I don't understand why anyone would want to kill a defenseless baby. Isn't all human life precious? How can any of us possibly think we possess the wisdom to dictate who should live and who should die? Do any of you honestly think that you can determine when life begins, when it has it's own unique value, and when it should end? The gods look down on us and weep, for the things we do out of our own hate and selfishness, just so we can do without some inconvenience!! We are so haughty, cruel, and ignorant!! As soon as we put a price on anyones life, ANY life can be bought!

Darkblack
Most conservatives have no issue with birthcontrol. The fraction that are against it, is small, and those who don't use it and are making you not use it are nonexistant. That being said, there should never be a price but on a humans life by anybody espicially the goverment. Also most conservatives have no problem with supporting single mothers, even through welfare. The part I have the most problem with is the % of individuals who are abusing the flawed system to a point where it is costing individuals more then just money.

So do you support welfare? Are you a defender of public housing for anyone who cannot afford it? How about war? Does the acts of others justify death? Death penalty?

I am sorry. No one can force me to do something against my will. I will not allow it. Some things I do even when I don't want to, but it is my choice. IF I was a woman, NO one should have the right to force me to give birth. NO ONE. You are forcing your will onto someone else and that SHOULD NOT be allowed. IF you believe in god or Jesus or what ever and feel that this is a sin, then let him deal with it after death. NOT YOU!

I think welfare has been has been corrupted, and needs an overhauling. I support temporary housing and last chance houses, with programs for individuals who are stuck in a tough place. Yes certain acts deserve death, but babies have done nothing wrong, and deserve a chance to grow and succede in life.

In what may be the biggest cop-out on the whole poll, I voted "Not Sure," simply because I've never been pregnant. If I were a woman and if I had been pregnant, then I would be able to have a better opinion.

Along the same lines, I don't have much respect for people who declare that if they served on a jury they would easily give someone the death penalty. Unless you've been there, you don't know what you'll do.

I'm sorry to tell you that insurance companies have already decided your life is worth between $200,000 and $400,000.

Not all. By the way,lets leave religion out. This is a morality issue.

This statement is totally false and made in ignorance. You are classifying Chrisitians as /conservative/repulicans when infact a majority of Christians consider themselves democrats(especially catholics). And just to let you know, often times those women who are poor and come from the ghetto have kids PURPOSELY to get more welfare, not because she didn't use a condom or because she didn't have an abortion. Unfortunately it's very hard for those who come from the ghetto to get out, which means most stay their a majority of their lives, having children happens in all neighborhoods, it just happens to be a hell of a lot tougher when you are brought up in the ghetto.

Nobody knows biologically when life begins and that's why abortions at all levels are wrong. Since a baby is usually the outcome from the sperm meeting the egg Christians say that's when life begins. People who are advocates of abortion say first and second trimester abortions are cool, however, third trimester abortions aren't. Why is this? Let me ask you this, what is the difference between a baby the day its born and the day before its born?.. Nothing. So with this logic, it would be ok for the mother to kill her child between the ages of 1 and 3 but at the age of 4 it's illegal. That's crap. Humans are always growing, always, until the day you die. The logic behind "well the baby hasn't fully grown and therefore it's life can be terminated" is utter stupidity. Even you are still growing/developing. Would it be ok for me to terminate you? I guess it should be legal to terminate women before menopause, after all they aren't fully grown.



Again, this is false. Foster parents pay TONS of money to adopt children. Not Tax money. State system do use tax money but a majority of those kids are there who's parents neglected them or because all their family is dead or their parents went to jail. Adoption can be an expensive process depending on how you go about it, especially if the child is adopted from overseas.


I'm sorry, it still takes a man to conceive. Unless the woman is asexual a man should have part of the choice, after all it is half his biologically . Women know that they carry the baby should they become pregnant, if they don't want a kid, do what it takes not to have one.




We all know rape is an infinetly horrible thing. Nobody is arguing this point. Women can have c-sections to get the baby out rather than go through labor, its quicker and easier. If shes under sedation she won't even see the baby. The child in a rape case is an unfortunate outcome,however don't take its life, it didnt ask to be brought into the world. It deserves the right to life. Rather than taking life we can give it, giving the child a chance to become somebody, not just another abortion statistic. If the mother is going to die giving birth than have an operation to remove the child but still try to sustain its life. This is the worst case scenario. If the doctors know a woman can't go through labor they won't make her, she'll have a simple procedure to remove the child through c-section.

Religion plays a key roll in why you think it is moral or not.

Quote:

This statement is totally false and made in ignorance. You are classifying Chrisitians as /conservative/repulicans when infact a majority of Christians consider themselves democrats(especially catholics). And just to let you know, often times those women who are poor and come from the ghetto have kids PURPOSELY to get more welfare, not because she didn't use a condom or because she didn't have an abortion. Unfortunately it's very hard for those who come from the ghetto to get out, which means most stay their a majority of their lives, having children happens in all neighborhoods, it just happens to be a hell of a lot tougher when you are brought up in the ghetto.

Please show me a statistic on this to prove my ignorance. I live in a highly Christian area and they are all right wing republican conservatives. I call bullshit. I also was brought up in what you would consider the hood. Women do not have kids to stay on welfare. That is the stupidest most bigoted thing I have heard in a long time. You think they like not having enough money to feed their kids? Do you really think welfare pays enough to make it worth it? HELL NO it doesn't! Take that silver spoon out of your mouth and go introduce yourself to some "ghetto" people and then make your remarks. You may find that they are not trying to get over on the system like you think they are.

Quote:

Nobody knows biologically when life begins and that's why abortions at all levels are wrong. Since a baby is usually the outcome from the sperm meeting the egg Christians say that's when life begins. People who are advocates of abortion say first and second trimester abortions are cool, however, third trimester abortions aren't. Why is this? Let me ask you this, what is the difference between a baby the day its born and the day before its born?.. Nothing. So with this logic, it would be ok for the mother to kill her child between the ages of 1 and 3 but at the age of 4 it's illegal. That's crap. Humans are always growing, always, until the day you die. The logic behind "well the baby hasn't fully grown and therefore it's life can be terminated" is utter stupidity. Even you are still growing/developing. Would it be ok for me to terminate you? I guess it should be legal to terminate women before menopause, after all they aren't fully grown.

I am not dependent on my mother’s womb anymore so no; it would not be ok to terminate me. Your logic is flawed and not worth a response other than this.

Quote:

Again, this is false. Foster parents pay TONS of money to adopt children. Not Tax money. State system do use tax money but a majority of those kids are there whose parents neglected them or because all their family is dead or their parents went to jail. Adoption can be an expensive process depending on how you go about it, especially if the child is adopted from overseas.

Foster parents pay nothing for foster kids. They are paid for foster kids, which is why they do it. Most of the time the home is crappy and full of kids with little supervision. Which is why most kids are ported from foster home to foster home. I think you are thinking of adoption. With the adoption laws the way they are now adoption rate is low. If we had an increase in babies up for adoption we would have an increase in kids in government run homes and foster families, which indeed get paid more than the mother on welfare.

Quote:

I'm sorry, it still takes a man to conceive. Unless the woman is asexual a man should have part of the choice, after all it is half his biologically . Women know that they carry the baby should they become pregnant, if they don't want a kid, do what it takes not to have one.

Yeah, the man sticks in his penis. Woot way to contribute! While she carries around the extra wait and goes through the pain. Maybe men should have their nuts cut off if they get a woman pregnant and she doesn't want to be. Since she has to go through the labor you get to lose your sack.

Quote:

We all know rape is an infinetly horrible thing. Nobody is arguing this point. Women can have c-sections to get the baby out rather than go through labor, its quicker and easier. If shes under sedation she won't even see the baby. The child in a rape case is an unfortunate outcome,however don't take its life, it didnt ask to be brought into the world. It deserves the right to life. Rather than taking life we can give it, giving the child a chance to become somebody, not just another abortion statistic. If the mother is going to die giving birth than have an operation to remove the child but still try to sustain its life. This is the worst case scenario. If the doctors know a woman can't go through labor they won't make her, she'll have a simple procedure to remove the child through c-section.

Oh yeah c-sections are the answer! Please. Let me slice your stomach open. Let me give you a piece of advice. Women are not your property. They are not meat and not something you can just slice up or force birth on. Maybe in your next life you can be a "ghetto" mom with 10 kids so you can see what the other side is like.

Why would you have 10 kids, you didn't get raped that many times. You choose to have that many, if you can't find a way to support you and the kids, then put them up for adoption before they are born. Anything is better than murdering them just because they are not wanted. Its not there fault there not wanted. Don't tell me your not glad your parents decided to have a child rather then have it killed.

My mother wanted me. That is the difference.


Put it up for adoption!!! is that your only answer? IT is not that easy. You think every child sent to adoption gets adopted? Do you think that if every child that was aborted was put up for adoption they would all be adopted by loving parents?
Come on.

Yes the adoption process is not perfect, but atleast the kid when he gets older will be able to make a decision of what he wants to do with his life. Instead of it being decided for him when he was born.

Man Darkblack. For a guy who whined about how the forum was too complex for him to understand, you certainly seem to have a lot to say ;-).

Now to disputing your bullshit. You claimed that you want statistics proving once and for all that all Christians are not conservative. I want to know where your statistic is that states that everything you have seen in your hometown is the way it is in the rest of the world. Have you ever considered that those living in your town might claim to be Christians while in fact not live in accordance with that claim? Have you considered that most Americans will claim to be Christian even though they have nothing to do with that religion? Wouldn't that make most Americans Republicans? I do agree with you that religion has a great deal to do with our view on morality, but your stereotyping is ridiculous.

Now I have a question for you. Why is it that the baby is a part of the woman's body? It has a completely different genetic code and can survive after being seperated. Can you say the same for a woman's arms or legs or hair? By this logic, a siamese twin should be able to kill his/her sibling because they share a body.

On a sidenote, could all women posting please mention that they are women. I'm curious as to how many people using the argument, "You don't know what its like to be a woman!" actually know what its like to be a woman.

Up until the third trimester, medically, all a baby is a clump of flesh. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't demonstrate any characteristics we associate with a living, thinking human being.

To assume that life begins before the brain develops requires a philosophical or religious perspective. Something that we're forbidden by the Constitution to force others to adhere to. Thus, whether abortion is okay or not is a purely up to the father/mother.

That said, I would never allow my potential son/daughter to be aborted. The potential that that clump of flesh has to become is enough for me to at least give it a chance to live.

I'm, politically, pro-choice but personally pro-life.

Where did I whine about the forum being too complex?

Maybe you have mistaken me for someone else. I have yet to find anything in life "too complex" to discuss.

link
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Bottom line... Dating is for mating. Keep your pants on if you don't want a kid. Obviously sex feels good otherwise there would be no incentive to procreate.

I agree with that Mojo.

DarkBlack:

The stats on voter affiliation:religion was in a govt book I used last semester. It stated, many christians voted for democrats a majority. This is easily seen. IE(bill clinton, REV. jesse jackson,jfk(catholic),REV al sharpton, etc etc) just to name a few well known christian democrats. Statistics are changing my friend. It's also a well known fact that hispanics, many many of which are christian vote highly democrat.


Do you mean to tell me that you don't think that some women abuse the system? Open up your mind a bit, it DOES happen. I didn't say all women on welfare. You say later on "Maybe in your next life you can be a "ghetto" mom with 10 kids so you can see what the other side is like"

Let me ask you this, why do you think moms with 10 kids have 10 kids? Because she decided, I had 1 why not 9 more? As if being on welfare isn't hard enough. I'll go on to say there are more factors than welfare money that lead to large families in poor areas, but money certainly is an influence. I am an advocate for welfare, it just needs to be cleaned up, just like every other govt program. By the way, by no means was I born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I come from a large family where money was tight. Fortunately I grew up with loving parents who encouraged my education. I have alot of experience working with lesser fortunate people. I used to work at homeless shelters all the time. I realize how fortunate I am, I don't take my existance for granted.

My logic is not flawed. It's right on. You are always growing, the baby is independant of the mother. You were independant the day you were born, but yet your mother provided food and shelter for you, just like a mother who has a child in the womb. By the way, you didn't answer Killconey's questions. Are you saying foster parents only do it for the money? The money is just to help out. Do you think the states give thousands of dollars? I think not. Its going to be a small amount. Most do it out of love.

I think the others have answered on my behalf about how the man does have some say over his child. I will say this, you are partly right, a man should be responsible enough to get a vasectomy if he doesn't want kids. But it takes 2, therefore both parties are responsible.



C-sections are done painlessly all the time, everyday. I never said women were property, or my property for that matter. Putting words in my mouth doesn't help your argument. C-sections are better because the mother can be under anesthetics and not feel the baby being removed unlike an abortion. Its a very small incision and takes no time. Its the best way, the mother doesnt become attached, the baby lives and life goes on.






You are right, I did mean adoption. However, people who adopt provide many essential needs and could be considered foster parents. I know the foster system is also flawed and needs to be "cleaned up". But at least it gives kids a chance to be someone, not just another abortion stat.

yep

I already posted a link to answer this. Until you can do the same....

I am sure some do abuse the system but you stated that this is they only reason that they do it. I suggested your next life being a "ghetto" (the word that you used) mom with 10 kids so that you could see how you got those kids and realized that you were not abusing the system on purpose but because of lack of education and social programs to help you better your life.


[qoute]Let me ask you this, why do you think moms with 10 kids have 10 kids? Because she decided, I had 1 why not 9 more? As if being on welfare isn't hard enough. I'll go on to say there are more factors than welfare money that lead to large families in poor areas, but money certainly is an influence. I am an advocate for welfare, it just needs to be cleaned up, just like every other govt program. By the way, by no means was I born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I come from a large family where money was tight. Fortunately I grew up with loving parents who encouraged my education. I have alot of experience working with lesser fortunate people. I used to work at homeless shelters all the time. I realize how fortunate I am, I don't take my existance for granted.[/quote]

Mothers have 10 kids because of lack of education on issues such as birth control.
I agree welfare needs work but that is not the issue here.
I am glad you take time out to help out less fortunate. I do also and it makes us better people. Maybe you should try talking to them and getting to know them rather than looking down on them. Just a thought.

If you have a tumor in your body it is growing also. It is also a group of cells bunched together. I know there are a difference but not much at first.

As for Killconeys question I did answer it. Adoption and foster care are two different things. Foster care parents get a good amount for it. I know a foster family through a friend and trust me the get paid. I think it is around a thousand per month per child she is getting paid. Which is why she does it. She doesn't work she sits at home watching TV while the kids run wild. This is just one example. I agree that there are some that are loving people that want to help children. That is not what I was trying to say anyway. I was stating that the money that the government pays foster parents would be better spent for social education programs and welfare for the biological mothers. Now neither of you answered my question. What do you think would happen if every aborted child were put of for adoption?

I would like a doctor’s comment on this. I have not seen a c-section done since my little sister was born 25 years ago. At that time it was not such an easy get up and go thing. Even if it is a 20-minute process where the mom is eating bonbons while the doctor is cutting open her belly that is not the point. The point is the mother has to carry the child 9 1\2 months while the father watches football, hangs out with his boys, sleeps with his new girlfriend, says that’s not my baby, does all the things new fathers do these days while the mother is in hell. Wondering why her life got ruined. I don't think you are seeing my point so I will drop it.

My mistake, Darkblack. I was referring to when you said that you "can't even read the whole thing" and meant it more as a joke than an insult. While I disagree strongly with you, it would be wrong to attack you personally and I appologize.

Now a quick question about your link. It was very helpful, but Assembly of God is a denomination of Christianity rather than the whole. Did this site mean that 59% of Christians are Republicans or just 59% of the Assembly of God denomination are? If just the Assembly of God, where do the Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans and Nazarenes fit in?

Not sure about that. It is a Christian web site but could mean anyone that believes in a god type religion.

I think instead of Pro Life groups and Pro Choice groups arguing and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight there "cause" here's what needs to happen. Think about Causality . . taking a problem and tracing it back to its source to see who is at fault. Well let's take all this money from these activists and put it to sex education programs in highschools, more accessible birth control products, etc.

You can fight till the cows come home . . . (it my saying I live on a farm . . wanna fight about it!) and lets focus on prevention before we are faced with the abortion decision. People who think abortion is wrong and want it to be "illegal" hey . .fine . . any woman who doesn't want a baby can go sit in a hottub for 5 hours. You will never stop it. Lets do what we can to prevent it.

that 's my canadian 20 cents . . . . about 2 cents american.

HOW is killing a doctor that works at a free clinic 'pro life'?
how is blowing up an abortion clinics 'pro life'?
how do they JUSTIFY killing the doctor and everyone that works there because "abortion is murder"?!

please explain that. please tell me how it makes sense.

sure you can feel that abortion is wrong but women should have a choice (whatever it maybe).

i was going to give a situation but you all wouldnt like that so... No matter what the situation is, ABORTION IS NOT ANOTHER FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL, but she should still have a choice.

there is no way for me to convince any of you to completely change your views but it is simple: no one should say a woman can't or can, simply let her have the choice.

The issue with abortion is whether the unborn are technically people. Everyone has a differant opinion on this and any way you look at it, it becomes a religious issue. The day after conception, the unborn is just a few cells. This could not survive on its own and has yet to take a breath, have a heartbeat, or make a single thought. Is this a human being yet? Thats not for me to decide. Personally, if I were pregnant(I'm a guy btw), I could never have an abortion because i take the stance that the potential for life is precious and should be cherished. If my wife became pregnant and wanted an abortion for whatever reason, I wouldn't stop her but I would tell her that if she had the abortion and prevented my child from being born, I could no longer live with her and I'd get divorced. As for someone elses fetus, they should make their own decisions.

I know people who said that if their wife/girlfriend aborted their child that they would kill them. If they see a fetus as a true human being, I think they are as justified as a father would be in killing the murderer of his child. But in the end, I think it is completly the decision of the parents as science can't tell you what is and isn't a life. Anyone, including the government, whose genetic material isn't envolved should have no say in what happens.

Something like 1/10000th of 1% would ever support killing an abortion doctor. Its just another case of one individual making a whole group look bad. It boils down to the fact whether or not you think a person becomes an individual at birth or conception. Your decision on the matter makes you either pro-abortion, or pro-life.

The Gov't will never make abortions illegal.

You cannot take away an adult's freedom of choice.

Outlawing abortions will not stop the problem. People will always find a different way to get an abortion. If she wants one. . . some how . some way it WILL happen.

Let's educate people about preventing pregnancies and get to the ROOT of the problem . . .un safe sex.

Insofar as I'm entitled to an opinion, I'm pro-choice, or anti-life, or however you want to put it. Some random thoughts:

I wonder if the male posters here who think they can "forbid" a sexual partner to have an abortion would be willing to have the foetus transplanted into an artificial womb in their own bodies? This could be possible in the not-too-distant future.(http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/Kloning/womb.html)

Currently, right here and now, pro-life women of childbearing age could offer themselves as receptacles for transplanted unwanted foetuses. Why is this not more common? All that money wasted on full-color blow-up pictures of foetuses beside fingernails could be spent on transplants.

Unfortunately, it's some bizarre absolutist concept of LIFE for LIFE's sake that drives the pro-life people; nothing to do with quality of life.

The late and sorely-missed Bill Hicks had a good suggestion:

"I'm not a girl, I'm a guy you know? But at the same time, I tell ya how you can solve this abortion issue right now. Ready? Those unwanted babies that single moms leave in alleys and in dumpsters? Leave about 12 of those on the steps of The Supreme Court. This is over. Like that. "You guys said we had to have them? Then you guys...FUCKING RAISE 'EM." "Raise 'em then, you fucking fucking raise 'em. YOU raise 'em. You said I had to have it? Then it's yours. Fuck. It's yours..Take it"

For a human to intensionally abort a most innocent human offspring, would seem to border on insanity...like war...like genocide...like suicide...like immaturity...like the lion that kills its own cubs. I can appreciate the dilemmas that may be involved...I have been close to such dilemmas...all would agree it would be better if it did not come to that.

I firmly stand by the pro-choice arguement. I'm not going to just leave it at that, there is a basis for this desire to hold to such an arguement, and normally, I could say that this basis was simple. It is really, but as this is a philosophy discussion board, I'm sure I'll need just a tad bit more rationalization than average.

My entire problem with the pro-life standpoint is the simple belief that the goverment has the right to legislate a belief system. When it all comes down to it, that's the real issue at stake when politicians debate reproductive rights, it has nothing to do with science, it has nothing to do with protecting individuals, it's a matter of religion. Certainly I agree that, in this case, we enter a moral grey area. Without knowing for a fact when life begins, whether or not there is a human soul, or when consciousness is first attained, we really can't say that we are killing a child by aborting it. Unfortunately, we also don't have the grounds to say that we are NOT killing a child.

What we do have, however, are a few simple facts:
1. The Pro-Life movement is almost entirely based on standard Judeo-Christian dogma, and as such, is asserting the government legislate individual morality to conform to its standards.
2. The Pro-Choice camp does not advocate abortion, it advocates leaving it as an option for the individual to decide (don't like abortion? don't have one).
3. As of yet, science has not determined the existance of a human soul, when consciousness begins, or provided any rational basis for believing anything other than the idea that life begins at birth.
4. Based upon the above three facts, we can infer the following: Advocating a ban on abortion is based upon a belief structure not based on science or fact, but rather the moral authority of an external entity which, as of yet, resists all attempts at direct contact.
5. Banning abortion sets a legal precedent for legislating codes of moral conduct using theology as a basis. This is non-conducive to the basic right of Freedom of Religion.

Thus, I am firmly pro-choice.

Additionally, not that this provides me any moral high ground, I was an adopted child. My mother was, in fact, going to abort me when a friend of hers informed her of the fact that my mother was barren. As a result, she chose instead to give birth to me and pass me on to my mother. In this case, I'm glad she didn't choose to have an abortion, but I'm certainly glad she'd had the option. What if my mother hadn't been there, and I had been raised without a father and with a resentful mother who hadn't the time or the money to take care of me?

You addressed everything, and responded the best way possible.

NOTHING anyone says after this is going to change anyone's mind. this is the compromise that should just be ACCEPTED. even if you disagree, it doesn't matter; just accept these things and live your life as you please.

It's interesting to see that many more people here are pro-choice than pro-life. It makes me wonder why this is so, when the general populace seems to be more pro-life. The average IQ of a person that uses the internet regularly is somewhere around 115, well above the general average of 90. Is it because we are smarter? The TFP also has more male members than female... is this the reason? Also, the TFP is often associated with pornography... is it because we have loose morals? What are your thoughts?

I was gonna quote that bill hicks thing, but I saw someone already did so.... [what he said]

I haven't seen numbers on this in years, and wouldn't be surprised at all to find that the vast majority of people are pro-choice now, with pro-life groups being much more vocal.

I agree with you Pellaz. Majority is pro choice but the much more vocal group are the pro lifers. Too bad all there protesting will be for nothing.

If I got a girl pregnant, I would want to keep the child. I would not tell someone else with a child that isn't mine what to do though. I guess that makes me pro-choice.

If 40 million foetuses were aborted that is a lot. Then again, if those 40 million were born as babies, how do you think America would be right now? 40 million unwanted babies sitting in orphanages? on the streets? There are already more orphans than couples that want to adopt, imagine adding 40 million more. What would happen in this case? There wouldn't be enough resources to take care of all the orphans and most, if not all of the 40 million would end up where? Sure ending a potential person's life is bad, but would letting them all be born be better? What it would do is create a huge social burden that would hurt everyone in the country, not just the babies.

Hmm, methinks this left the realm of philosophical discussion a while back. Ah well...

I find myself at odds on the issue. I dislike that, as I am the type of person that like my own positions to be strongly realized. Abortion sends my normal careful construction of rationale into disarray.

I find abortion personally repugnant. The idea is overwhelmingly repulsive. The mechanics are abhorrent, and the result is so morally revolting that my conscious mind shrinks from it. You see, I'm a parent. I have two kids that I adore. The idea that either one of them could've been destroyed on a whim simply sickens me. I've seen what results from conception, and it is a beautiful things, two beautiful things in my case.

However, I find the idea of the govt deciding to restrict abortion, an act so completely not covered by anything in the legal underpinnings of this nation, to be intellectually repugnant. What right has the govt to tell you or I what we can and cannot do with our own bodies? None, says I. It is my body. Tattoos, piercing, drugs, alcohol, suicide, what have you. My body, in the end, is the only thing I can be said to truly possess. An abortion is an act that affects, in the end, your body.

Therein lies the rub. There is another entity involved in an abortion. It's that little blastocyst, bundle of cells, or even foetus growing within that body of yours. It may be your body, but it has a body too. It has existence, of some sort. The question becomes not whether abortion should remain legal, nor whether or not it is your body or not, but when does a foetus have legally protectable rights? When does it have status as an individual, instead of simply an aberration on the uterine wall?

I am not a person to really answer that. I am not a doctor or scientist, I am not a religious man that believes life begins at conception. I do think that if a foetus has a chance of living outside the womb with the wonders of modern medicine, it becomes murder to terminate the pregnancy. That would seem self-evident to me. If the foetus is capable of sustaining independent life, even with the caveat that serious medical treatment is required, I would call it an entity in its' own right. At that point, I would say that the govt does have a responsibility to protect it, and that it has all the rights and duties of a human being.

So, my bottom line is that I find abortion horrid, but feel like the govt has no right to legislate what anyone does to themselves. However, once the foetus is capable of independent existence, you have no more right to harm it than you do to hurt the neighbor kid down the street.

As to giving the prospective father a say, how do you do that? Is there anyone to argue that the father has as much invested in a pregnancy as the mother? Realistically? So if the mother's opinion carries more weight, how does on egive the father a say that is in any way meaningful. As much as I find it 'unfair' that the male has no say in something he helped create, I cannot find a meaningful way to give him a say that does not impinge on the rights of the female.

Lastly, to those concerned about how pro-lifers are unworried about the child once it is born, I say feh. I've seen a number of studies and reports that show that pro-lifers are statistically much more likely to give to charity than their pro-choice counterparts. Pro-lifers do care, they just tend to dislike rampant welfare and the like as they tend to be on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Morality and laws of society are two different issues,
you can be moral and violate the law (i.e. a man with starving children who steals from a rich man)
and be immoral and obey the law (a rich man who refuses to help desparate needy people).

Laws in america are the result of political influence and
morality is strictly a cultural thing.

Abortion is an example where both our legal position and our cultural acceptance have changed 180 degrees in recent years.

Abortion is just like gambling, selling alcohol, and prostitution - it is ok legaly and moraly if the majority can agree it is.

If I remember correctly, Goethe say: God forgives, Man forgets, Nature never forgets. (Nor forgives...I would add.) From an athiestic, purely biological point of view...and trying to maintain the evolutionary/genetic nature of man, abortion would be one of the big evils...except for the possible notion that those who would condone abortion probably represent an inferior parenting gene and do humanity a favor by not reproducing.

Leaving out any religious beliefs - that bunch of cells scraped out of a woman when an abortion is performed in the first tri-mester - it could not survive outside the womb, therefore it's not murder.

Then again, I also believe in euthenasia.

People keep saying things about "moral" issues and how abortion is a moral issue that shouldn't be legislated. Well, no, it's not only a moral issue, it's a legal issue. The unborn child should have the legal right to live, just like a newborn. If a woman cannot violate her child's rights after the child is born, then what gives her the "choice" to do it before it is born?

The day all forms of abortion are outlawed is the day I leave this country...

^^^^
no doubt

I was almost aborted by my mother and I just have to say that I am still pro-choice.

I think that no one should be forced to have something that they don't want, not good to start or continue a life in that manner.

Just to let you know josobot, Nature kills alot more fetuses then there are surgical abortions. (they're call miscarriages )Take it from a person who works in a major medical center. We might have 1 to 2 abortions a week(at the most), but up in obstetrics we have about 1-3 misscarriges a day. Just food for thought.

I am aware of natural abortion...nature's final inspection process...very natural...sometimes errs. Induced abortion or worse rejects what passed nature's inspection.

I don't know if this was addressed.

Having to do with those who believe abortion is murder as a result of their Christian beliefs: there is a passage in the Bible that discusses a similiar issue to abortion.

This passage has to do with assault against pregnant women and states that any person who harms a woman so that she loses her child will have to pay a fine to the woman to make up for the loss of the child.

Now, extrapolating from this it becomes clear that the Bible (at least in this instance) treats an unborn child as property, not life, as the penalty for accidentally 'aborting' a fetus is civil and not criminal.

Something to think about.

for my 2 cents, i'm against abortion the act. although i'm for its legalization, see, while i think women using it as a form of birth control is horrendous, (which don't think happens on a regular basis, not a tremendous lot of women get 5 or 6 abortions.) on the same token i do not feel that, say, a 12 tear old girl who is raped and impregnated by her drunken, abusive father should be forced to bear such a burden her entire life. i know i could never in my right mind choose such an action for myself and my signifigant other. but, i'll never tell someone else they can't do it themselves.

Now this I kinda agree with, we have to stop giving the government the power to make common sense decisions for us.

As I stated before "If you don't want a tree in your yard, don't plant the seed."

Lets eliminate the source not deal with the symptons.
For example: You sneeze and cough, this isn't the actual problem, it's a result of having a cold. So instead of just wiping and woofing down halls, work on getting rid of the cold.

if someone trespasses on my property, i can get away with shooting that person and killing them. and unwanted fetus is essentially trespassing on the mothers body. she should be able to get rid of it.

All I'm saying is, if this is how you feel, then you have a strong moral obligation to make your sentiments plain to any girl you plan to sleep with BEFORE you have sex with her. Your opinion imposes a gigantic responsibility on the woman, and she should have the chance to knowingly accept it.

Also, I am happy that our justice system prosecutes vigalantes just like any other criminal.

From a philosophical standpoint, it isn't a baby till it passes the 'lump of stem cells' stage.

That's really interesting.

Most Christian pro-lifers would probably say that's a part of the bible that you're not supposed to take literally. :crazy:

You are right about that.

The bible was meant to be taken literally back in the day, but now that we know how crazy it is, it is said to be metaphorical.

It all boils down to a matter of convenience for the mother. It's funny how the whole "my body, my choice" argument is thrown out the window when the woman arbitrarily decides to have the baby. Then the argument becomes "it takes two to tango," and the guys are forced by law to pay child support. Philosophically, I am 100% against abortion, but arguing that would take too long to no avail. You can't argue wholistically with someone who is motivated by selfishness - which is what i think the above example points to.

In addition, I think the overwhelming majority of pro-abortionists are against the idea of abortion as a form of birth control. I think this is in essence an acknowledgement that there is something inherantly wrong with abortion. If they believe as they say they do that an unborn baby is nothing but a "mass of fetal tissue", what then is it that prevents them from supporting abortion as simply a means of birth control?

Originally posted by rockzilla

"Once my tax dollars go to pay for someone elses mistake, that's when I have the right to an opinion."

Man, thats cold! Once I've paid my tax pounds sterling (!) the government can do what they want with it. If you don't like what the do, don't vote for them. Lobby against them.

Right or wrong, I'd prefer my government to pay for abortions raher than have desperate women cause themselves injury and pain by having dangerous 'back street' procedures.

I'm definately in the pro-choice camp.

and about that whole "if it can't live outside the wound, it's a parasite and not really alive" argument. this could apply to newborns, children up to say 16 or 17; retarted adults; adults with down syndrome. By your rationale and definition of life - all of these groups are parasites and not really "alive" in that none are capable of surviving on their own and require the care of another human being.

you're taking that way out of context. until a baby is like 8 months old, if you remove it from the mother, it will die (without major medical intervention). it is not fully developed. it may be a human being, but it is not a fully developed one and since in order for it to live it must get it's nutrients and oxygen from the mother, it is a parasitic/host relationship that is going on. they are not symbiotic. the baby can't live on it's own outside of the mother. it's that simple.

after it's born, yeah, it still won't survive without the help of other people. it can't feed itself or cloth itself. but first of all, we're not talking about once it's born. if we were, then we'd be talking about all the people having kids that cant' afford to feed and clothe them without assistance from the govt. until the baby leaves the womb, it is analogous to either a parasite (because it leeches everything it needs from its host) or a tumor (an uncontrolled growth in the body).

you're this could apply to group x, y and z doesnt' matter. we're not talking about those groups, and by definition they arent' parasites anyways (at least not in a biological manner, which is what we're talking about).

sperm fertilizes egg = life is created. taking away that life without cause = murder

well, that's not really right.

sperm = alive.
egg = alive.

fertized egg = mixture of previously alive things.

at conception, it's just a cell. to call that cell a human life, well, i don't think would be accurate. but i guess that's something that you (you in the general sense) need to decide for yourself. i personally don't see it as being any different than any other cell that will grow and divide, be it bacteria, virus, tumor, stem, etc.

so it's alive, but it's not really a life.

so what your trying to say is that we are all alive, but not really? :) when does life begin then? what defines a life? i stand by the belief that life begins when that "cell" is created. to take that life away is murder, especially when that entity cant do anything for itself like prevent its own demise.

Originally posted my matthew330
It's not funny really. The woman has much, much more invested biologically in carrying a child to term than the man. The man can just up and leave whenever he wants. He is not forced to carry a prechild in his belly for nine months. What would seem selfish to me is the idea of a man looking at a woman he impregnated and thinking, "fuck, I got it rough."

Abortion as birth control? Seems a bit high priced compared to the pill or condoms, or whatever other method available. I don't know about the philosophical view, but i guess i wouldn't advocate dentures as a method of tooth care either.

I vote pro choice. Here's my reasoning:

It very much depends on the situation. I believe that if you can't suffer the consequenses of having unsafe sex, then you shouldn't have unsafe sex. While being pro life, you should realize that there are situations in life, maily rape, where there was no choice. In situations like that there needs to be the option of abortion. Otherwise you're forcing a child on a woman without respect to her rights.

I'll rephrase the question, I think you got the point and just couldn't address it. If you ask any pro-choice person if they have a problem with a particular individual having 8 abortions, they will say yes. And they won't elaborate with a "it costs too much." This is a recognition that there is something inherantly wrong with abortion - and if it's not that it is the taking of a human life, i'd like to know what they think it is.

Off-topic, but we all know pro-abortion is much more accurate a description than pro-choice. When a young girl walks into planned parenthood abortion is practically shoved down her throat with very little information on any other alternatives. What kind of choice is that. "Prechild"?? Come on now - you can say it - psst, there's a baby in there little girl.

If you haven't heard - she does have the option of abortion. But those situation make up, what - less than 2% of all abortions. Pro-choice people are inevitably forced to reference these to defend their position but it is an undeniable fact that somewhere around 95-98% of all abortions are for social reasons.

Ya know, their are times in life where murdering another human being is the only option: war and self-defense being two. Why don't we make all murder, no matter what the circumstance, legal for the same reason

i'm pro-choice. and yes, i think someone having 8 abortions is wrong. is it because i think they're taking a human life? nope. no. sorry. it's because it shows a major lack of responsibility on the part of the person getting the 8 abortions. she's too lazy or weak to be bothered/force condom usage. she's having lots of unsafe sex for whatever reason, and that isn't good.

now let me ask you this... is that the type of person you want raising another human being?

Here's what it comes down too. We has human beings have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Plain and simple. You cannot take that away from anybody. I don't see what is being accomplished here, how about we get to the root of the problem. How about we take all this money that is being donated to these pro-life, and pro-choice groups and put it to some better use. Let's put it towards educating people about safe sex and the different methods of it. This way we get to the ROOT of the problem. The gov't will never outlaw abortion . . . . it will never happen . .

Just a question Mathew330,

Have you actually been in a Planned Parenthood office before?

I say that because I have and I have seen all sorts of literature on abstenance and adoption. Of course, I haven't actually been to a clinician for an abortion so I don't know what is said there, but so far my experience isn't what you are describing.

And no, Pro-Choice is exactly what I am.

If you need to see my reasoning, please refer to my essay I posted on page 2 of this thread.

that's it? - to answer your question yeah i have been. But what i said came from hearing planned parenthood people talk. Is that it?

Im not someone who thinks that abortion is a great practice, but i think its alright under the right circumstances. I think a woman's body is pretty much her domain and her call.

again, unless you decide to have the baby. Then your "your body, your call" independence cry is thrown out the window and it becomes "it takes two to tango."

If men have absolutely no say in your decision to abort (if the man wants you to keep the baby), then be consistent about it and when you arbitrarily decide to keep the baby - the man should have every right to say "hey, it was your choice - later"

Obviously i don't agree with any of the above situations - just pointing out the hypocrisy

well.. it should be a discussion between the woman and the man (if hes man enough to stick around, in most cases), but ultimately, it is the woman's choice.

As far as what I would do? I'd let her make the choice, and then live with its consequences, even if that means I have to raise my own kid.

my pence on the subject.

An essay for Lebell
http://www.gargaro.com/abortion.html

I'm a bit confused by this question.

Anyway, thanks for the link.

I wish I could say that it's an interesting read, but truthfully, she breaks no new moralistic or ethical ground and fails to address the issues I summed up in my essay and my conclusion.

I'll also add that maybe she hasn't heard verbal abuse and intimidation from the pro-life side at an abortion clinic, but I have.

To be perfectly honest - the question "that's it?" confused me a bit too when i reread, please disregard. I think i was replying to another board at the same time. did i mention i was a lil hung over at the time too - on a tuesday - how'd that happen?

Anyway - i didn't assert that the article was breaking moralistic ground. Just well researched and addressed far more issues than yours did (no diss intended). Her article wasn't written in response to yours, but I will now - i was kind of rushing earlier, and just posted that in hopes of some sort of response from you. But whatever, this is what I think in a nutshell about your essay:

You conveniently compare the life of a week old and the life of an 8 and a half month old and acknowledge that there is a grey area in between. You acknowledge life in the 8 1/2 month old by the defination given and state that the week old does not meet the criteria. Your solution to the grey area: restrictions on abortion as the baby evolves. You don't define these restrictions for obvious reasons (i.e. - they are not defineable). My problem with this is that because you cannot pinpoint a time in which you believe the fetus is "alive", the only safe assumption is that it is alive at conception. I'm surprised that your essay acknowledges and leaves open the possibility that a human life (by your own definition) can be and is at times ended - it is murdered. And your justification for this murder is "preservation of a woman's self-determination."

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread yet, but I'm going to add my opinion.

1) Life begins at conception. That's it. I think it's wrong to think it's ok to take a life (especially from a baby that can't defend itself). That child is just as alive and just as human inside the womb as it is outside of the womb.
2) Abortion is not a way to solve a problem.
3) Men should definitely have a say in what happens. If a man is willing to step up and accept responsibility for his actions, more power to him.

However, making abortion illegal does take away a piece of freedom. Abortion isn't right, but some women out there will do it whether it's legal and in a clinic somewhere safe(r) or illegal and not in a clinic done professionally (or whatever term you choose to use there).


That's the short version...

"conveniently" is a loaded word and truthfully, I don't much care for it, since it implies to me some sort of dishonesty on my part. I used the extreme ends of the spectrum to illustrate the difficulties involved in reaching an ethical consensus as to what it means to be human and a person.

I also believe I state quite clearly that the laws as they stand are a reasonable compromise to the question of when the fetus becomes a person and should not be easily aborted; i.e. no restriction to abortion in the first two trimesters and some restrictions in the third trimester.

And no one has argued that a zygote is not 'alive' in the biological sense nor that it is not uniquely human in the genetic sense, but that it is not yet a human being in the sense of what we understand that to be (which I went on to define).

The alternative, ignoring the qualities that we attribute to persons and using your "better safe than sorry" criteria, is to grant every newly fertalized egg equal full legal status as a human being, meaning that the mother has NO ability to terminate the pregnancy, even if the preganancy was due to rape, the fetus was deformed, etc.

Is this really what you are suggesting?

Because ethically, you can do nothing else without appearing a hypocrite, accepting your own criteria for legal abortions (murder, in your words) while rejecting mine.

just to point out, and while i do agree with you on the idea that this double standard really sucks, it's irrelevant to the debate.

I was brought up to be pro-life. For the longest time that is what position I took whenever anyone asked me about abortion. In the last year or so I have changed my opinion to pro-choice. I am not saying that I now go around promoting abortion, but I do believe that no one can tell someone else whether they should be able to have an abortion or not. If that is what they choose then why should we stop them and make their decisions for them. There may come a time in your life where you are faced with the decision of abortion. You may not be able to provide for a child yet the thought of carrying it full term and giving it up for adoption is a very hard thing to do. I even found a passage in the BIBLE saying that if the child won't have a good life then it would be better off if it had never been born. No abortion is not a good thing, but it is an optino provided for those who have few other choices. Yes they have choices, but it is their choice and I am not going to tell someone what they can and can't do. While I may never make the decision to have an abortion, I can't actually say. I could say right now that I never would but I have never been in a circumstance where I would or could consider it an option. I hope I am never in there because it would be a very hard choice to make.

Your wrong about the "conveniently" thing. It doesn't imply dishonesty at all - you just didn't bother to address at what point a fetus fits you definition of life (in all its wisdom). I'd also like to add that there are many adults that wouldn't fit half the criteria in that definition of life - severe mental retardation being one. Perhaps you should consider a definition of life that doesn't come from some pro-choice advocate and then explain to me how an eight week old fetus, as described below, and well within you "first two trimester" cut-off, is not alive.

Eight Week Fetus: All the major organs of your baby have formed now though they are not fully developed yet. Eyes and ears are growing now. The heart is beating strongly. When you have an ultrasound during this time, you can see the fetal heart pulsating.

And for the record - the whole "murder, in my words." Yes i believe it is murder, but they are not my words, they are in fact yours - you just window dressed it with nicer words. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED that at a point (which you CANNOT define) the fetus is "alive." However your loose timeline of legal abortions certainly allows for the taking of a human (again - YOUR DEFINITION) life. And again you justify this killing for "self-determination of the woman."

As i mentioned before - pro-choice advocates are always forced to reference rape, incest, in your case deformed (CERTAINLY NO REASON FOR KILLING A BABY). Being that these situations make up such a tiny percentage of all abortions that take place I'll leave it alone for now, for your benefit. I don't want you to get sidetracked on that. BABY STEPS for Lebell.

Mael, with all respect, it is completely relevant. The "My Body, My Choice" is the backbone of the abortionist argument. It's ironic how quickly this is no longer their philosophy when a woman "chooses" to deliver to term.

I would guess, Eowyn_Vala, that you are in college, shortly out of your house. This happens frequently. College students leave the house and when liberalism is shoved down their throats for 4 years by professors, they question everything they learned growing up. That's natural. What you have to realize is college students are not yet thinking for themselves. When you get out from under the wing of those professors, and you really start thinking for yourself - I have faith you'll once again switch to pro-life.

You start out by saying you weren't being sarcastic by being sarcastic.

And I believe I've addressed your question 3 times now. I don't know when a fetus becomes a person, but I am comfortable with the laws as they are; being a compromise between giving all rights to the fetus or all rights to the mother. In the early stages of pregnancy I prefer to err on the side of the mother. In the later stages, I prefer to err on the side of the fetus.

I disagree strongly with this statement.

To review:

It can be argued that even a severly retarded person exihibits traits 1, 3, and 5 (and possibly 4), so that they meet Warren's definition of "person".

Please.

I have spent 15 years formulating and debating my position on abortion. So address it or not, but don't try to brush it off as being from some "pro-choice advocate".

See above.

No, I never said murder, I never meant murder. If you choose to use that word, then use it.

But please don't try to say I am using it or that I "really" meant that when I never did and don't.

I see.

So your main beef is that my argument allows the possibility of "murdering" a person. (And to be clear, my definition of "person" allows the possibility.)

Well yes, it does.

But neither of us know when a fetus becomes a person.

Your argument is that we should be "better safe than sorry" and declare the fetus a person at conception.

My argument is that there are worse things than "murdering" a fetus when we are not sure about that fetus' status; namely, taking away the rights and freedoms of someone that is, beyond any doubt, a fully realized person.

No, it is central to your position to tell us if you allow exceptions, because if you DO, then you are saying that it is ok to "murder a baby" if there is good enough cause. In otherwords, accept your line in the sand, but not mine.

So to side step the issue with more sarcasm and condescending witticism is disingenous and dishonest.

(As an aside note, please tone it down. If you can't post without resorting to this kind of nonsense, please don't post.)

**i'm just gonna jump back in here**

The mother should have a choice; what her choice is doesn't matter as long as she has a choice!

typical response: "why doesn't the father have a say?"
my response: "because the father doesn't have a baby inside of him"

father should have A say;
MOTHER HAS THE FINAL SAY
----the above is my position------
-----below is something new to talk about-----
If the mother is incompetent of making the decision, then she shouldn't be having the child.

Very intelligent points here.
I would like to ask a question.
Let's say that a mother carries her child to term. Let's say that if she rasises this child the needs of the child won't be met. Is abortion any better than letting the child suffer for years?
So she can be totally unprepared to raise a child, get pregnant, but it's better to let the child be born and go hungry than it is to "kill" a fetus?
I think there's something wrong wtih a society that is much more concerned with life before birth than life after birth.

but don't you see!!! this is a LIFE we're talking about!!!


/end sarcasm

i completely agree with you.

I have read many but not all of the posts here.
Being a guy I will never have to be the last word on this decision but here is my 2 cents worth.

I believe in a few simple concepts that I try to live by....sort of a combination of logic and utilitarianism and natural consequences.

I am pro choice but in a different way
I almost never get into the debate about when life begins but rather when the choice is made.

If you jump off the roof you will most surely fall to the ground (barring any obstacles) it is a natural consequence of jumping.

The choice is made when you decide to have sex.......the natural consequence is pregnancy (Given enough trials and any mathematical possibility it is a certainty)

What would do the most good for the most people is difficult to fathom but I can weigh that thought against the Kantian ethic of "Act on that maxim that you would deem universal"

That categorical imperitive gives me these two thoughts....
what if everyone aborted.....Bad
What if everyone weighed, considered and accepted the consequences of their actions.....Something much better

I would choose not aborting as a policy with noteable exceptions. However, changing a womans heart is truly the only way to get her to see it that way after the decision has been made.

We agree what the implications of aborting are: the taking a human life.

"My argument is that there are worse things than "murdering" a fetus when we are not sure about that fetus' status; namely, taking away the rights and freedoms of someone that is, beyond any doubt, a fully realized person."

What rights/freedoms are being taken away? ZERO. Unless you consider the taking of a human life a right. Especially when you consider that everyone who steps up to their responsibilities, carries the baby to term - in the long wrong never has any regrets. Have you ever heard anyone say "I just should have aborted my child." No, i don't think you have. And we can probably agree that there are a boatload of children out there who were unplanned, weren't conceived in the most ideal of circumstances, etc, etc.

I wasn't brushing off your argument as being from some "pro-choice advocate." Your definition of life came from some pro-choice advocate and as such is defined in a way that will not contradict their view on abortion - a "convenient" definition if you will.

And you certainly can't argue that a person in a coma wouldmeet any of the criteria that you mentioned. Why not just kill them - is it because they have "the potential" to become a person? hmmm, where have i heard that before. Besides - out of the 5 criteria for life the only one i can pinpoint and can say for sure a 3 month fetus doesn't have and that's the capacity for reasoning.

One more thing - we're arguing abortion here. You're getting all testy from what I can tell because at one point i said "you conveniently blahblahblah", and another i said "your definitioin of life (in all its wisdom)." Conveniently doesn't imply dishonest, and the "in your wisdom" was more irony than sarcasm. It was just making the point that that definition of life came from someone who had an agenda to suit that definition for their own words - and certainly not an M.D. I don't think i'm being overly sarcastic or condescending.

since we are never going to convince the other side, compromise.

lets discuss the following question:
my thoughts: if mother or child would be in danger from the birth; if the mother is mentally or physically unable to handle 9 months of child bearing

i think you missed the point of what i was saying. the double standard is irrelevant. it IS the WOMANS choice what to do with her body. if a man beats a woman, she has the choice to file charges, and whatever her choice, it effects (or affects?) the man. if a man knocks a woman up, she has the choice to carry or abort, and the man has to live with it. it sucks for us guys, but to take that choice away from her would be far worse.

since your so against abortion, i ask you this: would you rather the govt. make you get a license to have sex? have a license to have a kid? we have to get a license to drive a car, and that can kill people and affect the lives of others. why not with kids? bad parents raising a kid could lead to a lot worse than a car accident. (i realise this may not be the best analogy, or maybe it's already been used, but i'm short on time, class starts in 10.)

Let us be clear.

What we agree on is that the fetus is bioligically alive and is human by definition of its DNA. What we don't agree on is that the fetus is a person that deserves the same legal protections as a person.

And the "rights" being taken away is the most fundamental right of all, that of moral and ethical self determination. This right I would argue is THE most fundamental God given right of all and to deny it is a sin.

You would take away this right by forcing women to use your morays and ethics in determining if an abortion (something deeply personal) is ethically and morally right or wrong.

The problem with this is that there are well thought out and valid arguments (some of which I have presented) which do not agree with your morays, therefore your argument for taking away this right must devolve to "better safe than sorry".

This is unacceptable to me and will always be.

You bring up the case of a person in a persistant coma. That is a different discussion, but I think we can agree that the person likely met all qualifications for personhood before falling into their coma. Next I have the following questions: How likely is the person likely to come out of their coma? How many people come out of persistent comas vs how many do not? Has the person signed any medical directives, medical powers of attorney, etc.

But to your original point, the individual certainly DID qualify as a person and may do so again. Further, they may or may not have provided instructions and wishes for such an eventuality. But if they have not and they will not recover, then the ethics of medical euthanasia is a valid question that I don't feel our society has sufficiently addressed.

I've seen so many prolifers use the word murder in reference to abortion. Even though the argument of when a fetus deserves full fledged human rights is as of yet unresolved, let's pretend that we've decided that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Not what i believe, but let's pretend.
- Don't we as a society condone murder for the right reasons every day? War is cool, right. We can murder innocents and soldiers alike if it is in our country's best interests. I've done no study, but i think the assumption of overlap between the prowar and prolife demographics would probably hold true. We murder criminals, we make all kinds of exceptions when it comes to the sanctity of life.
Why is abortion unacceptable? It arguably benefits society to not have a bunch of impoverished, unwanted children running around growing up angry. Why is this not acceptable?

You are making a very broad statement here. You seem to be saying that no one, at any time, has ever regretted having a child. And that implies that you think everyone who has ever had an abortion has regretted it.
How can you possibly make that assumption?
And is the only reason women have an abortion because they aren't responsible people?
There are any number of factors involed in that kind of descion. You can't possibly know what someone goes through when they are faced with having a child. *Unless, you've been there.*
The choice should not be left in the hands of someone who feels they are morally superior to everyone else.

Hypothetical situation:

A biologist takes sperm and an egg and puts them in a petri dish, with-in the hour conception will occur. Is it murder if the biologist takes the dish and cleans it twenty minutes later, even if conception had not occured ?

This sounds a bit different than what you said previously

This is what I was referring to when i said we agree what the implications of abortion are. Where we differ is I believe it is always the taking of a human life, where as you believe it is the taking of a human life in certain instances - so it's fair to say that over time it is the taking of many human lives (innocent lives i might add) - from your perspective. What justifies the taking of these lives is to preserve the "rights and fredoms of someone that is a fully realized person", and the possibility of murdering a "fully realized person" (even by Warren's definition) in order to preserve these rights are an acceptable loss i suppose (not to put words in your mouth, but i see no other way of putting it.

I take issue with your description of these "rights" as "god-given and to deny would be a sin." Medical technology is not a God-Given right. Not to get corny but I would suggest that if anything in this particular argument is "god-given" it would be the gift of motherhood. Nobody ever argued that the steps of becoming a mother was "easy and convenient."

As far as the coma thing, it wasn't a significant point and I don't want to spend too much time on it but your questions
as they may be applied to a fetus - the overwhelming majority on both of these. You may have me on the not signing power of attorney one - fetus' don't do this. Besides Warren never said, these are no longer the criteria for life if they meet none now - but once did. Which was my point in the first place, her definition is incomplete, and suited to her agenda. A fetus at any stage would meet the criteria for every other definition of life i can find.

And Mael - the man "chose" to beat her, he should by all means pay the price. And by law, the woman doesn't have to choose to prosecute, the state can prosecute without her permission. And the whole "bad parents raising a kid could lead to a lot worse than a car accident" if you look at the statistics the incidence child abuse has risen since Roe v Wade. What makes sense to me as the article i posted a link to before would be that it is a result of people's attitudes toward the "sanctity" of life as one other poster put it. To be exact "We murder criminals, we make all kinds of exceptions when it comes to the sanctity of life." Yes - we murder incredibly violent criminals - and you would suggest that not only is there something sanctimonious about this murderer, but more so than a baby who hasn't been born yet. I just don't get that logic.

Nanofever the answer to your question is no - it's not murder, conception had not occurred.

I may have missed someone elses, but it's kinda difficult when it's 5 or 6 against one. I think I responded to most of them.

Does anyone have a record of the earlies prematurely born baby that survived?

I know my mother works with children with developmental delays, and she has one girl who was born slightly before the third trimester began....she was smaller than a dollar bill, and is doing fine (relatively...she has a few handicaps that are being dealt with).

Just food for thought...I'd be interested to see the earliest born premie.

Just for the record, I'm weighing into this debate witht the following mindset: strictly anti-abortion in the concrete, ie concerning me directly, openmindedly pro-life in the abstract, for society.

If you believe life begins at conception, that would be the petri-dish equivalent of birth control...not allowing the sperm to fertilize the egg. Otherwise, it depends on your definitions.

We also inevitably execute innocent people.
I'm not saying the criminal is morally better or holier than the unborn child, just that when speaking of the sanctity of life, shouldn't you be consistent across the boards? It is not all right to murder a fetus because all life is sacred, right? Why is it all right to murder a criminal? Why is it all right to kill soldiers and innocent civilians in war?
Why is one form of murder justifiable while another form is not?

Well this is a whole other argument which i would expect to hear from someone arguing against the death penalty - not for abortion. I think it's pretty twisted logic to suggest that because murdering a criminal is legal, so should killing a baby. To be fair, I'm not sure where i stand on capital punishment ( i can tell you i'm against how it is currently applied) - but because i believe the life of a newbord is far more sacred than the life of a serial murderer - this is where i'll put my efforts.

I don't see any comparison to a confused teenager going to have an abortion without their parents knowledge to say the US entering WW-II.

"Why is one form of murder justifiable while another is not?"
If someone is attacking a family member of mine and their life is in danger, if it's in my means - I will kill them. I will not hesitate and say "Well because i can't justify the killing of a fetus, i'll sit here and keep my fingers crossed."

holy shit...I start this post and disappear for 3 months at college. I return and it's still at the top. I heart you guys! :)

Okay, let me rephrase. Why is abortion not justifiable if it can be shown to benefit individuals and society with regulated application? We justify other types of murder when they benefit society and individuals, as your self defense example illustrated.

If you can't see any connection than you are not paying attention. Society has always condoned murder under the right circumstances. If you support murder under any circumstance than you are acknowledging that it does have a use and a place in our society. So where do you draw the line?

If my girlfriend got pregnant and the child was going to endanger her life, or even endanger the future that we have planned and she agrees, it will get aborted. Because under some circumstances, the "killing" of a fetus is very justified. Society is better off with two fully productive people unhindered by a child they aren't capable of raising than it is with another family on welfare.