patient only has a possibility of waking up then (s)he shouldn't be afforded same rights as a healthy person? :p

I believe that's an open debate at the moment in most countries


I'm pretty sure it's an impossible case to study properly considering most of these...abortions...would happen before there's any evidence of pregnancy and without the potential mother ever knowing.


I personally don't like abortions as having one is usually a consequence of person's own actions but then again having one isn't exactly my concern. In the end though, I think having abortion is OK as long as the fetus isn't well developed enough to survive outside the womb and both parties - yes, both parties - in a relationship* are more or less comfortable with the idea.

* in case of a short affair/one night stand accident I don't care so much if the other party isn't informed

I would agree there.
But I do believe in having the choice, and having the last word about what I allow or don't allow to happen to my body. That doesn't mean I'd consider abortion at the moment, but I know I have in the past. Abortion or suicide, both would have suited me at the time ;)

The only people who are against abotion are women-hating bible thumpers but natural selection will take care of them. :)

Oh I doubt it will. People who don't have abortions are more likely to pass their genes on :D

"Do you think women should not be allowed to decide for themselves?"
They made the desicion in the first place.

And they have every right to change their minds. It it completely their choice.


"Oh, right... so people who attempted suicide should not be granted medical assistance cause they "did it to their body first"?
People in car crashs, too? It was their decision to get in the car in the first place, right?

Or is it only woman who have had sex who deserve their autonomy taken away from them?"

Those are totally different from abortion. Abortion is the killing of another human being, car crashes are not voluntary. Suicides are just plain stupid.

Driving a car can lead to a car crash, having sex can lead to pregnancy.
And yet getting in a car doesn't implicate your consent in a car crash, does it?

Oh I doubt it will. People who don't have abortions are more likely to pass their genes on :D

Not necessarily ;)
Having an abortion once (aborting a foetus that would have been disabled) allowed my aunt to get pregnant with 4 more kids, which she couldn't have had had she been forced to dedicate all her time to the disabled child

Not necessarily ;)
Having an abortion once (aborting a foetus that would have been disabled) allowed my aunt to get pregnant with 4 more kids, which she couldn't have had had she been forced to dedicate all her time to the disabled child

...you're ruining my wisecrack...:(

...you're ruining my wisecrack...:(

Sorry, that was unintentional... here, crack another one :D

IBut I do believe in having the choice, and having the last word about what I allow or don't allow to happen to my body. That doesn't mean I'd consider abortion at the moment, but I know I have in the past. Abortion or suicide, both would have suited me at the time ;)

My point was more in lines that if a woman - or a girl - is in a stable relationship she should inform her mate about her descision to have an abortion and discuss about the reasons for the descision. Also, I'd like to see, as far as is possible, a common understanding about the reasons for and the necessity of the solution.

Ultimately the descision would be hers and hers alone to do whatever she pleases with regard to the pregnancy...However a relationship where the other half is kept in the dark and out of the process isn't, in my view, a relationship worth having.

Sorry, that was unintentional... here, crack another one :D

I can't... I think I've used up my quota of wisdom for the day...

hmm.. did that count as a wisecrack? Maybe I had a little reserve...

My point was more in lines that if a woman - or a girl - is in a stable relationship she should inform her mate about her descision to have an abortion and discuss about the reasons for the descision. Also, I'd like to see, as far as is possible, a common understanding about the reasons for and the necessity of the solution.

Ultimately the descision would be hers and hers alone to do whatever she pleases with regard to the pregnancy...However a relationship where the other half is kept in the dark and out of the process isn't, in my view, a relationship worth having.

I would agree... although in most cases I imagine it would be rather more difficult than it sounds. You would ultimately in most cases having one side putting pressure on the other. I've seen a few cases in which the woman was in two minds about whether or not to have an abortion, and not one of them was in any way simple or straightforward. I believe it's an area that should be legislated as little as possible, to allow all options in all situations.

Consent for sex =/= consent for pregnancy

People have every right to hold their own opinion on this but no right to force it onto others.

More comprehensive sexual education is required for teenagers, both at home and at school.

I would agree... although in most cases I imagine it would be rather more difficult than it sounds. You would ultimately in most cases having one side putting pressure on the other. I've seen a few cases in which the woman was in two minds about whether or not to have an abortion, and not one of them was in any way simple or straightforward. I believe it's an area that should be legislated as little as possible, to allow all options in all situations.

I would argue that some amount of legislation would be necessary, not much but some:
1. Abortion before a <certain time from conception> would be allowed in all cases.
2. Abortion after a <certain time from conception> would be allowed in case of an emergency to the mother or due to a discovered severe defect of the fetus
3. In case of a relationship the would be father should be informed at least 72 hours before the procedure. His opinion doesn't directly matter in the actual process of abortion.
4. Everyone considering abortion should be afforded free consultation with a psychiatrist in case the the patient wants it.


I would also completely liberate and make commonly available - even/especially to minors - morning after pills so that unwanted pregnancies would have less of an opportunity to develop to a stage requiring abortion.

Abortion is murder. If you don't abort the child, what will become of it? Will it become a fish? NO it will become a HUMAN BEING. Aborting a baby before it is born is murder as I said, if you don't abort it, it will become a human, therefore aborting a baby is murder of a human being.
No abortion, is at best (worst?) the killing of a human being. If the Anti-abortion people have their way, then it might be murder.

Murder, as has been stated many times in this thread (and many others) is not the killing of a person, it is the illegal killing of a person.

Dyakovo, I'm guessing you are 20ish? Let's say 20ish years ago there was a woman who was pregnant. She decided, "Nah, I dont want this baby!All it is. is a little piece of worthless scum. I'll abort it!"

Guess what. You are not here.
Actually, I'm almost 40, but that is neither here nor there. If I had been aborted I wouldn't care. Simply because I was not aborted, does not mean that I have to be against abortion.

<SNIP>Well if you want equality, why don't we kill those who kill innocent people. Why don't we have equality for and unborn persona and a born person?

Sounds good, to me. I'm, in theory anyways, in favor of the death penalty; in practice it tends to be more of a drain on the legal system and state money the simple life inprisonment.

I'm female. I'm pro-life. I figure I don't have a right to decide the fate of someone else. The fate of myself, yes, but I have no right to destroy a life to make my life more convenient for me. If I made the choice to put myself up against those odds, its my responsibility. I do believe in birth control and the plan B thing (because some people don't choose to have sex), because birth control prevents sperm from entering the egg or the egg attatching, and plan b will NOT work if the sperm has already reached the egg and attatched.

So if you aren't on birth control or use protection or both, then sorry. I have no sympathy for you.

<SNIP>

So if you were raped and became pregnant despite being on birth control (it's not 100% effective) you would not want to have the option of having an abortion?

she did it to her body first! The child is innocent on all accounts and you're going to kill it?

What if she was raped? then she didn't do it to her body, at least not willingly

Then why add to the total by doing human enforced abortions?

And I'm not Catholic...

:confused: Huh? :confused:

Dyakovo, I'm guessing you are 20ish? Let's say 20ish years ago there was a woman who was pregnant. She decided, "Nah, I dont want this baby!All it is. is a little piece of worthless scum. I'll abort it!"

Guess what. You are not here.
Hey, anyone remember which poster was the one who only existed because his mother had an abortion? I'd love to see this guy's reaction to that.

So if you were raped and became pregnant despite being on birth control (it's not 100% effective) you would not want to have the option of having an abortion?

What if she was raped? then she didn't do it to her body, at least not willingly

That's what the morning after pill is for. When a rape victim is treated at the hospital that's one of the things they do.

So, if a coma patient only has a possibility of waking up then (s)he shouldn't be afforded same rights as a healthy person? :p

No, a coma patient is already a person. You are missing the point, the fetus is not a person.

No, a coma patient is already a person. You are missing the point, the fetus is not a person.

Depends on how you define a person.

A fetus is no more or no less self-conscious than a coma patient, in some cases a fetus will be more responsive than the seemingly whole human being :p

I would argue that some amount of legislation would be necessary, not much but some:
1. Abortion before a <certain time from conception> would be allowed in all cases.
2. Abortion after a <certain time from conception> would be allowed in case of an emergency to the mother or due to a discovered severe defect of the fetus
3. In case of a relationship the would be father should be informed at least 72 hours before the procedure. His opinion doesn't directly matter in the actual process of abortion.
4. Everyone considering abortion should be afforded free consultation with a psychiatrist in case the the patient wants it.


I would also completely liberate and make commonly available - even/especially to minors - morning after pills so that unwanted pregnancies would have less of an opportunity to develop to a stage requiring abortion.

Sounds good to me

That's what the morning after pill is for. When a rape victim is treated at the hospital that's one of the things they do.

And like the birth control pill, the morning after pill is not 100% effective, so what then?

Depends on how you define a person.

A fetus is no more or no less self-conscious than a coma patient, in some cases a fetus will be more responsive than the seemingly whole human being :p

The coma patient already qualified as a person before going into a coma

That's what the morning after pill is for. When a rape victim is treated at the hospital that's one of the things they do.

The morning after pill induces an abortion. So what is your point ?

And like the birth control pill, the morning after pill is not 100% effective, so what then?

So you've whittled your case down to a fraction of a percent of cases and this is supposed to justify elective abortion for everyone?

The morning after pill induces an abortion. So what is your point ?

Frankly, I happen to think rape CAN be a legitimate reason to terminate. But I wouldn't consider the process initiated by the morning after pill to be on par with an abortion to begin with.

So you've whittled your case down to a fraction of a percent of cases and this is supposed to justify elective abortion for everyone?

It is somewhat silly reasoning indeed, but hey.
Let us approach this from a different angle.

Step 1: Provide a definition of a human being
Step 2: Define what makes the life of a human valuable
Step 3: Determine if an embryo should be protected according to step 1 and 2.

Frankly, I happen to think rape CAN be a legitimate reason to terminate. But I wouldn't consider the process initiated by the morning after pill to be on par with an abortion to begin with.

It IS an abortion. Or do you wish to draw a line somewhere in the pregnancy and say "after this point it is not allowed, before it is fine" ? (I do by the way ;))
If so - where will that line be ?

So you've whittled your case down to a fraction of a percent of cases and this is supposed to justify elective abortion for everyone?

Yes, I say it should be an option that the woman should be able to make. Would I necessarily agree with the reasoning, no, but it's not my body.

You're willing to ignore the possibility and make it illegal to take that option regardless so how is that any different?

It is somewhat silly reasoning indeed, but hey.
Let us approach this from a different angle.

Step 1: Provide a definition of a human being
Step 2: Define what makes the life of a human valuable
Step 3: Determine if an embryo should be protected according to step 1 and 2.

Here's yet another angle (just throwing this out there) If you can't conclusively define those traits, then why would you not err on the side of caution?

Think about it. Suppose I cannot adequately provide those definitions. Does that necessarily justify abortion? Can you provide those definitions? I bet you'd do no better than I, yet it seems to me that if you're going to assert that it's ok to destroy a fetus, you'd damned well better be 100% sure of your definition.

Otherwise it's a terrible risk to take... That you might be supporting killing humans after all. Wouldn't you find that difficult to bear?

It IS an abortion. Or do you wish to draw a line somewhere in the pregnancy and say "after this point it is not allowed, before it is fine" ? (I do by the way ;))
If so - where will that line be ?

I disagree. If taken immediately (as, in a rape case, it would be) then it prevents implantation and is thus a contraceptive, not an abortion.

Think about it. Suppose I cannot adequately provide those definitions. Does that necessarily justify abortion? Can you provide those definitions? I bet you'd do no better than I, yet it seems to me that if you're going to assert that it's ok to destroy a fetus, you'd damned well better be 100% sure of your definition.

*shrug*. I consider a fetus intrinsically valuable from the moment it can actually experience anything. Or to rephrase: when it theoretically is capable of caring itself.
If the parents consider it valuable before that time, I also consider it a crime to kill it. It they do not, I do not.

Easy. Consistent. And humane.

I disagree. If taken immediately (as, in a rape case, it would be) then it prevents implantation and is thus a contraceptive, not an abortion.

At what time do you consider an embryo a human being then ?

I can't... I think I've used up my quota of wisdom for the day...

hmm.. did that count as a wisecrack? Maybe I had a little reserve...

No, but it's ok. We understand. Most of us are borrowing wisdom from tomorrows' quotas anyway.

No, but it's ok. We understand. Most of us are borrowing wisdom from tomorrows' quotas anyway.

LOL

Wrong. A coma patient has brainwaves. A fetus does not. Hell, it doesn't even have any brain activity whatsoever until the 20th week, and that activity isn't continuous until week 23 and it's not synchronized until week 27.

Good point :D

Depends on how you define a person.

A fetus is no more or no less self-conscious than a coma patient, in some cases a fetus will be more responsive than the seemingly whole human being :p

Wrong. A coma patient has brainwaves. A fetus does not. Hell, it doesn't even have any brain activity whatsoever until the 20th week, and that activity isn't continuous until week 23 and it's not synchronized until week 27.

I agree with some of this point, but I'm uncomfortable with the implication that somehow the Government is the entity that must step in and make the situation all better.

To a degree, the government needs to step in to ensure that individual rights are respected. This is a sensitive issue and if it goes to either extreme, people will lose rights. The government has a job to protect the rights of the people.

Frankly, I think the Government has made things worse. I know a lot of people hate the idea of actually teaching abstinence but it works better than some care to admit. Would there still be unwanted pregnancies? Yeah, but at a lower rate than what we have now. Think about it. Kids are all but encouraged ins chools to have sex with the Sex Ed mentality being "we can't stop you so here's how you use a condom." Young people see that as a green light, taking risks that many may not otherwise have. Combined with a mentality of abortion being an option for a sort of retroactive birth control, and laws preventing parents from knowing when their own children are in such trouble, how can anyone be surprised at the outcome?

Yes, the way the governments are currently handling only makes it worse. Extreme policies are introduced with no happy medium.

A happy medium for sexual education would be to say, "here are the methods of birth control, here is the result of the consequences if you don't use it; sex is optional, you should wait, but if you do have sex, be responsible about it."

Abstinence only and other extreme-end policies don't work. Comprehensive and early on sexual education policies work. Start early on, but do it as part of biology studies so it becomes part of the natural human body but later introduce it as a health issue, before or at the onset of puberty.

There is no problem with teaching abstinence along side other ideas. The problem arises when it is the only policy and idea being presented. Young people are going to eventually want to explore their sexuality, so knowing they can do so safely is a plus. Also knowing there is no pressure also works.

Young people ought to be comfortable with their bodies and their bodily functions.

If the gov't is going to help make it better, they should implement a policy that mandates that pharmacies and clinics make it easy for women and men to access birth control and doesn't restrict access. Pharmacies should be required to dispense medicine that is proscribed or needed.

Wrong. A coma patient has brainwaves. A fetus does not. Hell, it doesn't even have any brain activity whatsoever until the 20th week, and that activity isn't continuous until week 23 and it's not synchronized until week 27.

Notice how I didn't put any age of the fetus in the post, thus my post also covers a 8 month baby vs vegetative patient (but also a 2 month cell mass vs artificially comatose patient). :)

I would also like to point out that reacting to a stimulus doesn't require a brain. ;)

Notice how I didn't put any age of the fetus in the post, thus my post also covers a 8 month baby vs vegetative patient (but also a 2 month cell mass vs artificially comatose patient). :)

I would also like to point out that reacting to a stimulus doesn't require a brain. ;)

As our dear President has so often demonstrated. :D

*shrug*. I consider a fetus intrinsically valuable from the moment it can actually experience anything. Or to rephrase: when it theoretically is capable of caring itself.
If the parents consider it valuable before that time, I also consider it a crime to kill it. It they do not, I do not.

Easy. Consistent. And humane.
At what time do you consider an embryo a human being then ?
Wrong. A coma patient has brainwaves. A fetus does not. Hell, it doesn't even have any brain activity whatsoever until the 20th week, and that activity isn't continuous until week 23 and it's not synchronized until week 27.

All of these points sort of point to some kind of arbitrary line, established either by personal opinion or what's measurable using current technology. (We could learn, after more advanced technology is introduced, that brainwave activity begins even sooner but we couldn't detect it before.)

Either way, an arbitrary line is, by its nature unrealistic as we're dealing with biological functions that don't necessarily conform to what's consistent with those.

Who among us would pretend to be all-knowing enough to say "well, At point X the fetus has no intrinsic value but at point Y it does." When can we know when the baby CAN care, or can experience things? We h ave an approximate time for responses to stimuli but again, it's an arbitrary line based on historical data which is, in turn, based on available measuring methods. The law sort of does that now, but as I recall from the opinion of one of the SCOTUS judges it's admittedly arbitrary precisely because we don't know how to define it any better.

I don't see Plan B as an abortion because implantation never takes place. Implantation can fail for any number of reasons anyway and so we can't define the woman as being pregnant otherwise, so I feel reasonably comfortable with it. I also know that it can, if taken later, cause a termination after implantation. I'm not so comfortable with that but that's neither here nor there at this point.

Bottom Line: We don't know enough to reliably define that line, and even if we did it would be different for each individual. (Biology is funny that way) Neither side can claim a useful victory with this approach.

No, but it's ok. We understand. Most of us are borrowing wisdom from tomorrows' quotas anyway.

LOL

Bottom Line: We don't know enough to reliably define that line, and even if we did it would be different for each individual. (Biology is funny that way) Neither side can claim a useful victory with this approach.

True. But using that line of reasoning we arrive at "every sperm is sacred".
Meaning that every time I ejaculate I commit massmurder. Even if a single sperm fertilises an egg. Every time a woman ovulates she denies a potential person life.

True. But using that line of reasoning we arrive at "every sperm is sacred".
Meaning that every time I ejaculate I commit massmurder. Even if a single sperm fertilises an egg. Every time a woman ovulates she denies a potential person life.

Well speaking from a historical standpoint I'd agree that has, in the past, been a problem, but that was an issue back when medical science didn't even know women posessed eggs, and it was believed that semen just sort of became a baby in the mother's body.

I trust that our knowledge of human biology has reached the point where we needn't worry too much about that. And I think we all agree that an egg or a bunch of sperm don't constitute a person.

We can worry 'bout that later, we'll wait for the fire first. While we wait, have some popcorn. :)

Forget about god it doesn't exist. Anyone who is anti abortion is generally only anti until a family member is raped and then the tone tends to change. Funny that! Get a grip people what's the earliest memory that you have?

Forget about god it doesn't exist. Anyone who is anti abortion is generally only anti until a family member is raped and then the tone tends to change. Funny that! Get a grip people what's the earliest memory that you have?

I'm sorry you think so.

All of these points sort of point to some kind of arbitrary line, established either by personal opinion or what's measurable using current technology. (We could learn, after more advanced technology is introduced, that brainwave activity begins even sooner but we couldn't detect it before.)

Brainwaves are something that, if they are there, you can find them. The same goes for brain activity. Brainwaves do not appear at all until after birth. Unless brainwaves exist before the point where technology can be safely used to attempt to detect them (shortly after the brain forms) and then disappear after, fetuses do not have brainwaves.

An ounce of prevention...

An ounce of prevention...

An ounce of prevention...

Just another way to control someone else's body....

I happen to agree with you that people who don't want to have children should either be sterilized or remain abstinent. But I hardly think the law should make that decision for them by punishing them if they choose not to.

And if it were? It would still hardly justify the action.

Slavery would be better?

"Forced against your will" in a context outside of rape it actually amusing to me.

So having sex is the only thing you can possibly be forced to do against your will? Slavery never existed then, eh?

It almost brings to mind an image of a baby heavily armed with a battering ram storming the gates... "You're gonna gestate me and like it! RAR!"

You're talking about the government doing the forcing. They *do* have guns and the like.

I just can't take it seriously. That baby didn't make it happen. The mom did. (Well, mom and dad but we've conveniently pushed his opinion out of the way in our legal system, haven't we?) SHE brought about the situation. SHE made a series of decisions that she KNEW carried the potential for a pregnancy to result. And now you want to cast her as the victim, as if the fact that her own choices led her to this point suddenly becomes irrelevant and the only choice that matters is the one where she kills the baby in order to escape the result of her actions.

A woman goes out with a man she thinks is dangerous because it excites her. She chooses to be alone with him and to kiss him. Should she now be legally bound to let him have sex with her? After all, her own decisions got her there....

It doesn't matter what decisions a woman made that led up to pregnancy. She does not suddenly lose her rights, whether she made bad decisions or not. She still has the right to deny the use of her body to anyone - including an embryo.

Oh, I'm all for choice. I just happen to think that once pregnancy has resulted, it's time to live with that choice.

In other words, you think that sex should lead to losing the rights to your own body.

Oh, wait. It should lead to that for women.

The bolded part makes my point for me.

I find it grimly amusing that you're using all the language that would apply to a rape scenario, but you're not talking about rape.

Rape is an example of having one's body used against one's will. It isn't surprising that similar language is appropriate in other such uses.

Your argument ignores a basic point: If I refuse to donate an organ or blood, that doesn't somehow make me at fault for their death. They died from a disease/injury. I had no part in that. It's callous, but that's how it is.

And if an embryo cannot survive without the use of my body, and I deny it that use, it isn't my fault that it couldn't survive. It's callous, but that's how it is.

Frankly, I think the Government has made things worse. I know a lot of people hate the idea of actually teaching abstinence but it works better than some care to admit. Would there still be unwanted pregnancies? Yeah, but at a lower rate than what we have now.

Actually, all the evidence we have suggests exactly the opposite. In fact, with all the funding for abstinence only programs in this country, teen pregnancy rates have risen for the first time in years. Countries with the most permissive views on sex actually have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy.

Why? Because knowledge is power. Keeping kids ignorant doesn't keep them from having sex. It just means that those who choose to do it don't know how to protect themselves. Thus, teen pregnancy and STD rates go up.

Think about it. Kids are all but encouraged ins chools to have sex with the Sex Ed mentality being "we can't stop you so here's how you use a condom." Young people see that as a green light, taking risks that many may not otherwise have.

Once again, you've got it completely backwards from all available evidence. Kids who go through abstinence-only education are no less likely to have sex (although they might wait slightly longer). They are, however, much more likely to engage in particularly risky sexual activity and much less likely to use any form of protection when they do have sex.

There are better options. I agree with you that the situation sucks, and I believe you when you say alot of pro choice people would rather there not be abortions, so let's see what we can do, and work together on a solution rather than burning up energy and time trying to have it all.

Someone who truly wants to prevent abortions should be working for comprehensive sex education, access to contraceptives, and access to reproductive care for all human beings who could possibly get pregnant or get someone else pregnant.

The morning after pill induces an abortion. So what is your point ?

No, it doesn't. It blocks a pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

There are those who equate it with abortion because it can keep a fertilized egg from implanting, but it is not actually an abortificant.

Frankly, I happen to think rape CAN be a legitimate reason to terminate.

Do you also advocate killing a rapist's born children because the rapist is a bad guy?

Human tissue yes. Person no.

oops - I am starting to agree with the Bible here....

Thank you. There is an enormous difference. A single egg is half a person, but I don't think anyone would say it was murder for a woman not to use all 40,000 of them.

Abortion is murder. If you don't abort the child, what will become of it? Will it become a fish? NO it will become a HUMAN BEING. Aborting a baby before it is born is murder as I said, if you don't abort it, it will become a human, therefore aborting a baby is murder of a human being.

Dyakovo, I'm guessing you are 20ish? Let's say 20ish years ago there was a woman who was pregnant. She decided, "Nah, I dont want this baby!All it is. is a little piece of worthless scum. I'll abort it!"

Guess what. You are not here.

Wow, you're wrong about so many things it's hard to keep track.

1. All pregnancies do not end in the creation of a human. Before she had me, my mother was pregnant once and found out several months down the line that something had gone wrong in her pregnancy. The cells that continued to divide and replicate were creating, not a fetus, but useless tissue. Something that would never be a human being.

2. Anti-choice proponents love to use the "If your mother had an abortion you wouldn't be here!" argument. Again, in my case, this isn't true. My mother gave birth to me when she was 31. At 17 she became pregnant, at a time when she could not legally obtain birth control. She decided at 18 to have an illegal abortion, at great risk to herself, because she knew she could not provide for a child. If she had continued the pregnancy and given birth, I would not be here. She made a choice and brought a child into the world at a time when she was emotionally, financially and psychologically prepared to be a mother.

I know a lot of people hate the idea of actually teaching abstinence but it works better than some care to admit. Would there still be unwanted pregnancies? Yeah, but at a lower rate than what we have now. Think about it. Kids are all but encouraged ins chools to have sex with the Sex Ed mentality being "we can't stop you so here's how you use a condom." Young people see that as a green light, taking risks that many may not otherwise have.

Numerous studies have shown that abstinence-only programs are significantly less effective at preventing pregnancy and the spread of STIs than sex education programs that teach young people how to have safe sex.

she did it to her body first! The child is innocent on all accounts and you're going to kill it?

The heart of the matter is, there is no "child". There is a POSSIBILITY for a child. And that possibility can be terminated before it comes a child. The woman is already a person.

It amazes me to no end how many people value the life of an unborn thing over a human being's life--yet those same people think nothing of sitting down to eat a steak. The cow was already a living, breathing creature, but most people feel a perfect right to take its life. What amounts to a parasite in its early stages is given more consideration than the majority of animals.

I disagree. If taken immediately (as, in a rape case, it would be) then it prevents implantation and is thus a contraceptive, not an abortion.

Thank you. In fact, if implantation has already taken place the morning after pill will not have an effect.

All of these points sort of point to some kind of arbitrary line, established either by personal opinion or what's measurable using current technology.

If we were not afforded the use of arbitrary lines, I can not imagine upon what principles our body of law might be founded.

Do you also advocate killing a rapist's born children because the rapist is a bad guy?

That depends... would the rapists' born children suddenly become physically dependant on the victim, attaching themselves parasitically to her body? Then yes, I would! But I've never heard of that happening, so I bet that was just a really dumb comparison.

No, it doesn't. It blocks a pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

There are those who equate it with abortion because it can keep a fertilized egg from implanting, but it is not actually an abortificant.

The morning after pill raises the hormone levels in a woman's body to where pregnancy would be really hard to occur, or if she's already pregnant, make the conditions for the embryo extremely difficult and end in the body aborting it. But like any contraceptive, not 100% effective. Just thought I'd get my 2 cents in about that :)

In regards to the whole rape issue. (Sorry, i don't know how to quote twice)Its really really hard. Because I think we should be led by compassion in this area. It wasn't the mother's fault. She was raped, and that in itself is traumatising enough..but to then have that rape result in a pregnancy....you can understand why abortion would be on her mind.
But then...the unborn child is innocent in all this too. It didn't get to choose how it was concieved. And all the potential of that innocent, could be aborted. Which is pretty miserable too. In that situation, I would hope the woman had the strength to carry the child to term and then put it up for adoption. But, if she chose to have an abortion, I don't think anyone could be heartless enough to say she's a murderer.

And in regards to whether I think abortion should be made illegal. I'm a christian, and I believe that life starts at conception. However, I don't think the issue is black and white at all.
I'm not sure about anywhere else, but in Australia, our laws are that you can terminate a pregnancy up to 12 weeks (I think this is when all the arteries are completed, the heart is beating and blood circulating through the body) But after that time, its no longer an option because the fetus is now considered human. And I think the precedure also becomes a lot more dangerous for the woman. Also procedures in later stages of pregnancy, are quite barbaric, by anyone's standards (eg. partial birth abortion, saline injection abortion). Not to mention emotionally devastating to the woman.
Would I ever force my beliefs on anyone else. No. People have to come to these conclusions by themselves. And as far as decisions go, this is huge.

But I do have a question for people, when do you think life begins? Is it at conception, when the heart starts beating (like in my country) or is it when you are born?
And what do people think about methods of abortion? Does that make a difference to how you view it? I mean, with the partial birth abortion, its when a doctor half delivers the baby then forces scissors into the baby's head (head is still quite soft), then suctions out the baby's brain. (Yes, I know this method is illegal, but if we're talking pro-choice, is it a woman's right to have that type of abortion if she needs it/wants it?) or the saline injection where they inject salt into the baby, and essentially posions it. Dries it out. Babies aborted this way, are usually missing their skin, because it burns off.....actually, even a regular abortion is pretty gross. But seeing as it all produces the same end result, does it matter how its done?
Just putting it out there. Peace.

Science: The 'fetus' has unique DNA from the moment of conception. Therefore, the unborn child is a unique human being, not a part of the mother. This fetus may be at an early stage of development, but is still as human as you or me or the mother or any infant, child, teen, adult, or senior citizen.

Philosophy: If all humans have inherent rights, these rights apply to anyone at any age no matter what their capabilities. A nation's level of civilization can be determined best by how it protects the most vulnerable members of society.

Religion: If every human life is a gift from God, it is our responsibility as stewards of His creation to protect and uphold that which He created. To kill any person for personal convenience is to selfishly destroy a holy act of God.

Unwanted children: There are thousands of couples who would willingly adopt a child. All children are wanted somewhere. (side note: if the practices of fertility clinics are repulsive to you, adoption is the alternative to offer those who wish to become parents)

Rape: Rape almost never results in conception. In the event that it does, see "unwanted children" above. Convicted rapists ought to serve sentences of hard labor and, in the event the victim becomes pregnant, forfeit all their property to be sold at auction to support the victim during the pregnancy.

I do my part and don't fool around.

(Sorry, i don't know how to quote twice)

In the lower right corner of a post you see a picture with a + in it, if you click that the post will appear once you reply.

But, if she chose to have an abortion, I don't think anyone could be heartless enough to say she's a murderer.

Why? Would you be as compassionate if she killed the baby? I don't see why one can say that abortion is murder except if it was because of a rape.

But I do have a question for people, when do you think life begins? Is it at conception, when the heart starts beating (like in my country) or is it when you are born?
And what do people think about methods of abortion? Does that make a difference to how you view it? I mean, with the partial birth abortion, its when a doctor half delivers the baby then forces scissors into the baby's head (head is still quite soft), then suctions out the baby's brain. (Yes, I know this method is illegal, but if we're talking pro-choice, is it a woman's right to have that type of abortion if she needs it/wants it?) or the saline injection where they inject salt into the baby, and essentially posions it. Dries it out. Babies aborted this way, are usually missing their skin, because it burns off.....actually, even a regular abortion is pretty gross. But seeing as it all produces the same end result, does it matter how its done?
Just putting it out there. Peace.

I think life begins at conception. (the heart, or more precisely the structure that will later become the heart, starts beating after 21 days btw.).

But I don't believe all life is 'sacred' or good per se. That would be stupid and cause a lot of harm. If we truly believed that we would have to do everything to save every life, that would include brain dead people, people who are terminally Ill, we should have to save babies that were born severely handicapped and have no chance to live longer than 5 years, although they and their parents will suffer a lot and keeping it alive will take lots of time and resources.
Instead I think we should say that only persons* have the right to life. This is because only persons know that they're alive, and can wish to stay alive. This way we should no longer have to pretend that someone who is brain dead is really dead (while he can still breath and has a pulse), we should no longer have to pretend that not giving treatments to severely handicapped baby isn't the same as killing it etc.
This way we could avoid a lot of pain and bad. For instance: instead of not treating severely handicapped babies and letting them die naturally, because the parents and doctors agree that further treatments are futile, we could try to minimize their pain by euthanizing them (if the parents want it and if nobody wants to adopt them of course).
If we apply the same logic to fetuses we see that they have no wish to stay alive because they are no 'person' so they have no right to live.
This of course should be seen within a broader utilitarian approach, where it would be wrong to abort a fetus against the mothers will because that would make her unhappy, it would be wrong to kill random babies because the parents or potential adopters would be less happy etc.
This would also mean that it DOES matter how it's done, it should always happen with as little pain for the fetus as possible (once we think it can feel pain that is).

*The criteria a person must have in being a person are one or more of the following:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.


This basically sums up my views about abortion.

And if an embryo cannot survive without the use of my body, and I deny it that use, it isn't my fault that it couldn't survive. It's callous, but that's how it is.
I don't know if you consider yourself left-wing, but I'd like to point out that this line of reasoning is utterly incompatible with any kind of left-wing philosophy.

Remember that "Commission vs. omission" topic we had a few days ago? Most people (not just leftists, but especially leftists) agreed that if it is within your power to save someone's life, and you can do so without excessive effort or risk to your own life, you are under a moral obligation to save them.

Therefore, IF a fetus is a person and IF you can carry the pregnancy to term without excessive effort or risk to your own life, you are under a moral obligation to do so.

If a fetus is a person... that's the real question. I believe there is no way to tell, given that different fetuses develop at different rates and the exact definition of what makes a person a person is arbitrary anyway. However, it is always better to be safe than sorry. We don't know if a fetus is a person, but it might be. And I'd rather risk causing a bit of unnecessary suffering to the mother than risk killing an innocent person. So I am opposed to abortion.

You are right about one thing though:

Someone who truly wants to prevent abortions should be working for comprehensive sex education, access to contraceptives, and access to reproductive care for all human beings who could possibly get pregnant or get someone else pregnant.
Ideally, no one should be in a position to even want an abortion.

I strongly oppose partial-birth abortion and prefer to cut off the option to have an abortion once the brain begins to form. This, of course, still has exceptions for various medical emergencies and other situations where there is no other option; by and large, however, it's pretty likely that advances in the field will reduce the need for abortions to deal with the problem. A little over one trimester is more than enough time to make this decision, and it's pretty much a given that most abortions do happen within that timeframe...anything beyond that, and you've really got to stretch to somehow argue that a fetus with a formed and functioning brain is not a person.

I don't know if you consider yourself left-wing, but I'd like to point out that this line of reasoning is utterly incompatible with any kind of left-wing philosophy.

Remember that "Commission vs. omission" topic we had a few days ago? Most people (not just leftists, but especially leftists) agreed that if it is within your power to save someone's life, and you can do so without excessive effort or risk to your own life, you are under a moral obligation to save them.

Therefore, IF a fetus is a person and IF you can carry the pregnancy to term without excessive effort or risk to your own life, you are under a moral obligation to do so..

Um. Being pregnant for nine months and giving birth is both (1) excessive effort and (2) a risk to a woman's own life.

If a fetus is a person... that's the real question. I believe there is no way to tell, given that different fetuses develop at different rates and the exact definition of what makes a person a person is arbitrary anyway. However, it is always better to be safe than sorry. We don't know if a fetus is a person, but it might be. And I'd rather risk causing a bit of unnecessary suffering to the mother than risk killing an innocent person. So I am opposed to abortion.

First of all, we now that unborn children are not persons in the early stages of pregnancy when almost all abortions occur (with the exceptions being extreme cases where the life or health of the mother are at special risk). There is no ambiguity about it as the "fetus" isn't even a fetus until after 8 weeks of pregnancy. More than 60% of all abortions in the US occur within the first 8 weeks and 90% occur within the first 13 weeks.

Second, shouldn't you error on the side of the basic rights of the one person in the equation that is undisputedly a person with such basic rights -- i.e., the woman? A woman's fundamental rights to control over her own body, privacy, etc., shouldn't be forfeit just because you are squeamish about "risk" that a potential person might be harmed.

You are right about one thing though:

Ideally, no one should be in a position to even want an abortion.

Agreed. But it is worth noting that (based on studies of actual abortion laws) banning abortion does next to nothing to stop abortions, it only makes them less safe.

I don't normally argue on the side of abortionists... but i'm bored.

There is no ambiguity about it as the "fetus" isn't even a fetus until after 8 weeks of pregnancy. More than 60% of all abortions in the US occur within the first 8 weeks and 90% occur within the first 13 weeks.


Personhood is based on completely arbitrary qualifications.


Second, shouldn't you error on the side of the basic rights of the one person in the equation that is undisputedly a person with such basic rights -- i.e., the woman? A woman's fundamental rights to control over her own body, privacy, etc., shouldn't be forfeit just because you are squeamish about "risk" that a potential person might be harmed.


But what of conflicting rights? Is the right to end pregnancy of more importance then the rights of the fetus inside the womb? If so, why?

IIRC, the fact that the birth certificate is based on date of birth rather than conception or trimesters in addition to legal precedent of legal age requirement based on when one was born should be taken into account.

A little over one trimester is more than enough time to make this decision

Agreed, if everything happens exactly as planned.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way... maybe the circumstances change significantly enough to make carrying the fetus to term problematic.

anything beyond that, and you've really got to stretch to somehow argue that a fetus with a formed and functioning brain is not a person.

Is a cat a person?

Agreed, if everything happens exactly as planned.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way... maybe the circumstances change significantly enough to make carrying the fetus to term problematic.

Which is why I allow an option for later abortion under those circumstances.

Is a cat a person?

No, but only because it doesn't possess the capacity for human level mental activity. Sapient animals, on the other hand, do deserve protection similar to humans; there's no reason why another primate or elephant does not deserve that level of protection.

Which is why I allow an option for later abortion under those circumstances.

Yes, medical ones, as I understood your post. Economic trouble? Relationship trouble? There are lots of circumstances that don't involve threats to the life or health of the mother that still might make someone change their decision.

No, but only because it doesn't possess the capacity for human level mental activity.

Neither does the fetus.

*Pat pats*
So many assumptions in this jumbled mass of pointless ranting where to start
Your opinion is your own, we are questioning why an opinion should become law
Of course we are worried about a woman's choices, it is her body on the line why should we NOT be concerned about it?
"Waiting until it is born" has a huge health impact on the woman and risks both now and later on in life ... you have yet to provide a good reason why your opinion should take a higher precedence then theirs especially with their health on the line
More conjecture and name throwing, not much of a debater are you?


I know my opinion is my own that's why I'm stating it. Women should NEVER have the right to abort,I will fight this to my last breath if nessecary.And if you're so worried about a woman's choice,tell me do you like the idea of killing children too!?The main point should be the child NOTthe woman!

Who are you to tell me who is allowed to do what to my body?
Who gave you authority to decide who can use my blood, my organs, my nutrition and my health for his/her benefit without my consent?

Wow,It really worries me that we have women like you in the world.This is
the reason there are so many bad mothers.If women are truely this cowardly and greedy why have chlidren at all?You should think about spending the rest of your life in chasity and keeping your legs closed.You speak of the child as if it was intentionally conceived,you women are cowards for aiming such hatred at fetuses!All women worry about is themselves,how selfish!

Wow,It really worries me that we have women like you in the world.This is
the reason there are so many bad mothers.If women are truely this cowardly and greedy why have chlidren at all?You should think about spending the rest of your life in chasity and keeping your legs closed.You speak of the child as if it was intentionally conceived,you women are cowards for aiming such hatred at fetuses!All women worry about is themselves,how selfish!

If we didn't worry about ourselves nobody would. Besides, if all the selfish women have abortions, then wouldn't that lower the number of "bad mothers" since they wouldn't be mothers?

Wow,It really worries me that we have women like you in the world.This is
the reason there are so many bad mothers.If women are truely this cowardly and greedy why have chlidren at all?You should think about spending the rest of your life in chasity and keeping your legs closed.You speak of the child as if it was intentionally conceived,you women are cowards for aiming such hatred at fetuses!All women worry about is themselves,how selfish!

Well, you wouldn't want to be forced to give up control over your body for anybody, so why would you want to force others?
And what is your problem with me simply demanding the choice of who gets to use my body and who doesn't?
What makes you think I'm a bad mother or hate fetuses?
And how is it selfish to demand that descision concerning my body are made by me, and nobody else?

I like to call the two camps "Pro-murder" and "Anti-freedom". It gets 'em all riled up whenever you use those terms in front of 'em. It's great.
I like that "Anti-Freedom" name because women shouldn't ever have the freedom to kill babies.

If we didn't worry about ourselves nobody would. Besides, if all the selfish women have abortions, then wouldn't that lower the number of "bad mothers" since they wouldn't be mothers?

Yes,but they'd still be baby killing cowards,wouldn't they?

I like that "Anti-Freedom" name because women shouldn't ever have the freedom to kill babies.



Yes,but they'd still be baby killing cowards,wouldn't they?

I think you ought to get your terminology right. "Baby" refers to the infant after birth.

I like that "Anti-Freedom" name because women shouldn't ever have the freedom to kill babies.



Yes,but they'd still be baby killing cowards,wouldn't they?

They're not killing babies.

I think you ought to get your terminology right. "Baby" refers to the infant after birth.

Oh,pardon me and my lapse on terminology,but my point still stands you're still killing them!:eek:
Killing is wrong no matter how you put it.

I like that "Anti-Freedom" name because women shouldn't ever have the freedom to kill babies.



Yes,but they'd still be baby killing cowards,wouldn't they?

Oh great another fundie. Go jump off a bridge.

Killing is wrong no matter how you put it.

Ever step on an ant?

Oh,pardon me and my lapse on terminology,but my point still stands your still killing them!:eek:

Technically, all women are, regularly.
If you honestly believe a fertilised egg is a human being, and consider that nearly 50% of fertilised eggs are spontaneously aborted within the first couple of weeks of pregnancy, every single woman out there who ever had sex is a potential killer...

Oh,pardon me and my lapse on terminology,but my point still stands you're still killing them!:eek:
Killing is wrong no matter how you put it.

As long as the thing your killing has a faint potential of maybe becoming a human being! Killing's fine if it refers to every other living creature on earth and people over the age of 18!

every single woman out there who ever had sex is a potential killer...

Sex is murder!

Actually that fits frighteningly well into fundie doctrine....

Oh,pardon me and my lapse on terminology,but my point still stands you're still killing them!:eek:
Killing is wrong no matter how you put it.

Can I ask, are you a vegan?

IF an unborn child = a human being THEN to kill one is to kill a human being.

Murder is universally considered a crime

Therefore, IF you believe the unborn to Be a person, THEN you believe abortion should be illegal.

It really is that simple, despite what some people want you to think.

Hehe! If/then statements!

Hypothesis, ftw.

Can I ask, are you a vegan?

No,I'm not.And how convenient of you all to be so specific,I was speaking of killing humans,but I guess you were too busy being dumb asses to notice.Even if I was a vegan I'd still be killing plants so that wouldn't make much sense.

Every single woman out there is a potential killer...

How true!

How true!

*lol You're a funny troll

No,I'm not.And how convenient of you all to be so specific,I was speaking of killing humans,but I guess you were too busy being dumb asses to notice.Even if I was a vegan I'd still be killing plants so that wouldn't make much sense.

You suggested that killing is wrong no matter what you're killing, sounds vegan to me.

I was speaking of killing humans

If you're entitled to arbitrarily restrict the range of entities that can't be killed to humans, why aren't the rest of us entitled to arbitrarily restrict the range of entities that can't be killed to post-birth humans?

Nice strawman fallacy.

No really, that was a good one.

Really? I think you'll have to elaborate there...

Technically, all women are, regularly.
If you honestly believe a fertilised egg is a human being, and consider that nearly 50% of fertilised eggs are spontaneously aborted within the first couple of weeks of pregnancy, every single woman out there who ever had sex is a potential killer...
Nice strawman fallacy.

No really, that was a good one.

Um. Being pregnant for nine months and giving birth is both (1) excessive effort and (2) a risk to a woman's own life.
I can see an argument for the excessive effort part, but unless there's some special medical condition involved, the risk to the mother's life is negligible.

But in any case, yes, the effort is the issue here. That's why my anti-abortion opinion is not set in stone. Nine months of pregnancy and a painful birth experience are a lot to ask.

First of all, we now that unborn children are not persons in the early stages of pregnancy when almost all abortions occur (with the exceptions being extreme cases where the life or health of the mother are at special risk). There is no ambiguity about it as the "fetus" isn't even a fetus until after 8 weeks of pregnancy. More than 60% of all abortions in the US occur within the first 8 weeks and 90% occur within the first 13 weeks.
Right. I don't think there can be any kind of argument for banning abortion during the very early stages when the embryo has a large chance of being naturally rejected anyway.

Second, shouldn't you error on the side of the basic rights of the one person in the equation that is undisputedly a person with such basic rights -- i.e., the woman?
No, because the only thing at stake for the woman is nine months of effort and a few days of pain, whereas the thing at stake for the fetus (if it is indeed a person) is death. Dying is considerably worse than being pregnant.

A woman's fundamental rights to control over her own body, privacy, etc., shouldn't be forfeit just because you are squeamish about "risk" that a potential person might be harmed.
There are no such things as fundamental rights to anything. What matters is that we minimize human suffering and maximize human happiness.

The question then becomes whether the suffering and death of the fetus counts as "human suffering." I don't know.

Agreed. But it is worth noting that (based on studies of actual abortion laws) banning abortion does next to nothing to stop abortions, it only makes them less safe.
Next to nothing? That's a rather extreme claim. Which studies are you talking about, exactly?

Well, you wouldn't want to be forced to give up control over your body for anybody
Actually, I wouldn't mind being forced to give up control over my body for someone, provided they could offer a good argument as to why it is in the greater interests of Mankind to do so.

:upyours:Yeah, I know this has been done alot, but I would like to see people reasoning as to why they are against abortion and why that reasoning is good enough to be forced upon everyone.

Or to rephrase why do you think abortion should be illegal?

It shouldn't be.

Next to nothing? That's a rather extreme claim. Which studies are you talking about, exactly?

Several have shown that. Take when they legalised abortion in Britain - abortions didn't go up, but many more women survived abortions than before.

Several have shown that. Take when they legalised abortion in Britain - abortions didn't go up, but many more women survived abortions than before.
Can you give me a link or something? Such studies are not credible until I've looked at their methodology - to see how they counted abortions before and after, for example. Presumably it would be rather difficult to accurately count something that's illegal, no?

Can you give me a link or something? Such studies are not credible until I've looked at their methodology - to see how they counted abortions before and after, for example. Presumably it would be rather difficult to accurately count something that's illegal, no?

I apologise. I was wrong on that one. It actually shot up when they relegalised it. Oops much.

It was, however, banned in England after 1837, which I would suggest looking for statistics on...

Many people say if abortion becomes illegal, more baby's will wind up in a garbage can. Well most people won't want to step out of the law and kill there baby's, or even get a illegal abortion, so many less humans will be killed.

If you want to stop baby's from being killed after birth, make all mothers and baby's submit DNA when a baby is born. Then have them come to a hospital or some other facility every year. The DNA would show whether or not the baby the mother comes back with is actulally theres, and not some barrowed baby. When killing baby's after there born becomes that difficult to get away with, most people won't try it.

So i don't buy into some pro-choice peoples arguement about more born baby's being killed, becuase the goverment can take action to pretty much prevent that.

Oh great another fundie. Go jump off a bridge.

Sweet! Random-assed flames with absolutely no counter argument to speak of! Ohh! Can I do that too???

Nice strawman fallacy.

No really, that was a good one.

Why is it a strawman ? Is it not a human being in your eyes if God aborts it ?

What exactly makes a fetus human/ a person in your eyes ? We had a topic on this a year back or so, and no anti-choice proponent could answer that one without becoming inconsistent. Please show yourself to be superior.

Y'all are crazy! Abortions are terrible! Have you seen pictures of it? Awful!!! And if the girl does not want the child, this is why there are things as adoption centers. Some people can't have children so they go there and apply for parentship of the child, therefore, letting the child have a family. Now if you, don't want the responsibilty of the said child, why did you have sex in the first place. Now I can understand the fact that the lady may have gotten sexually abused and had a child, but that still doesn't mean she has to kill it. She can put it up for adoption. If she didn't want to give it up, then she should of given it to someone who she trusted to take care of the child, and still be able to have a physical bond with the child. So I know there are a lot of reasons to have an abortion, but the point is, YOU SHOULDN'T GET ONE WHATSOEVER!!! It is totally immoral, unchristian, and certainly, unamerican!!!!

anything beyond that, and you've really got to stretch to somehow argue that a fetus with a formed and functioning brain is not a person.

Just as an FYI, the fetus never has a fully-formed and functioning brain. That doesn't happen until after birth.

Can't kill what doesn't live.

Fetuses are definitely alive by their eighth and ninth months. Before that is a grey area.

Oh,pardon me and my lapse on terminology,but my point still stands you're still killing them!:eek:
Killing is wrong no matter how you put it.

Can't kill what doesn't live.

Fetuses are definitely alive by their eighth and ninth months. Before that is a grey area.

Nitpick - it is definately alive. Just like most cells of your body.
If it should be considered a person or a human being (note the emphasis) at the early stages is the grey area.

Fetuses are definitely alive by their eighth and ninth months. Before that is a grey area.

It's alive, but it's only arguably life. Your pancreas, for example, is alive, but it's not life.

It's alive, but it's only arguably life. Your pancreas, for example, is alive, but it's not life.

A fetus isn't comparable to a pancreas though, because it has independent movement within the womb and some semblance of thought, if not as strong as a normal, developing human being.

A fetus isn't comparable to a pancreas though, because it has independent movement within the womb and some semblance of thought, if not as strong as a normal, developing human being.

A more apt comparison would be with a parasite, in all honesty.

A more apt comparison would be with a parasite, in all honesty.

Yes, but so are toddlers, children, and my old English teacher who still lives with his mom. They're still alive

Thought requires brainwaves. A fetus does not have those. Ergo, it cannot have thought.

Source? Especially for the later months, please.

A fetus isn't comparable to a pancreas though, because it has independent movement within the womb and some semblance of thought, if not as strong as a normal, developing human being.

Thought requires brainwaves. A fetus does not have those. Ergo, it cannot have thought.

Yes, but so are toddlers, children, and my old English teacher who still lives with his mom.

Not unless you completely ignore the definition.

Two reasons.

1) I am a Christian.
2) Human beings only create human beings. Calling a human embryo anything less than a human is ridiculous. Purposefully murdering an unborn child is still murder.

Source? Especially for the later months, please.

As one making a negative assertion, the burden of proof is not on me. Unless it can be demonstrated that it does have actual brainwaves, it is to be assumed that it does not.

As one making a negative assertion, the burden of proof is not on me. Unless it can be demonstrated that it does have actual brainwaves, it is to be assumed that it does not.


Way to fail at defending your point. Are all your beliefs based on unresearched assumptions?

Way to fail at defending your point. Are all your beliefs based on unresearched assumptions?

Hey, just pointing out that the burden of proof isn't on me. And, actually, no. All my beliefs are based on things that have been tested and have not been disproved.

Oh, and after a quick search, this (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm) pegs something that could be called "brainwaves" at 27 weeks, although I've read something else that says that those still do not qualify as brainwaves. I'll try and find it, since it was a good read. However, I will retract my previous claim and move the date of brainwave appearance back to 27 weeks.

Is there anyone who's pro-abortion? I mean seriously. The anti-choice lobby likes to use the terms pro and anti abortion, but no one is pro-abortion, until they end up pregnant.

Simple fact is abortions will happen whether you outlaw it or not, may as well do them safely. Plus unwanted kids aren't a good thing.

I really don't think that anyone should be forced to have a child if they don't feel that they're capable. Of course it shouldn't be a "get-out free card" but there are circumstances where it is a neccessary evil.

People put so much emphasis on a life that hasn't even started yet and hardly consider the person that the situation is being most effected. I think it's ignorant to say that abortion is only acceptable to those that find themselves in that sort of predicament.

*lol You're a funny troll

Thanks.:D

Can't kill what doesn't live.

Fetuses are alive.It's horrible how you keep trying to justify murder.

Two reasons.

1) I am a Christian.
2) Human beings only create human beings. Calling a human embryo anything less than a human is ridiculous. Purposefully murdering an unborn child is still murder.

Normally I don't agree with christians,but I agree with all of what you've said.

Yes, but so are toddlers, children, and my old English teacher who still lives with his mom. They're still alive

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe all of those organisms are able of receiving sustenance without attaching themselves to the organ systems of another animal. A fetus on the other hand...

EDIT: Since we're talking biology, a definition of parasite is in hand. Here's two:

Wikitionary:"parasite (plural parasites)

1. (biology) A (generally undesirable) living organism that exists by stealing the resources needed by another (generally desirable) living organism. See flea, tick, mite."

Answers.com: "n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

These definitions both sound fairly close to a fetus IMO.

I don't know if you consider yourself left-wing, but I'd like to point out that this line of reasoning is utterly incompatible with any kind of left-wing philosophy.

Remember that "Commission vs. omission" topic we had a few days ago? Most people (not just leftists, but especially leftists) agreed that if it is within your power to save someone's life, and you can do so without excessive effort or risk to your own life, you are under a moral obligation to save them.

Therefore, IF a fetus is a person and IF you can carry the pregnancy to term without excessive effort or risk to your own life, you are under a moral obligation to do so.

(a) No, I don't consider myself left-wing, although I certainly advocate some things that might be described that way.

(b) Moral obligation does not necessarily equate to legal obligation. Personally, I would agree that a woman has a moral obligation to carry to term and do everything she must to provide a good life for a baby that is born from her pregnancy. I also think that individuals have moral obligations to be blood, bone marrow, and organ donors. I would not argue, however, that any of these things should be legally mandated.

Sorry to anyone who may have been offended by my earlier post(I'm absolutely against abortion of any and all forms)
So, you would support a ban on abortion even if the mother's life is at stake? In other words, you not only think a fetus should be granted the right to use a woman's body against her will, it should have the right to kill her, too? But she should not have the right to kill it? So, following that line of reasoning, you see women as nothing but slaves to fetuses who own not only our bodies but our lives, too?

Tell me, who else would you grant the right to use and kill women?

Do you see what a hole you dig yourself into when you say things like you are "absolutely against abortion of any and all forms"? And do you honestly expect to persuade others to agree with you?


Muravyets,I also somewhat believe in sprits ,but even with religon and spirituality aside,it's sickening to me how people try to justifiy murder.A human is a human, including fetuses.Women who are raped claim the baby is violating there body.No!Not the poor innocent child,but the disguisting rapist father was the violator!The babies should be carried into this world no matter how they came to be.
I'm not unsypathetic to womem's needs,but killing kids is not cool. However you try to make it seem right.I give a damn about human life period!Life its self is a risk and so is preganancy to start with!You've made a very good point on my abortion vs.adoption arguement,but tell me You would rather kill the baby then let it experince life at all?Would you also approve of hunting those orphans you mentioned down and aborting their lives too!?
P.S Wow,I sound suprisingly religious for an Atheist don't I!
I am not impressed by your melodrama considering that in the preceding paragraph you reduced me (as a woman) to the level of cattle or, perhaps, a disposable tool. Your dramatic displays of respect for life ring hollow to me.

Probably a higher source than that which gives you the authority to end a life without his/her consent.
Sorry, but screw your "higher source." I recognize no higher source than myself when it comes to my own body. Anyone who would argue otherwise is going to face a fight.

Originally Posted by Cabra West
So you'd be one of those who'd advocate mandatory organ donations, right?
And mandatory blood donations?
Nope.

Then you're a hypocrite.

Abortion is murder. If you don't abort the child, what will become of it? Will it become a fish? NO it will become a HUMAN BEING. Aborting a baby before it is born is murder as I said, if you don't abort it, it will become a human, therefore aborting a baby is murder of a human being.

Dyakovo, I'm guessing you are 20ish? Let's say 20ish years ago there was a woman who was pregnant. She decided, "Nah, I dont want this baby!All it is. is a little piece of worthless scum. I'll abort it!"

Guess what. You are not here.
Guess what. The dead are irrelevant. They have nothing and can lose nothing, nor have anything taken away from them. They do not suffer and do not desire and have no opinions about anything. They do not matter. This is why the "how would you feel if you had been aborted?" argument is ridiculous.

she did it to her body first! The child is innocent on all accounts and you're going to kill it?

There's no such thing as rape in your universe? There's no such thing as a pregnancy going wrong? There's no such thing as a pregnant woman being diagnosed with a life threatening condition that makes it excessively dangerous to continue a pregnancy? There's no such thing as birth control failure?

Sorry, but screw your "higher source." I recognize no higher source than myself when it comes to my own body. Anyone who would argue otherwise is going to face a fight.

Technically speaking, your country has a higher right for your body.

There can be legislation against suicide, abortion, organ selling, prostitution, "kinky" sex and/or homosexuality which all can restrict your right to your body.

There's no such thing as rape in your universe? There's no such thing as a pregnancy going wrong? There's no such thing as a pregnant woman being diagnosed with a life threatening condition that makes it excessively dangerous to continue a pregnancy? There's no such thing as birth control failure?

Vast majority of these cases don't warrant a real abortion but instead eg. dayafter pills or emergency cesarian.

Technically speaking, your country has a higher right for your body.

There can be legislation against suicide, abortion, organ selling, prostitution and/or homosexuality which all can restrict your right to your body.

Not by her view, if abortion was outlawed and Muryavets was put into a situation where she felt an abortion was necessary you can count on her not giving in; i.e. she would still get an abortion.
To be said in another way she does not recognize anyone or thing having the right to take control of her body from her. As she said rather clearly I think.

So you've whittled your case down to a fraction of a percent of cases and this is supposed to justify elective abortion for everyone?

Sounds like a perfect justification to me. Elective early term abortion available to everyone who wants one. The fact that only a small number of people might take advantage of having that option is not a factor in deciding to make it available. The fact that you can never know who that small number will be is a factor is making it available to everyone.

If the foetus is a person, it can only require support from the mother by consent. If the mother didn't consent, she can't be beholden to the foetus without violating the mother's individual freedom.


Consensual relationships require at least two parties to express said consent. The only person capable of expressing consent in this situation, however, is the mother. As such, it seems to me that this argument must lead to one of two possible conclusions:


The inability of the fetus to express consent demonstrates that the fetus is not a person
[Institution] must intervene to protect persons who cannot directly assert consent on their own


In other words, we're right back to square one.

Those arguing along the lines of the second possibility above will also likely argue that once consent is granted by the mother, it cannot be retracted. Contractual relationships built on consent are meaningless if they can be dissolved unilaterally and arbitrarily.

I like to call the two camps "Pro-murder" and "Anti-freedom". It gets 'em all riled up whenever you use those terms in front of 'em. It's great.

[/thread]

I wholeheartedly agree with this post. As long as this nation is completely unprepared to deal with the social ramifications of making abortion illegal, I will support a woman's right to choose, despite my own moral stance against abortion.

This is what I can't stand about the "pro-life" side of the argument with which I would otherwise associate. This side opposes abortion but, because of its generally conservative and religious disposition, goes out of its way to institute other policies and agendas that pretty much guarantee the continued existence of abortion.

Technically speaking, your country has a higher right for your body.

There can be legislation against suicide, abortion, organ selling, prostitution, "kinky" sex and/or homosexuality which all can restrict your right to your body.
I do not recognize the Constitutional legitimacy of such laws and look forward to every opportunity to challenge them in court, and will never stop challenging them until they are repealed or rewritten. My country, btw, is the USA. I am not interested in the violations of individual bodily integrity that benighted citizens of other nations may be willing to endure.

And by the way, no restriction against what I can do with my body, no matter how illegitimate it may be, is tantamount to a ban on abortion because only the ban on abortion forces me to submit my body to another's positive use, thus reducing me to a condition of slavery (which is illegal, in case you had forgotten).

Vast majority of these cases don't warrant a real abortion but instead eg. dayafter pills or emergency cesarian.
Nonsense. The vast majority of cases warrant whatever a competent doctor says they do, on a case by case basis. It is not up to you to decide that in advance.

Actually, I wouldn't mind being forced to give up control over my body for someone, provided they could offer a good argument as to why it is in the greater interests of Mankind to do so.

Giving birth in a world that is grossly overpopulated and cannot exactly even support all currently living human beings any more would be to the greater good of mankind?

Not by her view, if abortion was outlawed and Muryavets was put into a situation where she felt an abortion was necessary you can count on her not giving in; i.e. she would still get an abortion.
To be said in another way she does not recognize anyone or thing having the right to take control of her body from her. As she said rather clearly I think.

Precisely. :)

People and states can claim all the authority over me they like. Their claims mean nothing to me, and they have only as much as authority as I give them. And I give them precious frikkin little. Hardly enough to notice.

Fetuses are alive.It's horrible how you keep trying to justify murder.


There's a MASSIVE difference between being alive and living. Fetuses are living tissue, but it's more than just arguable if they're alive.

Precisely. :)

People and states can claim all the authority over me they like. Their claims mean nothing to me, and they have only as much as authority as I give them. And I give them precious frikkin little. Hardly enough to notice.

This is not up to you but to the law enforcement officials: If you were caught vandalizing your body you can be punished for it or protected from it (eg. suicide watch) against your will.

There's a MASSIVE difference between being alive and living. Fetuses are living tissue, but it's more than just arguable if they're alive.They do become living beings before they're born.

Killing a human being =/= murder. That's where the flaw comes into that argument.1/3+1/3+1/3=.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999

1/3+1/3+1/3=1

So since when does math make sense.:p

There's a MASSIVE difference between being alive and living. Fetuses are living tissue, but it's more than just arguable if they're alive.Also, you can make the argument that it is a seperate entity within a person and with different so in killing it you are killing something alien to you, but if you claim for a minute that a fetus is a Parasite then people will point at you and then you will not see day for many a moon.

However, the biological behaviour of a foetus in the womb is indeed exactly like that of a parasite.
Except that it's not.

A parasite rarely carries on the hosts genetic heritage.

Also, you can make the argument that it is a seperate entity within a person and with different so in killing it you are killing something alien to you, but if you claim for a minute that a fetus is a Parasite then people will point at you and then you will not see day for many a moon.

I'm not calling it a parasite, I try to refrain from emotionalised language and keep to acurate terms. ;)
However, the biological behaviour of a foetus in the womb is indeed exactly like that of a parasite.

However, the biological behaviour of a foetus in the womb is indeed exactly like that of a parasite.

I'm not a biologist, but most definitions of parasitism I've seen describe it as a relationship between different species.

I'm not a biologist, but most definitions of parasitism I've seen describe it as a relationship between different species.

Which is why I refrained from calling it a parasite, but pointed out that it behaves like one.

Which is why I refrained from calling it a parasite, but pointed out that it behaves like one.

While one particular attribute might seem like a valid means of drawing a comparison, the vast and important remaining differences between the reproductive process and parasitism make that comparison specious at best. I'm not claiming that you said "the fetus is a parasite" because you obviously didn't. I'm saying that an argument based on some likeness to parasitism is rather weak.

While one particular attribute might seem like a valid means of drawing a comparison, the vast and important remaining differences between the reproductive process and parasitism make that comparison specious at best. I'm not claiming that you said "the fetus is a parasite;" I'm saying that an argument based on some likeness to parasitism is rather weak.

Again, I didn't compare the feotus to a parasite, I compared behaviour. Nothing else.

Again, I didn't compare the feotus to a parasite, I compared behaviour. Nothing else.

OK. The behavior of a fetus and the behavior of a parasite, while similar in some respect, are nonetheless characterized by many and important characteristics that make any comparison between them highly problematic.

One can't really compare the behavior to two entities without comparing the two entities themselves, anyway. Behavior is merely an attribute of said two entities.

OK. The behavior of a fetus and the behavior of a parasite, while similar in some respect, are nonetheless characterized by many and important characteristics that make any comparison between them highly problematic.

I what way?

OK. The behavior of a fetus and the behavior of a parasite, while similar in some respect, are nonetheless characterized by many and important characteristics that make any comparison between them highly problematic.

Name 20 ;)

I'm not calling it a parasite, I try to refrain from emotionalised language and keep to acurate terms. ;)
However, the biological behaviour of a foetus in the womb is indeed exactly like that of a parasite.Well, aren't you a political correct one.:p

Yet, in regards it can be argued that children are also parasites too, but why humans and other humans tolerate pregnancy and childs are that it biological benefits our species.

Yet, in regards it can be argued that children are also parasites too, but why humans and other humans tolerate pregnancy and childs are that it biological benefits our species.

Not entirely - just that it might benefit the individuals involved.
Which of course implies that if the individuals do not wish to be pregnant...

So long as abortion is treated as a moral issue it will be misjudged, it should be treated as a socio-economic problem, yes abortion is not a good thing but the best way to fight it is by practically looking at the reality of the situation, which is an economic one, and then implementing practical solutions in that way. As long as I have seen, conservatives don't really want to stop abortion, they want arbitrary bans, partisan pandering and bombastic rhetoric, and to make it an underground activity.

Not entirely - just that it might benefit the individuals involved.
Which of course implies that if the individuals do not wish to be pregnant...

I would go so far as to argue that it doesn't even benefit the indvidual, but rather the species and the genes that were passed on.
What benefit is it to the individual when the foetus fights with the mother's body for nutrition, causing the mother's body to experience severe lack of vitamins and minerals? There's a reason for the old saying "each child will cost you a tooth".
What benefit is it to the individual to then feed and raise the child, attend to its every need, provide for it and protect it?
And once the kid is grown up, it still can't really be called beneficial for the mother, as it most likely will simply leave to eventually start its own family.

The beneficiaries are society and the "selfish genes" ;)

I what way?

A fetus is certainly one organism living inside the body of another, while deriving benefit (nourishment, protection, etc) and creating potential harm to the mother.

However, as I've said, both fetus and mother are of the same species and are thus both normally equipped with the necessary organs and tissues needed to make their relationship work. This relationship is supposed to happen (I don't mean to use the word "supposed" in a deterministic sense, to mean that a woman has no choice as to whether to have a child. I mean to use it simply in the sense that one is capable of doing so intrinsically).

Parasitism implies a relationship between different species which is harmful (though not necessarily deadly) to the host exactly because the species are not otherwise compatible. The host thus has a natural interest in avoiding the parasite because it is not supposed to be invaded by an unwanted parasite, or it at least wishes to avoid such. Parasitism does not seem intrinsic, at least not for the host.

Pregnancy and childbirth can be dangerous and thus produce harm, but the reproductive process produces all kinds of benefits that greatly outweigh this potential danger. Continuation of the species is the most obvious. A parasite is concerned with the survival of its own species, not necessarily that of the host, but the reproductive process serves the continuation of a single species that fetus and mother share. The relationship between fetus and mother is thus more accurately described as mutually beneficial in that way, totally unlike parasitism. The mother, as host, also benefits in passing on aspects of her own genetic identity and, in the long term, from the creation of another potential caretaker for her self and the rest of her family.

I would go so far as to argue that it doesn't even benefit the indvidual, but rather the species and the genes that were passed on.


The health of the species can provide useful benefits to the individual within his or her own life time. Within my lifetime, infants will grow up and become productive members of society, providing me with all kinds of benefits through either private enterprise of public collective effort. The more people there are to provide, the more benefit can be produced while reducing per-capita cost.

(Overpopulation is a potential problem, yes, but it doesn't invalidate the above entirely.)

The health of the species can provide useful benefits to the individual within his or her own life time. Within my lifetime, infants will grow up and become productive members of society, providing me with all kinds of benefits through either private enterprise of public collective effort. The more people there are to provide, the more benefit can be produced while reducing per-capita cost.

So... why is it not a crime for a woman to not be pregnant ?

Name 20 ;)

Were I am expert in biology, thus commanding a complete knowledge of all the vocabulary and other lingo, I expect that I could name far more than 20. :D

A fetus is certainly one organism living inside the body of another, while deriving benefit (nourishment, protection, etc) and creating potential harm to the mother.

However, as I've said, both fetus and mother are of the same species and are thus both normally equipped with the necessary organs and tissues needed to make their relationship work. This relationship is supposed to happen (I don't mean to use the word "supposed" in a deterministic sense, to mean that a woman has no choice as to whether to have a child. I mean to use it simply in the sense that one is capable of doing so intrinsically).

Parasitism implies a relationship between different species which is harmful (though not necessarily deadly) to the host exactly because the species are not otherwise compatible. The host thus has a natural interest in avoiding the parasite because it is not supposed to be invaded by an unwanted parasite, or it at least wishes to avoid such. Parasitism does not seem intrinsic, at least not for the host.

Pregnancy and childbirth can be dangerous and thus produce harm, but the reproductive process produces all kinds of benefits that greatly outweigh this potential danger. Continuation of the species is the most obvious. A parasite is concerned with the survival of its own species, not necessarily that of the host, but the reproductive process serves the continuation of a single species that fetus and mother share. The relationship between fetus and mother is thus more accurately described as mutually beneficial in that way, totally unlike parasitism. The mother, as host, also benefits in passing on aspects of her own genetic identity and, in the long term, from the creation of another potential caretaker for her self and the rest of her family.

You're again referring to the nature of feotuses vs parasites, not to the differences in their behaviour...

Were I am expert in biology, thus commanding a complete knowledge of all the vocabulary and other lingo, I expect that I could name far more than 20. :D

Note we are talking about behaviour - not nature. Biology is not really relevant ;)

So... why is it not a crime for a woman to not be pregnant ?

Because some of us value individual liberty and choice, although, unfortunately, I don't find it all that hard to imagine a totalitarian regime where it might be illegal for a woman not to be pregnant. Obviously, I would never support any such law.

Of course, someone will state that "if a woman can choose to be not pregnant, she can choose abortion." I'm not really concerned with that at the moment. So far my argument simply states that even if not compulsory, reproduction and pregnancy are an intrinsic part of homo sapiens sapiens (like all other animals), making them hardly comparable (in whatever way) to parasitism.