What are peoples views on abortion? Should it be legal or illegal?

I'm in the legal camp. I live by the simple philosphy that I do not like it when others tell me what to do, therefore I have no right to tell them what to do.

That being said I believe life begins at birth and until then it is the woman's choice as to what to do.

The entire problem with abortion is timing. Most people would agree that the day after conception is not life. Most people would also agree that the day before birth is life. The problem is finding a point in the middle that both sides can agree on. I know I'm not qualified to make that determination, and I have a hard time believing a politician or lawyer is.

Legal with barriers. You ought to prove you need it for some reason (can't provide for it, etc.), but it should otherwise be open.

Pro-Choise, but I'm personally against it.

Illegal under any circumstances.

Before anyone comes up with rape, incest, extreme economical conditions...

Things happen in life. Sometimes very bad things happen to us and we can't do anything about it. Sometimes we physically can, but we still can't. One of the things we can't do is killing an innocent human being in order to pull another one out of a predicament.

This doesn't mean that women raped or left with children by irresponsible males should be left alone by the society and be on their own. Still, neither she nor the society has any claim on their unborn children's lives.

I understand the total ban and the total allowance view, but I don't understand the limits, barriers and whatever such. That stance either recognises the value of human life and the foetus as a human being but waters it down by making exceptions, or it puts morality-based limits on something it claims to be perfectly moral. In short, inconsistent. If abortion is morally proper, then why put limits on it? If it's wrong on the account of violation of human life, how can external circumstances change it?

Strongly for abortion. Not unlimited though, but I can hardly call a lump of cell with a brain and nervoussystem less developed than in a rat a human being. However the limit comes fairly quickly when it starts to be a real problem for me if abortion should be allowed. I'm no good in defining it though since I lack the knowledge required but that's why there are experts.

If abortion is morally proper, then why put limits on it? I'm not sure what you consider as a barrier, you mean a barrier like in time or in reason? I feel that no reason should be required for abortion but a time limit certainly is necessary since I don't believe life starts at the birth either.

EDIT: Probably it would be better to say when humanity starts since no one can argue that even the first fertilized cell is not living tissue. ;)

Completely legal. It is the woman's choice. If she doesn't want the child, then sack it. It's not alive yet, it's not capable of making choices. She is.

Chev:
So if a girl gets raped, then she can't abort the child? It's not hers! She did not want it, ever. It's not her fault, and it shouldn't be her responsibility. I don't see how it is even comprehesible that someone could say that you can't abort a rape-product.

@Saber: But what did the child do? Did the child rape the mother?

@Morgoroth: What if there's no specific moment at which a radical change takes place?

Say, Chev, if the choise is if the mother dies in childbirth, or abortion, what do you say we should chose?

How about the same situation, but she was raped?

Pro-choice here. Let the woman decide if she wants to have the baby or not.

Pro-choice. 'nuff said.

@Morgoroth: What if there's no specific moment at which a radical change takes place? Then you should not be allowed to not conceive the child. :shake: Go and be fruitful chevalier; you have no right to deny your seed to the women of the world just so that you may work to feed and clothe yourself. :lol:

@Rutkowski: If you press doctors, they will admit there's no such situation where abortion is the only way to save the mother or the sure way. While there are procedures in which the foetus dies as a result of performing a medical action on the mother that saves her life, directly intended abortion is always wrong. I'm not judging individual people who have made decisions but saying the act itself is wrong and should be banned. Raped mother changes nothing on the child's end. Why not execute the whole family of the rapist?

Then you should not be allowed to not conceive the child. Go and be fruitful chevalier; you have no right to deny your seed to the women of the world just so that you may work to feed and clothe yourself.Sorry, I'm a monogamous creature. :shake:

Alright Chev, here's a situation:

You are a woman, and you are in love with someone, and are getting married shortly. As soon as you get married, you want a child. One night, walking on the street, you get raped. Would you want to abort that child, which you do not want or need, so that you can have the child with the one you love? Or would you say: Oh, too late now, i guess i have to have this child.

I'm not saying that that is the only situation in which rape occurs, obviously, but I'm just giving you a situation.

Illegal.

As usual, I'm with chev. Sure, the child is a product of a rape and unwanted by the bearer, but should she decide to terminate the life of that child when it wasn't his/her fault he/she was made? Not to mention that the creation of life is a beauty, and that the child doesn't even belong to the mother, it belongs to god (sorry to get all religious :p ).

Pro-choice. Abortion should always be seen as a measure of last resort, but it should be legal. I also believe that non-surgical abortion options (some highly-controlled but fully tested pharmaceutical drugs) should be made legal in this country.

I refuse to get drawn back into this debate, so I'll leave it at that.

[ October 11, 2005, 04:38: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

That being said I believe life begins at birth and until then it is the woman's choice as to what to do.
I completely agree with this view. It is none of the government's business what a women choses in this regard. At the same time I agree, to an extent, with Chev: A particular chruch may have a degree of influence over the choice of an abortion. While the laws of the land extend to all "citizens born in the United States," and thusly giving them no jurisdiction over the unborn, religion can go where the government cannot; and that includes deciding when life begins.

Again, this becomes a woman's choice - if she choses her own path, then it is her choice; yet, if she wishes to abide by the tenents and beliefs of her chosen religion, then abortion may not be a good solution.

Good point Chandos, guess I shouldn't have put illegal.

While the laws of the land extend to all "citizens born in the United States," and thusly giving them no jurisdiction over the unborn, religion can go where the government cannot; and that includes deciding when life begins.
But since the church doesn't make the laws, and isn't allowed or supposed to, it doesn't matter if they determine that life begins before birth or not. This is an issue of legality, and thus cannot be an issue of church.

Although, no matter what we say that church can't make laws, it will always influence people who make the laws... I'm fighting a losing war...

@Saber: If a government makes a law it must be followed by everyone, where a religion's 'laws' are followed by those who wish to. So are you telling me it's better that government says what you must do when it comes to personal decisions like this?

no, i'm talking about the law: if they say is legal, then you have the choice, if they say it's illegal, you have no choice. But they shouldn't and cannot make the laws based on the church, and when they decide a life is a life.

Not legally available freely, but available in extreme circumstances (rape, incest or threat to health of the mother).

Life begins at conception, and to me, ending that life is murder.

But they shouldn't and cannot make the laws based on the church, and when they decide a life is a life. That's right. The last thing America needs is a theocracy.

@Morgoroth: What if there's no specific moment at which a radical change takes place? There are several named phases in a pregnancy, I can't possibly recall them by name but they exist. Something radical takes place in each stage so the legal time for abortion would have to be defined "within or before this stage" or something similar. Defining the exact stage is of course difficult but it's a way lot better than banning abortion or allowing it fully up until the child is born.

It should be legal without many restraints but counseling should be obligatory and focused efforts should be put in to educate the morons who do get pregnant unwillingly. One moment of idiocy or whimsicality will lead to a lifetime of regret and mourning or an unwanted child.

People need to control their emotions and be rational.

Legal without any restrictions. You can't tell people what thay can do with their own body. If one wants a tatoo, go ahead, if one wants to terminate pregnacy, go ahead. It is sick when some people deny this right in situation when pregnancy is a result of rape or when the birth could result in death (or serious health consequences) of the mother and the baby (abortion in such cases is the only solution - the child would die anyway, why not save the mother?)

@Udertaker: How is it a part of the mother's body if it has a separate DNA and likely a different blood group, as well? It clearly is a separate organism.

It is sick when some people deny this right in situation when pregnancy is a result of rapeIf it's sick that she shouldn't be allowed to kill the child resulting from the rape, then how sick should it be that she would face a murder charge if she sent her father, brother, husband, son or a friend to deal with the rapist permanently?

@joacqin: It should be legal without many restraints but counseling should be obligatory and focused efforts should be put in to educate the morons who do get pregnant unwillingly.Why obligatory counselling if the problem can be solved quickly by abortion and abortion is morally right? Whence the need for counselling, let alone obligatory one?

One moment of idiocy or whimsicality will lead to a lifetime of regret and mourning or an unwanted child.Either an unwanted child or a life of regret after having an abortion (which hits back, sooner or later). It often turns out that the psychological taint after abortion is next to indelible, while, retrospectively, a child could actually have been supported. Some of the post-abortion counselling stories are quite tough.

People need to control their emotions and be rational.Amen, brother.

@Udertaker: How is it a part of the mother's body if it has a separate DNA and likely a different blood group, as well? It clearly is a separate organism.
It is a seperate organism but still a baby in womb is in fact (sorry for strong word) parasite on the woman. Mother feeds the baby and her death means the death of the unborn baby.


If it's sick that she shouldn't be allowed to kill the child resulting from the rape, then how sick should it be that she would face a murder charge if she sent her father, brother, husband, son or a friend to deal with the rapist permanently?
I was not talkning abouthow to deal with rapists.( cut their balls BTW). I was talking why a woman should carry, take care of a child that is a result of very traumatical experience?

I think women should be offered financial and emotional support, before being offered the choice of abortion. In the end if they don't want put the child up for adoption and still want a termination, its better to have the baby aborted, than to bring an unloved child into the world.

Think of how touch it would be to be growing up on an orphanage.

We still have 'pro-life' protesters here, even though abortion is illegal :rolleyes:

It is a seperate organism but still a baby in womb is in fact (sorry for strong word) parasite on the woman. Mother feeds the baby and her death means the death of the unborn baby.Parasite is an alien organism feeding on the carrier for its own survival, not the woman's own offspring which is carried in the womb by natural design.

I was not talkning abouthow to deal with rapists.( cut their balls BTW). I was talking why a woman should carry, take care of a child that is a result of very traumatical experience? If you can't kill the rapist who is the real culprit and the perpetrator, how should you be able to kill the child who's just a result of the crime? Is the rapist better than the innocent child?

@Cuchulainn: Someone else could grow to love the child. Pregnancy and the pain of giving birth is one thing, but claiming that the woman has the right to nullify the foetus just because she wants her vengeance on the father or some such and she prefers to kill it rather than give it up for adoption? I could understand fear of the pain giving birth, but something like that? When she isn't even talking about the pain or about economical conditions but simply wants the foetus not to exist? Come on...

@Cúchulainn: I'm sure if you ask most orphaned people if they would rather have been killed before being born rather then live the current life they have and most will tell you that they rather keep their life. Like chev stated, they can always find other substitute parents to love them.

It's legal where i live, which is good in my opinion.

Not all oprphanages are good, some people work in those places to be around vaunerable children. Maybe this was a bad example that I came up with, but what is being done for children that have bad parents that don't love them? They are the ones that suffer physical and mental pain in silence.

Still I do stand by my first paragraph 100%

Pro-choice.

@Cúchulainn: I'm sure if you ask most orphaned people if they would rather have been killed before being born rather then live the current life they have and most will tell you that they rather keep their life. Like chev stated, they can always find other substitute parents to love them. I'm sure that unborn babies would have little difficulties in answering such question :p . And not every child in orphanage finds substitute parents. And some children sometimes commit suicide .


Parasite is an alien organism feeding on the carrier for its own survival, not the woman's own offspring which is carried in the womb by natural design.The unborn baby is feeding on the woman's organism and doesn't give anything back. It doesn't matter it was created by the parents. During pregnacy woman is weaker, and some women are to weak to carry the pregnacy. That's why I used such term.

If you can't kill the rapist who is the real culprit and the perpetrator, how should you be able to kill the child who's just a result of the crime? Is the rapist better than the innocent child?
Maybe we should ask women who were impregnated by the rapist if they'd like to terminate the pregnacy if there was such possibility?

The unborn baby is feeding on the woman's organism and doesn't give anything back. It doesn't matter it was created by the parents. During pregnacy woman is weaker, and some women are to weak to carry the pregnacy. That's why I used such term.Not a correct term, though.

Maybe we should ask women who were impregnated by the rapist if they'd like to terminate the pregnacy if there was such possibility?Maybe we should ask if they would like to kill the rapist, given an opportunity?

Not all oprphanages are good, some people work in those places to be around vaunerable children. Maybe this was a bad example that I came up with, but what is being done for children that have bad parents that don't love them? They are the ones that suffer physical and mental pain in silence.Ask people with a bad childhood history if they'd rather not have been born instead.

@Undertaker: What I said was to ask those people who were orphans when younger if they would have rather been killed than have to live their current life (kind of what chev just wrote), not to ask the unborn babies. And sure, not all find good parents, some even get parents who are pedophiles and end up sexually abusing them, but not all people who have had a bad childhood would rather have never been born. Are you telling me it's better to kill all unwanted unborn children then to allow them a chance to have a life of their own even if it's a bad one? While some do end up committing suicide anyway, not all of them do.

It should be legal without many restraints but counseling should be obligatory and focused efforts should be put in to educate the morons who do get pregnant unwillingly. Ooh, perfect. :thumb:

Maybe we should ask if they would like to kill the rapist, given an opportunity?
You're avoiding my question. And I said before, this is not a discussion about punishing the rapist.
And even if such woman wished rapist's death why would she wished to carry his baby?

Another thing you have to consider is: If abortion be illegalised, what would happen? Surely nobody can be naive enough to believe that illegalising it would eradicate it. Women who don't want the child they are bearing will still abort the pregnancy. However, instead of going to a doctor who will be able to offer good and honest advice and perform professionally, she will instead go to some dodgy guy in a back alley to buy drugs or some such to abort.

I use a similar argument to say that prostitution should be legalised.

Another thing you have to consider is: If abortion be illegalised, what would happen? Surely nobody can be naive enough to believe that illegalising it would eradicate it. Women who don't want the child they are bearing will still abort the pregnancy. However, instead of going to a doctor who will be able to offer good and honest advice and perform professionally, she will instead go to some dodgy guy in a back alley to buy drugs or some such to abortMost true. Chev, I think you remember the ship "Lanenort" when it came to Poland. Classic way of avoiding the law.

However, instead of going to a doctor who will be able to offer good and honest advice and perform professionally, she will instead go to some dodgy guy in a back alley to buy drugs or some such to abort. Or, God forfend, we go back to coat hangers. *shudder*

Or, God forfend, we go back to coat hangers. *shudder* There's a line in the sand mate... :lol: .

You know Barmy, you missed a perfect opportunity for a poll here. I'm working on one now. Obviously, my intent is not to hijack your thread, so I'm going to focus more on the legality, than personal views of abortion. Good topic, gave me some good ideas. :thumb:

Oh, by the way, I think abortion should be legalized up to the first trimester.

Putting limitations on abortion is problematic. Either completely legal or completely illegal -- there really is no middle ground. Once you start putting limitations the big question to ask is 'who will govern the limitations?'

While I am pro-choice, I am also against doctors being forced to do abortions -- it should also be a choice for the doctor. Doctors should never be forced into breaking the Hypocretean oath to perform an abortion. Doctors specifically swear to never kill the fetus EVEN to save the mother's life.

Doctors specifically swear to never kill the fetus EVEN to save the mother's life. In that way both child (maybe children) and mother would die. Why not try to save the mother? If a doctor refuses to perform the abortion which is legal, he should send the woman to a doctor who would perform it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unborn baby is feeding on the woman's organism and doesn't give anything back. It doesn't matter it was created by the parents. During pregnacy woman is weaker, and some women are to weak to carry the pregnacy. That's why I used such term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not a correct term, though.
Actually, Chev, parasite is a correct term. If you go by scientific definition (which is the real definition, because parasites are completely and totally in the category of bilogical science), a parasite is any organism that feeds off of an organism without helping it, and possibly harming it (which, in this case, it does, physically).

So, by definition and unborn baby is a parasite up until the umbilical cord is cut.

And now, I am ending my arguments and just saying:
PRO-CHOICE

Illegal. From my point of view, you can as well ask if murder should be legal...

I didn't want to do this...

/me dons flame suit

It seems that everyone is adopting a position which is based on a prioritisation of a person's rights. For pro-choice SPers, it's the mother's. For pro-life SPers, it's the foetus'. Most people are not going to budge on those principles - I could no more change Chev's or Arendil's perspectives than they could change mine, or Arabwel's, or Carcaroth's. That's fine with me. From a perspective of personal morality, it's not worth debating, IMO. What matters more to me is the real-life consequences of policy in relation to abortion.

Getting back to BA's point about criminalisation - if you make something illegal, you aren't going to stop it as long as there's a demand for it. For example, illicit drugs and prostitution are still extremely lucrative industries for their architects. The people who lose out when these things are criminalised are the ones consuming or selling the drugs at a street level (since they get busted or OD) or the sex workers.

Now, apply this to abortion: does anybody actually believe that making it illegal will stop it from occurring? If you do, then I'm sorry to inform you that you're completely delusional. It has been occurring for centuries, using traditional "medicines" and substances to achieve the same result, albeit much less precisely. People will even go so far as to violently abuse themselves to cause a miscarriage. As Felinoid has pointed out, the return of "coat-hanger" abortions would be a likely consequence. Add to that the fact that corrupt police and organised crime have a history of being involved in protection rackets with the "illegal abortion industry", and what have you achieved by criminalising abortion?

You save a large number of foetuses from death, yes; at what cost to society and women? I don't presume to tell you folks which is the better option (although which one I prefer is obvious), only that it's hardly a rosy story, no matter what view you have.

I have serious concerns about abortion. I don't think it's desirable, but I believe that the dangers and costs of not making it available far outweigh the benefits. I am saddened by the fact that it's necessary and believe that we should be actively working to reduce the size and scope of the issue. Abortions should not be performed lightly. However, they are preferable to the alternative, IMO.

Any self-righteous, sanctimonious moralising - from ANY side of the argument - completely ignores the gravity and importance of the issue. In the end, what is needed are workable solutions, which such blindly dogmatic responses will never be able to provide. It's a terrible situation to be involved in, let alone BE in (and I can speak from experience on the former) - the last thing anybody wants is a lecture when what they really need are options and answers.

Sorry about getting so angry, here - but this issue is far too important to be left to ideological or religious convictions alone. People seem to be forgetting that a society's approach to abortion is not solely a tug-of-war over rights; it has the capacity to affect much more than that.

As far as I'm concerned, I really have more important things to shed tears on than someone who suffers over the decision to murder an innocent child. The only people truly under such obligation are those involved in the decision and it's execution. If the woman's health suffers from the procedure, it is the consequence of the decision. What of psychological effects? That sounds like "Godly sorrow for her sins". I have a cure for that--repentance. Not that anyone wants to hear it, but it DOES work. As far as I know, it is the only thing that will work...

Now before anybody gets nervous at my appearance here, let me start off by saying that I have not seen any rules violations in this thread as of yet.

However, I am starting to see a certain tension building up in this thread. I realize that abortion is an issue that inspires a great deal of passion and conviction, on either side of the coin. That means it can lead to both a) provocative and engaging debates or b) mud-slinging.

Sometimes when the tension builds, its easy to let things slide into acrimonious back and forths. I know this from previous abortion threads that I've moderated. So if you've made your point and other posters aren't buying it or converting to your viewpoint ... sometimes its best to rest content that you've said your piece and avoid allowing things to escalate.

This is simply a non-binding but well-advised suggestion on my part.

I'm thinking that it should be legal - because no one else should have the right to order someone not to do something to their own body (and yes - it's killing the foetus - it's still being done to the woman's body).

However, I would really really prefer it if people didn't go that far. I dislike the idea - but really, it should be no government's business. People should provide options instead, but it should be legal without restrictions.

@Saber: Ever heard of breeding and prolongation of species? Parasites are organisms unrelated to the other organism's vital functions, unlike foeti, which are a natural result of breeding and breeding acts, such as sexual intercourse.

@T2Bruno: And perjurers' place is in prison.

@NonSequitur: If abortion is morally right or neutral, why limits, not taking it lightly, whatever such? If it needs to be consider, then it is a moral problem.

@Undertaker: First, the mother's wishes are irrelevant next to the foetus' right to life. I am in favour of post-coital contraception in case of rape but not abortion, nonetheless. As for that ship, if I were a public prosecutor, I'm sure I would come up with something. The whole thing was at least advertised and directed partly from Polish soil, so here we have a claim on the offenders.

First, the mother's wishes are irrelevant next to the foetus' right to life.So you say that the rapist has no right to live? Death is not the punishement, cutting the balls off is one :evil:
BTW We are aruing about rape but what about situations in which without the abortion both mother and the child would die? Would you let a woman die?

As for that ship, if I were a public prosecutor, I'm sure I would come up with something.You could do nothing unless they would break polish law. And IIRC they didn't.


And foetus is parasiting on woman. It doesn't matter that it's parents creation. A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of that host, absorbing nutrients from the host's body fluids.
This definition (taken from Wikipedia) applies to foetus.

I think it's generally understood that a pre-requisite of parasitism is that it be a different species. Let's get straight on our definitions.

The "Fetus = Parasite" argument is loopy and self defeating and one of the weakest ways to try to justify abortion. There is no way to equate a parasite with a part of the reproductive process...this principle isn't replicated in any way in nature.

I haven't said Fetus = Parasite nor I wanted to justify the abortion with this argument. I only stated that the unborn baby is parasiting on woman.

But it isn't "parasiting" Undertaker...to try to make that claim is distorting the scientific and natural meaning of parasite.

I can understand those who make the "clump of cells" argument, or those who claim that the baby isn't an individual yet and therefore still part of the mothers body...but to equate the in-womb relationship of a mother and child with parasitism is unsound. It can't be considered "parasiting" from the simple standpoint that the womans body undergoes profound changes to protect and grow the baby within her. Were it not for hormonal and physical changes instigated by the woman's body, the so called "parasite" could not survive.

Yes, the baby is helpless and dependent on the mother for survival...but so is a 2 week old. By your definition of "Parasiting"...this dreadful, draining, life sucking action by the fetus continues for months while the newborn baby breast feeds.

@Hacken Slash:
Aye, but breast-feeding is a choice made by the mother; she could just as easily smack the child as offer it her breast. But when it is in the womb, there is no choice; it drains her and forces her to consume more simply to keep herself alive.

Though I'll admit that it is something of a symbiotic relationship that benefits the fetus without doing any permanent harm to the mother (unless you count the sagging mammaries and the weight gain), it is still a temporary parasite that feeds off of a helpless host.

I think it's generally understood that a pre-requisite of parasitism is that it be a different species. Generally understood by whom? I've always thought it simply required a different being, regardless of special familiarity. If I had my dictionary with me, I'd look up and post a definition, but perhaps you would be so kind? I'd kind of like to get my facts straight, too.

Apparently, it doesn't have to be a different species, just a different organism. From dictionary.com:



par·a·site (pr-st)
n.

1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2. In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus.

Let's make it clear about the parasites:
-separate organism that lives on or inside the host
-it's absorbing nutrients from the host's body
-almost always it's weakening the host
-in many cased the death of the host results in death of the parasite

Basing myself on this definition IMO I had 100% right to call the unborn baby a form of a parasite, no matter how cruel this may sound. And does anybody says that those arguments are false?

You could do nothing unless they would break polish law. And IIRC they didn't.They did, but no one had the cojones to call on that. Preparing on Polish ground something that's illegal in Polish law is a crime. It depends on the extent of preparation, but I suppose those guys could have been held accountable.

So you say that the rapist has no right to live? Death is not the punishement, cutting the balls off is oneBy far not. But if the child has no right to life just because its father raped the mother, then why do we let the father live? Logically?

BTW We are aruing about rape but what about situations in which without the abortion both mother and the child would die? Would you let a woman die?Example? I can't think of any situation where directly killing the foetus is the only way to save the mother (not one of the ways) and a sure one (not a just-in-case means).

Example? I can't think of any situation where directly killing the foetus is the only way to save the mother (not one of the ways) and a sure one (not a just-in-case means). I was talking about situations when birth would jeopardize the heath or life of the mother.For god's sake there were such cases in which mother died at birth. And yes I know such situations cause my mother is a midwife.

They did, but no one had the cojones to call on that. Preparing on Polish ground something that's illegal in Polish law is a crime. It depends on the extent of preparation, but I suppose those guys could have been held accountable.
And what did they prepared? They came to the port, took few women, went away from polish sea borders and did that which wasn't forbidden by international sea law. All LPR and MW could do was throwing eggs and acting like morons.

The human fetus is not a parasite. (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/thomas_johnson_--_unborn_not_a_parasite.htm)


Are we done now?

Having read those argument I must review myself about it. Guess I was little wrong here. Yet I don't this doctor nor the organization, so I don't know if this statement is supported by other medical authorities.
And yes, we're done now.

Are we done now? You know, you are a mod; you could just close the thread if you want the last word. :shake:

I'll accept your credentials on the argument that it is not strictly a parasite, but you have to admit that it displays a fair number of parasite-like tendencies. Certainly not enough to terminate a pregnancy solely on those grounds, but enough to make you think twice about whether you would really want to carry an unwanted child for nine months. It's a selfish (and rather sad) attitude, but a valid one nonetheless.

I also noticed that there are a lot of "generally", "usually", and "sometimes" in there, not to mention that points 4 and 5 contradict each other. 4b says the fetus is "isolated", while 5b says that the mother and fetus are "in close contact".

well, without bothering to read through the whole thread, i'm just going to say that i think abortion should be legal

To be honest, I can't even believe we're talking about a human baby as being a 'parasite'! Who brought that ridiculous idea into this?

To be honest, I can't even believe we're talking about a human baby as being a 'parasite'! Who brought that ridiculous idea into this?A certain rogue doctor back in the sexual revolution days IIRC.

I'll accept your credentials on the argument that it is not strictly a parasite, but you have to admit that it displays a fair number of parasite-like tendencies. Certainly not enough to terminate a pregnancy solely on those grounds, but enough to make you think twice about whether you would really want to carry an unwanted child for nine months. It's a selfish (and rather sad) attitude, but a valid one nonetheless.How about think twice if you should have sex? Except rape, of course -- but even lack of consent in the child's conception doesn't give a claim on its life.

Back on topic. Should abortion be legal or illegal?

Obviously there is a broad spectrum of opinion.

I think it boils down to when does the fetus become human?

If it is human from the moment of conception then IMO abortion should be illegal with no exceptions.

Yes, I know it has the potential to become a human being but when is that moment?

Medical science is able to keep premature babies alive earlier and earlier. During my life time it has moved back from a seven month birth to as little as four months.

I taught a boy born at five months. He was a pleasure to know.

Having had women (some married) come to me after having an abortion to discuss it I am not ready to sit in judgement on their motives. It is something that they will live with for the rest of their lives.

I can also remember the days of the coat-hanger abortions and the fact that those who could afford it could always go to another state or country for an abortion. It was the lower income women who got the back-room quacks.

Since this topic turns up periodically on this board I have given it serious thought.

If given the option of voting for or against abortion I think I would vote against it. This is not based on religious grounds but on the fact that from the moment of conception it is a potential human being. Opinions vary as to when it becomes a human.

If it is when it leaves the mother's womb and medicine can keep it alive then I think it might as well be considered human from the moment of conception.

Sorry Felinoid...Tal only made me a mod in a desperate attempt to make me play nice. :D

**wishes he'd thought of the whole "close the thread" thing**

As Beren already mentioned, abortion is the one issue where almost nobody is indifferent. I encourage everyone (including myself) to continue to be respectful of the opinions and feelings of others.

I'd just like to add a final little something on the parasite thing: there is a rare medical condition called "fetus within a fetus" (in latin), in which a twin gets trapped inside another. The trapped fetus "lives" within the other very much like a parasite - they are linked via veins. The trapped one usually doesn't develop a brain or a heart, but has limbs, hair and things like that. It can live inside the other for years. I saw a documentary on this on tv.

I'm not saying a fetus is a parasite, just pointing out that definitions aren't always, well, definite. The word parasite can mean many things, in the case of a normal fetus I'd say it's symbolic if anything.

As for the actual abortion issue...the "back room quacks"-argument is a valid one. One could argue that abortion being available legally would at least make it safer - just like handing out sterile needles to heroine addicts lessens the hiv risk. As it is *possible* to perform abortions primitively, legal or not, there's always going to be people doing it.

And yes, complications that make giving birth life-threatening to a mother do exist. I don't know all the terms in English, but for example a woman's anatomy can be such that yanking a fully developed baby out would be fatal. Certain heart conditions can make a c-section impossible to do.

As for the rape argument, it should be kept in mind that having an unplanned and unwanted baby will likely affect a person's life quite significantly and irrevokably. I've read about cases where impregnated rape victims have subsequently taken their own lives. And if your family practices "honor murders", as they call it, having an abortion secretly could indeed save your life.

As stated countless times before, it all boils down to the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother. It seems to me that only a fanatic has a straight and simple answer either way.

@ BA: Elephant. Room. Good call. :thumb:

@ Chev:

Nowhere did I say it was morally "right" or neutral. I said that I believed it was unfortunately necessary. Nobody really "wins" when an abortion is performed. I agree that there are moral issues surrounding abortion. What I can't abide is allowing those issues to present the only obstacle to reaching a solution. That's not to say that it's unimportant - far from it. Once a foetus becomes viable outside of the womb, I believe there is a moral responsibility to carry it to term if possible (unless the life of the mother is endangered by it). As Nakia has correctly pointed out, that point of viability is becoming earlier and earlier.

In the longer term, I believe that preventive solutions (especially contraception) are much more desirable in a democratic country and that these should be advocated over abortion. However, that is a longer-term strategy, and even then, those will fail or be ignored some of the time.

Why place limits? Why not take it lightly? I should think that the answer is obvious - we are speaking of terminating a potential life, to say nothing of the effects it may have on a mother-to-be or those close to her. However, there is much more than a rights-contest that is relevant (at least, to me). It is not an easy decision, for anybody - but I would rather have a workable option in place which can balance the rights and responsibilities of those involved than to impose a blanket prohibition (or license, to be fair) based on an absolutist perspective. That's not fence-sitting; providing solutions to address identified social issues is proper governance.

Nowhere did I say it was morally "right" or neutral. I said that I believed it was unfortunately necessary.What necessary for what? A person's death for another person's happiness?

Nobody really "wins" when an abortion is performed.Why? And why does "nobody" strangely seem to include the foetus?

I agree that there are moral issues surrounding abortion.And who's the judge of those? The mother? The abortion doctor? Since when does any of them have the authority of life and death which is nowadays denied even to sovereign states?

What I can't abide is allowing those issues to present the only obstacle to reaching a solution.I.e. morals shouldn't interfere with reality and solution is death?

However, that is a longer-term strategy, and even then, those will fail or be ignored some of the time.Why allow people to kill others so that they could avoid responsibility? The next step, authanising infants with severe impairments, has already been made. What now? Where does this all go? When will the first person become able to have ten children and euthanise five instead of giving up for adoption because such is the sovereign private decision of that person?

Why place limits? Why not take it lightly? I should think that the answer is obvious - we are speaking of terminating a potential life, to say nothing of the effects it may have on a mother-to-be or those close to her.It makes more sense now that you address the foetus as neither a ready human nor a lump of cells but a potential human. Still, the potential being apparently already has a DNA, a blood group different from the mother's, early forms of internal organs. It's also able to suffer when it's being torn limb from limb. However, it is allowed to show bloody corpses of children from bombed countries but it isn't allowed to show bloody remnants of foeti as this could offend the delicate sensitivities of the pro-choice public.

It is not an easy decision, for anybody - but I would rather have a workable option in place which can balance the rights and responsibilities of those involved than to impose a blanket prohibition (or license, to be fair) based on an absolutist perspective.What's next? after unwanted children and the possibility of legal guardians making euthanasia decisions, what other group of citizens is going to be deemed inconvenient and where else should we de-absolutise the basic moral imperative not to kill another?

That's not fence-sitting; providing solutions to address identified social issues is proper governance.What kind of solutions are those? Allowing mothers to kill their own children at will? Giving up on inconvenient values because of material conditions?

However, it is allowed to show bloody corpses of children from bombed countries but it isn't allowed to show bloody remnants of foeti as this could offend the delicate sensitivities of the pro-choice public. That would depend where you're living. In here it's most certainly allowed and I've seen several such pictures. Admittedly it's not pretty but then I would not want to see my own stomach being operated either. ;)

However, it is allowed to show bloody corpses of children from bombed countries but it isn't allowed to show bloody remnants of foeti as this could offend the delicate sensitivities of the pro-choice public. I wish. :rolleyes: Taking the bus home one day, I (and everyone else on the bus) had the unique pleasure of sitting thorugh a long red light at a very busy intersection with nothing to look at except just such a picture. (Which, BTW, was actually NOT from an abortion, but from an extraction of a baby already dead from unrelated trauma. I have no idea why they keep using it.) Add to that some jerk-off blaring at us through a mega-phone from 10 feet away and nobody got off that bus in a good mood, including the pro-lifers.

Chev, your last post does not do you justice.

Resorting to emotionality and a slippery slope position which borders on reductio ad absurdium is not going to deliver any kind of solution. Well, actually, it might, but only one which is utterly disrespectful of competing viewpoints or any other potential perspectives than your own. I understand you have a deep commitment to those values you are espousing; I would ask you to bear in mind that even though we don't agree on this issue, those of us who disagree with you are hardly gleeful proponents of baby-killing or euthanasia.

As I said (after grudgingly wading into this topic), I do not presume to argue on the basis of rights.

The simple fact is that, whether such procedures are legal or not, abortions will continue to be performed (and I include self-induced miscarriages in that category). Sadly, some people are wilful, stupid, reckless, irresponsible, or just plain unfortunate - these are the ones who will end up in the situation of having to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

And who's the judge of those? The mother? The abortion doctor? Since when does any of them have the authority of life and death which is nowadays denied even to sovereign states?Rights-based question. Whose decides what to do with their own body? The foetus may be a separate organism, but it's inseparably dependent on the mother and cannot survive outside the womb. Should its potential rights always trump those of its parent? I can see that we aren't going to agree on this one, Chev.

I.e. morals shouldn't interfere with reality and solution is death?Morals alone should not dictate action or inaction when there is an identified issue that is much greater than just morality. Morals should not be cast aside, certainly - but absolutism (of any kind) is not a solution.

I've said before that I have my reservations about abortion, but my convictions alone are hardly grounds for dictating rights and policy to everybody else.

Why allow people to kill others so that they could avoid responsibility? The next step, euthanising infants with severe impairments, has already been made. What now? Where does this all go? When will the first person become able to have ten children and euthanise five instead of giving up for adoption because such is the sovereign private decision of that person?I've made my position very clear on this. Abortion is not solely an exercise in avoiding responsibility. And since it's been happening for centuries, it's hardly a slippery slope - if anything, it should be seen as a way to prevent even greater suffering.

I apologise for being so callous, but what is a greater sin: abortion, neonaticide or infanticide? Abortion, child abuse or killing a child in a fit of anger or frustration (accidentally or not)? They are all terrible things, things we should never promote, encourage or accept. I do not think that all abortions would, if carried to term, result in such crimes. Enough would be to render that question valid, and then we're getting into a qualitative analysis of suffering, which is ludicrous. Abortion, at least, can sometimes be excusable (at least, in my opinion).

Yes, I am aware of how horrendous abortion procedures can be. I forced myself to read the information in a link posted on the last such thread.

Still, the potential being apparently already has a DNA, a blood group different from the mother's, early forms of internal organs. It's also able to suffer when it's being torn limb from limb.Depending on its state of development, yes and no. I will admit ignorance as to the capacity for a foetus at four to eight weeks to suffer as you believe possible. Once that capacity is fully developed, a foetus is probably viable; as I have already stated, unless there is a life-threatening emergency, I consider carrying that foetus to term to be a responsibility.

What's next? after unwanted children and the possibility of legal guardians making euthanasia decisions, what other group of citizens is going to be deemed inconvenient and where else should we de-absolutise the basic moral imperative not to kill another?We've already de-absolutised that moral imperative. In fact, the whole concept of "just war (http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp)" and self-defence draws on a principle that everyone's right to life is not absolute in all circumstances. That's somewhat facetious of me, I know (and the link is heavily biased, IMO), but I couldn't let it stand without challenge.

What kind of solutions are those? Allowing mothers to kill their own children at will? Giving up on inconvenient values because of material conditions? They're undesirable solutions, certainly. The sort of person who could do that so callously is one undeserving of sympathy, IMO. Of course, that's a long way from being representative, Chev. And again, to respond in kind: what kind of solution denies people - no, make that "women", not "people" - their freedoms based on an absolutist and inherently gendered perspective?

I have never, and will never, make a claim that abortion is a great thing, or something to be celebrated. It is not; in fact, in the best of all worlds, the issue would not exist. Sadly, "reality" has a tendency to get in the way. That reality requires solutions, as unpalatable as they may be. One can sidestep trying to reach a solution, as many do (on both sides of the debate), or one can look for a way forward. I believe I've made my views and position exceptionally clear.

For those folks who are agruing that abortion should not be allowed or should only be considered in the raest of cases, here is a glimpse of life that shows how far you are seperated from it. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion -

Abortions are sought for a number of reasons. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.31 million abortions in the US in 2000, and cases of rape or incest accounted for 1.0% of abortions in 2000. Women from 27 nations reported the following reasons for seeking an induced abortion:
25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% – Want no (more) children
3.3% – Risk to fetal health
2.8% – Risk to maternal health
2.1% – Rape, incest, other

21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy As I have been saying all along, anyone that wants an abortion, should be offered financial and emotional support, before going through with the actual abortion.

The above figures shows the failings of government, and even worse, the victims family.

So when are those Pro-Life people going actually help pthese poor women, rather than condemn them as murders?

@Cuchulainn:

So when are those Pro-Life people going actually help pthese poor women, rather than condemn them as murders?I'm not condemning anyone. We are discussing the act of abortion, not the scope of guilt of individual women, partners, doctors. I have always been in favour of providing some real help. I am not saying tangible help because that would fall in the economical conditions area which is a total absurd to decide human life upon. However, it's all nice talk but the reality is that help won't be accepted as an alternative to abortion. If it really were about being unable to support the child, it would be carried to term and given up for adoption. However, in some cases, people won't be comfortable with the thought their child lives and has been given up for adoption, so they prefer to eradicate the child instead. What's off the eyes is off the heart, as we say in Poland. :rolleyes:

@Shrikant:

25.5% – Want to postpone childbearingShould have postponed having sex. Their own career design is in no way superior to the child's life. One is true: a person who considers abortion because of the desire to postpone having children is surely not ready to be a parent.

21.3% – Cannot afford a babySo give up for adoption.

14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancyPartner sucks balls doesn't meant the child should be killed for it. Relationship problem? Should have married before having sex.

12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy"Object to pregnancy"? WTF? Is she too fat for her bf now? No, sorry. People liking her less for being pregnant is not a reason to kill her child. Come on.

10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or jobSex didn't?

7.9% – Want no (more) childrenBut still want sex? Why not kill one of the born children?

3.3% – Risk to fetal healthSo if its health is at risk, let's kill it to solve the problem. Right. Spartans did that by leaving infants alone in mountains and forests with heels pierced to make sure.

2.8% – Risk to maternal healthFirst, think about that when having sex. Pregnancy is a natural consequence. Risk of health and taking away life... Right.

2.1% – Rape, incest, otherThe child didn't rape the mother. Incest? She didn't know he was her father or brother when having sex with him or something?

@NonSequitur:

Resorting to emotionality and a slippery slope position which borders on reductio ad absurdium is not going to deliver any kind of solution.Solution purchased at what cost? Emotionality is not a great thing in debate but it's a nice humanity check in pondering your actions. Reduction ad absurdum is a fantastic reality check and history teaches that slippery slope always works.

I understand you have a deep commitment to those values you are espousing; I would ask you to bear in mind that even though we don't agree on this issue, those of us who disagree with you are hardly gleeful proponents of baby-killing or euthanasia.Because the foetus isn't considered a human being? Most crimes, including Nazi and commie crimes, as well as crimes committed in the name of ideologies or, yes, religions, are nearly always packaged with the conviction that the victim isn't (fully) human and thus the crime is not really a crime and the offender would never commit said crime on a (full) human.

As I said (after grudgingly wading into this topic), I do not presume to argue on the basis of rights.You cannot remove the right to life from the discussion of allowance of taking it away. By mere focusing on solutions you declare that the right to have the problem solved on the part of the mother, the society or whomever is superior to the child's right to life. You can artificially remove the child's right to life or the mother's "liberty" from discussion, but you can't escape rights altogether. ;) The fine art of solving social problems is based on balancing competing rights.

Sadly, some people are wilful, stupid, reckless, irresponsible, or just plain unfortunate - these are the ones who will end up in the situation of having to decide whether or not to have an abortion.Correct, but this doesn't mean they should be allowed to do what they want to. If you're stuck in a dead-end job and your immediate boss is mean, you aren't allowed to backstab him and move up the ladder one step. Why should a woman or a family be allowed to eradicate an inconvenient unborn child?

Rights-based question. Whose decides what to do with their own body?Who has the right to life? The mother's right to make decisions about her body doesn't outrank her child's right to life.

The foetus may be a separate organism, but it's inseparably dependent on the mother and cannot survive outside the womb.So she should kill it because of its weakness?

Should its potential rights always trump those of its parent?The rights are not potential. The right to life (call it freedom from being killed if you prefer) of one person outranks the other person's right to indisrupted career, not *****ing boyfriend, not prevented partying etc etc.

Morals alone should not dictate action or inaction when there is an identified issue that is much greater than just morality.Cast aside morals and what do we have? What are we? What is greater than good and evil? The almighty imperative of convenience?

I've made my position very clear on this. Abortion is not solely an exercise in avoiding responsibility.But also in egoism and putting your convienience above other people's human rights.

And since it's been happening for centuries, it's hardly a slippery slope - if anything, it should be seen as a way to prevent even greater suffering.But the intensity of the issue has been on the increase since the beginning of the process of legalisation of abortion. Sexual liberation started from no longer outlawing sex without marriage or even outside of it, then there was the whole social fight to make one night stands the acceptable norm, then gay lib, now what do we hear? Lower the age of consent. Zoophilia ban unconstitutional. Unban necrophilia even. I can easily see the age of consent being lowered and zoophilia penalties reduced if not lifted. Necrophilia would come down to who "owns" or has custody of the body, but who knows about the long term. Incidentally, the same sexual revolution propagated contraception as the norm, not something to be ashamed of, then abortion became a human right and a human baby a parasite. Came euthanasia, now there's also euthanasia of infants by parental request in Holland. What's next?

I apologise for being so callous, but what is a greater sin: abortion, neonaticide or infanticide? Abortion, child abuse or killing a child in a fit of anger or frustration (accidentally or not)?Erm, and then people will say that *I* am dragging religion into it.

But if you want a theological view, all three are materially grave sins against the commandment not to kill. With full knowledge and consent, a sin in a grave matter is a mortal sin. Murder is mortal. Abortion is mortal. Of course, infanticide is too. Unless, of course, there was a sufficient defect of will or knowledge at the moment of committing the act. Why asking?

I do not think that all abortions would, if carried to term, result in such crimes.Neither do I.

Abortion, at least, can sometimes be excusable (at least, in my opinion).I can imagine a situation where the woman doesn't realise what she's doing or is coerced one way or another (including pressure by parents). While this hardly enables us to call her a murderer, neither does the fact that her own guilt is reduced allow us to tolerate the act. In short, let's use a parable: You see a person likely to kill another. Because of the mental condition in which he is, the person won't be charged or at least won't get any serious jail term. Do you still not prevent the killing just because the person won't be sentenced or will receive the kind of sentence you get for theft? The person being unable to accept full responsibility doesn't make the act any more permissible.

We've already de-absolutised that moral imperative. In fact, the whole concept of "just war" and self-defence draws on a principle that everyone's right to life is not absolute in all circumstances. That's somewhat facetious of me, I know (and the link is heavily biased, IMO), but I couldn't let it stand without challenge.Fighting a war to defend yourself is different from a preemptive war. A preemptive war is still something different from simply eradicating the inconvenient human beings.

They're undesirable solutions, certainly. The sort of person who could do that so callously is one undeserving of sympathy, IMO. Of course, that's a long way from being representative, Chev.Still, we aren't discussing the method of punishing the people involved in abortions but the question whether abortion should be legal or not. Sympathy for their circumstances may be relevant in determining the scope of guilt, but not in deciding whether the act should be allowed. What does a long and careful deliberation change if, after it, the person decides her career is more important than the child's life? Or that she wants some justice for the rape, so she will destroy the resulting foetus. Whatever. Sometimes I think that those who simply go to the abortion clinic without thinking much, perhaps what they do is less evil? As it clearly looks like they don't realise what they are doing, whereas those who deliberate realise the kind of decision they are making?

If it really were about being unable to support the child, it would be carried to term and given up for adoption. Funny then, how more than more than a fifth quote financial reasons for the descision. If financial help was granted it may significantly reduce the total number. Are you aware of any groups that offer financial suport on a large scale basis? The Catholic Church in the US alone has a yearly income of around $7.5 Billion. Maybe some of that should be spent on supporting people who would otherwise choose abortion rather than the houses of Bishops. (The Bishop of Bostons houses raised over $100 million when sold)

Ah adoption. We've been here before. The over-whelming problem with your argument is that there are just not enough people willing to adopt.

I've asked before, and don't recall a response. Would you adopt rather than raise your own family?

If there were enough people willing to adopt, wouldn't it be preferable for them to take the estimated 100 MILLION (mid '90's estimate by the WHO and UNICEF) street children across the globe? Because I think their lives have a much greater need than the unborn.

http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/press/16-pdf3.pdf

However, in some cases, people won't be comfortable with the thought their child lives and has been given up for adoption, so they prefer to eradicate the child instead. I've never heard that concept before. Do you have any evidence what-so-ever for it? Any statistics?

[ October 13, 2005, 13:57: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

"Object to pregnancy"? WTF? Is she too fat for her bf now? No, sorry. People liking her less for being pregnant is not a reason to kill her child. Come on. Have you ever heard of the so called "honor murders" practiced by immigrants from certain countries? Parents "objecting pregnancy" can be a bit more serious than not liking the fatness.

Should have postponed having sex.Contraceptives are never 100% certain. Are you suggesting people should live in celibacy?

And adoption: there's quite a lot of bureacracy and red tape involved in the whole process. While there are quite a lot of willing parents lined up to adopt, as well as a big bunch of unwanted children waiting for it, it's surprising how rarely they meet. If you give your child away, in many countries it has a very good chance of never even getting to a temporary foster home to wait for those white-picket-fence-parents, because orphanages are overcrowded as it is.

Yes, he does suggest people remain celibate unless they want children.

Sex didn't?No.


2.8% – Risk to maternal health
First, think about that when having sex. Pregnancy is a natural consequence. Risk of health and taking away life... Right.
Parents don't know if the pregnacy will be a healthy one or not. And of course if the foetus is irrevesibly damaged it would be better for it to live in pain, having for example no arms or legs :rolleyes: Or death (or seriuse health damage) at birth.

And your other arguments about sex don't make sence. "Think before having sex, don't have sex if you don't want children, etc". You have no right to tell others what can they do with each other as long as no one is hurt.If some whant to have sex before marriage, it's OK for me.

And about rape. Ask any woman if she'd like to carry such baby for whole 9 months and then give it to adoption. I'm sure many women would be delighed to bear a such child, which will remind them about the rape. :rolleyes:

Yes, he does suggest people remain celibate unless they want children. And I thought that Poland is a part of Europe. Guess I was wrong and such middle aged views are still present.

And one more question to Chev. Are you for of against death panality?

:2.1% – Rape, incest, otherThe child didn't rape the mother. Incest? She didn't know he was her father or brother when having sex with him or something?I forgot to address this one. Why are you assuming incest is consensual? "Sure, daddy, do me." You think that's how it works?

@ Chev,

What you see as a slippery slope, others may view as natural progression or the evolution of social mores. I'm not a fan of change for its own sake, but neither am I a proponent of anachronism.

those of us who disagree with you are hardly gleeful proponents of baby-killing or euthanasia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the foetus isn't considered a human being?No, because we recognise that the decision is not so simple as that. I've been advocating contraception and prevention so strongly in this thread (although I'll confess to a certain implication of abortion as a "Final Solution" in my arguments, although of a much different nature). Comparing abortion to genocide is somewhat disingenuous, though - unless it's forcible, in which case it can be entirely accurate.

Dehumanising a subject to be killed is an ancient practice, certainly. I don't see myself as dehumanising a zygote or a foetus; that would only be true if I was blindly pro-choice and in favour of abortion on demand at any time. The more options that are on the table (including abortion, child assistance, welfare, et cetera), the better; I don't think many people want more abortions to be performed. I've already stated an order of preference - with abortion last on the list.

The fine art of solving social problems is based on balancing competing rights.So you say - and then proceed to categorically dismiss any argument about balancing rights in favour of an absolute preference for one's over another's. I was avoiding a rights-based argument for exactly that reason, since I knew we'd just be :bang: and nothing would come of it.

In the end, I think most of this debate does revolve around that balancing of entitlements and duties. I have stated, many times, that abortion is not the only solution. When it becomes the key question, however, it DOES become an absolutist debate, and one which I was attempting to avoid for those reasons I've listed.

And I was of the opinion that I had included the right to existence/duty of care prominently in my position - once a foetus becomes viable outside the womb, I am strongly opposed to non-emergency abortion. Until that point, and arguably for some time before that (as medical advances improve), it is a complex and tragic issue, but one which should not be cast aside on purely moral grounds. There is a moral and humanist argument either way, after all.

Cast aside morals and what do we have? What are we? What is greater than good and evil? The almighty imperative of convenience?I'm not saying "cast aside morals" - I'm saying that I refuse to let one particular branch of them (whether that be pro-choice or pro-life) dictate terms, particularly when the concepts of "good" and "evil" are so mutable and subjective dependent on your morality that a black-and-white perspective often becomes a straightjacket.

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice zealots can rant and never have to worry about responsibility for it. Policy-makers have to find a path through all the dogmatic nonsense spouted by both sides and get to a workable solution. Reality couldn't care less what anyone thinks of it. It's what one does about it that matters. If you won't support abortion under any circumstances, you need to provide alternatives.

While reducing the demand for abortion is an uncontestably good thing, banning it won't solve anyone's problems. It will probably only make things worse for the mother who can't support children. Truly unwanted pregnancies have a way of ending up in babies being dumped, killed or placed in state care. All of those scenarios can arguably be worse than early abortion.

The rights are not potential. The right to life (call it freedom from being killed if you prefer) of one person outranks the other person's right to indisrupted career, not *****ing boyfriend, not prevented partying etc etc.You know, the more I read of this argument, the more I am convinced that feminist dialogues about attempting to control female sexuality have merit. I don't doubt that some people will be acting as selfishly as you claim, Chev, but to impose a blanket ban based on such a misogynist and holier-than-thou stereotype is utterly galling.

You can boil this down to "right to life versus right to self-determination". Since most hold both to be inalienable and absolute, a compromise is necessary.

But the intensity of the issue has been on the increase since the beginning of the process of legalisation of abortion... ...What next?Those attitudes held when there was a relatively homogenous society with broadly similar views and attitudes. In an increasingly heterogenous society, imposing the one set of values and morality is increasingly untenable. Put simply, who am I to tell someone else how they can live their life? More importantly, how do you propose to enforce such laws without trampling people's rights and creating additional consequential problems?

The only way to effectively enforce a ban on abortion is to impose a near-dictatorial regime of policing and education on a population. I'm sure I don't need to go any further with that description to demonstrate why I believe abortion to be the lesser evil.

Off-topic: necrophilia and zoophilia are illegal and unacceptable behaviours for different reasons. A person's body is their own property, even after death, and can't be violated in any way (even for medical reasons) without prior consent of the deceased or their executor, or unless an autopsy is declared necessary. Animals are protected against cruel and perverse treatment.

You see a person likely to kill another. Because of the mental condition in which he is, the person won't be charged or at least won't get any serious jail term. Do you still not prevent the killing just because the person won't be sentenced or will receive the kind of sentence you get for theft? The person being unable to accept full responsibility doesn't make the act any more permissible.In this situation, of course you have a moral responsibility to act. The same applies to abortion, IMO; one has a moral obligation to ensure that someone is fully aware of the consequences and likely outcomes of the procedure (and of not doing it). However, the situation is much more complex than "kill or not kill" and is not black-and-white for those who don't share your religious convictions. Put simply, there are greater long-term considerations that are implicit in both actions.

Fighting a war to defend yourself is different from a preemptive war. A preemptive war is still something different from simply eradicating the inconvenient human beings.True. I was just illustrating that your absolutist position is fundamentally compromised and that rights-contests inevitably end up infringing on someone's liberties and entitlements. Two absolute rights clashing, necessary compromise solution required.

Sympathy for their circumstances may be relevant in determining the scope of guilt, but not in deciding whether the act should be allowed.How convenient is it, then, that the authors of such sentiments should never have been subjected to that situation? However, I was not addressing punishment in my argument earlier; I was noting that abortion is typically a tragic event, and was lamenting that some will do it for entirely selfish reasons.

That is why I wanted to get away from rights-based discussions/arguments; they typically achieve nothing except a feeling of self-righteousness and the casting of recriminations back and forth. "Workable solutions" means an appropriate response; the first and only question should not be whether to have an abortion or not. In the end, rights need to be balanced; I find a certain irony that we agree on this, yet you utterly refuse to address that need.

25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% – Want no (more) children
How frigging selfish are these people? Further, don't they have families and or friends that can help them? Can't you get someone ot watch the baby while you are at work or school? If you are in no position to raise a child, then you should be careful with having sex. If you want to postpone childbirth or not have more children, Birth Control is not evil in a marriage. Relationship problems mean that you shouldn't be having sex. Remember that the Bible forbids Adultery and Fornication. Maybe people ought to take another look at religion...

3.3% – Risk to fetal health
2.8% – Risk to maternal health
2.1% – Rape, incest, other Under those circumstances, it's not my place to speak. If I was dierctly involved (father of the child, close family, priesthood leader), any counsel given would likely come after fasting and prayer, and likely after a priesthood blessing given (Mormon Ordinance).

So when are those Pro-Life people going actually help pthese poor women, rather than condemn them as murders?When they choose to seek help rather than murder their unborn children. In Canada, Welfare and Disability supports do grant extra money to those with dependent children, but there needs to be subsidized daycare for children who's parents work. The family of the mother (and of the father where possible) needs to be involved as a support for the new family. Personally, I wouldn't shun dating a single mother (though I'd likely suck as a stepfather). Those closest shouldn't abandon the parents of the child in their time of need.

If financial help was granted it may significantly reduce the total number. Are you aware of any groups that offer financial suport on a large scale basis? The Catholic Church in the US alone has a yearly income of around $7.5 Billion. Maybe some of that should be spent on supporting people who would otherwise choose abortion rather than the houses of Bishops. (The Bishop of Bostons houses raised over $100 million when sold)That does seem excessive. To mention one organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does help arrange adoptions, taking children from women who give them up and place them in proper homes, with a mother and a father. It's not about red tape, but about love.

And your other arguments about sex don't make sence. "Think before having sex, don't have sex if you don't want children, etc". You have no right to tell others what can they do with each other as long as no one is hurt.If some whant to have sex before marriage, it's OK for me.But abortion hurts an unborn child. Therefore, it ought not be allowed. Abstinence is perfectly valid advice that won't get them into this situation.

How frigging selfish are these people? Further, don't they have families and or friends that can help them? Can't you get someone ot watch the baby while you are at work or school? If you are in no position to raise a child, then you should be careful with having sex. If you want to postpone childbirth or not have more children, Birth Control is not evil in a marriage. Relationship problems mean that you shouldn't be having sex. Remember that the Bible forbids Adultery and Fornication. Maybe people ought to take another look at religion...
Two things: I'll bet many of them tried using Birth Control or condoms, but mistakes do happen. Is it their fault if they are in the 5% of faulty birth control? I think not

And, you said the Bible forbids Aldultery and Fornication. What about the many people who don't listen to the Bible? Forget about them, did you?

And getting someone to watch your kids while at school is a big hassle. You would need a source of income to pay for the sitter, and for food, clothing, etc. for it. If you did need that money, you'd probably get a job, not go to school. Especially since the male responsible for the birth does not always take responsibility and find someway to help pay for it.

/me reads Gnarf's post
:jawdrop:
:jawdrop:
:thumb: Sounds like the Mormons have got it all together. I'd like to add a little something, though.

Abstinence or birth control should prevent all unwanted pregnancies from consensual acts. Being too stupid to use either does not entitle you to end the life you have unwittingly created. However, ignorance of safe sexual practices brings a gray area into this. IMO, the cause of the unwanted pregnancy should be the determining factor. (Though which side some causes would fall on is a matter of much debate even within my own cranium. :heh: ) The alternate solution is no more or less palatable: sex ed in schools at age 13 (or whenever the average age of puberty is).

So basically, we're screwed either way. I just hope we don't get pregnant. :shake:

@Saber:
I'll bet many of them tried using Birth Control or condoms, but mistakes do happen. Is it their fault if they are in the 5% of faulty birth control? I think not Consider it an act of Divine/Natural intervention to give you the child you need/deserve to have. Or just stop screwing every five minutes. BTW, I believe it's actually more like 0.1%

And, you said the Bible forbids Aldultery and Fornication. What about the many people who don't listen to the Bible? Forget about them, did you? No, it doesn't matter where he got it from. It's been said before and bears saying again: Separation of church and state does not mean an anti-church state. Some things are simply a good idea regardless of your spiritual beliefs.

[ October 14, 2005, 06:53: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

I've been getting sex ed since age 10...

And, you said the Bible forbids Aldultery and Fornication. What about the many people who don't listen to the Bible? Forget about them, did you?Maybe they should be...

And getting someone to watch your kids while at school is a big hassle. You would need a source of income to pay for the sitter, and for food, clothing, etc. for it. If you did need that money, you'd probably get a job, not go to school. Especially since the male responsible for the birth does not always take responsibility and find someway to help pay for it.First off, where possible, the man should be held accountable for the life he was involved in creating. Secondly, the woman should have a support network. Family or friends should help out where possible. If these are not feasable, then adoption should be considered. All I care is that these children are not murdered.

No, it doesn't matter where he got it from. It's been said before and bears saying again: Separation of church and state does not mean an anti-church state. Some things are simply a good idea regardless of your spiritual beliefs.Thanks Fel. Often people can make points better than I can...

It must be acknowledged that what can be a morally superior choice is not often wise to enforce as societal law, particulary when the proposed law is virtually unenforceable.

Look at the prohibition experiment: Clearly the banning of alcohol is a morally superior law as compared to the way our current system of laws handles the drug. Alcohol causes death, disease and lack of inhibition resulting in all kinds of morally repugnant behavior; it can also be brewed in the kitchen or closet of any human being possessing even the slightest inclination.

A woman with a coat hanger and access to a friend or a website can abort her pre-baby. Those lacking the courage to do so themselves, which will be most, will instead look to the services of the alleys. While some lucky women will have access to competent doctors and nurses willing to break the law, most will not.

And to ask the question logically following the proposed prohibition of abortion, are we going to throw a young woman of nineteen years, having been caught self-aborting, into jail on charges of first degree murder? If the law is going to treat her pre-baby as an equal to, lets say, myself, wouldn't a life sentence be typical in response to premeditated murder?

When we start conducting autopsies, writing obituaries, and then holding funerals for first-trimester womb-seeds...well, I am going to have to move to a different land at that point.


Edit...

By the way, my gem changed! Woohoo! Take that Jesus-freaks!

To Gnarfflinger and co:

We're not living in a dream world where fathers can't shirk their responsibilities, adoption is easy, money is plentiful to hire competent babysitters, where abusive boyfriends don't beat up their girlfriends over an unwanted pregnancy.

And even if the chance of birth control failing is 0.0001%, it still happens. Do a bit of math, as to how many people there are in this world.

And out of those who follow the rules of the Bible, quite a few don't practice birth control at all due to a certain Catholic Church. Many of them live in poverty, and the children they can't provide for often get abandoned and end up living on the streets - as beggars, thieves or child prostitutes. This happens in South America all the time. So tossing around Bible quotes is hardly the answer here, much as some of its ideas are good and noble.

Sad as it is, most of those suggestions for better alternatives than abortion - which I btw think *would be* preferable to abortion - would require the society to fork out some cash. A lot of cash. And that's not likely to happen.

In the current situation - the here and now, not the theoretic utopia - there are quite a few instances where abortion is the lesser evil. I don't *like* the idea of killing an unborn, but outright prohibiting it can only lead to more misery.

I don't think many people want more abortions to be performed there are quite a few instances where abortion is the lesser evil. I don't *like* the idea of killing an unborn I think these two points illustrate examples of where the pro-life side doesn't see the pro-choice side's point. There are very, very few people that favor abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, abortion as a first choice option, or abortion as after-the-fact birth control. What most pro-choice people argue however, is that sometimes it is the best choice.

I suppose two (admittedly over-simplified) contrasting examples would help in making my point. Say some young professional making a good salary is screwing around with two or three guys at work (not all at once, I'm not saying she's involved in orgies) and she gets pregnant. If she decides she wants an abortion simply because it would be an inconvenience to have a baby at that particular time because she's having so much fun messing around with all these guys and she has this great career, and having a baby is just going to ruin all of this, well, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for her. And most people would not support an abortion in this instance. Most people would take the attitude that she should suck it up and take responsibility for her actions.

But what about a teenager from a poverty-stricken home? Say she has a boyfriend who tells her he loves her, she agrees to have sex with him, and then he stops seeing her after he gets her pregnant. She obviously has no means to care for this baby. And her parents are just scaping by the way it is, and now they basically are going to have to absorb the costs of this child too. In this case the pregnancy is not a mere inconvenience. Having a baby is always a life-altering event, but in this case even moreso as it is going to have grave impacts on people beyond the mother.

The point I'm trying to make is sometimes these issues are painted too black and white. Yes, it can be argued that the teenager is no less culpable and just as responsible for being pregnant as the professional in the first example. But that's not the point, because responsibility is not the only thing to consider. In the examples above, I see some very justifiable reasons for the teenager getting an abortion, while the reasons the professional would give have no moral capital.

So don't try to label anyone who is pro-choice as advocating abortion. Most people prefer abortion to be the last option on the table. It is the option taken as a last resort, when all other reasonable options have been exhausted. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be a need to have any abortions, but sometimes reality dictates that abortion is the best solution.

That does seem excessive. To mention one organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does help arrange adoptions, taking children from women who give them up and place them in proper homes, with a mother and a father. It's not about red tape, but about love. Gnarf,

From what I've heard from you (and LKD and T2B for that matter) the LDS church is founded on some very good social premises which I whole-heartedly agree with. I am not surprised that they have actually made a tangible response to the problem, rather than just condemning it without offering a realistic workable alternative.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, you said the Bible forbids Aldultery and Fornication. What about the many people who don't listen to the Bible? Forget about them, did you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it doesn't matter where he got it from. It's been said before and bears saying again: Separation of church and state does not mean an anti-church state. Some things are simply a good idea regardless of your spiritual beliefs.
I'm not talking about an anti-church state (although, if it were up to me, it would be), but for the people who do not believe that sex before marriage is bad, why should they have to follow the same restrictions the bible gives? I don't think that sex before marriage is a bad idea, you just have to know what you are getting into. Birth Control, or protection should be used unless a child is wanted.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll bet many of them tried using Birth Control or condoms, but mistakes do happen. Is it their fault if they are in the 5% of faulty birth control? I think not
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider it an act of Divine/Natural intervention to give you the child you need/deserve to have. Or just stop screwing every five minutes. BTW, I believe it's actually more like 0.1% Sorry for the incorrect figure before. But, most people don't have sex every five minutes (and i realize it may have been an exagerration, but still, most people don't have sex every night or every other night). And no, I don't consider it an act of Divine intervention to give a child. Many others don't. Only those who believe in God (or other deities), would consider that. So the only other explination would be a faulty pill or condom (or other form of protection). Not their fault, I say again.

I don't think that sex before marriage is a bad idea, you just have to know what you are getting into. Birth Control, or protection should be used unless a child is wanted. Agreed. But if you refuse to use birth control then you should either stop or expect a baby.

And no, I don't consider it an act of Divine intervention to give a child. Many others don't. Only those who believe in God (or other deities), would consider that. So the only other explination would be a faulty pill or condom (or other form of protection). Not their fault, I say again. Of course it's not their fault if they're being responsible. The reason I added "/Natural" is because I believe that rare things happen for a reason. As in, condoms would normally be 100% effective if not for the exceptions that are meant to happen. If it ever happened to me, I'd think twice about my g/f getting an abortion, but I certainly wouldn't stop her from doing it if that's what she wanted.

But if you really want to reduce your chances of conceiving, abstinence is the best way, and is the only method that is 100% fool-proof. It's simply a matter of how big a chance you want to take. But as with gambling, you have to accept the consequences. Whether that consequence is abortion or adoption, you're still taking your chances every time.

Agreed (to everything). Abstinence is the only 100% full proof way. However, stopping people from having sex is pretty hard.

And yes, for people who refuse to use birth control, it should be no suprise to them if they have a child. Luckily for me, I will insist on birth control (when I have sex, that is. I'm only 15, so I haven't had sex yet).

are we going to throw a young woman of nineteen years, having been caught self-aborting, into jail on charges of first degree murder? If the law is going to treat her pre-baby as an equal to, lets say, myself, wouldn't a life sentence be typical in response to premeditated murder?Sounds fair to me. My response is no more callous than her decision to terminate the life of a child that would otherwise inconvenience her.

We're not living in a dream world where fathers can't shirk their responsibilities, adoption is easy, money is plentiful to hire competent babysitters, where abusive boyfriends don't beat up their girlfriends over an unwanted pregnancy.Perhaps the Governments ought to step in and work towards that goal. Make them actually earn the tax money that they extort from us. Find ways to make the fathers accountable, and enforce it if they try to skip out. Cut some of the costly red tape from the adoption process. Subsidized daycare to help lower income families or single parents would reduce that stress and create jobs. And I think that harsher punishments on domestic abuse should be in place.

And out of those who follow the rules of the Bible, quite a few don't practice birth control at all due to a certain Catholic Church. Many of them live in poverty, and the children they can't provide for often get abandoned and end up living on the streets - as beggars, thieves or child prostitutes. This happens in South America all the time. So tossing around Bible quotes is hardly the answer here, much as some of its ideas are good and noble.
Parents are accountable for the welfare of their children up to the age of 18. Any failure there is on their heads morally, but again, some of the solutions put forth in the previous paragraph would relieve some of those stresses.

Sad as it is, most of those suggestions for better alternatives than abortion - which I btw think *would be* preferable to abortion - would require the society to fork out some cash. A lot of cash. And that's not likely to happen.Perhaps the Government ought to fork over some of that cash instead of lining their own pockets or giving tax breaks to their wealthy friends...

She obviously has no means to care for this baby. And her parents are just scaping by the way it is, and now they basically are going to have to absorb the costs of this child too.But this is why they have adoption. the chance to give the child a better home than the mother could provide on her own devices...

From what I've heard from you (and LKD and T2B for that matter) the LDS church is founded on some very good social premises which I whole-heartedly agree with. I am not surprised that they have actually made a tangible response to the problem, rather than just condemning it without offering a realistic workable alternative.Condemnation accomplishes practically nothing. That's why we need solutions. AS has been pointed out, more than half of abortions come out of perceived hardships. Abandoning them to their fate, we ourselves are guilty of neglect. Jesus Christ even said that "In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." If we help them, we are helping our Lord and Saviour, if we abandon those in need, we abandon Christ...

I'm not talking about an anti-church state (although, if it were up to me, it would be)That statements scares me...

I don't think that sex before marriage is a bad idea, you just have to know what you are getting into. Birth Control, or protection should be used unless a child is wanted.It sounds to me like you have no desire to be part of the problem, and in your own way are trying to be part of the solution. Perhaps if those that don't care for the religious side could be influenced by your example in this matter, then you've done your part to help.

So the only other explination would be a faulty pill or condom (or other form of protection). Not their fault, I say again.Agreed, not their fault that the device was faulty, but they should still know the risks before having sex. This makes them accountable for an unplaned pregnancy.

But if you really want to reduce your chances of conceiving, abstinence is the best way, and is the only method that is 100% fool-proof. It's simply a matter of how big a chance you want to take. But as with gambling, you have to accept the consequences. Whether that consequence is abortion or adoption, you're still taking your chances every time. Once again Fel, you've said it better than I can.

Perhaps the Governments ought to step in and work towards that goal. Make them actually earn the tax money that they extort from us. Find ways to make the fathers accountable, and enforce it if they try to skip out. Cut some of the costly red tape from the adoption process. Subsidized daycare to help lower income families or single parents would reduce that stress and create jobs. And I think that harsher punishments on domestic abuse should be in place. Perhaps the Government ought to fork over some of that cash instead of lining their own pockets or giving tax breaks to their wealthy friends...Absolutely. But this is all "perhaps" and "ought to." Any suggestions on how to make these things actually happen? Money rules the world, and I'm not saying it should be like that, but sadly it is. Does anybody seriously believe the governments are gonna fork over the cash? So long as it isn't economically profitable in the immediate sense, they're not gonna do anything. No matter what the people paying their salary say.

And about domestic violence: Without a 24/7 surveillance it's pretty hard to keep it from happening, no matter how harsh the consequences. Quite a few cases never even get reported. Out of those that are, only a small percentage can be conclusively proven in court and result in sentences. And out of those, well...in most cases the violent hubby/bf returns to his old ways as soon as he's out.

I've mentioned the honor murders before, but no one's reacted. They're something to consider as well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are we going to throw a young woman of nineteen years, having been caught self-aborting, into jail on charges of first degree murder? If the law is going to treat her pre-baby as an equal to, lets say, myself, wouldn't a life sentence be typical in response to premeditated murder?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds fair to me. My response is no more callous than her decision to terminate the life of a child that would otherwise inconvenience her.It was her own decision to terminate the life of the child. What had the child done before she killed it? Prison for killing isn't harsher than killing for nothing. Personally, I wouldn't like to put a nineteen year old in prison and thwart her start into the adult life. I'd rather see her learn her lesson, try to make up for it and take responsibility for her further life. I doubt she would get a life sentence for neonaticide, which is closer to abortion than the classic version of murder (i.e. no qualified or privileged subtype).

I'm not talking about an anti-church state (although, if it were up to me, it would be)How much would you like living in a theocracy? Theocracy is bad but an anti-church state is okay? That's some peculiar logic. Works like, "if you steal from me it's bad, if I steal from you it's good," loosely to quote a certain book. ;)

So the only other explination would be a faulty pill or condom (or other form of protection). Not their fault, I say again.The same explanation applies to a newborn or generally offspring of any age. Whether or not you're at fault for the bad situation in which you are, it gives you no right to take other people's property or lives to fix it.

Agreed (to everything). Abstinence is the only 100% full proof way. However, stopping people from having sex is pretty hard.Agreed. The job needs to be done on the internal level. I can tell you it's possible. ;)

Agreed. But if you refuse to use birth control then you should either stop or expect a baby.Logically, by that line of reasoning, you should also accept the risk of birth control failing and accept the child if the little chance comes true and one is conceived.

It's simply a matter of how big a chance you want to take. But as with gambling, you have to accept the consequences. Whether that consequence is abortion or adoption, you're still taking your chances every time.I'm impressed...

And, you said the Bible forbids Aldultery and Fornication. What about the many people who don't listen to the Bible? Forget about them, did you?There are also Christian churches which collectively don't listen to the part about fornication and yet still oppose abortion. You could even find Christian churches conveniently relativising the fifth commandment, or any commandment for that matter, and saying that everything goes so long as you think about it long enough. :rolleyes:

At any rate, one doesn't need a religion to know that killing other humans is wrong. It shouldn't take anything save common sense and not even common sense but actually basic instinct to see that an unborn baby is a human entity.

If we are to stick to religions, it makes no sense for any religion to include commandments and then "but if you don't want to listen, here's a couple of hints for you" kind of teaching. That would be like putting, "but if still want to steal, that's fine by us; at least try to steal from the rich and don't hurt people in the process." Just an example.

I'll bet many of them tried using Birth Control or condoms, but mistakes do happen.

Is it their fault if they are in the 5% of faulty birth control? I think not Is fault at all relevant? Wasn't it their choice to have sex?

I think these two points illustrate examples of where the pro-life side doesn't see the pro-choice side's point. There are very, very few people that favor abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, abortion as a first choice option, or abortion as after-the-fact birth control. What most pro-choice people argue however, is that sometimes it is the best choice.Killing the homeless and/or jobless would also solve some social problems, wouldn't it?

What the pro-choice side fails to see is that one can't just kill others for the sake of his plans and perceived happiness or to avoid hardship. What's the difference between killing on demand and killing only when it comes in your way for a bit more specific reason? What difference does first choice make from one of many alternatives or a second or third choice if the result is a conscious decision to kill? Who has the authority to decree that killing is the best choice? It surprises me that I can address the belief that it's moral to kill a baby because the mother wants to focus on her career, with a pale cast of respect. But it makes me wonder what we are going to discuss next. No healthcare or meds for patients with terminal illness or after 90 years of age? Euthanasia of paralysed people?

But what about a teenager from a poverty-stricken home? Say she has a boyfriend who tells her he loves her, she agrees to have sex with him, and then he stops seeing her after he gets her pregnant. She obviously has no means to care for this baby.Obviously? No means? And you're going to tell me that I talk in absolutes. Who knows the future? Cannot she really support the child or is it, in all honesty, too much of a bother?

Put the boyfriend to prison, make him work and pay support. She needs to stop partying and start caring after the child. Something for something. Give her some welfare, but mostly try and get her a job. I don't like any sort of hiring preference but I can fancy the idea of single mothers being hired first. If she still insists on partying, then, well, give the child up for adoption. But I still don't believe people should be able to cast children away like that and shed the responsibility. Those who make babies should have them, support them and bring them up. There should be no legal option for people to neglect children like that. Of course, it's still preferable to abortion.

Having a baby is always a life-altering event, but in this case even moreso as it is going to have grave impacts on people beyond the mother.If you have children, you take responsibility for them and their upbringing. If you bring children in such a way that they end up single mothers, you bear a large part of the responsibility. Killing is never an option in solving economical problems, no matter how grave.

The point I'm trying to make is sometimes these issues are painted too black and white. Yes, it can be argued that the teenager is no less culpable and just as responsible for being pregnant as the professional in the first example. But that's not the point, because responsibility is not the only thing to consider. In the examples above, I see some very justifiable reasons for the teenager getting an abortion, while the reasons the professional would give have no moral capital.We can talk about black and white or not issues when discussing the criminal penalty, but not when deciding if abortion should be legal. We can think about justifications for any kind of crime but we still don't declare the crime a moral or morally neutral thing to do in general. While I don't say any teenager who has had an abortion should go to prison, I don't see it as a reason to make abortion legal.

So don't try to label anyone who is pro-choice as advocating abortion.Being pro-choice is by definition advocating abortion. In situations of varying kind and gravity, but still. You can be pro-choice and not advising abortion but not pro-choice and not advocating it. Whenever you choose to declare yourself as pro-choice, you should accept the truth that you are supporting a vision in which it's licit to terminate life to solve economical or social problems.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be a need to have any abortions, but sometimes reality dictates that abortion is the best solution.Most convenient, not best. Sadly, convenience has been becoming the highest ethical imperative in the modern civilisation.

And out of those who follow the rules of the Bible, quite a few don't practice birth control at all due to a certain Catholic Church. Many of them live in poverty, and the children they can't provide for often get abandoned and end up living on the streets - as beggars, thieves or child prostitutes. This happens in South America all the time. So tossing around Bible quotes is hardly the answer here, much as some of its ideas are good and noble.The fact that someone screwed up and children end up on the street as a result doesn't make it all good and fine to solve the problem by eradicating children still in the womb. To one evil, another evil is not a solution.

Look at the prohibition experiment: Clearly the banning of alcohol is a morally superior law as compared to the way our current system of laws handles the drug. Alcohol causes death, disease and lack of inhibition resulting in all kinds of morally repugnant behavior; it can also be brewed in the kitchen or closet of any human being possessing even the slightest inclination.Alcohol is bad when abused, not when drunk in reasonable amounts. Banning the whole thing away was excessive, hence the problem. A bit like banning away all sharp or blunt and heavy objects or belts from households because they often end up as tools in domestic violence.

I've been getting sex ed since age 10...Which isn't a bad idea, except I believe it should be more up to parents than schools at so early a stage. Sex ed is a good thing. Teenagers need to know how those things work.

No, it doesn't matter where he got it from. It's been said before and bears saying again: Separation of church and state does not mean an anti-church state. Some things are simply a good idea regardless of your spiritual beliefs.Further impressed. We must exchange some thoughts over a beer or ten one day. ;)

(Though which side some causes would fall on is a matter of much debate even within my own cranium. ) The alternate solution is no more or less palatable: sex ed in schools at age 13 (or whenever the average age of puberty is).Parents need to put some effort in it. School teachers shouldn't be afraid to prevent students from engaging in sexual activities. If sixteen year olds have sex on a school trip a week or two after the first year in a new school starts in Mother Poland, then what must be going on France or the USA or the liberal Scandinavia? :p

And getting someone to watch your kids while at school is a big hassle. You would need a source of income to pay for the sitter, and for food, clothing, etc. for it. If you did need that money, you'd probably get a job, not go to school. Especially since the male responsible for the birth does not always take responsibility and find someway to help pay for it.So kill the baby to avoid the hassle? We're talking about a vital and controversial issue and we need to address it like responsible adults. If putting a pet to sleep because of economical problems would be frowned upon, then how can abortion be right? In the "ideal" world of the left-green-libertarian option, putting pets to sleep would be illegal but abortion would be a private choice and a sacre