Abortion

[HC5831]

I had a heated discussion with some friends tonight about pro-choice and pro-life views. It got me thinking a lot and I did a lot of research on the internet. The main thing for me is when a fetus is considered a human being.

I am pro-choice and believe that everyone should be able to make up their own mind. For me a fetus is not a human being at conception, which is what pro-life people believe. I feel that a fetus becomes a human being at either 12 weeks or when the fetus is viable. Viable is when the baby can survive on it's own outside the womb.

I am leaning toward 12 weeks however, I think that after that the fetus is too close to a baby for me to not see it as a baby.

I'd like you to answer the following questions. When is a fetus considered a human being? Are you pro-life or pro-choice? After that comment however you like.

HC

p.s. There is a lot of propoganda out there on both sides. Here's a unbiased look at the issue:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Pro-Choice. I have, at times, been called "radically pro-abortion" by my conservative friends.

When is a fetus considered a human being?

I consider granting a fetus the status of an already born human as a very slippery slope. I for one don't like the idea of the potential of making the act of smoking a cigarette or drinking a glass of wine by a pregnant woman a crime.

I don't know whether I want to get into a debate about this. I respect those who hold the opposite view and don't think it serves any purpose to toss barbs back and forth.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I am leaning toward 12 weeks however, I think that after that the fetus is too close to a baby for me to not see it as a baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely not a pro choice stance. You're basically searching for some middle ground (not a bad idea methinks) where the two sides of the debate tend to be quite polarized.



[ QUOTE ]
I'd like you to answer the following questions. When is a fetus considered a human being? Are you pro-life or pro-choice? After that comment however you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to be put in either "box" as I see legitimate points from both sides of this highly polarized issue. Where's the middle ground? Is the law against "partial birth" abortions an attempt to begin to find it? I think so but pro choice groups are against it. I've got to run but I'll have more to say in this thread if the debate continues.

[whiskeytown]

in my heart, I'm pro-life across the board (including being vs. the Death Penalty) - I don't believe in a state sanctioned right to kill anyone except in times of war.

but I'm willing to let kids use contraceptives and take measures to ensure they don't get knocked up, as opposed to the Religious Right who want their consequences but don't wanna take steps necessary to slow them down. Sadly, the decision to support life has been highjacked by the extreme religious who can't support their arguments/beliefs in any way except by a bible verse that says "before you were formed in the womb, I knew you"

In my ideal world, there would be no abortion because there would be no unprotected sex that results in unintended pregnancys...but I may be in fantasyland on that one

still, if you want to reduce abortion, improve contraception...that'll do wonders to bring the rate down. But that's not acceptable for the religious right (sigh)

if you're looking for a viable timestamp for life...how about this? -

We rule a human being as being dead at the cecession of brain activity - why not rule one as alive once it begins (that'll range from 6-24 weeks depending on who's propaganda you read....12 is a good average, I think) - that's the only thing that makes sense from a logical perspective - otherwise, we go from conception (DNA) or birth -

but birth doesn't make sense to me.... - how a life can be given human status outside a mother's womb and not inside it is irrational. One can't say it's not human because it's dependant on mom for life, because the baby is still dependant after birth - and it's not part of the mother - a baby has his own independant organs - only thing they share is a blood/oxygen supply - there is no logical reason to deny a 2nd/3rd trimester baby the status of human inside the womb.

saying the unborn isn't human till it exits the womb is just a way to draw the line as far left as possible...but we'll still charge Laci Peterson's killer with two counts of murder (one for her, one for the baby) -

the decision to be human is not relative, contrary to what pro-choicers believe - it is or isn't, and the doublespeak from the prochoice camp on that issue doesn't alter it.

RB

[nothumb]

I'm soundly pro-choice but I think we should be focusing on preventing abortions in the first place. I think that's a strategy both sides should be able to agree on if members of the Christian right would put aside their ridiculous opposition to condoms and sex education, especially in developing nations. Unfortunately many of the policies of so-called 'social conservatives' increase the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies.

I do not think the 'partial birth abortion' ban is correct either. It needs to allow for the health of the woman, defects in the child and the like. I think the whole framing of the debate around this issue was very divisive and partisan. I don't have a big problem with making it harder to get an abortion after the first, say, 3 months, but I do not think it should be impossible.

NT

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

pro-life

[ QUOTE ]
When is a fetus considered a human being?

[/ QUOTE ]

conception

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know whether I want to get into a debate about this. I respect those who hold the opposite view and don't think it serves any purpose to toss barbs back and forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
in my heart, I'm pro-life across the board (including being vs. the Death Penalty) - I don't believe in a state sanctioned right to kill anyone

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
but I think we should be focusing on preventing abortions in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked all 3 of these statements. I myself view the same way as whiskeytown. (nice username).

One thing that is strange to me: Why is this a partisan issue? How come if you agree with a graduated income tax, labor laws, protecting union, etc... You should also be pro choice? It doesn't make sense to me that elected Democrats are consistently pro-choice.. Democrats always want to portray an air of sophistication, like that of liberal educators...

[jcx]

It is certainly infanticide, which fits nicely into our culture of death. I believe historians of the future will view the easy abortions of these times as a holocaust greater than anything Hitler could have come up with. Abortion is doomed, and technology is what will doom it. New devices exist that can show fetuses with defined features, movements, perhaps even personalities. This technology will continue to improve and I firmly believe will one day ring the death knell of legal abortion. For if it is simply a medical proceedure, there would be no problem with showing all the intimate details of said proceedure on the Discovery Channel, much like the knee replacement surgery I caught a few minutes of the other day. The pro abortion camp would not allow this, as anyone with a soul who watches an abortion being performed would not want abortion to be legal.

[bernie]

What many fail to understand is the argument for Pro choice is not the opposite of Pro life. Just don't tell Pro lifers that.

I think a woman can do with her body whatever she wants. If she wants to get a parasite out of her body, it's her decision. It's not like there are no repercussions to women who have abortions. Both mentally and physically.

Golden rule applies. I wouldn't want someone telling me what I must do about the situation, so im not telling them.

Someone once asked me how i'd have felt if my ma aborted me. A pretty stupid question in context alone. Since i can't remember anything before i was, oh, say 3 years old, I wouldn't know the difference. And i wouldn't have hindsight to look back on. Ask that question of someone who's been raped, tortured and abused for the first 10 years of their life. Ain't life grand?

Alot of pro life is religious based. Which is a whole 'nother topic of contradictory issues. I don't see a whole lot of pro lifers visiting orphanages, adopting, visiting the single parents or anything once the kid is out. "Sorry honey, we only get the kid out. Now it's your problem. We have to go save another."

Many take the stance that if the woman didn't want the kid, she shouldn't have had sex. Which they then retract when you mention how they just stated how they're using the kid as 'punishment' for sex. After all, they don't want to 'dehumanize' the little bundle of joy that they'll never give an ounce of crap about while it's growing up.

Lastly, pro lifers have killed for the right to life.

b

[bernie]

Nice post.

[ QUOTE ]
One can't say it's not human because it's dependant on mom for life, because the baby is still dependant after birth

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not solely dependent on one person, the mom, after birth. Someone other than the mom can now care for it. In being processed for most of the 9 months, it is solely dependent on the mom. Big difference.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The pro abortion camp would not allow this, as anyone with a soul who watches an abortion being performed would not want abortion to be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Color me 'soulless' then.

b

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a woman can do with her body whatever she wants.

[/ QUOTE ]
thats the first thing that pro choicers say and its totally wrong. For example, a woman cannot grab a knife with her body and thrust her arm which just happens to have the knife land in somebody else's chest, killing them. Or, she(or he) cannot go into a liquor store and demand that the cashier give her all the money.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't want someone telling me what I must do about the situation, so im not telling them.


[/ QUOTE ]
There are lots of situations where you are told what you can and cannot do.

[ QUOTE ]
Since i can't remember anything before i was, oh, say 3 years old, I wouldn't know the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
by that theory, its okay to kill a 2 and a half year old.

[ QUOTE ]
Many take the stance that if the woman didn't want the kid, she shouldn't have had sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right that is a dumb stance. But how about giving the little one up for adoption?

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, pro lifers have killed for the right to life.


[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly did the mother who decided to give the baby up for adoption ever kill?

I think abortion is okay in two circumstances
1. if the woman was forced into having sex
2. if there is a serious threat that the woman might die during/because of the pregnancy.

ever heard a mother say, "should have never had that baby" as the doctor holds the newborn on display

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think abortion is okay in two circumstances 1. if the woman was forced into having sex
2. if there is a serious threat that the woman might die during/because of the pregnancy.

You are thus pro-choice. You just believe that a 3rd party should determine what is and is not a valid choice.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think abortion is okay in two circumstances 1. if the woman was forced into having sex
2. if there is a serious threat that the woman might die during/because of the pregnancy.

You are thus pro-choice. You just believe that a 3rd party should determine what is and is not a valid choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it should be illegal to kill an unborn(or born) baby unless #1 or #2 qualify. If that is pro choice then I guess I am.
And all along I thought pro choice was that they could kill people for no good reason.

btw guys and gals, I have a totally different mindset when I post in the OT forum. I try not to let others viewpoints that differ from mine carry into poker related forums. I hope we can stay friendly with those who I disagree with on a lot of worldly issues. You guys are a mans best friend while sitting in front of the computer playing poker.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, is the fetus a human with a right to its own life or isn't it? If it is, then what relevance is it *how* it was conceived?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
thats the first thing that pro choicers say and its totally wrong. For example, a woman cannot grab a knife with her body and thrust her arm which just happens to have the knife land in somebody else's chest, killing them. Or, she(or he) cannot go into a liquor store and demand that the cashier give her all the money.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
There are lots of situations where you are told what you can and cannot do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. I was talking about what she does to herself. And no, i don't consider the fetus as a 2nd party. I also support ones right to suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since i can't remember anything before i was, oh, say 3 years old, I wouldn't know the difference.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


by that theory, its okay to kill a 2 and a half year old.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another valiant try. Someone else could take care of me instead of my mom at that point. Im referring to the thuoght process of being a fetus/egg, whatever. You have no thoughts or recollections at this point.

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that is a dumb stance. But how about giving the little one up for adoption?


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with adoption as a good alternative. That doesn't mean im going to force a woman to go through 9 months of her body changing and hormones out of control to force her. For one thing, men cannot even fathom pregnancy as to how it affects a woman going through it. Who am i to say, ' dammit, i have no idea what you may go through, but you're going through it!'

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly, pro lifers have killed for the right to life.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What exactly did the mother who decided to give the baby up for adoption ever kill?


[/ QUOTE ]

A mother who gives a baby up for adoption isn't necesarilyy pro life. She 'chose' the path of life. You know what i was referring to. Pro lifers who bomb abortion clinics or put doctors on hit lists. Not mothers.

[ QUOTE ]
I think abortion is okay in two circumstances
1. if the woman was forced into having sex

[/ QUOTE ]

Under this, any woman can lie and say she was forced. Who's to say she wasn't. Especially if the 'father' is unknown.

[ QUOTE ]
ever heard a mother say, "should have never had that baby" as the doctor holds the newborn on display

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you're in the medical profession, this is a red herring. How many actual births, other than your own kids if you have any, have you witnessed at all?

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
btw guys and gals, I have a totally different mindset when I post in the OT forum. I try not to let others viewpoints that differ from mine carry into poker related forums. I hope we can stay friendly with those who I disagree with on a lot of worldly issues. You guys are a mans best friend while sitting in front of the computer playing poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who decides not to exchange ideas of a different topic based on how one views another topic is a closed minded idiot. There are many christians on this board that i really dont agree with their views on religion and have gotten in some good exchanges with. This doesn't make me think any less of them. This doesn't mean 1 topic is the be-all end all of relations. People's views differ.

I am firmly non moving in my stance on religion and abortion. I've come to terms with my views long ago. It's not going to change. It doesn't mean i don't like debating the issues once in awhile.

[ QUOTE ]
And all along I thought pro choice was that they could kill people for no good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you were grossly misinformed about what pro-choice is. I don't consider a fetus a person. Many pro-choice people don't.

b

[bernie]

btw...

There are many people i know that don't share my view on 'touchy' subjects. Many times it comes to an unwritten aggreement not to bring them up between us as far as 1 on 1 relations. I played with a 2+2 er that i have alot of respect for that has a very different opinion on religion. He knows if he wants to debate it, i'd do it. He, for the most part, chooses not to. Which is fine. That doesn't mean i'm going to go out of my way to force him into a debate about it. I respect his stance on it enough not to confront him about it. Which is much different than a debate on an open forum where a question can be posted and anyone can join in the fray.

b

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, is the fetus a human with a right to its own life or isn't it? If it is, then what relevance is it *how* it was conceived?

[/ QUOTE ]

None.

[Sundevils21]

I guess every single point you made I couldn't disagree more with.
I definatly appriciate the fact that you won't judge me because of my views, as I certainly won't judge others.
Im solid in my stance as well, I've had this debate with people a lot and I've never seen it the pro choice way.
I have 2 little boys(both under 2) and I witnessed both of their births.(2 under 2 is tough)
The "ever heard a mother say..." was a quote from a song. You're right it really adds nothing to the debate it was just a way of ending my post.

[whiskeytown]

not for the purposes of the discussion...the purpose is this...dependence on others should not be a criteria for whether something is to be judged "Human" or not.

whether it's one or several people, dependance on another human for survival does not reduce a baby to sub-human status.

RB

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Exactly.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, is the fetus a human with a right to its own life or isn't it? If it is, then what relevance is it *how* it was conceived?

[/ QUOTE ]

None.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more.

[Clarkmeister]

It's either a life which you view as sacred (or whatever term you wish to use) or it isn't. The second you deem some lives as valuable and worthy of protection and others as not worthy of protection, the whole argument disintegrates.

[vulturesrow]

I have a friend, who born as a result of a rape. Obviously, her mother chose not to have an aborting. Without any bit of exaggeration, she is one of the nicest people I have ever met in my life. Once I learned her story, it sealed the deal for me on the abortion issue (I used to be pro choice)

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
It's either a life which you view as sacred (or whatever term you wish to use) or it isn't. The second you deem some lives as valuable and worthy of protection and others as not worthy of protection, the whole argument disintegrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that a woman shouldn't have the right to *choose* to kill a baby or not. If the mother is going to die(or be in a high risk situation) because of the baby it's okay in order to save a life. I don't think the woman should have a choice to whether the doctor chooses her or the baby. It should be the woman that lives everytime.

*edit
as far as rape goes, I think I was a bit off. I don't think that she should be allowed to have an abortion.

[whiskeytown]

there are also certain extreme complications if the girl raped is of a very young age (12 or so) -

it is believed that an abortion performed at that age can strain the cervix muscles so badly that she may be unable to have children later in life if she has an abortion - (it normally takes a few months to stretch those muscles and you're doing it in minutes in an abortion) -

for that reason alone it might be better to encourage a very young girl to just have the baby and give it up for adoption. -

[Sundevils21]

true whiskey. I wasn't thinking that extreme. I don't think you can say "never" or "always". I just think that it shouldn't be legal because she wants to.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

And I firmly believe the only thing that's relevant is that she wants to.

[SnakeRat]

[ QUOTE ]

I definatly appriciate the fact that you won't judge me because of my views, as I certainly won't judge others.


[/ QUOTE ]

You say you won't judge people based on their views yet the foundation of prolife is that abortion is wicked.
Am I the only one who views this as a contradiction?


Everyone judges other people because based on their views.
When it comes to these judgements religious prolifers are the most prolific.


[ QUOTE ]
I guess every single point you made I couldn't disagree more with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to elaborate?
Typically when people express dissenting opinions they support it.
Why do you disagree? Religious indoctrination? Social indoctrination?
Brain-washing?
Perhaps a few compelling arguments refuting his points?

[HC5831]

The problem with many agruments on many issues are falacies. People do not look objectively on the issue, they see it through a tainted window and make a decision on emotional information.

This is why I asked everyone 2 questions. Your stance, and when do you concider a fetus to be a human being. If you believe the fetus to be a human being, then abortion can be considered murder at any point, justified or not. I totally see why pro-lifers feel how they do.

Any pro-choice person who believes that a aborted fetus was a human being is supporting murder. Since I know that most people in America are not murderers, I believe that the vast majority do not see a fetus as a human being.

The decisive question that needs to be answered is when is a fetus a human being. If it is at conception, then the answer is easy. To me a fetus is not a human being, but a cluster of cells resulting from a chemical reaction within the cellular process of basic organic life. It takes 4 weeks for the embryo to even begin to resemble a human being. It takes 8 weeks before it starts to get close. At 12 weeks, it is very close. This is how I came up with the 1st trimester abortion view, with exceptions for health reasons. 90% of all obortions are done within the 1st 12 weeks. Just because the fetus resembles a human being, does not make it one. If a woman has a miscarage in the 1st trimester, she did not have a son/daughter die. And people who have abortions in the 1st trimester are not commiting murder.

Thanks for your comments and I would like to hear from other people. And this debate should not carry over to the other forums, most issues are debateable.

HC

[lu_hawk]

Carl Sagan wrote about this in one of his books, I think it was 'Billions and Billions.' I'm not going to give my opinion but I thought this was a well thought out argument.

You could take the date of viability to be the cutoff but this is no good because as medical technology improves fetuses will become viable at earlier and earlier terms. Someday we will get to the point where a fetus will be able to go all 9 months outside of the mother.

This is Sagan's argument: The cutoff for when an abortion is allowed should be when a fetus becomes 'human', but what makes a fetus human? Well I think most will agree that our minds are what makes us human so the way to determine when a fetus becomes human is to scan their brains and see when it begins to operate on a level that brings them above less intelligent life and onto a human level. Research has shown that this happens at the end of 2nd trimester and this is when we should establish the cutoff. Before this an abortion kills a living thing, but it does not kill a human.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
And I firmly believe the only thing that's relevant is that she wants to.

[/ QUOTE ]

so we can agree to disagree?


[ QUOTE ]
You say you won't judge people based on their views yet the foundation of prolife is that abortion is wicked.
Am I the only one who views this as a contradiction?


Everyone judges other people because based on their views.
When it comes to these judgements religious prolifers are the most prolific.


[/ QUOTE ]
you're way off on this. I have a lot of friends that disagree on big issues like this. I have not changed in any way how I look at Kurn or others.

[ QUOTE ]
Care to elaborate?
Typically when people express dissenting opinions they support it.
Why do you disagree? Religious indoctrination? Social indoctrination?
Brain-washing?
Perhaps a few compelling arguments refuting his points?


[/ QUOTE ]

dude, read my posts. what haven't i responded to?
do you need me to rewrite them?(everybody else saying "PLEASE DON'T")

[riverflush]

I think the fetus may exhibit "human" traits as early as 4 weeks, and that really scares me on this issue. The better our science and technology gets, the closer and closer we will get to believing (IMO) that human life actually begins much earlier than we want to believe it does.

I'm pro-life, but extremely torn on this issue. I've had close friends and even a family member who've been through abortions and I've seen the real human emotions behind both sides of the issue. The problem with the debate (IMO) is that most often these situations do not involve rape or extenuating circumstances; rather they involve young people acting sexually irresponsibly. For those who's real motivation behind "choice" is unfettered sexual freedom at an early age...I think it becomes a dishonest issue. And to think that we may be eliminating a real life to ensure sexual norms is really scary to me.

To have a cavalier attitude towards abortion - which many pro-choicers do - is creepy to me. At the same time, I see the difficulty in the actual decision.

And.....also....I agree that this should not be a Democrat/Republican issue. Using abortion as some political football sickens me (both sides).

[whiskeytown]

if you read my post, that's mostly the position I took.

Death is offically the cecession of brain wave activity (not the heart or anything else but the BRAIN) - so I don't see how life can't be put in the same context -

there is a debate however as to when brain activity starts...I'm inclined to say 12 weeks...some say 6, (random neural firing) and some say 24 - (the ability to feel pain registers to the brain and that's when it's more or less fully developed into what it will be) -

end of 2nd trimenster seems a little late for me though...

RB

[riverflush]

BTW - this is one issue that really moves me. I think we should encourage people to give to (or create) private charities that help young, single mothers (or mothers to be) cope with a pregnancy. If we can (privately) help young women (15-20) with the burdens of having a child - through day-care/education grants, etc. - we may be able to cut down on the number of abortions. If a young woman feels she will have help in the first few years, she will be less apt to abort. Let's face it...many, many guys turn tail and run - which puts a huge burden on the pregnant girls.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

so we can agree to disagree?

Fair enough

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree that this should not be a Democrat/Republican issue. Using abortion as some political football sickens me (both sides).

I agree. Remember, key politicians on both sides of the aisle have flipflopped on the issue for political fundraising expediency.

George H. W. Bush differentiated himself from Reagan in the 1980 primaries by stressing his pro-choice stance, and Al Gore was so steadfastly against abortion that as a senator he had a 96% approval rating from the National Right-to-Life Coalition.

Both had "epiphanies" when it came time to stand for national office.

[Stu Pidasso]

My veiws on the subject are contained in this 2+2 thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=653436&For um=All_Forums&Words=abortion&Searchpage=0&Limit=25 &Main=649216&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=585&da terange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&olderty pe=&bodyprev=#Post653436)

Stu

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW - this is one issue that really moves me. I think we should encourage people to give to (or create) private charities that help young, single mothers (or mothers to be) cope with a pregnancy. If we can (privately) help young women (15-20) with the burdens of having a child - through day-care/education grants, etc. - we may be able to cut down on the number of abortions. If a young woman feels she will have help in the first few years, she will be less apt to abort. Let's face it...many, many guys turn tail and run - which puts a huge burden on the pregnant girls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Birth control is a lot more effective than day-care and whatever else private charities might be willing to offer at cutting down on abortions. And if you're really worried about the burden of a pregnant girl, abortion does a much better job of relieving that burden than guilting her into having a kid and screwing up her life for the next 20 years.

[riverflush]

I have no problem with birth control. Wasn't really talking about preventing pregnancy , but what to do after it's already happened....hence all the talk of when a fetus becomes viable, etc.

Separate issues, really.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess every single point you made I couldn't disagree more with.


[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't disagree with the point that pro life is not the opposite of pro choice. It's not. The opposite is pro death. Which isn't the same as pro choice.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we should encourage people to give to (or create) private charities that help young, single mothers (or mothers to be) cope with a pregnancy. If we can (privately) help young women (15-20) with the burdens of having a child - through day-care/education grants, etc. - we may be able to cut down on the number of abortions. If a young woman feels she will have help in the first few years, she will be less apt to abort. Let's face it...many, many guys turn tail and run - which puts a huge burden on the pregnant girls.

[/ QUOTE ]

These girls bring these 'burdens', or kids, upon themselves. I think we have enough of an epidemic of young girls getting preggers. Especially in Wa state. We don't need to make it any easier or encouraging to any more of them. I think the money would be better spent in preventing pregnancies. I dont think young single mothers should be honored in any way for the choice they make. They choose to struggle and put up a nice roadblock in their lives in their choice to have a kid and raise it. Many young girls have kids for all the wrong reasons. Then find out after 3 weeks that it isn't quite the cute little pet they thought it would be or that the guy they tried to trap by having a kid isn't going to stay around, that it's actual tough work to raise a kid. Now they're stuck on welfare with crap jobs. Boo hoo.

The woman has the last vote on having the kid. The guy has no say at all in the matter. None. This is not a joint decision. So if a woman 'chooses' to take that path, more power to her. She's made the decision. Yet she still gets the benefits of not having to worry since the state, us, will be held financially responsible for her decision. If she thinks she's ready to have a kid, it should be up to her to have the responsibility to raise it. I agree that's something the pro lifers could contribute to privately, fine. Personally, i'm sick of paying for these young pathetic mothers and their bastard children.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

IMO, an abortion is a complelely disgusting and vile procedure. I mean you are killing something that could should become a person. I realize that there may be some circumstances in which people feel like it should be done, and also situations in which people may want to do it, but ulitmately it is killing, and I can't support it. I am pro-choice only because I don't want to force people to make there own decisions, but if I was ever in a situation with someone else of having to choose I wouldn't support abortion. Seriously people, think about what it is that doctors and patients are doing here.

[jokerswild]

So it seems that you are in favor of killing Iraqi children for oil, but not permitting poor women in the USA to have abortions. We both know that the rich get whatever they want, and then simply play the hypocrite card.

You also support a deserter over a silver star decorated veteran, while putting off how much a big military man you have been. Talk about inconsistant!

Could it be that right wing Christians like you believe that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and atheists are either sub-human, or going to hell anyway because they don't believe in Jesus?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

So it seems that you are in favor of killing Iraqi children for oil

The 5 largest US oil suppliers in 2002 were Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain and Norway. How is this war about oil?

France and Germany, on the other hand, get the majority of their oil in a sweetheart deal from Iraq. I'd say *their* position on this issue is the one that's about oil.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess every single point you made I couldn't disagree more with.


[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't disagree with the point that pro life is not the opposite of pro choice. It's not. The opposite is pro death. Which isn't the same as pro choice.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever name you want to give it doesn't matter. The position of allowing a woman to choose whether or not to keep her baby is what I disagree with. I've never heard of pro death but im sure you will explain the differences between pro choice to me. Fact is, I don't care. I believe either one is probably not going to fit my criteria, thus I will disagree with it.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
So it seems that you are in favor of killing Iraqi children for oil, but not permitting poor women in the USA to have abortions. We both know that the rich get whatever they want, and then simply play the hypocrite card.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jokerswild,

People would find you more credible if you attack my argument about why abortion is morally and ethically wrong instead of attacking me as an individual.

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that right wing Christians like you believe that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and atheists are either sub-human, or going to hell anyway because they don't believe in Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not my place to make judgments about where you or anyone else will spend thier eternity.

Stu

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that right wing Christians like you believe that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and atheists are either sub-human, or going to hell anyway because they don't believe in Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he thought they were "sub-human" than why would he think that it was morally wrong to kill their babies?

[riverflush]

jokerswild...

That was a real wacko post.

Seriously - you took a big leap there. Ad hominem style...

Attitudes like that is what surpresses legit discussion in these times. Totally irrelevant stuff.

[HC5831]

Thanks for your replies. I got some inteligent replies and some not so. I tried to avoid this by asking 2 questions, which were at the heart of the matter. They are the most relevant matters in my mind that shape this whole debate. Some of you answered these questions; others ignored them. We see the results. Good luck.

HC

[ACPlayer]

Viability of the fetus, while an interesting subject, is a bit of a red herring. The real question is what would it mean for our society if abortion went back to being prohibited.

We can predict:

- Abortions will continue but will move from doctor's offices to kitchen tables.
- Deaths due to bad abortions will increase.
- Deaths of teenagers will increase as they go for these without parental consent.
- There will be fewer abortions and more unwanted children born. Some of these will be given up for adoption, the rest raised by resentful parents.

So, to quote bill clinton -- Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The extremists on both sides should, IMO, quit fighting and start educating and putting progams in place to reduce the demand, not simply stop the supply of abortionists.

[The once and future king]

My position is somewhat different to most.

I am against choice but pro killing babies.

Id also like to say f.ck vampires.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is what would it mean for our society if abortion went back to being prohibited.

[/ QUOTE ]

I belive you have it fundamentally wrong, I'll try to explain why.

I. Abortion is a pretty black and white issue. Its either murder of a human being or it is not. If its murder then none of the reasons you posted can justify society permitting it. Somethings are just moral absolutes. For instance, the murder of 6 million jews was wrong regardless of the fact that it was state sanctioned. Even if the majority had wanted every jew sluaghtered, it would still have been wrong because the act was intrinsically wrong. States and societies are just as capable as individuals in committing morally wrong acts. This is something that should never be forgotten.

If abortion is not the murder of an individual and thus not absolutely morally wrong, than society can weigh the pros and cons and to decide weather it wishes to permit it or not. For instance recreational drug use is not intrinsically wrong. A recreational drug user is not violating a moral absolute. A society or state can decide weather or not to premit drug use. A society or state can and should weigh the pros and cons of recreational drug use and decide weather or not to criminalize it.

An area where I believe you err, is you skip deciding weather or not abortion is morally wrong. You make the assumption that it is not intrinsically wrong and move ahead to deciding weather or not society should permit it.

II. If you accept that abortion is the killing of a human being, your argument quickly falls apart. I will present a slightly edited version of your argument.

- The killing of human beings will continue but will move from doctor's offices to kitchen tables.

- Deaths due to bad acts of killing a human being will increase.

- Deaths of teenagers will increase as they attempt to kill other human beings without parental consent.

- (If abortion is outlawed) There will be fewer killing of human beings and more unwanted children born. Some of these will be given up for adoption, the rest raised by resentful parents.

Can you see why the real question is not "what would it mean for our society if abortion went back to being prohibited". The real question is "Is an unborn fetus a human being".

Stu

A note to jokerswild - I hope this will serve as an example on how to attack someones argument without attacking them as an individual.