Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?

Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?

I think it fails mostly because it is such a politicized issue here and placed so brightly in the realm of gov.


Actually I find fault with the people on my side...the opposition has realized that abortion is not the only avenue for controlling reproductive rights. I wish the pro choice people were as aggressive on issues like sex education, birth control access, the morning after pill and so on. I wish it was more about reproduction rights as a whole. As a woman it is very upsetting to me that many seem so focused on protecting our rights to abort...abortion is the final solution...it is sad we force/coerce/lead or only concern ourselves with this...we should be more proactive, involved and demanding that women don't get this far..if you want an abortion it is because you weren't having sex to make babies..so why were you having sex? Did you even fully understand how your reproductive organs function? Why did you not use a condom, or the pill? Did you have access to birth control? Did you know about the morning after pill? Was it available to you? On and on..if we claim we are for choice why have we allowed the choice to be so limited to only two outcomes? I want choice from the start..I want all the options offered to my daughters.. education on sex.., discussing the psychological aspects of sex, access and knowledge on available BC and the morning after pill should be easily and readily available or else it defeats it's purpose.

Sure..why not focus more on birth control, sex ed, and self empowerment and self esteem issues? I don't think anyone really wants an abortion.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?
In my opinion the current debate falls short of a solution because of two radically differing ideologies. On the one hand you have an ideology that states medical decisions should be between a woman and her doctor and no one else. The other side believes that the government should make value judgements on what is permissible medically.

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?
I am of the belief that abortions should be rare, they should be a last resort, and people considering them should have been thoroughly educated on all of their options with the ultimate choice left up to them. We should be pushing sex education, condoms, the pill etc but if someone does become pregnant, this is one of their options, but not the only one and maybe not even the best one. Nowhere should the government enter into the equation, this is a decision between a woman and her doctor, period.

So being pro-choice the flaw I see is that the other side is trying to impose their morality on the entire country and they are trying to use the government to do it. This morality while I can appreciate it, is primarily based in a religious argument in my opinion and that doesn't sit well with me in terms of the government creating legislation.

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?
The only way this could happen is if the pro-life people realized that they cannot live the lives of everyone else and they shouldn't be using the government as a tool to try and enforce their will. They should realize that if they actually wanted to make an impact that trying to teach and convince people that having abortions is wrong would be a lot better strategy than trying to ban the practice. They should also realize that sex education, teaching people about condoms, getting women on the pill, etc is the best way to prevent abortions in the first place. The simple reality here is that people are going to have sex their bodies are programmed for it and rhetoric doesn't quell mother nature. This focus on abstinence only programs is absurd, and it makes the problem worse in some cases to boot. On an individual basis it starts with their family, but it could also extend to non-profit organizations to help women deal with a pregnancy by providing support, adoption services, etc.

Now, in reality I don't think that will ever happen. The people that are pro-life are just as passionate about their side as I am about mine. So until people realize that it isn't the government's place to even rule on this matter, it is going to continue to be an incredibly divisive issue. Until the pro-life people realize the benefits of sexual education and that they aren't condoning sex by educating people but instead enabling them to make good decisions, the problem will remain and the battle will continue. I fully expect battles on both sides to continue being waged for years into the future, perhaps past my lifetime.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?

The fact that by the mere nature of their positions, there really is no "middle ground" one could compromise on. Pro-life = abortion is murder, it's immoral to kill an innocent child, etc., etc. Pro-choice = may not personally agree with it, but believe it should be legal and safe for those who cannot handle a child. Conceding to either side is not an option, and with no middle ground it makes the whole debate pretty heated.

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?

I understand completely the emotional revolt and disgust one feels when viewing an aborted fetus. However, I also realize that this is purely an emotional response. When I think about it logically, what possible good could come out of forcing every pregnancy to term? More abused children raised by parents who hate them? I can't even begin to imagine the strain on adoption and welfare agencies should abortion become illegal. Of course, even making it illegal won't stop abortion, really just increase the number of unsafe ones. If a woman has mulled over and given enough thought to her situation that she has decided the best course of action would be to not have the child at all, then I really don't see how making abortion illegal would stop her from trying. I've seen photos of aborted fetuses, and I've seen pictures of abused children. I'll take the aborted fetus anyday, thankyouverymuch.

The major flaw in the other side is their inability to use their brains instead of their emotions. If I were to simply look at a picture of an aborted fetus and go strictly by my emotional response, I'd say "abortion is wrong. It is very wrong to do that to a forming human being." Looking at the entire picture, though, I would have to amend that to say "abortion is wrong (according to my emotional response), but necessary." A necessary evil, if you will. Another flaw in their argument is their failure to comprehend the establishment clause of the First Amendment. I will make a generalization and assume the majority of pro-lifers are well-meaning, likely religious - and Christian - people. However, you simply cannot legislate based on the Bible (not to mention the verses that show God killing children and ripping them from their mothers womb!). It is more important to me that every child be wanted than born, and I think that's the most important distinction between pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?

Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?

Like I stated in response to the first question, I really don't think so. Maybe some progress could be made if pro-lifers realize that not everyone shares their religion, and if we pro-choicers could take a stand and make our position very clear that the majority of us disagree with some of the more extreme pro-choicers that advocate abortion on demand at any time in the pregnancy. We need to make our message a lot more clear, and emphasize the consequences of outlawing abortion - the coat hanger, I think, has pretty much lost its poignancy. We need to stress the consequences of unwanted children on government resources, on crime and poverty, on child abuse. We need to state that we are every bit as "pro-family" as the pro-lifers, we just disagree on the methods of ensuring healthy families.

• Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?
  
  Two reasons.
  
  One the failure on the part of the Republicans to recognize that abortion is not an all or nothing scenario, but a laundry list of reasons.
  
  Two the failure on the part of the Democrats to recognize that the fetus is a child.
  
  
• What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?
  
  The flaw opposite mine is listed above so I shall dive further into it.
  
  Republicans want to rid the nation of healthy, sanitised forms of abortion to protect children. Though their intent might be good the failure to recognize the medical necessity of abortion plagues their argument. It would be nice to blanket the nation saying no one needs an abortion, but this would be turning a blind eye to reality. The common term "abortion is murder" also applies to the fact that a child killing its mom (matricide) is also murder. For these medical emergencies it is important that the mother needs to do what is best to defend herself from the murder.
  
  Democrats need to stop trying to make abortion a simple matter of removing some unwanted growth from a woman: it's a little more then that. With modern technology we know that heart beats, the child plays, the child responds, dreams, moves and acts, to deny this is to turn a blind eye to reality. The common philosophy "a fetus is not a child" is out dated. Get with the modern technology and acknowledge that the 'thing' growing in the woman is alive.
  
  
• Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?
  
  I believe if both sides begin to become realistic about abortion and stop playing these silly games over a serious issue.
  
  
• Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?
  
  I see neither side changing on this issue.

There are several things HORRIBLY wrong with this statement. For one, I don't know of ANYONE who treats abortion like that, let alone politicians. It always has been, and always will be one of the most difficult and personal decisions a woman will ever make and nobody in their right mind would treat an abortion otherwise. Your mischaracterization appears to stem either from a deliberate attempt to make the "other side" look bad; or a complete lack of understanding. Feel free to let us know which is hte case.

The second thing wrong with your statement? Well, I've never seen anything that says that a fetus dreams, or plays. Since it is "reality" then surely you can prove it with a citation... More to the point, an amoeba responds, moves and acts. Does that make it special? I can run an electrical current through a dead frog's leg and it will move. So far you have only described the mechanical elements of life; none of which speak to consciousness, or any other quality like posessing a soul. There is a "life is sacred" argument to be made for abortion. But as long as it is based on false suppositions (like Pro-choice people being uncaring and "blind to reality"), really bad or non-existant science (like your fetus dream suggestion) and really bad biology, it will get no where.

Good question, does a unborn child sleep?

Fetal AlertnessSo I guess that answers the question with a yes, unborn babies do sleep. Interesting.

Good second question: "More to the point, an amoeba responds, moves and acts. Does that make it special?" Well I can determine how special an amoeba is anymore then I can determine how special someone's child is to them. There is no measurement for special. But the fact that the amoeba moves seems to prove to me that the amoeba is alive.

Last good question I will address is the one on does the child posses a soul and can we prove the child has a soul? For this we must first established the fetus is soul-less. Just tissue floating in a woman's body acting on its own accord. Then we give it movement like the amoeba you brought up earlier. Then we give it taste: "By 13 to 15 weeks a fetus' taste buds already look like a mature adult's, and doctors know that the amniotic fluid that surrounds it can smell strongly of curry, cumin, garlic, onion and other essences from a mother's diet." Now let us assume the fact that due to our taste buds we can taste thing (we really can't ask the child if he or she taste anything). Now we give it hearing: "A very premature baby entering the world at 24 or 25 weeks responds to the sounds around it, observes Also its auditory apparatus must already have been functioning in the womb. Many pregnant women report a fetal jerk or sudden kick just after a door slams or a car backfires." I assume the reactionary responses like animals to loud noises are acceptable signs of hearing. Now let's give our soul-less child vision: "Vision is the last sense to develop. A very premature infant can see light and shape; researchers presume that a fetus has the same ability. Just as the womb isn't completely quiet, it isn't utterly dark, either. Says Filer: "There may be just enough visual stimulation filtered through the mother's tissues that a fetus can respond when the mother is in bright light," such as when she is sunbathing." Now with these elements our soul-less child can begin to learn with its brain: "For example, a fetus, after an initial reaction of alarm, eventually stops responding to a repeated loud noise. The fetus displays the same kind of primitive learning, known as habituation, in response to its mother's voice, Fifer has found." It is are ability to begin to reason and think that is initial our soul. I guess I would have to ask you, if a child does not develop a soul by this point, when does the child develop a soul?

Ok... either you don't understand what I am saying, or you are content to simply redirect the conversation.

I didn't ask if babies slept, I asked if they dreamed. And you have provided no answer.

As for science, you are doing EXACTLY what I said is crippling the pro-life argument, engaging in the worst sort of science possible.



This is called deductive reasoning, and it is hasn't been used by science since the 1500's... I admire your boldness. You've employed it in three stages.

1. Babies have X physical development, therefore they approximate adult functions.
2. Babies have X behavioural development, therefore they must be conscious
3. If Babies are conscious and have the physical qualities of people, they must have a soul.

The only problem is that you DIDN'T PROVE one or two, and three for that matter. Here's where you failed to actually prove anything:

We know that they have taste-buds, so obviously they can taste? A corpse has taste-buds, yet no sense of taste (I assume.) There are some other critical elements in "taste"... consciousness is one. We don't know that a fetus has it. Sufficient development in the brain is another. Does the baby have a sufficiently developed neural cluster to process taste the way we do? I don't know. And neither do you, so it is the height of arrogance to assume either way.



First of all, we GIVE it nothing. We prove things. That's how science works. If you want to use logic, use logic. Not a mish-mash of faulty assumptions and non-linear deduction. A fetus reacts to sound? So what? Again, any animal on the planet with ears responds to loud noises. More importantly, we have no way of knowing how the fetus is processing the stimulus. As with the question of taste, without understanding how the brain is developed, simple stimulus response actions only demonstrate that the fetus is a biological organism, a fact not in dispute.

This sort of flim-flam logic permeates your entire post. Since a fetus stops responding to loud noises it can learn? Does that mean that pidgeons that spend time near humans LEARN, because they no longer fly away at the drop of the hat? According to your thought process, these pidgeons must have a soul.



Well in my opinion it doesn't. I don't go into smoke and mirrors when I try to answer questions of existence. However, you may have missed an earlier point I was trying to make. If you want to use science to argue against abortion, then do so. However, the post you just deposited on this forum contains NO SCIENCE, it is editorializing masked as science; which in my estimation is nothing more than a sham that you are either a victim of, or a party to.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?

That's an easy one. The current debate is steeped entirely in abstract points of discussion. THe fact is that abortions have been a reality as far back as medical history goes. Whether they are illegal or not will NOT prevent them. Abortions will always happen. I think if we focused on that fact people on both sides of the issue would have a better place to negotiate from.

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?

It's based on the most spectacularly bad science available. as demonstrated by Yehoshua.

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?

Sure. But it won't happen any time soon. The two sides are debating the issue in entirely different languages. The Pro-Life position is one that for all intents and purposes is steeped in the language of religion and morality. The Pro-Choice argument is one that comes from the language of Rights and privacy. The two have very little in common with each other.

Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?

Lets see. Two sides debating an issue that they don't understand, using entirely different terms of debate, with the final arbiters using their personal feelings instead of good judgement or obeying the law... Well, do I sound optimistic?

Babies dream, do unborn children?

Just as adults the baby at the fetal stage experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.(Source 1, Source 2, Source 3)

But your argument has proven my point as to why this issue will not be solved. I provide research indicating REM sleep in children, the opposing side will claim that it does not prove the child has a soul. So the entire debate encircles the word 'soul' as opposed to 'life?' As UJ has shown, even the amoeba has life. But does the amoeba have a 'soul?'

Is it alright to kill the 'soul-less?' I guess this falls into the realm of the morality issue, which as UJ has pointed out has "very little in common with" reason. If this morality and emotion are so against good judgement then why do so many women have PAS, even if the abortion was the reasonable decision? If only she would rationally understand that the child is soul-less and should not feel guilty. Put many women do feel the guilty, is this do to women being more emotion driven then men, that as men UJ and I will never understand?

But then UJ you would have to conclude that it is more rational never to have sex. If the woman never had sex in the first place, there would be no decisions to make. Life would be easier if a women was never forced to make any decision regarding a child, or the soul-less fetus. The rational CHOICE is not to have sex.

Maybe the morality issues tie into the rational decision? Morally in religious culturals, it is not permitted to have sex outside of wedlock. If we leap and say a majority of abortions decided based upon age, fiances, and like of father's support occur from sex out of wedlock (I have no proof for this, put if someone has proof to the opposite I would love to see it), then to prevent the PAS, it would be rational to prevent the sex as taught morally. However this infringes on rights and privacy. The right to have sex out of wedlock. Then maybe rights have very little in common with reason, unless there is a resonable arguement for sex out of wedlock.

But then maybe UJ and I are right, the two (pro-choice and pro-life) have very little in common and will never see eye to eye on the issue.

That argument is completely flawed and ignores reality. People are going to have sex, you cannot stop it with all of the morality in the world. Our hormones and genetic programming steadily push that message daily. The people that push abstinence programs end up making things worse because when those kids do have sex they aren't properly educated about condoms, birth control, pregnancy, STDs etc which in many cases leads us right back into abortion. The sexual instinct is probably one of the strongest instincts humans have, second only to survival. To think you can fight that with words and guilt trips is not only folly, but irresponsible.

The biggest flaw with the argument you are making is that you presume to make decisions for everyone based on what you feel is right. Every woman should have the right to decide whether she believes your argument that a child has a soul and she is "killing" the child or whether she doesn't think of it that way. No one else should be able to weigh that decision and make that choice for her, not the government and not any religious group. Can you provide her with education, arm her with facts and support her while pushing your beliefs? Sure. But the second she steps into that doctor's office it is no longer in your hands, it is up to her.

The worst thing is that banning the practice wouldn't stop it, you would simply cause women to risk their lives in doing it in back alleys. The right solution if you believe the practice is wrong is to start an education campaign and arm people with information.

yehoshua,

You are bringing this back into the religious orbit by talking about “soul,” a word that could be defined in a number ways. Loosely speaking, I think my cats have “souls,” (just look a them) but that’s beside the point.

To address your statement: Yes, there are women who experience guilt after an abortion. That guilt, however, doesn’t develop in a vacuum. It develops under pressure from perhaps family, friends, media coverage of pro life events, people like James Dobson, the family minister and men, like you, who will never have to make such a choice.

In the current atmosphere, guilt may be the rule rather than the exception.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution? Well....for starters, there is little distinction made in many of the arguments between a day-old zygote, and an eighth-month gestational fetus. People also (on both sides) seem to confuse Roe v Wade and the issue of late term abortion. Roe v Wade only offers "abortion rights" through the 12th week. After that, it's a state matter so the question of whether or not an 8 month gestational fetus is capable of REM sleep is irrelevant to the Roe ruling.

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with? Two things. First, there seems to be no middle ground. A fertilized egg is simply not the equivalent of an eight month old gestational fetus. Second, the need to accept that fact that abortions will happen even if they are illegal. Totally anecdotal example...My mother obtained an 'illegal' abortion in Italy about 35 years ago. Basically every single woman she knew (who wasn't sterile) had either obtained at least one abortion, or taken abortificants (often liberally), before the age of twenty.

Frankly, I will never agree that an eight week old fetus/embryo is the equivalent of a newborn baby. Showing me pictures of "aborted" eight month old fetuses (which are almost always obtained from the hospital and were either health/life related, or completely "natural", not "elective", to begin with) does not convince me that a 10 WEEK old fetus is sacrosanct.

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes? Well, I think it's important to realize that few people, regardless of their stand on this issue, think abortion is a good thing.

Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken? I vote permanently divisive. I don't see a resolution to this issue. Honestly, although I am pro-choice, I would like to see the federal government eliminated from the picture. Even if abortion is murder, the crime of murder is a state jurisdictional issue. I'd let the states decide this (repealing Roe), but that's me.

The argument is rational. Humans are irrational. It is rational to assume one can prevent pregnancy through acts abstaining from sexual acts, yet as you point out we "are going to have sex, you cannot stop it with all of the morality in the world." I would change morality to rationality. And thus signify the point I was trying to make that "the morality issues tie into the rational decision." They are at times, like this one, the same. It is human nature that is the flaw or the reality to which I ignored. But then again are morals really based on human nature?

I am not in anyway advocating the removal of sexual education from schools nor do I advocate the changing of hormones to satisfy the rational argument. I am advocating it is rational not to have sex out of wedlock. I have yet to hear a rational argument proving otherwise.

I guess I will throw out this possibility, if it is proven at a time beyond a shadow of doubt that the child is a human from conception and one in essence killing a human life, would the issue of abortion be dropped? I am under the determination that it will not. It will ultimately become the evolution debate. No matter how much evidence there it to prove that man evolved from apes, there will be people who will ignore the facts for reasons unknown.

I agree completely. I have never once advocating the banning of abortion. Which the thread is not about banning abortion, but if both pro-life and pro-choice people will ever see eye to eye. No. They won't. Because one side will deny all forms of abortion, the other side will deny that the fetus is a child; the two issues that the sides are basing their opposition on.

Ah this time it is not me on the religious side. UJ said that the fetus developing and learning is no indication of a soul. I was just reiterating his argument.

So what you are saying is that the woman makes a solid decision to have an abortion, has the abortion and then feels guilt because I say the the "fetus is a child". Odd that most psychologist would disagree with you. "Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS) is a term used to describe a wide range of symptoms that are intimately related to, and expressions of, a previous abortion experience. Experts disagree on the cause and even whether it should be considered a distinct diagnosis. Some believe it is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Others think it is the same as Post-Partum Depression, thought to be caused by the abrupt hormonal changes that occur when pregnancy ends (for any reason). Still others believe post abortion syndrome is caused by whatever stressors caused the women to choose abortion." (source) It seems to me to have nothing to do with whatever I say, but what hormonal imbalance is causing the symptoms and the mental state of the woman prior to the abortion. I read nothing about prolonged exposure to James Dobson anti-abortion views causing guilty in women nor does it read that it prolongs the guilt of women.

Not to prolong the REM sleep thing but it is 17 weeks into pregnancy or about 4 months. But as you pointed out, it still is not tied to Roe V. Wade

Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS) is a term used to describe a wide range of symptoms that are intimately related to, and expressions of, a previous abortion experience. Experts disagree on the cause and even whether it should be considered a distinct diagnosis. Some believe it is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Others think it is the same as Post-Partum Depression, thought to be caused by the abrupt hormonal changes that occur when pregnancy ends (for any reason). Still others believe post abortion syndrome is caused by whatever stressors caused the women to choose abortion. yehoshua’s source

How do you claim this as science, when the article you linked says that the "experts disagree." Are you suggesting that women who have had abortions are not, like people in general, influenced by societal pressures?

Why don't we look on to what exactly the article claims expert are disagreeing as opposed to overshadowing the statement based upon one term.

Expert disagree with:

• Some believe it is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
• Others think it is the same as Post-Partum Depression, thought to be caused by the abrupt hormonal changes that occur when pregnancy ends (for any reason).
• Still others believe post abortion syndrome is caused by whatever stressors caused the women to choose abortion.

That's it. That is all the experts are in disagreement about. I don't believe that the anti-abortion movement caused the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome seeing as how the abortion is more traumatic then any picture an anti-abortionist could ever show. I don't believe that the anti-abortion movement had anything to do with the woman's hormonal imbalance. So unless you can show a direct correlation between the pressures of the anti-abortion movement being placed upon the woman prior and post abortion, and that this movement directly led to the woman's reason for the abortion, I have no other reason then to believe that the anti-abortion movement did nothing to cause PAS in women.

But since my science seems to be so bad, what science is out there to suggest any different?

I saw this in the news and thought it relevant.
Detroit News


I read this and was horrified (just my own personal reaction), and it made me think. If I am horrified by a pregnant girl having her boyfriend hit her stomach with a baseball bat...should I be horrified by a doctor extracting a fetus and putting a scissors in its head. That actually seems worse.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?
Seems that most of the arguments on both sides are dishonest. If third trimester abortion is illegal, why not second trimester? If it's a "baby" when I watch Friends and Rachel is talking about her stomach, why isn't it a "baby" but a "choice" at other times? Why is it a "baby" when Scott Peterson kills it? I've yet to see "would survive out of the womb" as a criteria but that's at least a logical argument.

If the official Democrat position is "safe, legal and rare" why have 40 million potential Democratic voters been aborted? That's not rare.
If the pro-life position is "abortion kills babies" why do they oppose contraceptives and sex education?

On that subject, I completely agree with this:

A co-worker and I were discussing, and she really believed that if Roe was overturned "abortion would be illegal." There is a difference between accepting bad case law (Roe) and making abortion illegal on a national basis. It's a shame our nation isn't up for a mature argument on this, but the issues are just too complex. No good sound bites in the middle.

So Carlito, is that what you want to go back to - having a girls boyfriend take a baseball bat to her abdomen? Because that is the way it was back in the 60's when the practice was illegal. What about women using coat hangers to perform abortions, stir up any pleasing visuals for you? Or better yet, having a doctor perform the abortion in some dirty back alley? Sounds like progress to me.

It is much better for this to be a sterile, clean, safe and legal medical procedure. You say you don't like the procedure - I ask you what medical procedure is pleasant? Are open heart surgeries fun to watch? Liposuction? Plastic Surgery? Should we ban all these too for the "gross" factor? Medicine is not for people who easily lose their lunch.


First of all, your assertion that the babies would somehow be Democrats simply because of the parents is completely ludicrous and is a common attack tactic of the pro-life side. As a matter of fact, my family is both strongly Republican and religious and I am neither, guess that destroys your soundbite. Secondly, abortions are at their lowest level since the practice was made legal after Roe v. Wade. This article is from 2003 and makes that claim - article. I saw one a few days ago that claimed that 2004 is the new record for lowest number of abortions, but I don't have time to look around for it right now. Besides 2003 is good enough, it would be illogical to assume they shot up in one year.

The soundbite is based on this piece in the Opinion Journal, which notes:

You can argue yourself as the exception, but the authors did primary research and it feels pretty logical as to how children vote vs. their parents, particularly over time. The thesis is that abortion cost Gore the election. Sometimes irony can be...ironic.

Censorship at certain venues is a bit different from nationwide censorship. No one is arguing that abortions be available everywhere, in every single medical facility of one's choice, at any time during a pregnancy, for any reason...so I'm hard-pressed to understand your analogy of banning the 'icky' here. Remember when it comes to the banning of anything, the costs to benefits have to be weighed. It’s my opinion that creating a very lucrative and dangerous underground market for abortions would be a bad idea. It would also be inevitable in the event of an abortion ban.

Also, could you please cite an example of a legal, late-term abortion done on a perfectly healthy infant, with no health risk to the mother? I have never heard of this, which leads me to conclude that the "scissors through the back of the healthy baby's head and brains sucked out" reference, though used ad nauseam and often hysterically, is essentially nonexistent as far as non-health related, purely elective abortions go. Yet everyone cites the example of the healthy eight month old fetus whose life was snuffed out by a baseball bat, hockey stick, murder of the mother…”Isn’t that awful? That’s the same thing as an abortion!!!!!” Well, actually it isn’t, but nevermind.

But really, as I said in my first post, pro-choice people don’t consider an early fetus to be the equivalent of a baby. Calling an eight week old fetus a baby (even ad nauseum, 5000 times) doesn’t make it the equivalent of a baby to me. Never will, and I’m a person who truly loves babies.


Well, I think it’s a bit more than a stretch to assume that all of these babies, even had they turned into Democrats, would have had no impact on subsequent family planning and we’d have that many more people in the world. Had my mother not had her abortion, I would have never been born. Most people do set a limit on the number of children they are going to have, and after that it’s usually snip/snip or some very very reliable method of birth control. Of course, the most reliable methods of birth control would be banned along with abortion if the zygote were to become protected by law.

I took issue with your views on the pro-choice side Carlito because you are completely miscategorizing things. I didn't say anything about your one question to the pro-life side, because I agree with you that is a question they should answer:

You addressed both sides, but I hardly think your position is "down the middle".

But regarding this "Al Gore would have won without abortion" stuff, I'll have to apologize because my tin foil hat is out at the dry cleaners right now

Fact: In order to be human...a cell must contain 46 chromosomes. A fetus contains 46 chromosomes from the moment of conception. A fetus is human. Now is the question of whether or not is is alive. Well it depends on how you define 'alive." Is it rational thought? Is it vocal communication? What is it?

Now here is where you are at fault UJ. You said:





Its obvious that none of us know when a baby is actually "alive". Some believe it occurs at conception...other at birth. There really is no way of knowing and even if there was irrefutable proof to one side, there would still be opposition. But here is my view:

We dont know when life begins. So my question is...if we don't know if the fetus is alive or not...wouldnt it be smarter to air on the side of caution? In effect we could be killing 1.3 million people per year. Wouldn't it be more intelligent to say that we should let them live because we could be killing human beings? I dont understand it.

Here is a situation for you. Say i put you in a room and tell you that in the room next to yours that i may have placed an infant in there. And that if you push this shiny red button..you will kill that infant. If there is a 50/50 chance that there is an infant there...would you push the button? If there is even a speck of doubt to the inclination that a child might die if you push that button would you still do it?

I am pro-life because i believe that no matter how bad a situation things could potentially be for a baby...that doesnt justify killing it.

And to play devil's advocate, what exactly do you think we are going to do with 1.3 million extra kids a year? Are you going to adopt a few of them? As it stands, there are currently many kids that go un-adopted each year and the odds for adoption get worse as they get older, most parents want newborns and more specifically newborns the same race as they are. Already you are facing a system completely unequipped to handle an additional 1.3 million adoptions a year.

Secondly, do you really think that the people having these kids are going to make the best parents? Many times the people having babies are mere kids themselves, certainly not equipped to be parents.

It isn't about airing on the side of caution it is about allowing everyone to make their own choices. There are numerous examples I could come up with as far as governmental regulation of our lives and I don't think you'd appreciate any of them. This is no different. Just because you hold a belief doesn't make it right, and it certainly doeesn't make it right for everyone.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?

Defining what a human is. Is a fetus a human? Is a deer a human? Is a fetus and undeveloped human? Does a cow have more human attribute's than a fetus? Do you eat at McDonalds? Are you a conservative that doesnt like to eat meat?

To me this is a non-issue. Fetus's plain and simply are not human yet. It should be up to the woman to decide if she wants the fetus to progress into a human. It does after all become her resposibility (and hopefully the male that contributed).

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?

Catogorizing the second the sperm hit's the egg as a human being. It's not a human, it's a fetus in the process of growing into a human. Even science designates it as a "fetus" not a "homo-sapien".

Though I completely agree with bucket in the quote below except for the last part.



Pleasure, everyone has sex for pleasure. Can you honestly tell me that every single time you had sex it was because you where thinking... I want to have a baby? If so, certianly the majority have not. Though I agree with your other points.

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?

I do not see that happening. The pro-life side will always consider a sperm that hit's the egg as human and the pro-choice side will always argue otherwise. We cant meet in the middle because of this - there is no middle ground. Human/not human. Black and white.

Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?

Im sure both side's can agree with what bucket has allready outlined.

No that's not the question, I believe by your definition of human, every woman using normal Birth Control is committing murder every time they ovulate a fertilized egg? "Where does it end?" is the question. Is having sexual intercourse without having successfully produced a child murder? Is masturbation? Is a miscarraige a tragedy morally equivalent to the loss of a newborn baby? These are the questions.

And to directly address the ridiculous assertation presented here... Are Down Syndrome people sub-human because they dont' have 46 Chromosones? I think anyone who has ever personally known or worked with those people would contest that whole-heartledly.

The absolutist rhetoric of the Pro-Life movement further demonstrated by this 46 Chromosone argument, is what makes it so sickening to the free-thinkers of America.

This is about having a choice over one's body, and making decisions that directly effect one's own future and health. As far as I'm concerned, the half-science used by Pro-lifers to "prove" their inherently religous beliefs have some basis in reality disqualifies them from the intellectual argument. Which is probably why they'd call me a Moral Infant, or some such on the other side of the argument.

How ironic to try to reverse the creationist argument against Pro-Choice people. One side has the support of the vast majority of the scientific community, let me give you a hint, it's not the Pro-Lifer's claim that life begins at conception that is backed by science.

NO, we should not be aborting 8 month-old fetuses, without mitigating circumstances. But 12-weeks seems certainly reasonable to me. That's plenty of time for a mother to make a good decision, and by all indications is long-before we get anything even remotely babyish in the woman.

This picture, depicts the major contributing members to the "partial-birth"(copyright-The Republican party) ban in 2003, and is an official Whitehouse photo.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...10-21-515h.html

I dont' think I've seen anything more demonstrative of why this issue is one that is unjust. The idea that ten men would sign in a law which only effects woman, with those giant smug grins... Well, it makes me sick, and it should make you sick too.

I have to object to this. Partial birth abortion is plain and simply brutal. Furthermore abortion does not only affect women, it affect's men as well because it take's two to tango.

And no im not a hyprocrit, I object to current foie gras procedure's as well.

I swear that I am on the fence. I'm honestly not sure what is right when it comes to abortion. I just think that the pro-life case is more intellectually honest because it's a clear case. Life begins at conception. Abortion = Killing Babies. No nuance there.[edit - intellectually honest once conception begins. wildly hypocritical before conception, in the sense of making birth control and information tougher to obtain]

When discussing the pro-choice argument, you have to pick some completely arbitrary point in development of the zygote/fetus/baby and say "voilá - it's a baby now." As I pointed out a bit facetiously, when it's Rachel on friends, it's a baby from the moment it stops being a "choice." For 2 or 3 months, it's a "choice," and then it turns into a "baby." Does it dream, does it smile, does it feel pain, I don't know. But there certainly is not a magic moment in week 12 where, one second it is a thing, and the next second it's a baby.
CJ, if you are asking what do we do with the extra 1.3 million babies per year, I say "bring it on." Western Europe, where you can get a safe, legal, government-funded abortion anytime you like, has the lowest birth rates in the world and a looming cultural and economic crisis. This will make our Social Security problems pale in comparison. Places like Netherlands and Sweden will be majority Islamic by 2050, and the liberal native populations won't have to worry about abortions any more, because the caliphate will deem them illegal again.

Actually that wasn't my point. And I disagree I think people have sex for losts of reasons other than pleasure.
If you had sex and got pregnant and don't want or never intended to have a baby..then why did you not use protection or birth control of some kind? Basically why were you having baby making sex if you didn't want a baby? Not that I feel one must have sex only for reproduction reasons. Just that unprotected vaginal sex is how babies are made.

Actually, if life begins at conception, taking the pill or using an IUD would likely be killing a "baby". Allowing "abortion" through a birth control measure by preventing subseuent implantation is about as arbitrary as using a different stage of developement. Also, many pro-lifers accept that abortion should be available in the event of a rape of the woman. In my opinion, that is a completely hypocritical stand on abortion. Babies are only valuable if the woman agreed to the sexual experience? That places the refusal to allow abortion (in my mind) under all other circumstances as a form of punishment for the woman. Is it about saving babies or punishing "bad" behavior? I disagree that either one side or the other is the less hypocritical.

Neither side is interested in finding a solution just yet. This is mainly used as a political wedge issue to get people to declare what team they are on -- Democrat or Republican.



If the "pro-lifers" were really pro-life, than we wouldn't see them in the same camp as those who are pro-war and pro-death penalty.

They would also be interested in building a society where children can be loved and cared for. That would include things like free pre-natal care, assistance for single moms that are struggling, better and more comprehensive sex education and free birth control, just to name a few. I don't see many or really any "pro-lifers" working for any of that stuff -- it would make me much more inclined to listen to their point of view if they were serious about pro-life and consistant in working for that at all levels.

Another flaw is that there would be no compromises from most pro-lifers on issues of rape, incest, endangerment of the mother's life, non-viability of the fetus, etc.



I would like to see this happen, but I see a certain fanatacism on the side of the "pro-lifers". I think the best we cna hope for is to get pro-lifers behind comprehensive birth control education and distribution, but my feeling is that would be against most of their "moral" beliefs as well.


I think this is more realistically likely.

I think it is more along the lines of taking responsibility for ones actions. However there are many pro-life movements that stand against aborting rape babies. Most do not stand against the medical procedures. For example matricide is not allowed by most pro-lifers. The killing of the child would be an act of self defense rather then murder. However, what sort of self defense does a woman with a healthy baby go through?

How about stats:
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

6.1 % of all Abortions are due to health risk.

I guess you maybe making a generalization of encompassing all pro-life movement. I mean the Catholic Church is pro-life including against war unless justified and the death penalty. I guess then the Catholic Church would be a shining example of a "pro-lifer." However then we have a religious side to the debate introduced which never solves anything on the grounds of scientific debate.

I always love this argument. It tries to consider the fact the best way to solve the 'sex' problem is to passing out birth control. What is funny about the argument is it never takes into consideration the risk involved in sex. No birth control is 100% effective, however sex control is 100% effective. Not having sex would solve the need to ever make a decision about abortion. But the argument as address earlier is that people are going to have sex and you can't stop them. Very well, let them have sex, educate them on the dangers involved and let them make their mistakes. If pro-choice is about choice, then why not focus on the original choice to have sex?

How about stats:
Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)

54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception
8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.

Okay now you have the girl with the mistake in her tummy now what? Now one will care for her child, she's all alone, no one to help. This is sad. Sad because again you assume that the pro-lifers are not involved in helping single mother, and your assumptions is wrong. People strongly desiring children are on lengthy waiting lists for the chance to adopt infants. I am sure that those people would be pro-life if it meant they would be able to adopt the child that otherwise would have been aborted. In fact, adoptive parents pay tens of thousands of dollars in order to adopt, as well as submitting to various screening procedures. Adopted babies are treated almost as well as the biological children of married parents: they are not brutalized and abandoned. (Foster care is a completely different subject and if you want to discuss foster care reform I would be more then happy to on another thread.)

So what of the mother who chooses to go it on her own as opposed to the abortion? Who is helping her? These children are at seriously disadvantaged to their adopted counterpart, being raised by the mother alone, without the father's assistance. I suggest you go to google and type in "SINGLE MOM SUPPORT." Nearly 4 million web sites dedicated to giving mothers help, plus look in the phone book to find many helpful services. Or simple pick up a pro-life pamphlet call the number on the back to get help. They will put you in touch with hundreds of services and walk you through each step of the way.

I think what you see is the fact that pro-lifers are against Plan Parenthood. Well do you blame them? Plan Parenthood was started by a racists in poor black neighborhoods offering your back alley abortions and means to get on welfare and milk the system. Plan Parenthood allows for abortions to happen on 13 year old girls without ever telling their parents. Plan Parenthood works towards pushing the governments involvement in our personal lives. I guess I would have to ask if a group like pro-choice was really about privacy, why would they want the government interfering with their lives?

Very interesting questions for debate. I am pro-choice, but the problems I see is the viciousness and in-your-face attitude that both sides possess. Abortion has become such a black and white issue because of these "activists" that it's difficult for either side to retreat to lesser stance (even one they may not be as opposed to). I think partial-birth abortions is one area where we should be able to find an agreement but can't because pro-choicers are afraid it will be one step toward overturning Roe. This is just one example.

Honestly, I can't imagine a future where these sides will be "at peace." I think what will happen is as the generations pass and pro-choice becomes the norm in society, these sides will become less vehement and some common ground will be found (i.e. partial-birth). It will probably take at least another generation before steps like this are able to be made.

The debate is not producing constructive results because many on each side view the other side as an Enemy. Each feels the other is taking something sacred away from them. Religionists react to secular devaluation of the Church. Unreligious people react to the implied imposition of someone else's God into/upon their own life. It is low-intensity warfare.


I support a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body, including terminating a pregnancy. The weakness of the dissenting camp, in my view, is the assignment of full human status to the fetus.


I have not seen any encouraging signs of a coalition between the two sides.


The ability to realistically control reproduction is very recent. Further progress may well give us the ability to make unwanted pregnancies rare - and retire the issue.

Q:Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?

In the absolutes generally taken by both "advocacy" sides.

Q: What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?

Well, since I'm generally in the middle on this one.... (1) the pro-life crowd falls short on the absolute "all tissue is sacred" argument and the NARAL folks blow it on the "a fetus, even a viable one is not a person" extreme argument.

Q: Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?[\quote]

For some no. But, if the argument finds middle ground, like the viability point of a fetus, then the majority will be behind it.

Q: Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?

What effective measures are you referring to?

The current state of the debate is between the extremists who want all abortion outlawed and the extremists who believe that a fetus that would survive with the current state of technology is a blob of tissue that can be destroyed with impunity.

Some common sense is sorely needed in the abortion debate.

I don't think we should expect anything more from the abortion debate. The differences of world views is irreconcilable. As far as I can imagine, the only way for this debate to immediately and formally end would be for science to find some sort of evidence of a "soul", and then to find it in a newly fertilized egg.

Generally, I don't have a problem with pro-lifers. I think the authoritarian nature of the anti-abortion position is less objectionable than other religious positions because of it's necessary end goals within that frame of thinking. With so many other religiously motivated positions, the end goals are only subjectively worthwhile and not truly necessary for the functioning of society (which I think is true both within and without that religious frame of thinking). But stopping murder is both a necessity of society and a "good thing" in most human philosophy. It's just our world views as to what is murder differs which causes the trouble. Because the motive to stop the murdering of innocents is unimpeachable in absolutely all regards, I think it's important to avoid thinking of pro-choicers as "forcing" their morality on others.

On the other hand, I have issues with my "side". I think that many pro-choicers are hypocritical for not supporting some form of choice for men. It sickens me how I hear proponents of "choice" say that men lose their right to plan their futures when they engage in sex. How many of us have not heard the pro-life side say the same of women?

Perhaps in time. A few generations passing, and people mellowing up.... maybe. Were such a compromise to occur, I'd guess it'd be in the form of a federally mandated deadline for non-medically based abortions... maybe coupled with rules for what constituted a medically necessary abortion. But it could just as easily not happen.

If you haven't already notice, the names of both sides are based firmly in rhetoric. Sure, a lot of "pro-lifers" are for the death penalty. But then again, many people who are "pro-choice" are against legalizing illicit drugs. The names are silly, and it's pointless to quibble over them.

I think that abortion is the killing of a fetus who is a life and a soul. So abortion is wrong and I will always be against it and will not stand very high any were ( I hope)

Abortion falls severely short of finding peace because those who profess to be pro-life are the same passionate people who preach that war should be fought to preserve life and the blessings of freedom. To those who are against abortion: why do you protect the innocent when it is in the womb but pass motions that support killings overseas? Are not we all brothers? Despite your lack of knowing them directly are they not still innocent; for that matter is all life not innocent, even though they can make decisions for themselves?
In the debate over abortion the pro-life's have several interesting points and statistics, but not the fiber to uphold them. They profess to be warriors for those who cannot act on their own, if we invade a hostile nation are we not killing the innocent who did not ask to be slaughtered? How can we find peace in this issue if those who speak for the unborn are passing legislature promoting the killing of innocence?

The two sides are too focused on the fact that people have different views than theirs, and so no one is trying to make a conscious effort to find a solution/compromise.


While I am pro-choice, I think both sides are flawed in that they think simply they believe something is right, everyone should submit to their views. I think that if both sides got over the fact that they disagree and work to compromise their views, more progress can be made.


I am somewhat of an idealist, and I believe it is possible, but definitely not likely in the near future. I am hoping that eventually enough people from both sides will respect the views of their fellow Americans and work for a solution.

Personally, I think that while life is sacred, we should not deny anyone the right to choose. I think allowing abortion up to a specific point, such as the first trimester or so, still leaves enough time for a woman or couple to make a decision, while at the same time prevents them from aborting an especially developed fetus that could easily be considered a human.

In my opinion, abortion is wrong, every single one of you were able to live, why not them also? you might as well go up to a baby in a carriage and stick a stake through him, because thats what abortion is.

Like all debates, there is a point on each side. The pro-abortion people say that the fetuses are not "alive" and "feeling" in that stage, and the anti-abortion people say that they are feeling and they are killing something that feels and is alive, so its all about what one believes.

Exact-o-lutley - which is why the debate will never end, because it is not based on anything like "facts" or "truth", but on "beliefs", which are, ultimately, just very deeply-held opinions, and you know what they say about which particular intestinal sphincter muscle they most closely resemble.

For that, if for no other reason, we should not change the laws on abortion, because as long as about 50% of the population believes one thing and 50% believes the other, any movement in the law towards either further resrtriction or further liberalisation not only goes against the wishes of half the people, but it cannot be justified in rational terms that those 50% of the people can accept, because their "beliefs" cannot be trumped by the "beliefs" of people on the other side.

Most anti-abortionists, by and large, find it possible to accept that some abortion is appropriate, even though they "believe" that an innocent ickle baby is being macerated, in cases of rape, incest, child abuse, etc. Most pro-choicers think same.

Some of the more adamant pro-choicers would like to see abortion-on-demand under all circumstances - the so called "abortion as contraception" line. I don't think that they are very numerous, and even then, I don't think that believe that abortion should be seen or used instead of contraception.

My concern is that anti-abortionists act as if their opponents think that abortion should be compulsory, as if they are some sort of bloodthirsty maniacs who actively like the idea of murdering babies - that they are bad people for thinking the way they do.

I think this is one of the things that switches off moderates on all sides - it is an area of the "beliefs" of these people that just doesn't ring true.

Like you said - nobody knows that truth around whether pre-22-week-old foetuses are "unborn babies" or "bundles of cells". But it's a lot easier to establish whether abortionists are bloodthirsty butchers who enjoy killing, or dedicated doctors who "believe" in the necessity of their work, but would rather they needed to do less of it.

To this end, I think that mainstream anti-abortion campaigners should set their faces firmly against people prepared to intimidate or injure clinic staff. All they seem to do at the moment is say things like "well, we can never condone violence and intimidation, but you can see thier point, can't you" which is essentially the position of every terrorist apologist there has ever been - Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, you name 'em.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?

What ever happened to the 10th amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Here is where things have gotten out os whack. This debate shouldn't even be on the Presidential campaign agenda. It should not be in the National spotlight.

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?

Well, I'm mildly "pro-choice". Where do I see the "other side" as flawed? They are too fanatical, and religious in their thinking, although I'm not sure what the Bible says on this subject, it is certainly the "Bible Thumpers" pushing the right to life agenda. How they can support the "right to life" and the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis is beyond me...

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes?

Not in the way this issue has been utilized to divide the nation. It is completely polarized and emotionally charged. IMHO, this has been a terrible disservice to the American people. I don't believe that this issue belonge in the spotlight, and I don't think it is as important of a priority as many other issues that get blown by.


Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?

Unfortunately, I think that there is no possible solution to the debate in the current way that it has been framed by the Republocrats. I also believe that this entire issue has been used as a major smokescreen to prevent us from publically debating other more important (IMHO) issues such at term limits reform, media reform, budget concerns, national debt, corporate welfare, corruption, gerrymandering, and a host of issues that are higher on my priority list.

This might not be high on your personal priority list, but to others it is up at the top. Those opposed believe it is a fundamental life and death issue. Those in favor believe it is a fundamental issue of bodily integrity and personal autonomy. Devisive though it may be, it cannot be dismissed that there are many voters who believe this issue usurps all others....way before gerrymandering and media reform.

Where does the current debate of abortion fall short of finding a solution?

In the rhetoric on both sides. The issue is divisive enough without it...and completely beyond reasonable discussion with it.

What do you see as the major flaw of the view opposite of your in regards to how abortion should be dealt with?

The reasoning used by the Pro-choice side skirts the issue (through rhetoric again). No one wants to take await the women's right to choice. The have completely freedom is when, with whom, and how they procreate. What is being asked for is freedom from the responsibility that goes with that choice. This is a fair request...many men have, for a long time, been granted (or assumed) that freedom. But lets phrase it for what it is, so that we can have an objective discussion around it.

Can an effective and peaceful coalition of opposing viewpoints on abortion realistically be created to finally start making real changes? That depends...what changes need to be made? It seems to me that only the pro-life crowd would see the need for change. So, with only one side of the equation seeing any need for change...I think it is quite difficult to see the driving force for any compromise on the issue...since only one side would see any benefit to doing that.


Or will it remain permanently divisive and prevent effective measures being taken?

Again, if you support abortion...what other effective measures would you want? This is only divisive if you are against abortion....if not, then effective measures are already in place for you.

This response to Craig's answer strikes me as a non-sequiter. Craig was arguing that a person's position on abortion is dependent on that person's belief about whether a fetus is sentient or "alive." Sentience is a matter of fact, not of opinion. We can conduct studies and research to determine when fetuses become sentient. Whether a being is "alive" is also a fairly factual matter. So the natural conclusion of Craig's statement is that the abortion issue could be resolved if we were able to determine when fetuses became sentient and alive. (Although the definition of "alive" might become a matter of opinion.)



But the imposition of more restrictive abortion laws does not go against the opinions of half the population. Polls have repeatedly shown that a strong majority of Americans favor restrictions on most second-trimester abortions. For example, a poll by Gallup, CNN, and USA Today showed that, by a 68 to 25 percent margin, Americans favor restrictions on second-trimester abortions.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles_...ntrimesters.jpg



Every study that I have ever seen has shown that the vast majority of abortions ended pregnancies that were started by people who knew at the outset that a pregnancy was not wanted. The 2003 Minnesota abortion report is one such study.

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2003abrpt.pdf
(PDF File, Pages 21-22)

As I see it, those who disagree with me do so for numerous reasons- everything from ignorance of basic facts to strongly-held moral principles. Here is a list of reasons why people oppose second-trimester abortion restrictions and why I disagree.

1. They believe that religious and moral opinions should not be forced by society on those who disagree. These people seem to believe that moral decisions are comparable to aesthetic tastes like your favorite color or food or that they are actions that only harm oneself- like drug use. These people have a difficult time explaining why rape or murder should be proscribed.

2. Another group believes that society would be better off if women were granted a near-absolute right to bodily autonomy that is violated by abortion. Such a right, apparently, could only be violated if not doing so violated someone else's right to bodily autonomy and the victim was contained within the other person's body. These people have a difficult time explaining how society benefits from granting such a right to individuals. They also have a difficult time explaining how such a right would preclude society from banning the hedonistic sexual intercourse and other behaviors that lead to abortions.

3. Another subset of the people who oppose second-trimester abortion restrictions believes that the fetus is not sentient. This group simply ignores the scientific understanding that sentience may very well occur before viability.

4. Another group believes that fetuses are not worthy of protection because they lack some arbitrary characteristic- such as not being born or viable. These people have a difficult time explaining why a rapist or terrorist could not justify his or her crime by pointing to the arbitrary characteristics of the victim.

5. Yet another "pro-choice" group believes that abortions restrictions would not stop any abortions. These people ignore all of the studies done on the issue that show that abortion restrictions do reduce abortions without significant increases in maternal mortality.

Those people who disagree with my position that early-term abortions should remain legal usually do so based on the belief that human life begins at conception. Such a belief results from a failure to distinguish between two definitions of human life- life at the cellular level as opposed to being capable of experiencing the world.

QUOTE

Can an