i don't see how we can have a section on women without talking about abortion. although abortion should never be considered good, it should be viewed as a woman's choice.

Maybe if you looked at the topic above womens choice you would see the threads about abortion already posted. It is not just a womens choice, it takes 2 to do the tango so why should the woman have the only say. Read my post in the other topic and tell me straight on that you think it should be a womans choice. My mother had the day of the abortion of me scheduled, but was talked out of it. I will never think abortion is ok as a way of convenience, abortion is not a medical procedure. It is murder.

Hi tendress - welcome to America's Debate.

I would like to point out to you that we currently have three threads already going on abortion:

Why I am Against Abortion
What is Your View on Abortion (Poll)
Abortion (murder)

The first centers around a personal experience shared by BrianDBuchanan. The second is just looking for statistics. The third is the oldest and it is a general debate.

I have no problem if you would like us to continue this thread if your focus was to solely debate whether abortion is a woman's choice or not. Otherwise we can all just post in the above-mentioned threads.

Although abortion has already been mentioned on this site, it was stated that abortion is a womens choice. I strongly disagree, although it is protected under the 1st amendment, the baby has rights to. Murder is Murder.

Since when is “choice” an option when dealing with accountability for one’s actions?

Think this is a wonderfularticle on this subject.
George F. Will: What does abortion kill?
By George F. Will
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Sunday, October 27, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Antonio Pena and Jaclyn Kurr of Michigan were a turbulent pair. She had sought hospital treatment for injuries he inflicted, and spent time in a domestic violence shelter. Then came their argument about his cocaine use, during which he twice punched her in the stomach.

Kurr did not fear for her life, but warned Pena that she was carrying his babies. She was 16 or 17 weeks pregnant with quadruplets. When Pena seemed about to punch her again, she stabbed him in the chest, fatally. Thus began another awkward episode of living with an abortion culture.

Convicted of voluntary manslaughter, Kurr was sentenced as a habitual offender to five to 20 years' imprisonment. The trial judge denied her request that the jury be instructed that she had a right to use deadly force in "defense of others," namely her babies.

The judge ruled that a fetus under 22 weeks old is not "viable," meaning not capable of surviving outside the mother's womb. (The noun "mother," which seems to postulate the existence of an "other" of the sort properly denoted by the noun "baby," is routinely used in court rulings about abortion.) Therefore, said the judge, there were no "others" to make the "defense of others" rule applicable. He said: "That's my theory."

His "theory" is that an unborn baby -- which has its own unique DNA complex, and which will, absent natural misfortune or deliberate attack (by abortion or someone like Pena) become a born human being -- is not an "other." But a Michigan court of appeals disagrees.

It has ordered a new trial, ruling that under Michigan law Kurr had a right to invoke the defense of "others." The appeals court noted that in 1998, Michigan's Legislature adopted a fetal defense act which does not distinguish between viable and nonviable fetuses and says it is a crime to cause a miscarriage or stillbirth while acting "in wanton or willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of" such conduct is to cause a miscarriage or stillbirth.

The appeals court said the Legislature plainly believes "that fetuses are worthy of protection as living entities." About half the states have such laws. But given the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade, states can treat fetuses as worthy of protection from people like Pena, but not from their mothers. The "defense of others" doctrine allows an individual to protect an unborn baby only from unlawful violence, which does not include abortion.

There have been many cases illustrating the impossibility of reconciling an abortion culture -- the right of unlimited abortion on demand -- and moral judgments of the sort expressed in Michigan law. In Texas a drunk driver who struck a pregnant woman's car was convicted of killing the woman's baby, which did not survive after being born a month and a half prematurely. A Baltimore court in effect took custody of a fetus by placing a pregnant drug abuser under court jurisdiction to prevent her from jeopardizing the health of her fetus -- unless she exercised her right to kill it by abortion.

Abortion kills something. What is it? A television commercial for General Electric's new ultrasound system shows a pregnant woman and her husband marveling at an amazingly clear picture of their unborn baby's features. The commercial features Roberta Flack's song "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face." The announcer says: "When you see your baby for the first time on the new GE 4D ultrasound system it really is a miracle."

By the time babies are as old as Kurr's quadruplets were, ultrasound can show their fingers and beating hearts. The Supreme Court in Roe called such babies "potential life," a weird opinion that could be forgiven if this were the 11th century, knowing nothing of embryology or microbiology -- if the beginning of life were a matter of uninformed conjecture.

Today doctors perform wonders of prenatal diagnostic and therapeutic medicine, administering drugs and blood transfusions and performing surgery in utero -- treating as patients fetuses that mothers have a right to kill. Many expectant couples have, in the nurseries they have prepared for their "potential" babies, framed ultrasound photographs of the "potential" babies. Many couples have fetal heartbeat stethoscopes for listening to -- what? "potential" heartbeats?

A few weeks after being punched by Pena, Kurr miscarried. Whether the punches caused the miscarriage is unclear. She had a constitutional right -- her privacy right of "choice" -- to kill the unborn babies. And in Michigan and many other states she could kill someone who endangered them. That's the law.


or one couldgo to[URL=http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/4842288p-5855577c.html]

I find this so interesting. Many call an abortion a murder. I find it hard to absorb what and when exactly we are calling an abortion murder. A fetus at say 4 to 8 weeks is not a living being. It can't see, hear, smell, feel or think. At that point it is a mass of cells being formed. I feel that at that point in a women's preganacy if she felt that she could not have a baby it is her choice to have an abortion. Even at 12 weeks I don't know, but after that Yes I think it is human. Is it a women's choice? Of course it is. If raped or incest I know I couldn't have that happen to me. In a case where there were 2 consenting adults in reality how many men would stick around? It is still a man's world where they make more money than most women and now we add to statics where here is a single mom raising a child with no father around. No child support. No father support. I find most people who think abortion is wrong are men. Could I or would I have had an abortion I don't know. But I think I would like that choice.

Before 12 weeks not human, after 12 weeks it’s human. So, in all reality only a minute separates a human from a small mass of tissue?
Once an egg is fertilized there is only one thing that can form if left alone, a human baby! To think that it is anything else is nonsense. So whether its two cells or two billion, it is a forming living human, and therefore should be protected under law.

I agree that men must be held accountable for their actions that lead to a pregnancy. However, instead of questioning how many men would stick around, should we not be more concerned with the fact that people are sleeping together without knowing each other well enough to know if their sexual partner is responsible enough to live up to the possible repercussions to their actions? If one partner cannot commit, the other should be responsible enough to stop the relationship from proceeding. Abortion is a direct reflection of people who refuse to claim responsibility for their own actions.

Tommy Thompson in a Senate hearing earlier this year said, "Prenatal services can be a lifelong determinate of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available to all pregnant women."

To that end, TT spearheaded the move that, by next month, will redefine a fetus as a child eligible for federally funded health care under the Children's Health Insurance Program.

This is the first time that any federal policy has defined childhood as a beginning at conception.
MT

I think this may be the beginning of something. mt

By stating this, are you not in essence stating that it is bad?

You know, I read all the arguments for and against, and I feel for those,who have good reasons for wanting an abortion, but I just can't condone it. So, no, I think it's a good thing.

MT

This really nails it. I hold tv partially responsible for the attitude of kids toward casual sex. It is really sad. How can children be held responsible for raising children. Education and family values are sorely needed. Watching programs such as Friends (which I find funny but disturbing) gives kids the idea that "everybody does it". It is OK. This sit-com is on at 6 PM. This is an hr. when really young and impressionable kids watch tv. As I said, I find it disturbing to say the least.
I am against abortion. The children can be placed for adoption. Better yet, EDUCATE

To clear up any misunderstanding.

I think womens choice is bad.

I think defining the beginning of childhood at conception is good.

MT

I don't see how anyone can look at abortion as "good". At the same time, I view it at being necessary at times. There are times that it is medically necessary to save the woman's life. Beyond it being only medically necessary for the physical well being of the mother, there are also times where it is the best choice for the emotional well-being of the woman also. I feel strongly that people need to stop judging others on this subject. Anyone who is faced with this decision will deal with the consequences of the choice they make no matter what they decide. They'll live with their decision. Who is anyone to pass judgement on someone else?

abortion is not an easy choice for anyone. I feel strongly that a woman's choice should be respected. no one should feel superior enough to feel that its their place to pass judgement. No matter what a woman decides, she'll live with that decision.

Let's not confuse the issue here.

Everybody has a 'choice'. And I'm all for having a choice, most of the time. I have a choice of going to work or staying at home, using deodorant or having no friends, etc.

So let's call Abortion what it really is - termination. Whether you are terminating a life form or not is the question.

When I was 18 years old, I was in favor of abortion. I wanted that 'backup' in case I got myself in trouble. But I NEVER kidded myself into believing that the baby was anything else but a baby.

Now that I am older and wiser and more financially able, I can address this issue more honestly. Abortion is murder and people only want it there to get themselves out of trouble. And they are willing to justify it in any way they can.

abortion from the get go isnt a thing that should be legal to do. and it is definitely not only the woman's choice in deciding that. i dont think a woman can get pregnant by herself. it takes both in doing the hibbied jibbied loving making for a woman to get prego. but why would you want it to be a woman's choice, that is murder for all i care. and i know of very few woman who would be willing to give up their kid especially if they are prego.

Thank you momof3 for pointing that out. People you claim that abortion is "murder" and "termination." Well, has anyone looked it up in the dictionary? Or even a thesaurus for that matter! Since people have neglected to define what abortion is, I will do so.

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1547
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION
2 : MONSTROSITY
3 : arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest

and here is the OTHER words for abortion from the thesaurus

Entry Word: abortion
Function: noun
Text:
Synonyms: FREAK 2, lusus, miscreation, monster, monstrosity

(both definition and the synonyms cam from © 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated)

So please show me where is says "Murder"

Being a single mother, being pregnant, possibly having to take care of other kids out of wedlock, and just trying to make ends meet ... unfortunately, this situation is not uncommon. I can see how abortion can be viewed as the best way out. I do not trivialize people who are in difficult circumstances such as these. It's definitely not easy.

However, having the choice to kill a human being should not be an option. At least it shouldn't be made legal.

I think the abortion will kill the baby, but we should consider the women' feeling frist. If the woman is raped and has baby because of the rape, do you feel how sad she is? She don't like the baby's father and want the baby. If you force her to bear the baby, will she like the baby and take care of it? This only will extend the woman' distress. If the baby isn't able to get the love from its father and mother, do you think it feel happy in the world and its existence is significant? I don't want to have a more orphan in the world. For another example, if the baby is tested to have defect when it hasn't been born already, I think the mother's best choice is abortion. Because the baby will increase its family' difficulties and sadness and it will be the painful and difficult person in the world. Beacuse it can't do anything like the normal person.

As you said this is in several threads,but the fathers were mentioned. What about the rights of the father of these children? There are some out there who are reponsible adults that want a say in what happens to a child of theirs.
I've made the point elsewhere that I do not support abortion unless it is a case of saving the mother in childbirth. It would have to be such a choice or some other means of dealing with a bad situation would have to be made.
I might also add that this subject divides more familes, politicians and religions than any other. It has since R vs W.

For all of those people apposed to abortion. I found this article in the Chicago Tribune today. A women gave birth to a child in January. When he cried she stuffed a napkin in his mouth, then put duct tape over his mouth and nose. wrapped him in a towel, put him in plastic bag and then put him in on a shelf in her bathroom closet. She was only caught because she had complications following the birth and had to go to hospital. She denied giving birth. Police went to the house and found the baby. She said she didn't want a 5th child. She "CHOSE" to have this baby. So now is it a full term baby born, alive and kicking. But she killed it. Doesn't it make more sense that this woman should of had an abortion? At this point I think if she had an abortion at 4 to 8 weeks this was not killing a Human. and now what? What happens to her 4 other kids? She is going to jail. Birth control I would have been the answer. But not chosen. So there ya go. What is right?

WOW, this sounds like the first major step on the road to ...

"The right of a child to be born to its full potential shall take precedence over all other considerations. It is the state's responsibility to safeguard the legal rights of an intended embryo." - Thirty-Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified July 4, 2051 [from the novel, Anvil of the Heart, by Bruce T. Holmes, 1983; TOR Books]

TMI Warning

I have stated elsewhere that I do not believe that the choice involved in terminating a pregnancy is any business of any man. Women bear children for nine months (itself a huge and demanding responsibility), they go through the agony of labor, they often suffer severe depression as a result, and most spend weeks to months nursing the child afterwards - to say nothing of the usual practice of leaving women to feed, bathe, train, supervise, and educate the child largely on her own. Compared to that experience, a man's Olympian ability to squirt after two minutes of self-involved pleasure is nothing.

Even in a marriage or committed relationship, where I would imagine the male partner would have a major input into the decision, I believe that the final decision must rest with the woman - but most certainly not with the state. If our government had a majority of radical lesbian feminists rather than a majority of conservative Christian men, how many males here would feel comfortable with them considering legislation that rendered vasectomies mandatory at the age of twenty-five? Would you feel they had the right to decide the fate of your sexual organs?

Sadly, many abortions are not a matter of convenience. And, while I may personally feel that abortions should only be readily available when it is a question of saving the mother's life or, possibly, in cases of rape and/or incest, I still don't believe that it is my right to enforce that opinion on any woman. The vasectomy metaphor may not fly with some of you, but it does bear on someone else telling you what you may or may not do with your own body. I grant that there is no appropriate analogy - that is my point. The miraculous blessing or unfathomable burden of bearing a child is an event which affects one gender and one gender only. And I still believe that the other gender has no right to impose any kind of decision on the child-bearers.

For what it's worth, I'd personally frown on the termination of a pregnancy much beyond the second trimester. By that time, ontologically, the foetus has developed to the stage of upper primates and is certainly on the verge of being considered "human". While I realize that many men consider offspring their "property", until they're able to take on the risks and responsibilities of bearing children themselves, they should just shut up.

The main reason I do not personally tend to support abortion on demand is that both my partner and one of my sons were raised in orphanages - and both of them presume that, rather than being orphans, they were in fact illegitimate. If that is the case, and had their mothers decided to abort rather than bear their children, the world would have been deprived of two wonderful human beings. But I still don't believe that my feelings should take precedence over those of someone who must actually bear the child. Terminating a pregnancy can't possibly be an easy decision - even when it is unwanted. I feel it is extremely unfair to make that decision even more difficult - or, worse, for the state to make that decision for an individual.

Maybe this will make it clearer: every woman who bears a child does so at the risk of her own life. The first man in the universe who risks more than the potential embarrassment of not being able to get it up might have some say over what any woman can do with her own body. If any male thinks he has any right whatsoever to determine any woman's freedom of choice, his selfishness and arrogance are infinite. If a man is that desperate for parenthood, he can adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children that are born in this country annually.

I just cannot condone abortion, but I do wish the government would not be involved. I believe that people's morals can't be legislated.

MT

Wertz: So then you're saying the male parent has no responsibility to a child?

The simple fact is not one of us can claim to have never been fetuses. Furthurmore the amount of effort put but forth by the mother during pregnancy has nothing to do with the responsibility of the father. Both parents are equally and ultimatly responsible for the child.

This is not a gender-specific issue.