I was waiting for this response. See the key word is "belief". I could believe in aliens, JFk conspiracy, etc.... it doesn't necessarily make it true. Since there is no hard scientific evidence to prove either side of the coin, wouldn't it be common sense to just play it safe and not kill the fetus?

--Rob

Perhaps it would be the best thing to, as you say, "play it safe" and let the fetus grow and eventually become a life.

Please understand, when I say it is my "belief" I'm not using that word lightly. IT is what I know to be true. I stand firmly behind it.

Since you know it to be true, could you provide me a website or something that scientifically proves that point? I asked the nice woman earlier, but she declined and spun the issue around. Thanks

--Rob

Making it illegal won't make it go away,
The rich will fly to far off lands, the poor will stay and pray,
That their back alley abortion is clean and safe
anti-flag, No Apology.

I try to stay out of these abortion discussions. I will make my view known, and get out.

first, I think a fetus is alive, but I also think carrots are alive, as seeds that are planted in the ground (ie DEVELOPING) are alive. so that argument is nulled. (for me)

second, yes a fetus is of human origin, it could even be called a human being. but it can't survive outside of the womb until at LEAST 3 months after conception. 88% of abortions occur within this time (55% before 8 weeks; number included in 12 week 88%, according to the CDC by the way, abortion dropped in 99 compared to 98 2.5% it should be noted that at this point of pregnancy, the fetus has no nervous system. (this means no pain during the abortion as some claim) it could be said at this point, the fetus, while living tissue, is not technically alive.

ok now that I have that out of the way: my view on it is that I have no right imposing my morals on anyone else. I am pro choice, meaning I support a womans right to choose wheter or not to get an abortion, even if it is a partial birth (which account for only 1.5% of all abortions according to the CDC) which I am against. my opinion on these horrible procedures is that, while I am disgusted by it, and think a women that carries a fetus to or past 20 weeks SHOULDN'T get an abortion, if she choose to do so it is her right, (though I will condemn them personally for it) and if I had a girlfriend get one, we would break up, trust me. on the majority of abortions though (IE first trimester) I have no problem with, the child wasn't viable at that point, and likely felt no pain. though I would like my girlfriend (hypothetical one that is) to give me the chance to raise it. (which may end up preventing many abortions; ask the guy to raise it if that's why you're getting an abortion)

I don't think that every women that is pregnant should get an abortion, as some anti-choicers seem to think pro-choicers do, but she should have the CHOICE to get an abortion, if she chooses it. and those lyrics I started this post with describe what would happen perfectly. make it illegal here, and people that can afford it will go where it IS legal, and people that can't go anywhere else, will find a doctor to do it in some back alley, which isn't always safe. as paladin espelth said in the Abortion, A new and improved poll thread, in other words: if YOU don't want an abortion, don't get one. if you are comfortable getting an abortion, and feel that is what's best, do so.

this is the ONLY post I intend on making on this thread, as I don't have the time and energy to argue in circles with the pro-life/anti-choice people here.

Both sperm and ovum are human and living too, Rob. As I have mentioned previously, should we consider menstruation suicide and male masturbation genocide? Living organisms which are distinctly human, yet not individuals, are not protected under law in this country, nor should they be. Murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life which requires more than an organism merely being alive and distinctly human.


The belief expressed by doomed was in reference to the existance of a soul or spirit. "Since there is no hard scientific evidence" of a soul or spirit to begin with, there is no reason to assume one exists when discussing abortion or any other life and death situation. An embryo or fetus prior to viability indepdendent of a pregnant woman's biology no more qualifies as a person than an individual sperm or ovum. Like the sperm and ovum, an embryo or fetus prior to the specified developmental stages represents only the potential to become a person.

Says who? Your appendix is human yet you have no problem having it removed if it causes problems. Being human doesn't automatically make you special, sorry. Try again.

doomed_planet writes:


If you *KNOW* it to be true, then you wouldn't mind explaining to us how you come by that knowledge. Knowledge must be demonstrable. Knowledge that is not demonstrable is not knowledge, it is faith, and faith doesn't impress anyone.

When I made the statement, in a previous post, about when the spirit
or soul enters the body, I was giving my "view". What I see to be true.
I'm not talking about a scienctific fact, rather a spiritual conviction.
And that is a subject that transcends the physical world, as we know it.

Question: Do you agree that you are not just a body, but also a
spiritual entity? If the answer is yes, do you really need a website
to validate that belief? Do you need science to tell you that you
are more than just a glob of cells?

We are delving into a realm that is controversial at best.
I am not one who likes to argue my spiritual beliefs with others.
I know what I know. And you know what you know.
And that's the beauty of life. We each may follow our own path.

Science answers questions that deal with the phyiscal nature
of the universe. Spirituality is another realm that is dependent upon "faith", "beliefs", etc. IT is not based on "rational" scientific
evidence.

I merely brought up the previous point as a way of explaining
my stance on abortion.

We are going pretty deep here, so perhaps we should pull back
the reigns a bit.........

I find Abortion to be wrong.

To be simple. It seems that Abortion is killing what is alive, and I think just that is wrong.

You are mistaking knowledge and belief. If you claim to "KNOW" something, then you must be able to back it up with objective evidence. So where is your evidence that souls exist?

If you cannot back it up, then your belief is no more valid than those who believe in UFOs and Bigfoot.

Okay, I see what you mean. Sorry about that.

Killing is just simply wrong, I do not think I really need to explain why it is, I hope you understand why. But I don't understand why Abortion would be a right choice, I know it is hard for people to do it. I just think it is really sad that Abortion is being used.

Hi Cephus,

Thank you for your interest in my quote. I've read many of your posts,
and much of the time I agree with what you have to say....anyway, in
response to your question:

Where is my evidence that the soul exists? That question cannot
be answered scientifically. The soul is not phyiscal matter to be disected....

Spirituality is not an empirical science. It is an individual experience.
So, I will not be able to give you an answer that may satisfy your practical
need for physical proof.

You wrote that my belief is no more valid than those who believe in UFO's,
etc....Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I made the
statement, as it pertains to my view on abortion. It may not be your view
and that's fine with me. I do not desire your approval to validate my
spiritual knowledge and/or beliefs...... Nor do I need to explain, or try
to satiate your skepticism of the existence of the soul.

Just to make it clear: I was trying to explain why I'm not against abortion.
I wasn't trying to open up a can of worms on the subject of spirituality.

The stated question of this thread isn't "prove your spiritual knowledge".
It is "what is your view on abortion." I gave my view.

I don't care if you want to believe it, but don't say that you *KNOW* something when in fact, you only believe it. You're certainly welcome to your beliefs, but you can't tell others how to act based on what you believe. Abortion, hopefully, is to be dealt with rationally. If everyone just comes up with irrational and hyper-emotional reactions to abortion, rather than intelligent, considered positions, what's the point in debating it at all?

All true--I'm assuming the same should be the case for women? (or is this situation always solely the male's fault?).



Yes, there are certainly financial implications, and those on the pro-life side should own up to these, perhaps by donating to a fund to compensate those who choose to carry to term and then adopt. This would certainly be a good first step, and would eliminate some of the hypocrisy noted by others here about the some of the pro-life stance.

I think all the hoopla on this issue tends to obscure the real question: Wouldn't it be much better if fewer abortions were necessary? And shouldn't all steps be taken towards that goal?

With all due respect, Cephus, do not tell me what to say
or not to say.

And, who says I'm telling others how to act based on my beliefs?
I was merely clarifying my statement from an earlier post.

This thread's question is What is your view on abortion?
I gave my view, then when my view was questioned by another
debater I elaborated on why I have the view I have.

There are some issues in life that people feel strongly about based on
their religious/spiritual beliefs. This is one of those subjects that I happen
to have formed my view around (based on my spiritual beliefs)....

When I wrote that I know something to be true, I was talking about
TRUE FOR ME!! Not for anybody else, necessarily. Just me.

The Social-Darwinistic stance you seem to be taking isn't the path that
I choose to follow. You find your truth and I'll find mine.

A good philosophy. Now if people would only stop there instead of trying to enforce their "truth" on others, we'd be a LOT happier and peaceful.

AMF,

People seem really self righteous when they make statements like that (at least people think I am self righteous when I do it ).

Let's take a look at what it means to believe abortion is wrong.

It means that we believe that people who have abortions are inflicting undue pain on an innocent human being. It means that we believe others are taking up steel instruments for the purpose of slaughtering innocent lives that can't defend themselves or even scream in their pain . Seeing both sides isn't just about Pro-lifers understanding Anti-Lifers, it's about everyone seeing everyone's side.

And just because I see your side doesn't mean I aim to sit back and allow innocent children to be slaughtered.

Edited to add:

Some people think they have the right to live, like the people the snipers killed. Those people believed in the truth that they had the right to live. The snipers didn't agree, terrorists believe in the right to kill people aimlessly as combatants and freedom loving people believe that terror victims were innocents killed. When it comes to life and death, everyone finding their individual truth jsut doesn't cut it and because you can't speak doesn't make you any less a person.

Unfortunately, men ARE punished for a moment of sex, and we have NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER after the sexual act, whereas the women have the next 18 years to decide thier "choices"- I am pro-choice, but I really get sick of the whining about how hard it is on the woman etc etc, and while I don't disagree at all that child rearing is difficult, especially alone, I am very touchy about thier "choices" and "rights" while men have none but the right to abstain from sex. If women had the same choices taken away at the moment of sex, well, you see what happens right now.

If women ever wish to have equality, then they need to take equal responsibility for thier actions.


Edited to remove profanity filter bypass attempt- Jaime

My view is that abortion is wrong. Apart from the arguments regarding science, the product of conception is a living thing, a result of a man and woman making love, or just having sex. In any case, the result is that this is a baby. That's how we all started out.

Abortion is all too common and there are many specious reasons to have an abortion. Barring any gross abnormalities that render the offspring nonviable or a physical danger to the mother, abortions should not be performed.

In the case of rape/incest, the product of conception is still a human being. Should only planned beings be deemed worthy of living? It's not the baby's fault. But certainly, if the woman feels that she just can't go through with the pregnancy and has to have an abortion, isn't it better to have a dilation and curettage (D & C) early on, rather than to vacuum out the baby's brains or poison it later on in the pregnancy? At that, a life is still forfeit.

Yes, pregnancy is a real burden to some women. Our mothers can testify to the morning sickness and other discomforts related to carrying a child. There is, however, birth control available to those who want to be sexually active and avoid pregnancy, and it's not very expensive. Women (and men) who are sexually active and don't want children should be responsible enough to take precautions, and they might consider sterilization.

Now, for the sake of those who are intolerant of talk about God and souls and the like, I will not use these particular terms. But those of us who, for whatever reason, feel that there is some kind of higher purpose for our being here might consider that the purpose might include producing a baby who will make a positive difference for the rest of humankind. There is also the possibility that the baby might turn out to be a real stinker and a bane to our existence. But that is the chance that all of our mothers took when they gave birth to us, and until we become omniscient beings, we will have to continue to take that chance.

The reasons why women have abortions vary. Sometimes it is
simply because they are not in a position financially, emotionally
or physically to have a child. Some women are mature enough
to understand that if they are to bring a child into this world that
child will need love, guidance, support, and so many other
fundamental necessities that will ensure he grows into a responsible
and compassionate human being.

(Maybe the mothers of those two snipers didn't do their jobs!!!
Maybe the mothers of terrorists didn't have what it takes to raise
their boys right!!! Maybe they shouldn't have had kids!!!)

Don't we all wish that women all over the world would never find
themselves in such a tough position as that of deciding whether
or not to have an abortion?? But, that's not reality.

Life is a series of "lesser of two evils". Sometimes it is the lesser
of two evils to have an abortion. I wish that abortion was not necessary.
Perhaps we can all strive to make that happen. But, in the meantime,
it is necessary under certain circumstances, and you can be upset about
it, and that's good that you care, but it would behoove you to look at
the big picture. Life is not just black and white, there are many shades
of gray. If you are going to make such strong statements about the
importance that all women (regardless of circumstances) should bring
pregnancies full term, be prepared to advise, how and with what means,
these women are supposed to carry to term the child, and with what
means (emotionally and physically) they will rear the child. Physically
having the baby is the easy part. It's what comes after the child
is in the world that makes it such an important undertaking.

Making such blanket statements like "abortion is always wrong" may
sound good and righteous. But then there is reality. Who is going
to make sure that the child has everything he might need? IS
it gonna be you? Or will you be off preaching to the next ill-equipped "mommy-to-be"?

It's very admirable for the "Anti-choice" advocates to fight for the
"rights of the unborn". But, how about all the babies that ARE
already born, and they are suffering and living messed up lives,
with parents that should not be parents. Is QUANTITY more
important than QUALITY? It just seems like some people have
an ASSEMBLY LINE MENTALITY about pregnancy. If a girl
gets pregnant, bring on the baby, never mind the small details about
QUALITY OF LIFE!!!! When the seed has just been planted, that is
the time to make the crucial choice. There is a short window of time
where an irresponsible action can be reversed with little consequence
to anyone.

And just for the record, at this stage of pregnancy it is TISSUE.
It's not a living, breathing, laughing, crying, feeling, human being. It's NOT.

That was my response to a continued discourse that went on for several posts. A rather anti-women and heated discourse. Thankyou for soundbiting me out of context and calling my response to the question,"is pregnancy a punishment?" from over a month ago ##. Kuddos


Edited to remove profanity filter bypass attempt. -Jaime

anti-woman-heated discourse? dang, I missed it.

abortion thread #....

to register in on brianbuchan's poll, as always, I do support abortion. in the first tri-mester and not a day later.

The question in the OP is invalid. Few, if any, people are pro-abortion. The issue is choice, we'd all prefer that abortions not occur but some of us realise that the decision belongs to the person being effected by it.

What I don't get is why so many who are pro-life (and virtually the entirety of the fanatical wing that would more properly be termed anti-choice) are men. We aren't the ones who have to deal with this situation, thank God.

Grendel, It would appear from this thread that many of the men don't want to pay child support.

Then there are other men who would like to have offspring, but in our society it is up to the woman to decide whether a child will be born or not.

In any case, there are men who feel that they are getting a raw deal the way the laws are written. They feel they are getting no consideration in these situations.

I don't know whether you consider me a fanatic or not--at least one poster does. I am pro-life, and the extent of my involvement in the movement has been signing up and contributing my name to a list on a newspaper page and posting here. That is hardly fanatical. But apparently it is enough for me to be lumped in to the fanatic group, just as opposing the war in Iraq has supposedly made me pro-Saddam Hussein/terrorism in previous threads. A pro-lifer who is pro-terrorism?

Yeah, right!

Ah, labels! What ever would we do without them??!!

(Edited to say: Pro-Lifers are not necessarily hypocrites. Pro-Choicers are not necessarily killers. Can we do away with the inflammatory rhetoric?)

Besides, if everyone is Pro-Choice, who are you going to argue with?

Oh goodness, no. what I meant by the "lunatic fringe who could more properly be termed anti-choice" are the violent ones who could hardly be termed pro-life. Those specific people seem to me to be more interested in power than justice. It seems to me to be about subjugating women.
I'm not sure to what extent I even disagree with the pro-life position- abortion certainly interrupts a potential life at the very least.

I would consider myself pro-choice by default: since it is highly unlikely I will ever be in a situation where it will effect me personally I have no business judging people who have to make what is surely an incredibly difficult decision.
I can't imagine forcing a woman to carry the child of her rapist, for example. That just seems insanely cruel.

Thanks for the clarification. I was actually referring to another poster.

I agree--it is a terrible thing when a woman becomes pregnant because of a sexual assault. And I think that a D & C very early on would be the least damaging procedure. It's just tragic that an innocent becomes the ultimate victim.

I would also be willing to bet--dollars to doughnuts--that the majority of the abortions carried out are not in response to rape.

How much are we willing to do as a matter of convenience?

This is why "The Right" touts abstinence, or at least birth control (not the strict Catholics, though--I myself think birth control is a sensible alternative).

I don't think the majority of abortions are due to rape either, but I also seriously doubt that anyone would undergo surgery for 'convenience'.
I think it's unfortunate all around, but I'm not fit to judge these girls when I haven't walked in their shoes.
I mentioned one example, I can think of other times where abortion would be the best of a number of bad choices, and I'm sure there are many things I couldn't even consider... That's why the people involved are the ones who should make the decision.
I do have a problem with all of the talk of 'consequences' and the like- judgmentalism is often quite nasty, never moreso than when it is coming from those who will never have to face the difficult choices made by those they judge.

I personally know two women who had abortions performed because they felt it wasn't the right time of have a child. Both were married at the time and were going to college. That's what I meant by "convenience;" the pregnancies weren't convenient. I was pro-choice at the time they told me. It did not make me feel more pro-choice; even then I did not agree with them but they didn't ask me how I felt about it, and I didn't tell them.

People willingly undergo surgeries all the time. Many times it is for cosmetic reasons that they go under the knife; even men are doing it these days.

You're right; it's not for me to judge ( ) whether a woman worried about how
her figure might be altered because of childbearing has enough of a reason to terminate a pregnancy. But there is an Ultimate Judge whom, I believe, we will all face one day and by whom we will be judged for every single thing we have done; which also means that I've got a lot of "s'plainin" (ala Ricky Ricardo) to do, too. It is this Ultimate Judge who will decide whether what we have done was right or whether we have been rationalizing our actions.

I’ve posted this on another thread a long time ago and would like to post it again here since we are discussing this issue again. After doing some research, some of the data has changed from my previous post.

I believe abortion is an important procedure women should have access to, however I also believe there should be qualifying factors.

In my opinion, abortion for many of the "social" or “economic” reasons, is unacceptable. It sickens me to think that every fifth child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Think about that - 4 million babies born in America every year and a little over 1 million abortions.

Social and economic abortions are far too common. They make up the majority of abortions.

The link below provides data relating to abortion reasons:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...topic=1979&hl=#

To quote from an article from ifeminist:



As long as both sides adhere to a no-compromise position ~ from trying to protect "live birth abortions" on one side to insisting that abortion under any circumstance is murder on the other ~ we make nearly impossible the only route to rarity. Kathleen Parker

Very well-stated, Grendel.

Demonizing women who have abortions is pretty hypocritical.
Especially considering the fact that these women didn't become pregnant
all by themselves. There were MEN involved. And where are
those men when push comes to shove?

I would NEVER try to tell another woman what she should
or should not do with her body and her life. A woman
should have the ultimate say over such a decision.

Most Important Reason Given for Terminating an Unwanted Pregnancy

Inadequate finances 21%, Not ready for responsibility 21%, Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%, Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%, Too young; not mature enough 11%, Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%

Fetus has possible health problem 3%, Woman has health problem 3%, Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%

Other 4%

Above are the reasons given most for abortion. The greater percentage (89%) is social or economic. These reasons ARE for the sake of convenience. It is for convenience that a woman doesn’t want the responsibility. It is convenience when the woman believes she can’t afford the baby. It is convenience when the woman believes it will change her life too much. It is convenience when you chose to abort because there are problems with your relationship.

To bring these issues to debate is not to demonize woman. It is to shed light on their reasons for abortion. It’s ugly. But if you are going to support abortion, support if for the reasons these women gave. Tell us you agree that a potential baby should be destroyed based solely on whether it’s convenient to the mother.

Then let’s talk about the double standards that apply to the fetus, e.g., it is legal for the mother to terminate the pregnancy but if another person terminates the pregnancy it's murder.

Or

Tell me why the woman is the only one with rights to the fetus? What about the father’s right?

The father has no say whatsoever, UNLESS the woman decides to have the baby. Then he is responsible for at least the next 18 years.

If a woman has a right to relinquish the responsibility of caring for the fetus by aborting it, shouldn’t the father be allowed the same right to relinquish his responsibility to care for the child financially?

If the mother doesn’t want the child she is carrying but the father does, shouldn’t he have SOME say? Yes, I know the argument may come into play about control issues, but by using that as a basis for rejecting this idea, aren’t we demonizing all men?

We need a new approach to abortion prevention. That might mean more concentrated sex education in schools. It may mean allowing young women and men easier access to birth control.

I don’t know that the answer is, but the answer ISN’T using abortion AS birth control and that is exactly what happens when abortions are performed for the sake of convenience.

For two reasons:1) A person has the fundamental right over their own bodily integrity.
2) Assuming compelling interests arguably usurp number one (in some instances, I believe that they do), the father should have a say in the process. The woman has a moral obligation to have a child if he would be willing to father it. A woman set on aborting her pregnancy against the father's wishes could have any male friend sign a document saying he is the father and agrees to the termination. She might also elect not to tell the father if she knows his stand on the issue. There is no way to conduct a paternity test and verify fatherhood at that point.

By all rights, the father should have a say initially, and be able to terminate his financial obligations, but that brings another problem into the equation. Who is going to fund the care of that child? If the mother is indigent, it would be the state (IOW all of us). A mother's decision to terminate her pregnancy financially burdens no one, and also eliminates the financial culpability of the prospective father in the process. A father's decision to terminate his obligation would inevitably, in many cases, financially burden everyone.

Quite frankly, I'm AGAINST a woman having a baby if she's not able to care for it. There are litterally hundreds of thousands of kids trapped in the foster care system in this country, because their parents couldn't care for them. You can call this "convenience", but it's terrible to contemplate one more child unnecessarily trapped in the system.

It's reality: people just aren't always able to support having a child. Saying they shouldn't have sex or that their birth control program should ALWAYS work is like telling yourself a fairy tale. Sounds good, but not reality. Sex education DOES help, but the "family values" Republicans don't want people to talk about that. They want to talk about "abstinence" as though that's a workable solution. And talking about the parents just sucking it up and supporting the child anyway doesn't work either; that's why we have foster kids.



Yes, these are both double standards and we should definitely debate them. It's hard, though, when the pro-choice and anti-abortion (no one is really "anti-life" or "pro-abortion", so let's call the two sides the way they're positioning themselves) forces are so dug in with their views. Talking about these other issues is a side-show to them. And it shouldn't be a side-show.

Killing a non-viable fetus shouldn't be "murder", but there definitely should be both criminal and civil avenues available to the prospective family to pursue in the event of a fetal death prior to the possibility that the fetus could be viable outside the mother. For criminal, we have assault laws that are pretty tough; for civil, a lawsuit can be a good way to punish someone.

As for father's rights: that's a harder one and I don't have the answer. The mother isn't a slave or piece of property, so taking away the mom's rights for the sake of the father isn't going to work. Taking away the mom's rights for the sake of a fetus that can't live outside the mom isn't going to work either (regardless of what anti-abortion forces want). So... how to GIVE rights to the father that don't diminish the rights of the mother?

Mrs. P, this is an excellent point. One I had not considered. Make a note, you may have just made me “see the light” on abortions performed for financial reasons.



I agree, amf. Just to be clear, I don’t consider “bringing the pregnancy to term and adoption" THE answer. It is one option and as you’ve pointed out, but many times it’s not the best option.

One of the answers, in my opinion is sex education. Abstinence should be taught as part of a much larger curriculum that includes sexual development, reproduction, contraception, and relationships.

There is such a taboo in this country about teaching sex education in schools. In my opinion, this attitude is fueling the problem.

I wonder if those who oppose sex education in schools would be more inclined to accept it if it were wrapped in a different package - Abortion/STD Prevention?

As for "father's rights"...
Maybe I shouldn't say this as it's an issue I'll never have to face, but it seems to me that if the mother doesn't involve the father in the decision it's probably for good reason. The person who is putting their life at risk (and as long as women die in childbirth that's what you are asking) should be the one to make that call- I would imagine she would prefer to have the father's support, if she decides to go it alone I have to suspect she has reason.
I think the father should be involved, but making it the law that he has to be involved is a very bad idea.

I agree. It would not only be a bad idea, but unenforceable as well. Some women aren't sure who the father is.

There are really 2 falacies at play because of abortion that are never really discussed but are in fact at the very crux of the issue.

1) Who is to speak for the unborn? How is it that the woman that has concieved a child is the judge, jury and executioner. At what point does the child have Constitutional rights? Many a baby are born VERY pre-mature and go on to be doctors and what not. Is it not the Government's duty to ALL to protect those rights?

2) As per the first point...men have alot to do with the process of making the baby. I find it interesting that:

a. They have no say in the abortion process.
b. Are held finacially responsible if they want the woman to have the abortion and she does not.

One could argue, minus the cases of incest and rape, that if a woman decides to have sex that she forfeits her rights to have an abortion. What!?! do you say? Think of it this way, if you have sex (I mean heterosexual sex btw) there is always a chance of a pregnancy if both are fertile. We make decisions in life all the time and have to deal with those choices every day. There is ENTIRELY too much copping out and taking the easy way out simply for the case of hardship. Decisions make WHO AND WHAT WE ARE. Hardships and how we deal with them build character and show the resilience of why it's great to be a human being. I could go on and on but if you REALLY want to hear the best arguement against abortion goto Alan Keys website.

cusbilla

If you think that, you haven't read much of this thread.

1) Constitutional rights are not guaranteed to the unborn. That would require an amendment. People do have rights to their own personal bodily integrity, however, and maintain these rights under almost all circumstances. The issue then becomes a nebulous one between compelling interests of the growing fetus, and the woman's inherent right over her own personal bodily integrity. For the zygote to be sacred, we need to eliminate the birth control pill.

2)Already addressed that issue in several posts above, but numerous posters.

The question of father rights nagged at me yesterday, so I talked it over with my girlfriend who pointed out the following:

(1) Pre-birth, the father has no rights. But he also has NO responsibilities. Prospective fathers are not required by law to care for prospective mothers just because they shared the demon seed.

(2) Post-birth, the father has rights to the child AND responsibilities.

So, it makes some sense that the father is not a factor currently in the abortion choice of the mother.

However, it's probably not the most desired situation. I still don't see how to grant the father pre-birth rights without infringing on the mother's rights.

And, cusbilla, no one speaks for the unborn, because the law doesn't recognize lumps of tissue as having any rights. Simple as that. Would cancer have rights? I have a cousin who had a 21 pound tumor removed from her (don't ask)... about the size of a newborn... and it didn't have rights either.

Of course, it wasn't a living Homo sapien.
It was merely a malfunctioning part, there is a considerable difference. The cancer analogy doesn't apply.

... and neither is the lump of tissue that has the POTENTIAL to become a human baby. It's not "alive" any more than the lump of cancer is alive. At a certain point in the gestation period, the lump of tissue MIGHT become alive and viable on its own, but until then, it's just a lump of tissue.

But -- I can see it now -- you're going to shake your head and say "no, the tissue has the potential for life and must be protected." Says who? The mom of that tissue? She wants to abort it, so you'd like to take away that option from her. Then who? You, who has no real vested interest in it? The government, who -- again -- has no real vested interest in it (unless that's the new plan to "save" social security )?

That's what the abortion argument keeps coming back to, doesn't it? That the Mom is less important than the lump of tissue not yet born. And the child, once born, is less important then before it's born (anyone willing to pay to improve this child's education? Make sure he/she has food to eat, a roof over his/her head? Or that the time that you just want to throw up your hands and say "that's the parent's responsibility"?)

Tumors do not look more human as time goes on; our offspring do. I have had a tumor and a miscarriage because of it. The tumor had to be removed. There is a huge difference. Those who can't tell the difference between a developing life and a tumor should probably take a job outside the medical profession.

As far as who is going to feed the child and put a roof over its head, there are laws in place in many if not all states where a mother can drop the baby off at a hospital or fire department and say, "Take this child," and the baby will be accepted, no questions asked. This is an effort to avoid finding that child in a dumpster some day, or beaten or malnourished. This is true in my state.

There are many couples who want to adopt babies. It's when the children are older and have been subjected to neglect/abuse that it becomes harder to get them adopted or placed in good homes.

So often the accusation comes up that the mother's life is less important than the baby's to pro-lifers. AS IMPORTANT is much more accurate. Nobody is out to deny a woman her life for the sake of the baby's life.

Why should either the mother or the baby lose their life if it isn't necessary?

Abortion means the baby dies. Whether the abortion is due to natural, accidental, or homicidal causes, abortion means the baby dies.

This at least is somewhat true. Life in the scientific sense is a well-defined term and both cancer cells and human beings as a whole fall under this category. Let's each not start speaking a different language by having personal definitions of life...

"Potential Life" is quite likely the worst buzzword ever uttered. It is basically meaningless. A thing is either alive or not, no room for "potential".



It's probably best that we avoid the silly strawman arguments as well

Of course not, the argument is the "life-and-death" concerns take precedence over most others...

THANK YOU, turnea, for helping to clarify what I was badly trying to write.

If it's not alive, then why should it have any rights? That's the argument I keep trying to make with examples that keep getting in the way of the point I'm trying... oh, never mind.

Ignoring the rest of my post I see...

The point is that a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. is alive. Life is defined by processes and structure.

Cellular Structure
Metabolism
Growth and/or development
Reproduction

Anything that does all of these (given that they may happen at diffrent stages) is alive.

Epithelial cells and gametes are also alive without being afforded the protection by law. While I can agree with the flaws in talking about "potential life," there is something to be said for potential persons as not everything alive is a person, evidenced by our refusal to define living epithelial cells and gametes as persons.

There are different views as to what constitutes a person, but from the discussions I have encountered here and offline, definitions of persons discernable from other living cells and clusters of cells do not appear to speak against early abortions. The line does appear to blur as pregnancy progresses.

Agreed Abs. That is the point. I mean there have been MANY cases the baby's have been preemie and been viable.



Actually this is not true. If you are causing harm to yourself the state can have you committed.

cusbilla