Opposing abortion in the event of rape
 

My position? Pretty much pro-choice all the way, which makes this issue a moot point for me.

Now, I don't agree with unwavering pro-lifers, but it is a consistent position. If life does begin at conception, it makes sense.

Coming from that viewpoint, making a special exception for mothers whose lives are in danger seems like a perfectly defensible position to me.

But opposing abortion except in the case of rape I just don't get. I'm sure it's a situtation that seriously sucks for the mother, to put it mildly, but if abortion is killing a baby, it's still killing a baby no matter how conception occurred.

It seems like a case of wanting to have things both ways. I'm thinking that in the to be a human life and people will back off of their faith in a truly repugnant situation.

I disagree with those who would support abortion in the case of rape as well. Say someone shot your brother, would it be just to shoot a member of their family, an innocent in the situation? The child is innocent and therefore should not be a victim.


Just like many pro-life people who waiver must decide when life is justified to be taken.
Many Pro-choice people waiver on when life is life.
Abortion in my opinion is America's genocide, how we can wave the moral banner to the world while it is soaked in our own blood I cannot see.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."
-Ronald Reagan

to force a woman to carry a child that she did not consent to...that's making a rape last 9 months long. if you can look a rape survivor in the eye and tell her she can't have her body back...you're welcome to oppose abortion in cases of rape.

-snip-

yet we Morally ignore Sudan, or any number of areas where children die needlessly do to lack of clean water or food. I would prefer to pick a battle I am likely to win.....and accomplish far more.

I don't really understand the point of all the pro-lifer. What is the point of bring in a child in an unwanted home. If the mother or father don't want the child in thei first place, what are the chances of them giving the child a good life. As for the rape victim, what happen if the child is a boy and look very similar to the rapist. What you telling the mother to do is looking into the face of here rapist everything for a very long time. Sure, you can have the child for adoption, but do anyone here really know how many child is currently in the adoption agency as it is? The amount of children going into the adoption is more than the amount being adopted.

Our world as very crowded as it is, the last thing we need right now is more unwanted life. For all you pro-lifer, unless you are willing to raise these unwanted children, you have no right of telling what other what to do.

It is far easier to find a loving home for a child not yet born, as many people feel more like parents if they are able to care for the child from the moment of birth, there are many couples for a variety of reason that would adopt the unborn child.

I would also like you to look at the child later in life and tell him he doesn't deserve to live.

What about those that are not so lucky?

I don't believe in abortion in cases of rape. Abortion should be reserved only for population control. A child never chooses to be born. Thus, a woman should not always have a choice whether to carry to a child or not. The child can be given up for adoption when born if she hates it so much.

As I already stated, our adoption agency is quite full as it is.

genocide

n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: race murder, racial extermination]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Ahh... The Hyperbolic Pro-Lifers... So viciously and blindly they fight for the "rights" of fetuses until they are actually born. Then the babies have to fend for themselves against uncaring, unfit, unmotivated parent(s).

Life begins at first breath.

I am pro-choice all the way, except for one case, if the mother waits until well into the third trimester, if she waited that long then she should go ahead and have it and put it up for adoption, because by that time the baby is capable of independant life.

Other than that case, a woman should have total control over her body, and until that baby is capable of indendant life, it's part of the woman's body, she should be able to decide if she wants to keep it or not. No one else should be able to make that decision for her.

As far as the rape case goes, the decision should again be left up to the mother, if she decides she can't stand having a child that was forced upon her, she shouldn't be made to go throught the torture of carrying and giving birth to a child caused by rape.

If your opposed to abortion, then don't have abortions, but don't force your choice on other people and ruin their lives just so you can feel a little better when you go to sleep. The entire basis of America is that of freedom of Choice and Idea, Pro-lifers you are free to make your own Choices and have your own Ideas, but so are the Pro-choice advocates.

Soo..if you are opposed to murder don't murder but certainly don't tread in the path of those that do, never. Even if they believe it was right? While you may not have been a direct victim of the crime would you be satisfied if the killer was adament about the choice he made in murdering someone?

I've always been curious what some Pro-Choicers opinions would be if the father adamently wanted to father his child? Would even free the mother of responsibility of it.

So quick to judge me as if you know me. I was treated like shit by my father for years, kicked out of the house on numerous occasions. Bad unmotivated parents are a fact of life. But since I was in this situation I guess I had no right to live through it.

Pro-life is physical altruism taken to extreme absurdities. There are far less people whining about contraceptive methods that destroy eggs or sperm. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Lets face it, sperm and eggs don't look like baby humans- who would want to save these ugly things?

The term 'life' as we know it today is merely the bastardized offspring from idealistic/religious extrapolation of it's true meaning. Using the real definition of life, a non-viable organism (something that can't exist on it's own) is not alive. Fetuses are not viable outside the womb and therefore are not alive. By true definition, life begins at first breath.

Interestingly enough, today we have millions of people who are living artificially. Some have machines that breathe for them, some take blood pressure medication, and some require dialysis. But does this mean that these people are not alive because they could not live without forign devices?

Consider this: food is a forign device required by our body to live. If we do not eat food, we die. If someone with diabetes doesn't take insulin, they will die too. To look at this, we must turn back to the definition of life. A viable organism is alive. By viable, we mean "something that can exist on it's own" (it is significant to note that viable can also be used as "something that can produce living offspring"). Basically, 'existing on one's own' encompasses 'means for which to aquire artificial devices'. For example, if an organism can aquire food on it's own, it is alive. By the same hand, if an organism somehow has the means to manipulate another organism to give it food, it is alive. You and I have the means to aquire food: we go to the store and buy it. Babies also have the means to aquire food: they cry, which manipulates it's parents to give it food. Fetuses do not have means to aquire artificial devices for which to live.

If fetuses do not have the means to aquire things to live, then why do adult humans go to such great lengths to care for them? The answer lies in what fetuses are ultimately made to do: turn into a baby. It is known that certain physical characteristics of babies have the ability to stimulate the brain of other humans. With homo sapiens, this stimulation is more profound in females than in males- i.e. the 'motherly instinct'. Because a fetus is a baby-in-progress, it tends to look like a baby; and thus, begins and ends humanity's fascination with saving these non-viable globs of stem cells.

I don't believe many pro-choice people would think that abortion is OK in the third trimester... just as they wouldn't agree to killing the baby after birth (in what is often referred to as the fourth trimester)

Rape is a different issue.. While the physical stability of the mother may not be in peril, the mental stabiliity may be... If we are understanding of the physical stability, (ie mother's life is more valuable than unborn baby's life) should we do the same in the case of mental stabililty issues?

Just throwing it out there..

As a pro-lifer, I completely agree. I'm opposed to abortion being a legal option in the case of rape. It's simply not a sufficient justification for taking a human life. I say the same for incest and bad genes.

"For the life of the mother" is the only exception that I hold. I consider it a matter of self-defense in that case (regardless of the z/e/f's obviously absent intent to harm).

One suffering is immediate and not in dispute. The other is abstract and a matter of philosophical consideration.

There's no way in hell i'd force a woman to bear a child that was concieved in such an act of destruction.

The arguement that says "Yes, that's tragic, but..." or the "two wrongs don't make a right..." They don't make any logical sense... We are not weighing any disputed right to life on the part of the fetus against an empty scale. To force a woman to carry to term a non-consensual pregnacy is to continue her violation for the better part of a year. That's a moral crime, one that easily displaces my concern for a non-viable fetus.

Of course this goes back to our perception of the fetus, the whole concept of weather it's life or not is a matter of philosophical consideration.

In cases of Rape it should be left up to the mother, but I think we should help her and see if she would allow it to let up for adoption. That would be the best thing in my mind. If she could then the child would be allowed to go out and live. But in no way should it be forced. As this also applies when the baby threatens the life of the mother.

But, in all other cases I think that the child should go to adoption. Let the kid have a chance at life. Abortion shouldn't be brought down to the sense of a condom. Life is more precious than that.

But most of the Pro-Choice people i know are against the death sentance. Go fiqure?

I agree if the mother wishes to have a abortion from rape then she is intitled to do so. And if she dosnt wish to have a abortion then she should be forced to. It seems like plain common sence to me..

I don't know whether the adoption agencies in the U.S. are overflowing or not. Your statement insinuates they are. One thing I do know is that many American couples are going to Russia and Asian countries to find kids to adopt. In light of that, I doubt the supply of adoptable children far exceeds the demand, at least in this (U.S.) country.

Addressing the original question; it is indeed a dilema for the pro-lifer of which I am staunchly one. I lean toward the position that the unborn child is innocent of the sin; so why should he/she have to pay the penalty for someone else's sin. At the same time, I'm sympathetic to the idea expressed by the individual that said the mother shouldn't have to live with the crime for 9 months. Ultimately, I think the question should be between God and the individual; which, I guess makes me (gasp, choke) pro-choice on the question. A dilema indeed!!!

Would you support gas chambers for population control? ;)

I am referring to keeping the population of the world at its current level. If the time comes when we find out it needs to be scaled back even more, then we can explore other options.

How the hell can you even say many when your statement obviously meant Angelina Jolie. Just cause couple people do it doesn't mean that it is not full. Read some statistical fact then come back and talk.

To me, abortion is one of the best solutions for most of our social problems. I have always been in favor of this idea of abortion - the more the better.

my aunt and uncle have adopted two kids... one they had to make a last minute trip to hawaii, the other they had to pick up from some rural province of china. this was after years and years of trying to adopt a kid in their state of california with no success.

i would think my aunt and uncle would be the ideal candidates for adoption (very well off, clean legal history, a very stable marriage etc.) but it took them years to get an adopted kid.

adoption is an option that has a lot more potential in solving problems than it is been giving credit for. i think third trimester abortions should be banned across the board... but make an easy transition for the mother to choose adoption if she wishes.

Damn guy, you considered perhaps getting people fixed after one kid or something like that. If you must have population control there are less brutal options you could support.

I think self control and accountability is what we need to have more of.

IMO overpopulation is already a pretty dire problem (even if we're not feeling the full punch as of yet), but I suppose that's another topic.

Yes but it does not warrant extreme measures, I would fully understand government regulation of the populations(as long as it is done in an equal manner). I mean we are running out of jobs, eating up natural resources like nothing(not to say my ass sucking power from the plant right now isn't contributing to the problem), so I pretty much think its justifiable.

thefictionweliv,
Your statement, "I think self control and accountability is what we need to have more of." sounds good.

Unfortunately, given human psychology, those things are not attainable.

I've long thought the exception for "rape and incest" to a pro-lifer's stance was cop-out, a way to sound reasonable to those that support abortion on demand. It is totally inconsistent with the basis thesis that an egg and sperm united is life.

As for pro-abortion thought, I've not heard a satisfactory answer to "if the fetus isn't "life", then what it is?"

Then why don't we start thinning the existing herd? I say we can start with those that favor abortion rights--the argument for destroying the unborn as a drain on our resources also works with adults, and since life isn't too important to that group, let's wipe them out, see if those left have more of what we need in resources, and if that doesn't work, we can arbitrarily pick out another group for extinction.

The point is, when a person has a say about whether they are executed, normally there is some voiced opposition. Those opposing abortion do so on behalf of those that can't.

Read my above post. Life is a viable organism. Fetuses are not alive, they are "non-viable globs of stem cells" that resemble human babies. Living organisms have the means to aquire things for which to live.

I'm thinking Beatlefan doesn't find that answer satisfactory. I've heard it many a time before and I don't.

I'm 100% pro choice, I support women getting abortions if the pregnancy is unwanted, especially for extreme cases like rape and incest.

I can give dozens of reasons as to why I support my views... And a pro lifer will give dozens of reasons why I'm a murdering lunatic. The fact of the matter is that it is my belief, so don't force your beliefs on me... its a philosophical difference, let it be.

I do think that late abortion is distressing to all those involved and wherever possible should be avoided. Does that sound reasonable to everyone here? Wouldn't it make sense to continue this discussion from some shared point of agreement?

I often notice that the pro-choice people fail to aknowledge the fact that there are so many less painfull and disturbing alternatives to abortion, and as such, can sometimes come across almost eager for doctors to start ripping babies out left, right and centre. Isn't it worth exploring those alternatives and deciding what pro's and cons they might have. Might it be possible to find a solution acceptable to both parties?

There are plenty of beliefs that you're more than williing to force on others, unless perhaps if you're an anarchist. That's hardly the deciding factor of the debate.

There will never be a consensus on this. I respect a pro-abortionists unwaivering stance on the issue, however it is not what I believe and I will always support it being outlawed just as I know they will always support choice.

If you were to meet in the middle then a Pro-Life advocate would then be supporting murder and a pro-abortionist would be stripping themselves of rights they feel they deserve. I don't ever expect this issue to be resolved. However everyone has the right to take a stand on the issue.

So a fetus is dead? Those are the two choices---alive or dead. There is no inbetween.

And if dead, then it becomes alive somehow, as I assume you are? That's a miracle. Rock and steel can't do that. We maybe shouldn't be interferring with a miracle in process; the One that is causing that miracle may not appreciate it.


By that logic, a newborn human baby isn't alive either--it has to be fed and given liquid. It has not the means to do so on its own.

Edit-- I went back and read your first note and you equate the ability to express a desire for food with the ability to acquire it. It's not the same thing, but even under your logic, a fetus has the ability to acquire food--it gets it from its mother without having to express a need for it.

The human brain shows activity that is generally considered "Human" at around the third trimester. This is the point where science considers Thought as we define it likely, and is thus the defined cut off in Roe vs. Wade.

All animals are alive, The Human mind is what defines Homo Sapien.

I've posted this in previous abortion threads.
You can call it "murder" and I still have no problem with abortion on demand, period.

Let me put in my two cents. I am pro-life with the three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother. My reasoning is that sex is a choice. You know that sex can lead to pregnancy. If your not ready for parenthood, do not have sex. Even with proper birth control, pregnancies occur. Be responsible. Now with that said, abortion in the case of rape takes away the mothers choice to have a baby. Death of the mother takes away her choice to live. Incest is a choice society will not choose. We do not want our genepool messed up. Sex to me is the choice. When that choice is taken away, abortion is acceptable. Any other reason for abortion is not exceptable in my opinion. I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control.

If the only distinction available is alive or dead, then by that logic, i'm commiting murder if i cut a bit of skin off of my finger accidentally. Human life is human life, even if it is just a clump of cells.

I think inaction despite the ability to intervene is the same thing as acceptance.

As for the topic at hand, i'm with art.

There is a third state of being. It's called nothing. My keyboard is doing a good job at being neither alive nor dead (it's made of plastic).

If my keyboard suddenly became alive, would that become a miracle? Of course it'd be a miracle. But only to this definition of the word: "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." Lets try to keep things on topic: god has no place in a logical (philisophical) discussion.

The fetus does not grow onto the mother. The mother grows onto the fetus. The mother's own body creates the mechanisms for which the fetus aquires resources without any manipulation from the fetus itself. Pregnancy itself was developed as an evolutionary advantage to make children. That is, pregnancy evolved and developed to create fetuses- fetuses did not (and do not) create pregnancy. Basically, we're dealting with "chicken or the egg" argument in a different form. The chicken (or it's ancestor, or 'transition species' if you want to mesh words- though everything is a transition species) came first and created the egg. The egg didn't coax the chicken into creating it, nor was the chicken manipulated into facilitating the egg's creation by anything at the egg's hand.

There is nothing done by the fetus to make the mother create it. The mother does it all on her own in an attempt to make copies of herself. Once the copy is made, well, then the manipulation begins That's when they fend for themselves- and it all starts with crying.

I think my answer of it being a part of the mother is pretty satisfactory, she sustains it, carries it around, feeds it enough for it to grow. nearly the same thing as her hand, except that her hand doesn't live after it has been painfully and labourously(I hope that is a word) detached.

As I said before, until the fetus is able to support itself on the outside, (I mean breathing, heartbeat, etc., not going to grab a bite at McDonalds) it is a part of the woman's body and hers to do with as she pleases, even if it is to cut it off and kill it. It can roughly be compared with a parasite, it grows and feeds off of her without giving anything in return.(I'm speaking about an unwanted pregnancy, if it's wanted then it returns a sense of happiness, etc. back to the mother).

No, your keyboard is dead. It's never been alive, it never will be. The appeal to nothingness is a dodge.

Wrong on two counts. If a believer in God having a logical or philosophical discussion with someone that doesn't believe in a higher power, there is lacking a common frame of reference from which to begin. Second, bringing up the miracle that is life is on the topic of abortion.

Accepting that takes a lot more blind faith than accepting there is a Creator that set up the system, but now you're getting afield.


Now you've discounted the role of the father. But the fetus is doing all it can to survive in the womb; crying isn't an option because it is unnecessary.

I think that makes sense.

"if the fetus isn't "life", then what it is?"

Eh, I'll go with what the above posters are saying about this.

Well, that and the fact that life isn't platonic and neatly divided into discrete categories. That's something that comes up in a lot of areas, I find...

But my real answer (which I believe no one else has offered) is: who fucking cares? I don't have a problem with taking mental vegetables off of life support either, murdering bastard that I am. I don't shed tears over anything with the IQ of sea algae, sorry, and unless you're buying into airy concepts like "souls" which are magically injected into zygotes upon formation there's no need to.

But I'm off the topic now.

I remained unswayed from my position in the original post: if a fetus is basically a baby, I don't see how you can argue around special cases of rape (or incest, which I forgot about). It doesn't matter whose rights have been violated or whatever, you're still committing murder. I can't see any way to reconcile this.

And again, the thought that keeps coming back to me is this: pretty much nobody seriously considers abortion on the same level as murder, and these really tough special situations basically call people on their bullshit. It's pretty easy to to talk down to a woman that had a condom break on her (or whatever) but when the woman is clearly a victim critics hastily get off of their high horses.

And now that I think about it, what's the deal with the incest exception? Assuming the incest was voluntary (otherwise it would fall under "rape") who are we trying to benefit here? To every pro-lifer who makes an exception for incest, would you make an exception for non life-threatening mental retardation?

[edited out of respect to the intelligence of bugs ;)]

"No, your keyboard is dead. It's never been alive, it never will be. The appeal to nothingness is a dodge."

You're right, my keyboard has never been alive. However, it also never died. Look up "dead" - all definitions of the word relate to something that has died or does not function like it once did. I'm not trying to 'dodge' things. In philosophy, the third state of being is common knowledge.

"Wrong on two counts. If a believer in God having a logical or philosophical discussion with someone that doesn't believe in a higher power, there is lacking a common frame of reference from which to begin."

Right again, a common frame is lacking here. It's fairly elementary in philosophy that you cannot have a logical discussion while citing religion as fact. You're bringing extra baggage along for the ride. God needs to be dropped at the doorstep if you're ever going to have a philosophical discussion. (That is of course, unless you're discussing his existence, which isn't the topic at hand.) If I were to adopt your frame of discussion, then I would be contributing to one of the cardinal fallacies of philosophy. To put it bluntly: There is no god- his existence cannot be proven and therefore the notion is illogical. Now, on the other hand, the belief in god is logical- but only so far as to say "I believe in god." It is a fact that someone believes in something. However, someone's belief is not fact.

"Second, bringing up the miracle that is life is on the topic of abortion. "

I don't understand this phrase. Could you rewrite it differently? Perhaps define what 'the miracle that is life' is? I am not being sarcastic. I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here.

"Accepting that takes a lot more blind faith than accepting there is a Creator that set up the system, but now you're getting afield."

The differences in pregnancies between all animals are a direct result of evolution. Some animals lay eggs and some have live birth. Some eggs are soft and others are hard. Some animals carry their young for a short period of time and some carry young for a very long time. The pregnancy is a result of the animal's environment. Mothers have evolved over time and have developed strategies to best make copies of themselves. What works for one animal in one environment might not work for another. For example, soft fish eggs would not do particularly well buried in the sand of the desert like the eggs of certain insects. These tactics and variences are not the result of the embryo. They are specificly tailored by the mothers and refined throughout history via evolution.

Here's a little scenario to help describe this better. Female humans have wide hips to facilitate holding the fetus during pregnancy. The only reason females have wide hips today is because at some point in history, females with thin hips were weeded out. Because females with thin hips could not make copies of themselves as effectively as those with wide hips, the 'thin hip' trait died off. This is how pregnancy became refined through evolution. Females that exherted particular traits passed on their genes and thus, pregnancy became a bit more tailored to facilitate holding the fetus. It is important to note that there is no point at which the fetus does anything to manipulate pregnancy in it's favor. Fetuses are a product of an organism attempting to make a copy of itself.

"Now you've discounted the role of the father. But the fetus is doing all it can to survive in the womb; crying isn't an option because it is unnecessary."

What does the father's role have anything to do with anything? Once sperm comes in contact with the woman's egg, the woman's body decides that she has enough genetic material to create a copy of herself. The fetus is a work in progress. It has no means for which to survive. It isn't manipulating the woman's body, the woman's body is manipulating it as it has evolved to do over time.

I'm up in the air. Im am against life birth abortions - aka partial birth abortions.

Why?

"For the most part, the abortion industry stopped using saline and prostaglandin procedures because of the number of live births. A live birth means you have to let the baby die, or dispose of it in some distasteful way. Most second and third trimester abortionists use the D&E method, (dilation and evacuation) The abortionist uses large forceps to crush the baby inside the mother's uterus and removes it in pieces. The side effects of live births and the mother going through labor are avoided. But it is a horrible procedure in which the baby must be re-constructed outside the uterus to be certain all the parts have been removed."

Carol Everett, former owner of 2 abortion clinics and director of 4, on the abortion procedure. Quoted in an interview with her in the "Human Life Alliance Advertising Supplement" 1994. (Ms. Everett was busted for having her clinics knowingly perform abortions on nonpregnant women, at a great risk of causing damage to the cervix and future miscarriages)



I understand its a slippery slope- Womans rights etc. But at a certain point- isnt that a baby? At 9 monthes it could survive outside a mothers womb, so dont tell me it couldnt survive w/o the mom therefore its a part of her.

When you stick forceps INTO the mother to crush the babies skull - its abortion- but if its 6 inches out - then its murder? Common people-

atleast keep partia lbirth abortions illegal!!!!!

I disagree, both should argue their views from their respective frame of belief. Removing God from his discussion would be forcing him to cite that God has nothing to do with the topic is just as wrong as you being forced to say that he does. It takes just as much faith to say there is God as to say there isn't.

If he is unable to continue the conversation on the premise that there is no god, then we're not having a philisophical discussion. Philosophy isn't about arguing views from different frames of beliefs. Philosophy is about coming to a conclution devoid of any predjudace from these frames of belief.

It takes no faith to say "I believe there is no god". It's quite simple really. If existence can be proven, he exists, if not, he doesn't. You'll note that I never said I didn't believe in god. I did however, say that his existence could not be proven. Therefore, I'm not bringing his presense into the conversation. I'm not going to argue things from the premise that something exists because I say so. This is illogical.

There is a big difference between:
"I think abortion is/isnt killing because of god's teachings."
&
"I think abortion is/isnt killing becuase of some physical observation."

If both parties adopt religion as the 'common frame' for discussion, then they arn't discussing abortion, they're discussing different interpretations on how their religion views the subject. I don't care to battle with someone over their interpretation of god's will. It's quite obvious the result when this occurs- just look at the middle east. I want to discuss why abortion is 'wrong', or why a fetus is alive, or why rape abortion is wrong. I don't wish to dicuss whether god said it was ok or not.

Moral self-discipline can often be a product of ones religious beliefs, many religious people would seek wisdom from their intellectual knowledge of the Bible.
It would be logical for someone who believes in God to take the miricle of life as such rather than a biological act to be seen(ie empirical)
It would be a belief that the child is life that has a soul and its death would be murder, for him to defend it without taking this as fact would not be a critical analysis of his fundamental beliefs.
Note Science and Liberal Arts, LA curriculums often involve the study of many forms of beliefs from Nihilism to the Bible to the Greek gods.
He lives by the fact that life is sacred, it is his philosophy that life is sacred and therefore it has part in a philosphical debate.

Actually, moral self-dicipline refers to the removal of morals from one's self. It's the self dicipline to temporarilly forget about morals in order to have a conversation devoid of their presense. Failure to do this results in endless conflict. For example:

Person A says: I believe abortion is wrong.
Person B says: I believe abortion is right.

The result is nothing. Nothing is established past the fact that two people disagree. It's only when morals are truly removed does true philosophical discussion begin. The goal is to talk about abortion- not what you think about it, not what I think about it, and certainly not what god thinks about it. It should be noted that I have never said in my posts "I believe" in reference to something I personally hold to myself. The points I've made were based on observations, not beliefs. You cannot use belief to refute observation, only more observation can do that. The only observation Beatlefan58 has made is that 'life is a miracle'- and this itself isn't an observation about life/abortion even, it's an observation he's made about his beliefs on god. You pointed it out yourself even, emprical data cannot be refuted by theoretical data. (religion is theology...)

Where does this leave us? Well, nowhere really. He's arguing his case from his beliefs and I'm pointing out observations. It isn't my fault he's trying to refute observations with theology. I set up the scenario and he's trying to take it down through completely unrelated means.

"Note Science and Liberal Arts, LA curriculums often involve the study of many forms of beliefs from Nihilism to the Bible to the Greek gods."

What's your point here? Science is merely studying people's religion, or rather, the fact that people believe in a particular religion. You certainly don't see science trying to prove/disprove Zeus' existence. Science is merely making the observation that some people believed in him. (On a side note, I read an article that said some people still believe in Zeus and co! Isn't that crazy? I'll try to dig it up, it's very interesting.)

Not so LostInLife; I wasn't referring to Angelina Jolie at all. I was thinking of a couple in our own small community that has 3 adopted children from India. Inaddition to that, I've been reading in some christian magazines about americans and foreign adoptions. I also recall a CNN article about it. Besides,I wasn't necessarily disagreening with your statement that the adoption agencies are full; I just haven't seen any other evidence to support it.

Robaggio, you are spot on. I agree with you 100%.

I think just because we cannot determine where exactly a baby begins to think for itself. Doesnt mean that transformation exists.

Well you can prove it exists at some point, as an embryo obviously cannot think for itself but a baby can. So any point before that transformation i think its ok to zap that biological material.

I guess the barrier is blured tho. Like a constant increase of cerebral activity. If this can be measured somehow one can come to a more accurate conclusion.

Until then we can go with what estimates we have.

i think all you pro-lifers need to make your title more clear. how about pro-human-lifers. Life is a miracle, yet you take it away day by eating animals and plants.

This is an individual's private business, and should remain as such. There is no way you or any government should be making a decision for me that concerns my body, my mind, my future, and my ability to make my own choices concerning something so personal. More importanly, no individual or no government should be in the business of forcing me to carry something unwanted or forced upon me by some criminal. And, it's not just 9 months of hell and trauma - it's a lifetime of horror, of memories, of fear and loathing. Why would you want to make a horrible situation even worse for the woman involved?

Those who care about children can focus their attention on those already here. Become a teacher, a mentor, provide food, whatever.

Stop putting your nose into other's business. If you or a loved one becomes pregnant due to rape or incest, I will respect your privacy and your decision. Accord everyone else the same courtesy.

I feel that if the mother has taken precautions against pregnancy, or if she was raped, then abortion is completely acceptable. The same goes for a pregnancy that will result in severe birth defects.

What I have a problem with is abortion as a matter of convenience. If you don't use birth control, then it's your own fault and the child should be given up for adoption. It should be a way to fix a problem that has slipped through the cracks, not to compensate for your own negligence or incompetence.

I believe that life begins at the point of viability. I wouldn't personally advocate abortion after the point at which it develops a functioning nervous system, but I wouldn't condemn it either.

I'm 100% pro choice as well.

A fetus is nothing more than a collection of growing cells. A wart is nothing more than a collection of growing cells, so is a tumor.

If you wait till the 3rd trimester to abort, yeah, you're pushing it.

Personally, I don't remember the time before I was 4. So when people respond and say, "So you'd be okay if your mother aborted you?" Well, no, because I wouldn't exist. If you ask me now that I'm alive, then sure, I'll give you a response based on my concsious thought process, but had I been aborted as a fetus or even brutally murdered as a baby, I wouldn't have known the difference, so it's kinda moot.

Doesn't justify going around and killing babies at random, but goes to show that a person doesn't really have a conscious mind until a much later age.

However, that's a different discussion, as killing a baby after it's full birth IS illegal, and rightfully so.

Before that point, however, is fair game.

getting an abortion when the pregnancy is unwanted is in my mind the most blatant form of irresponsibility. As for different circumstances, IE rape, there is always adoption. Will it be hard for her carrying a child who's a product of rape? Yes most definitely, but certainly she will not be alone. In fact, I think even more so because she has the courage to go through with the pregnancy and not cause another tragedy, ending the baby's life.

Wow how heartless. This is what gets me, people like you would go against all medical and scientific evidence that demonstrate that an embryo cannot think or is in anyway cogent, but you would still encourage a rape victim thru to full term.

If your wife ( I presume your a man i cant think a woman could be so callous) was raped, would you want her to have the baby of the man that raped her?

If I was indeed heartless I would not think that she would need more extensive counseling to deal with getting raped and having that child. As for me, it would be extremely difficult for myself if my wife was raped and had a child. Almost certainly I would not like to keep the child, but would indeed give it for adoption. What I think about this is, why kill another person, who has the possibility to live a happy life, because of something they did not do?

edit: this part is concerning what is considered a baby.

Now lets say you and your spouse were trying to have a baby. Happy news, you've conceived a child, now lets your wife suffers a miscarriage roughly 2 weeks into the pregnancy. Now do you think that would be your child that died or just a bunch of cells?

Interesting but wrong, observations are subjective and fundamentally flawed everyone sees what they want to see. What you see, hear, feel, touch and smell are all subjective and theoretically speaking have no necessary correlation to life. As in you BELIEVE what your senses tell you.
Person A: There are 3 apples on the table
Person B: There are 4 apples on the table
* for all it matters in reality there could be 1 million apples on the table
Think about it you say that the existence of god can not be proven and beliefs shouldn’t be included. However, can you prove to me that you exist, the fact that you exist is my belief does that mean you can’t be in my argument. Science is great I believe in it, but NOTHING I repeat NOTHING can be proven with certainty, which means you have to have a certain degree of belief in everything.


*When I say nothing can be proven it is misleading, you yourself exist and it requires no proof it is a given (if you remember high school geometry).

----------
Philosophy is the study of nature and etc. through the use of logic without empirical evidence.
Logic is a system of reason.
Reason is a logical way of thought.(see a paradox)- look up the definitions if you don’t trust me.

The reason I'm against casual abortion (meaning not post-rape/mother in mortal danger) is that it absolves people of responsibility. Didn't wear a condom or use other protection? NO PROB! Just go to the clinic and destroy the life being created inside of you, and don't deal with the issues of being an irresponsible <insert choice word>.

Bunch of cells ofcourse.

Sure the wife would be upset at losing the possiblilty of having a child at that point in time but 2 weeks in ofcouse its nothing more than some jelly shit. She may even feel that a 'baby' had died, I could even console her as such. But the difference between you and me is that I would know better due to medical science whereas you reject the evidence to satisfy your own persecutive beliefs.

This is a completely facile and pointless argument. For the purposes of a rational debate Being 'certain' is an empirical measure , If i hit myself in the head with a hammer im certain that it will hurt. I know it will hurt and if i smack my self another 1000 times it will really fucking hurt. It doesnt require belief to know so, in the least not belief on the scale of bringing god into the equation. Science provides us with an answer why it hurts. God which by human experience necessarily is an act of faith does not.It is such aribtairy and out of proportion belief systems that are required to be purged from philisopical discussion.

Furthermore one shouldnt consider lack of certainty the sole domain of belief systems. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just one of many natural and physical processes that can be measured considered and deduced. Uncertaintly can be rationally addressed with far more rigour in science than it can be in faith.

I'd like to mention that my beliefs are not persecutive. There are simply people that believe the same as I do, abortion is bad, and they persecute people who get abortions. I do not.

These abortion discussions are always interesting because each side tries so hard to desperately justify their belief to the other.

I think what a lot of people (in general) don't understand is that there really is NO right/wrong. I'm pro-choice and at the same time, I can totally understand why someone who is pro-life thinks they way they do.

The key thing here is that people need to not force their beliefs upon others and live with tolerance of what the other side does. You can keep your belief and do you part my not partcipating in the thing you are against, but by all means, don't look down upon others who believe or think differently.

A lot of people lose focus on that key aspect and go off and do things like create laws, or stand outside of clinics harassing people. I can't really think of many instances in which pro-choicers piss off pro-lifers aside from the fact they are pro-choice. Pro-life (the extreme ones) seem to be the ones killing the docs, blowing up clinics, harassing people, etc. It's all unnecessary.

I mean, really... we'll never (any time soon, anyway) find out the point at which life REALLY begins, or when the cluster of cells actually turns into a life, or the exact point when it's REALLY "okay" to kill those cells. It just won't happen.

But... the debates will rage on. I think people in general just need to kinda drop it and accept that it's the way things are and not everything that goes on in life will please you or go YOUR way.

Since you only have experience with one side of the situation ("the hammer will hurt"), how can you profess to know that the pain caused does not require belief? The problem that I have with everyone sucking the proverbial cock of science is that many of them have had it in their mouth for so long that they don't realise they are capable of taking it out. Has science become so ingrained into your consciousness that you actually think that there is no belief in it required on your part? That everything in science is simply self-evident?

Ofcourse it isnt self evident, if it was then it would really be quite boring. Science provides a methodical framework within which to consider issues logically rationally and with a certain degree of rigour. Without such a framework one is free to claim the impossible, teach the unfounded, and act the indefensible.

Is that Jealousy or Denial i sense in that statement. Maybe both.






Because it has been demonstrated, researched, documented, analysed, tested, simulated, felt, predicted and confirmed. Because scientifically it is proven.

I'm getting the sense that science is being used to rationalize beliefs here and not the other way around. I've never met anyone who founded an opinion on abortion after doing research in medical texts.

I would disagree with you, isnt the very fact that term limits exist in regard to abortion based on a scientific anaylsis of the development of a fetus/baby in the womb.

Most people would say abortion in the 30th week is wrong for this reason, even if they were pro-choice.

Give a break. Obviously, doctors in the field of abortion or legislators are exceptions. I'm not talking about people with a stake in the field. My point is most people have their mind set before backing up their ideas on abortion with supposed science.

There is no almost right there is wrong or right when talking about empirical evidence that is what I mean by certainty, when speaking empirically in relation to science all the laws in science simply haven't been disproved doesn't mean they exist. As in yes it is true there is overwhelming evidence in everything science torts but there is no proof that would allow anyone to make the assumption that it holds true for every case, nothing can be tested with all variables controlled, therefore it is not certain, absolute or a law, it requires a measure of belief because of that uncertainty.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principal limits as well as informs, as in we can never know the location or energy of any atomic particle with certainty or accuracy (if we knew the location of an electron then that electron would have infinite energy, which is impossible, or if we knew the energy then that electron could be anywhere in the universe), so my friend I could never truly know where I am located or how much energy all the particles in my body have. I believe that's pretty fucking irrational or how about the fact that an electron when faced with two choices of either going one way or another way chooses both unless we measure it. That you think doesn't require belief, what I’m saying is that you use science as not a belief system but it is a belief system in a way. Simply it's much more useful then religion when you want technological advancement.

Follow this path : man measures a line to be 1 m with an accuracy of +-.1 ( as in it could be any number between and including .9m to 1.1m)
Second man takes another 1 m line with the same accuracy and adds it to the previous
Third man does the same and so does fourth...... until 10000th man

Where now the line that has been completed could be off by +-1000m (1 m is about a yard)
It is an insufficient example but it does serve my point science lays foundations that are inaccurate or uncertain by small percentage and then it builds on it. It therefore requires belief to assume that modern science is correct as in going back to excluding belief from a philosophical argument you would also have to exclude science. Then all we are left with is opinions.
Which relates back to the abortion question no one will ever agree on it because the sides don't agree on anything relating to abortion, you can't have an argument on if something is right or isn't if you don't first have a common starting point.
Example : Let's objectively decide which is better a green or red apple
If one side doesn't believe in apples and never will or the other doesn't believe that colors matter or if they don’t agree on what apples are then there can be no satisfactory solution to this problem. Abortion isn't apples but I hope you get my point.

And they are still free to do so within that framework if they so choose.

To be honest, I just wanted to use some graphic metaphors. I have no desire to suck on a penis of any sort, proverbial or otherwise. :D

Nothing can be scientifically proven; one can only build up stronger evidence to support their case.

Nice idea, I don't believe it myself, but it's irrelevant for two reasons.

One, you kinda killed the basis for your 'key thing' when you went ahead and declared that there "really is NO right/wrong". There's no right choice between tolerance and intolerance, it's just personal preference.

Two, I'm betting that you're perfectly willing to force your beliefs on others in a great number of cases. I'll name an extreme case: torturing innocent babies for fun. And for another extreme: infanticide. Killing children in, say, their first year of life outside the womb. Am I right, or would you favor tolerance in these cases?

So then unless you're willing to tolerate fascism or infanticide, it goes back to the main point of discussion: is abortion similar enough to things that shouldn't be tolerated to be itself an intolerable act?

ProCHOICE is a misnomer IMO

Its like saying " well I wouldnt kill but its okay if you do"

I understand that argument is WAY to easy to pick apart- but its just how i view things. It's pro-abortion or Pro-life in my mind.

Is that kind've like the "Your either pro choice, or your pro coat hanger in the cervix" argument?

I believe in pro choice. Women should be allowed to choose, period. I don't, however, agree that a woman should be able to use as a form of birth control.

I think Abortion is the third most evil thing that people do. The first being murder, the second being rape.

The moment we get rid of rape, I think abortion should go also. Cuz then we're pretty much dealing with people who like to screw but don't like the after affects.
In a perfect world it would never have existed but now we got crap loads of stuff to deal with. Anway if we were to get rid of it now, women would go back to using hangars on themselves and get dirty doctors to do it for them.

"So quick to judge me as if you know me. I was treated like shit by my father for years, kicked out of the house on numerous occasions. Bad unmotivated parents are a fact of life. But since I was in this situation I guess I had no right to live through it."

You judge others as if you know them. You may have been yelled at by your father, maybe he took away the car, kicked you out of the house. Others don't have the money to fucking eat. Do you think children should be born into the house of say..a crack whore? What chance of a good life would that child have? Maybe his soul would be better suited to come into the world in a happy family.

"Abortion in my opinion is America's genocide, how we can wave the moral banner to the world while it is soaked in our own blood I cannot see." :hmm:

This scares me...

This issue is very important in america right now and is both a political and religious issue. I think that it is safe to say that the majority of pro-lifers are religious and that is their main argument for it. We cannot interphere in god's miracles, and the like... This is a serious problem when it comes to making laws and deciding what the entire nation should do. Even though Bush is doing a horrible job at it, the church is supposed to be SEPARATE from state. Therefore, this argument of why it should be illegal or condemmed should be thrown out the window right now.

I think is is absolutly disgusting that people can say the sins of the rapist don't justify killing an innocent child and that the women is a horrible person for doing so, when there is a war going on in Iraq that is killing thousands of innocent children because of Saddam's sins. If you support the anti abortion law (in the case of rape) and the iraq war...which the majority of Bush supporters do...you are a hypocrite! What is the difference?

Second of all, lets not forget that government is made up of almost entirly males and that this issue is almost entirely female. It is horrible that religious fanatic men think that they have any right to tell a women what to do with her own body. Rape is a horrible intrusive crime. To force a women to relive it everyday while she goes through a pregnancy and knows that this disgusting, waste of life man's child is growing inside her is unbelievably unfair to her.

Are you pro-life people serously telling me that when a 12 year old virgin is raped and horribly beaten that she should have no other option then to go through a pregnancy and that she will be concidered evil for getting rid of the child?...there is something seriously wrong with that.

I cannot even express how much respect i have for those women who do have children that were a result of rape and can put it behind them and raise the child in a loving home. I admire people who are pro-life when if comes to themselves or their partner. I don't disagree with you, i don't think i could bring myself to have one either. Where i start to get a little angry is when people try to push their views onto others or try to pass laws forbidding any other option. Whatever a women decides to do, it is between her, her conscience and whatever god she has to answer to. Anyone elses opinion, be it government, family, or people posting on a message board, should have absolutly no say in the matter.

Also....in the case of rape, we are not talking about 3rd trimester abortions. In almost all cases the pregnancy will be terminated immediatly with the morning after pill or at most a few weeks later.


Sorry this is so long, but seeing as it's an important issue i wanted to get my opinion out.

Forcing a rape victim to give birth to her rapist's child is a politically abhorrent concept. As if forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy until it kills or injures her (and the fetus, possibly). This is why you will always see the loopholes for rape and the life or health of the mother... the arguments against banning abortion in these cases are too powerful and play well to voters.

Suppose you don't have a job that offers maternity leave? Suppose your husband's income alone is not sufficient to pay your bills? What's going to happen to your other children when you lose the house? Do we make a loophole in the abortion ban for this type of situation, too? Who decides if your financial situation is tragic enough?

What if you'll lose your house and job, but you're a single woman? Whose interest is the government representing in these cases?

To me, abortion boils down to when you believe life begins. Pro-choicers can keep saying that a unwanted child should not be brought into the world, pro-lifers can keep saying that abortion is murder, but without directly addressing the fundamental belief of when life begins, neither side will change stance at all.

I'm against abortion's legality, and I use no part of my religion to argue this position. For what it's worth, I agree that those who argue against abortion on the basis that prenates have souls, do not have a sufficient legal argument.

What I don't understand is how someone could be against the death penalty but for the capital gains tax. Total hypocrites, that's what they are!

This is a war, not elective surgery. Despite any precautions taken, innocent people will almost certainly die in a war. War is sometimes deemed still 'worth it', in spite of this, because the projected benefits exceed projected costs. And that's the general republican/neocon view of the war. This may have been a faulty position to take on the war, I'll grant that possibility, but it's not inconsistent with an anti-abortion view.

The issue is only 'almost entirely female' if you've made up your mind that the prenate is not a human being. Otherwise, it's about 75-25. 50-50 if you're willing to entertain the notion that whether or not a given action is murder is the business of all citizens.

The way I see it, if a woman has been raped she shoudl not be forced to carry that pregnancy to term because there's no way she'll ever love that baby. And giving that baby up for adoption is not a good solution either because there are countless kids out there who need to be adopted but remain wards of the state or are placed in bad foster homes where they either get neglected or abused.

Rather than make an unwanted child go through all this misery I think it would be best that a woman get the right to choose abortion if she got raped.

HEY, I GOT AN IDEA, HOW BOUT' WE STOP HAVING KIDS UNTILL WE HAVE A BETTER WORLD TO BRING THEM INTO. IF WE FAIL, WE'RE FUCKED. POINT BLANK, SIMPLE AS THAT, IF THE WORLD AIN'T WORTH BRING KIDS INTO STOP RUTTING, OR START THE COUNTDOWN TO NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST. WE SEEM TO BE GETTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE ON THIS ONE, IF THEIR WERE NO RAPIST AND NO UNWILLING PARENTS THIS WOULDN'T EVEN BE AN ISSUE. AND WHILE I'M DREAMING, LETS CURE ALL DISEASES AND END WAR TOO.

My wife and I just had a baby. It was a magical experience and I wouldn't change it if I could, even though I didn't want the baby at first. I saw what pregnancy, delivery, and the postpardom is like first hand. It all sucks but it's worth it if you choose to have it. Look at what a pregnant rape victim has to go through:

Pregnancy brings along with it huge mental, physical, and financial damages. If someone is a rape victim should they have to pay for all that shit? We have good insurance and it's still going to cost over $3000. What if the victim is uninsured or their plan doesn't cover maternity? Do they then declare bankruptcy?

During the pregnancy you have to buy all new clothes, there is another 1k+. After it's over, you might go back to your original size, or you might not. Now you have to pay for another full wardrobe, on top of the huge medical bills. Don't forget about time off work. She probably needs a month off before the baby is born plus a month to recover after the delivery. Can you afford to take two months off without pay, buy two new wardrobe sets, and pay medical expenses? Add in counseling, physical training, etc and getting pregnant via rape can totally ruin your life. Once all that is taken care of your body is physically scarred for life.

If you support forcing a rape victim to carry a baby to term would you also support the state paying for all that shit? If abortion is banned for rape cases, I think the govt would need to pick up all those expenses.

Either way someone's life is going to be ruined. Why not give preference to the one who is actually alive and breathing?

I think you inflated the costs of just being pregnant by a large margin, but yes, the state should help with the cost should abortions in the event of rape become illegal. It's a rare enough happening that the state can afford it. They already waste a lot more money on far less worthy causes.

Cheers to Robaggio (on the first page) for coming up with the one truly intuitive reply to this thread. So far, I've seen nothing else but more of the same.

By covering the costs, what do you mean? Medical bills? Mental and physical therapy? Time off work? Maternity clothes? These are all costs that would be forced upon victims if they want to get their lives back as much as possible after being impregnated by rape? Furthermore, how do you distinguish between a rape victim and someone attempting to abuse the system?

That sounds like a good argument to leave the situation to charities. I'm sure there are charities out there who would be more than happy to help. . I suppose the government wouldn't be able to distinguish between just a pregnant woman and a rapd pregnant woman. There are enough women crying rape falsely and abusing the welfare system already. The government can be off the hook for this one. I still think you're trying to make pregnancy sound more expensive than it really is. The situation is still rare enough as it is to warrant almost no consideration when it comes to money.

I can see the justification of abortion for rape victims. So that having been said what justification is there for the other 99% of abortions.I really find the mercy killing mentality frightening, revolting actually, It's sad that people actually find life so cheap.

wow thefictionweliv, you certainly jumped into a hornet nest. I thank you for your imput on this thread difficult, as it must be to be so outnumbered.

I am too am pro-choice. Yet I have nothing against those who are pro-life. The only people who bother me are those who attempt to force their will on our society and thus ban abortion. The reasons I dislike these people are as follows:

- Abortion is a symptom of a flawed society. Combating abortion is misplacing resources. If people really wanted to stop abortion they would be striving on improving humanity as a whole to such a level where abortion is no longer necessary nor required.

- The ability to abort unwanted children reduces the stress on our social system thus allowing us to allocate funds to more important causes.

- I would rather worry about existing people then potential people. We have enough problems as it is, there are real people that need our assistance and attention. We need to ensure that those who exist are well off and protected before we begin crusading for those yet unborn.

I see nothing remotely intuitive about his response.

thefictionweliv - Very well said.... I agree 100%. I would comment more, but it seems you have all bases covered. =)

In my mind, abortion will never, under any circumstances, be <i>right</i>. Regardless of whether or not the mother believes she made the best choice, she will always wish she never had to make the choice. However, I don't believe that the mere act of having a baby makes the situation <i>right</i> either. What if the child is born to an abusive father, or a teen mother who quits school and becomes an addict?

I think we often forget that the world is not made up of black and white, wrong and right, etc. There is no line. There is <i>wrong</i>, then there is an immeasurable area of greyness, which is where we spend most of our lives in. Right is in another dimension, another universe. I don't say this in an attempt to justify life within the middle, but to point out how truly <b>right</b><i> right</i> is. For me, the act of having a baby is not in itself right. It takes more than that, it takes love and the ability to provide for the kids future. Furthermore, the act of having of abortion is not in itself wrong. It's in that greyness.

Anyways, that's my "moral" take on the issue.

Socially, I think illegalizing abortion is a bad idea. It's not a question of morals, but a question of law. I think that cheating on your wife with your best friend's wife is one of the lowest of the low. I think most people would agree. Why don't we have that codified into law? I'm against drinking, I think it's useless and the fact that it's responsible for so many deaths, many more than abortions, makes me wonder why we haven't outlawed it. Oh yeah, we did and it turned out horrible.

Abortion is not right. Every fiber of my being detests it. I think that this applies to most people, pro-choice and pro-life. However, are we so naive as to believe that passing a law will stop abortions? Are we willing to force the already downtrodden and heartbroken into the shadows to seek counsel? This battle cannot be fought with laws or government. The fight must start at home, with fathers showing their daughters what real men are made of and with mothers teaching their sons how to treat a lady. Then to the community and churches, who must give unexpectant mothers more than the option of being called a whore or a murderer. The State's only job is to make sure that if a woman choses an abortion, it is both sanitary and professionally done.

I'm very much against abortion. Which is why I'm willing to look at the situation critically and honestly. I will not fight blindly just to win the battle and the lose the war.

//Going back to studying
/Rant off

Very nice post, data. But I've got to take issue with portions of it.

I'm against making those things illegal because neither violates human rights. Abortion does, and in the vast majority of cases, does so without sufficient justification.

I would agree if this were merely a moral issue, if the issue were deadbeat parents or illicit drug use. But this issue does not only involve the troubled mothers who are considering abortion. This directly involves their children as well, and those children deserve a law.

I'm not naive enough to think that abortion will end after such a law is passed. Nor would I be naive enough to think that a law against adultery would end that practice (if I wanted such a law). Nor am I naive enough to think that rape laws have effectively ended rape. It never works that way. There are always people who will disobey the law either because they think they won't get punished or because they believe in a higher principle which contradicts the law.

Yeah, I think we just differ on our view on law. I don't think regulations/laws work very well as a preventative measure. Like with rape, I would go one step further and say that I don't think <i>legalizing</i> rape would result in people deciding it's okay. Our laws on sexual equality are the result of sociological changes, not the other way around. Most attempts to supercede this have resulted in failure.

The thing that makes abortion such a hot topic issue is that well, the birth of a child is one of the most miraculous events in life. I mean, it's just about the most important event in anyone's life. It's not something to be taken lightly. This however, cuts both ways. If a woman has decided, against all motherly instincts and feminime emotion, that she will not carry her child to term, I seriously doubt that she will ever decide to change her mind because it's illegal. Never will she say, "Oh, it's illegal? Well then, I guess I'll have my baby. No biggie." It is a huge deal. People break the law to get out of things that are infinately smaller in scope and importance. I mean, everyone has sped to get to work on time, everyone has done something before they were of legal age, imagine how many would break an anti-abortion law...

Oddly enough, I recall reading that it was the AMA that started the whole "Life begins before birth." It was a way of creating a monopoly on abortions, "Only an AMA certified doctor can telll when life begins." At the time, Churches actually gave out abortion inducing drugs. I think it was in a Carl Sagan book.