[JustMel]

Originally Posted by duende60 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

( Show Spoiler ) Having finally finished reading this thread, I have a question and a comment. Question first: Why do people so privilege biological life? The phrase, "abortion is ending a life!" is often used in these debates and this is true. But, why does this matter so much? All life ends. In fact, ending is inherent in the definition of life. If a life ends 6 weeks after conception or 90 years after, it still ends. I think this might be an area where pro- and anti- choice debators have a paradigm disconnect. The anti-choice camp appears to me to see an inherent value to "life" that the pro-choice camp, perhaps, does not. As Tocsin (I apologize if I get the name wrong) points out, there is no point in the reproductive process where "life" is not present, which is why many pro-choice debators tend to place the emphasis on consciousness or viability as a critical point in the development of a new human that determines whether or not abortion should be an option. So, in essence, the two sides are not arguing about the same thing, which means it is unlikely there will ever be a satisfactory compromise. And, the comment: A side-discussion in this thread is about the issue of whether men should have the option to absolve themselves of responsibility for the issue of pregnancies to which they contribute. To me, this has a strong undercurrent of, "Its not fair!" Well, you're right -- its NOT fair. And, too bad. LIFE is not fair. And, I mean that quite literally. It is patently unfair to men that women get to make the decision about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and men are on the hook for child support even when they did not want a child and made that clear from the beginning. And, this unfairness is not the woman's fault, and does not and should not absolve him of financial responsibility for the resulting child. Claims that it should are comparing apples and antelopes on couple of fronts. First, we, as a species, have evolved to reproduce sexually and to gestate our young inside the bodies of our females. That means it takes a male and a female to start a pregnancy, but only the female bears responsibility for the gestation of the fetus. That is an essentially unfair distribution of labor for which you can blame nature, biology, or God - but not females. If we were like birds, and gestated our young outside of our bodies, either parent could walk (or fly) away once the egg was laid and the other parent could keep the egg warm, or choose to walk away, too, and the offspring would live or die depending on those choices. But, we are not like birds. The two human parents' have essentially unequal involvement and responsibility during the gestation period. Taking a bacon and egg breakfast as a metaphor, the male is the chicken and the woman is the pig, and in that scenario, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. But, on the second front, everything changes at birth, and this is why the arguments about letting men off the hook for children they didn't want fall flat - as soon as a child is born, they are (in most places) considered a new individual, with all the inherent rights that entails. Those rights include the right to be supported by both parents. It has nothing to do with the woman getting money from the man. It has to do with the child getting the support, preferably including emotional and psychological support, from the two people responsible for his or her existence. The idea that women bear children for "an additional source of income" is laughable given the level of child support generally awarded. Also, claims that men bear the burden of child support is equally ridiculous as it completely ignores the woman's own contributions to supporting her child/ren. I'm not saying there is no woman out there who is wholly dependent on her baby-daddy for her income - I know there are cases like that. I'm saying that in the vast majority of cases, a father's child support payments are his contribution to the support of his children, which is balanced with the mother's contribution. Child support awards factor in caretaking time as well as finances. A parent who chooses not to be personally involved in his or her childrens' lives will generally end up paying a higher level of support than a parent who takes on part ofthe caretaking responsibilities. But, the bottom line, and the most important part of this is that it is not about the male or the female parent's rights or sense of fairness -- its about the rights of the child to be supported by its parents. (And, I extend this to mean that if a pregnant female chooses to birth a child but not keep it, the father should have the right to raise the child and get child support from the mother if he so chooses, as opposed to her being allowed to surrender the child to adoption without his agreement.) TLDR summary of rights and responsibilities in human reproduction: Conception -- male and female have equal right and responsibility to prevent undesired pregnancy (in the absense of rape or coercion.) Gestation -- only the female bears responsibility for gestation, so she has the right to determine whether it continues. Post-birth -- all rights devolve to the child, and responsibility rests with both genetic contributors to the child's existence. Each phase stands independently of the others in terms of the distribution of rights and responsibilities, and the inherent unfairnesses are the fault of our evolution or creation, depending on your POV.

Well put and the only thing I disagree with is that if the woman wants to place the child for adoption and agrees to sign the papers and the father wants the child that should be allowed. He is making the choice to take a child she would have had no financial responsibility for had it been a private adoption and shouldn't since basically the father is the one "adopting" the baby. In my eyes that stems from the same decision making that comes with being responsible for gestation.

[duende60]

My thought is that, once birth has occurred, both parents should be equal in their right to *be* parents to the child. The idea that a biological father should have to, in essence, adopt his own child in order to be allowed to parent strikes me as wrong. And, I don't see why a woman should be allowed to make the decision to walk away from a child *that the other parent desires to raise* with no further responsibility when we don't allow men to do the same. because I don't think its in the best interests of the child for either parent to do so.

[JustMel]

Originally Posted by duende60 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My thought is that, once birth has occurred, both parents should be equal in their right to *be* parents to the child. The idea that a biological father should have to, in essence, adopt his own child in order to be allowed to parent strikes me as wrong. And, I don't see why a woman should be allowed to make the decision to walk away from a child *that the other parent desires to raise* with no further responsibility when we don't allow men to do the same. because I don't think its in the best interests of the child for either parent to do so.

If she was placing the child for adoption and relinquished her rights and the father doesn't relinquish his and ends up with the child then I don't see a problem with that. He has the option of signing his rights away too. Men have the same ability to sign their rights away as women. In some states they won't allow them to relinquish rights because it happens so many years after birth.

My oldest daughter's biological father didn't want to pay child support and he didn't want to see her and be involved in her life so while I had the child support order I never enforced it. He never exercised his visitation rights. When she was 14 she had me track him down and they had a long conversation and he still isn't in her life, by her own choice.

I tell my kids not to have sex with anyone they couldn't see raising kids with.

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And that's the fatal flaw of your proposal. If the only legal abortions are those caused by rape, what excuse do you think all pregnant women will use? That's right, they were raped. There would be no way to prove they weren't raped, but you'd get some very genuine outrage from the public if you get rid of the rape clause.

To add to this point, I think anti-abortionists adopt the position that the fetus is a human worthy of legal rights. What, then, makes the fetus any less human if the mother was raped? It is still a fetus; an illegitimate child is still a child, and it doesn't matter if the child was born of rape or incest. Bottom line is, I think all here agree that an illegitimate child shouldn't be less privileged than a legitimate child just because he or she was born that way. Thus, it makes no sense to say abortion is wrong, but if the fetus was conceived by x, y, and z (make that rape, incest and putting the mother's life in danger), then abortion is more right. Either all children have the same rights or they don't; either all abortions are wrong or they aren't. To say otherwise is selective reasoning and ultimately, setting double standards.

Originally Posted by duende60 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And, too bad. LIFE is not fair. And, I mean that quite literally. It is patently unfair to men that women get to make the decision about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and men are on the hook for child support even when they did not want a child and made that clear from the beginning. And, this unfairness is not the woman's fault, and does not and should not absolve him of financial responsibility for the resulting child. Claims that it should are comparing apples and antelopes on couple of fronts.

Too right. Even if the man does not want the child and the woman insists on carrying it to term, it still does not prevent the state from ordering child support in case the woman cannot support it; because ultimately the state is concerned with the child's welfare; if a mother cannot support a child, then the father, by definition, should be the most responsible, whether or not he had wanted in on the child or if the mother had listened to him when he opted out. In an ideal world, the mother would bear all responsibility if she carries it to term against the father's wishes, but unfortunately, we live in the real world. Fair? No. Reality? You bet.

[Lirneleth]

Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No. Scientific fact that the fetus does not have a fully developed brain capable of receiving pain signals in the first few weeks. There's not even a viable brainstem until 7 weeks. It's not able to take a breath until approximately 10 weeks, how can something that doesn't take its first breath until 10 weeks have passed be considered to have the same rights to life as humans who breathe to live? I agree with a 12-14 week limit on abortions except in circumstances where the mother's life is in danger but I don't agree that the fetus is more than cells until at least 7-10 weeks. Even if you cut off abortions at 10 weeks I'd still say it's not murder because there is NO functioning brain.

Thanks for your posts JustMel!
I find physical and experiential human identity an especially interesting aspect of this topic.

Since the validity of abortion rests on the identity of a 'human' life form (for me personally) (I do not want to shove my viewpoints on another) I consider it important to understand when 'life' becomes or is 'human life.' This dilemma is caused by my inability to scientifically differentiate a 'human' life from one stage of development to another. For example, I agree that physically the fetus is simply a collection of cells, but then again, I am also just a collection of cells.

Physically, I am simply an organization of cells that utilize external sources of energy to exist and reproduce. I am a parasite of my environment, whether I am beneficial or not to that environment. Granted, as an adult female I posses a countless number of physiological systems that are far more developed than those of a fetus. Despite this fact, humans are constantly experiencing a process of lifelong development, i.e. conception, growth, adolescence, sexual maturity, menopause, death, etc.
Although not at the rate or in the same manner as a fetus, infant or child, I am still physically developing.

As a result, I have a hard time picking a 'point' on this line of development which distinguishes 'life' from 'human life.' When approaching this topic from a solely scientific standpoint, I have never heard a scientist say that a fetus is not 'human life', nor have I learned, heard, or experienced anything to the contrary. Scientifically, as far as I am aware, human life begins when the DNA of a sperm cell head penetrates the ova and initiates development.

What are your opinions on the identity of physical human life?

If the fetus does constitute physical human life, then is the experience of the 'life' what plays a determining role on the 'life's' identity as a valuable/salvageable/protectable/useful 'human life?' (please forgive my ambiguity) For example, I have read a number of posts which discuss the value/protect-ability of the fetus (seemingly) resting upon characteristics such as 'higher brain function,' or 'cognizance.' In which case, how do we define/understand/distinguish higher brain function from lesser brain function?

What are your opinions on the identity of experiencially defined human life?

I personally have difficulty making these distinctions and I am curious what yall think.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Kris]

I've never really established a strong moral position on this issue, but I guess I've never really wanted to. I think its an issue that for all practical purposes has to go one way or the other, legal or illegal. There is much gray area on both sides, but I just don't think you can ignore the inherent right to choice that people possess. Regardless of legality people will often seek out a means of ending their pregnancy, through self-abortion, backyard abortion or even suicide. As much as you might want to force someone to carry another growing human within them for 9 months because of moral convictions, I just don't think it works.

People also seem to forget that we put animals down for 'their own good' through all stages of their life. Is this ok because we don't think they are sentient beings, or just because they are a different species?

[Alex]

	What the world needs is an artificial uterus (among many other things). If the man feels confident in his abilities to raise the baby on his own, then the baby can be transplanted into him for the remainder of the gestation period.

But this is yet another medical decision that would have to be made. If I didn't want to go through a pregnancy and birth, I don't understand how I'd alternatively want to go through a transplantation process. For the sake of ease, I'd abort and be done with it.

I realise casual sex and the like happens (and I'm all for it), but if a man is so keen on raising a kid, it would behoove him to conceive one with a woman who is interested in either having children with him or acting as his incubator. It's not her responsibility to accommodate him after the fact if he wasn't aware she wasn't interested in children.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by Lirneleth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thanks for your posts JustMel! I find physical and experiential human identity an especially interesting aspect of this topic. What are your opinions on the identity of physical human life?

For me it's when the fetus can survive outside the mother/host. Right now one of the youngest is 26-27 weeks. My nephew was born at 28 weeks.

[skycloud86]

I believe that all women of child bearing age have the right to choose for any reason at any time during the pregnancy.

As for the father, I do believe that he deserves and should have a say, but I think ultimately it is the woman's choice.

[IslandHead]

Originally Posted by Prunesquallor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A huge, huge Option B, abortion: Force a woman to deal with a disabling and potentially life-threatening condition because you believe your view of ethics is superior to hers. Imposing upon her either a responsibility, not to be taken lightly, of raising and caring for another human being, or the potential trauma of giving up a child that already took away part of her life and health which will never come back - simply because you are too squeamish to respect her right to choose.

I think if you are going to have sex than you should be prepared to deal with the consequences. It's not like the active participants did not know how children are created and the consequences of being impregnated. I think if the male is willing to take sole custody of the child, then the women should be prevented from being able to abort the child. It is equally both of their child, they should both have equal say in it. If you arguing that the women in question has the right to avoid stretch marks and potentially life-threatening condition then she shouldn't spread her legs... Just because the father does not have the child growing inside of them, should not take away from his right to becoming a father.


It is unfair that males only have a say in abortions. Men can not physically host a fetus, and women who consent to sex should know the consequences of their actions before hand.


I would also like to add the implementing the male's opinion is rather situational. In a long term relationship or marriage he should have more say than in the outcome of a one night stand.

[Prunesquallor]

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think if you are going to have sex than you should be prepared to deal with the consequences. It's not like the active participants did not know how children are created and the consequences of being impregnated. I think if the male is willing to take sole custody of the child, then the women should be prevented from being able to abort the child. It is equally both of their child, they should both have equal say in it. If you arguing that the women in question has the right to avoid stretch marks and potentially life-threatening condition then she shouldn't spread her legs... Just because the father does not have the child growing inside of them, should not take away from his right to becoming a father. It is unfair that males only have a say in abortions. Men can not physically host a fetus, and women who consent to sex should know the consequences of their actions before hand.

Yes, and one of the consequences is a difficult decision - abortion or pregnancy. Forcing a particular consequence according to your own personal beliefs is not a necessary consequence. Plus, the man still has as much of a 'right' to become a father as he always did - he just can't force a woman to bear his child. Ever.

It is unfair that males have no say. They still don't though, even if it is unfair.. It's even more unfair that they don't get pregnant, never have to carry the child, whereas we deal with all of the risks and pain and discomfort that comes from that. The fact that it's unfair doesn't mean we get to implant a uterus in them. Cope with the cards you're dealt and be grateful.

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think if you are going to have sex than you should be prepared to deal with the consequences. It's not like the active participants did not know how children are created and the consequences of being impregnated. I think if the male is willing to take sole custody of the child, then the women should be prevented from being able to abort the child. It is equally both of their child, they should both have equal say in it. If you arguing that the women in question has the right to avoid stretch marks and potentially life-threatening condition then she shouldn't spread her legs... Just because the father does not have the child growing inside of them, should not take away from his right to becoming a father. It is unfair that males only have a say in abortions. Men can not physically host a fetus, and women who consent to sex should know the consequences of their actions before hand.

What do stretch marks have to do with being pregnant outside of the uterus, ectopic pregnancies, or other potentially life threatening conditions related to pregnancy that may cost the mother her life? It isn't wrong to kill in self defense and the man certainly shouldn't have a say in what the mother decides in relation to this issue.

- some women would be willing to risk their life for their baby others wouldn't... either way it should be their right to choose. Unless we're going to start forcing all parents to give their lives for their children at all times. Forced suicide to provide much needed internal organs etc in certain cases....

"Think this can't happen? Just ask Michelle Lee, a Louisiana woman denied a Medicaid-funded abortion by Louisiana State University Medical Center. In spite of her life-threatening heart condition that was getting worse, doctors at that facility denied her request for a Medicaid-funded abortion after deciding that her risk of death was not greater than 50 percent if she carried the pregnancy to term." -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"In some cases, a woman must have an abortion to survive a pregnancy. An example is the diabetic woman who develops a condition in pregnancy called hyperemesis gravidarum (uncontrollable vomiting associated with pregnancy). She becomes malnourished and dehydrated in spite of intravenous therapy and other treatment, threatening heart failure, among other things. Only an abortion will cure this life-threatening condition."

Another link for women suffering from a life threatening condition during pregnancy:

"Women left untreated sometimes become so metabolically imbalanced, termination is chosen to save the life of the mother who is facing organ failure. In other cases, the mother and child are put at higher risk for serious and potentially life-long complications. However, as a treatment option, therapeutic abortion should be considered only as a last resort." -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Well one persons threshold for pushing ones luck with statistics might be higher than another when being faced with a life threatening condition...

[Alex]

I'm sorry, but when I have sex, I actively make the decision that I'm not in it to get pregnant. I don't care if it incidentally happens to be "the way children are made"; I have every right, as an adult, to acknowledge that sex is NOT just a child-making endeavor. It is a form of pleasure that adults experience together. I take every precaution necessary to avoid the unpleasant side-effect of pregnancy.

I have every right to "spread my legs", and once I do so, my body is still mine. It's not the government's. It's not the sex partner's. It's not the potential fetus's. It's mine, and my right to govern it does not vanish at some magical point directly after intercourse, or after a sperm has implanted in my egg, or any other time. It's still mine, and I say what goes in and what comes out.

It may not be fair, but fairness isn't and never was the point. If a male wants a child so badly, he can either go adopt one or find a woman who shares his desire to breed. At no point should a woman EVER be bound by a male's temper tantrum that the reproductive process is "unfair".

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by Alex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm sorry, but when I have sex, I actively make the decision that I'm not in it to get pregnant. I don't care if it incidentally happens to be "the way children are made"; I have every right, as an adult, to acknowledge that sex is NOT just a child-making endeavor. It is a form of pleasure that adults experience together. I take every precaution necessary to avoid the unpleasant side-effect of pregnancy. I have every right to "spread my legs", and once I do so, my body is still mine. It's not the government's. It's not the sex partner's. It's not the potential fetus's. It's mine, and my right to govern it does not vanish at some magical point directly after intercourse, or after a sperm has implanted in my egg, or any other time. It's still mine, and I say what goes in and what comes out. It may not be fair, but fairness isn't and never was the point. If a male wants a child so badly, he can either go adopt one or find a woman who shares his desire to breed. At no point should a woman EVER be bound by a male's temper tantrum that the reproductive process is "unfair".

Agreed. This is such a touchy issue for some people and I really can't understand why some people are so concerned with what a woman wants to do with her body....

I know they say it's about protecting innocent life - but I just don't see the same outrage in regards to other issues - imo more pressing issues - that actually lead to widespread human suffering...

[Alex]

	I know they say it's about protecting innocent life - but I just don't see the same outrage in regards to other issues - imo more pressing issues - that actually lead to widespread human suffering...

I have always felt that those who are concerned about "innocent life" are led by nothing more than an emotional mental picture they've conjured - that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is simply a tiny, full-scale model of a cute and cuddly baby. With that image in their heads, they let emotion do the debating for them. Eventually, at some point, you do get a small human being, but this is after loads of development and "assembly" - you might have the beginnings of a brain and maybe even of nerves, but physiology says you must have a functioning cerebral cortex to complete the connection between active brain and active nerves. You may have "beating" heart cells, but FAR more development is needed to make an actual heart that performs the functions of a heart. They skip all of this, and instead picture a cute infant. That's simply not the reality.

Which is why I don't understand when people use epithets like "baby killer" against those who support abortion. Killing babies is illegal, it always has been. You're evacuating the material that WOULD become a baby before it CAN become a baby. If I don't tell people I ate "fried chicken" when I fry an egg in the morning, then I'm not going to tell someone "I killed my baby" when all I had was a simple abortion. The two couldn't be more different.

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by Alex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have always felt that those who are concerned about "innocent life" are led by nothing more than an emotional mental picture they've conjured - that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is simply a tiny, full-scale model of a cute and cuddly baby. With that image in their heads, they let emotion do the debating for them. Eventually, at some point, you do get a small human being, but this is after loads of development and "assembly" - you might have the beginnings of a brain and maybe even of nerves, but physiology says you must have a functioning cerebral cortex to complete the connection between active brain and active nerves. You may have "beating" heart cells, but FAR more development is needed to make an actual heart that performs the functions of a heart. They skip all of this, and instead picture a cute infant. That's simply not the reality.

I've observed this too. The campus anti-abortion protesters love to employ this method. It really is perplexing to listen to people with no understanding of how human life develops in the womb spout off about the beginning of life and personhood.... They are in essence invoking a religious opinion and attempting to pass that off as fact...

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by skycloud86 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I believe that all women of child bearing age have the right to choose for any reason at any time during the pregnancy. As for the father, I do believe that he deserves and should have a say, but I think ultimately it is the woman's choice.

You'd agree with someone choosing an abortion at 8 months gestation when the child could survive outside the womb?





JustMel added to this post, 6 minutes and 40 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Chemist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've observed this too. The campus anti-abortion protesters love to employ this method. It really is perplexing to listen to people with no understanding of how human life develops in the womb spout off about the beginning of life and personhood.... They are in essence invoking a religious opinion and attempting to pass that off as fact...

Well said and agree. I don't see the people yelling to make abortions illegal stepping up and saying they'll take care of the kids that are born if abortions were made illegal. I find it even more ironic when someone says "I'd never have an abortion" and they've never been in that position to have to make that choice. Until you are in a specific situation it's hard to imagine what you might do. I can say I wouldn't have an abortion, it's not a choice for me personally, I chose adoption instead of abortion but it was MY choice.





JustMel added to this post, 11 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think if you are going to have sex than you should be prepared to deal with the consequences. It's not like the active participants did not know how children are created and the consequences of being impregnated. I think if the male is willing to take sole custody of the child, then the women should be prevented from being able to abort the child. It is equally both of their child, they should both have equal say in it. If you arguing that the women in question has the right to avoid stretch marks and potentially life-threatening condition then she shouldn't spread her legs... Just because the father does not have the child growing inside of them, should not take away from his right to becoming a father. It is unfair that males only have a say in abortions. Men can not physically host a fetus, and women who consent to sex should know the consequences of their actions before hand. I would also like to add the implementing the male's opinion is rather situational. In a long term relationship or marriage he should have more say than in the outcome of a one night stand.

Do you also think that Plan B and other emergency contraception options shouldn't be allowed in case of birth control failure? By your short sighted views and opinions any FEMALE who chooses to have sex, even while using birth control, should be forced to endure 40 weeks of cramping legs, puking, hot flashes, increased urination, swollen and achy body parts, unknown lengths of labor, potential major surgery if there are complications, etc. because she "chose to spread her legs". Get real. It's a woman's body and her choice.

Men can't host a fetus and if the time comes then by all means they can then have a say. I'm pro father in a lot of custody cases but not when it comes to abortion. An opinion is one thing, forced to become someone's brood mare because she enjoys sex, no.

[skycloud86]

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You'd agree with someone choosing an abortion at 8 months gestation when the child could survive outside the womb?

It was late at night when I wrote that. I don't think that, no - maybe if continuing with the pregnancy would seriously harm either the mother and/or baby, but not just for any reason at that point.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by skycloud86 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It was late at night when I wrote that. I don't think that, no - maybe if continuing with the pregnancy would seriously harm either the mother and/or baby, but not just for any reason at that point.

At that point the child could be delivered via c-section and not have an abortion.

[admittedheretic]

Lets try and get back on the main focus here folks.

The #1 reason women get abortions... They want children later in life.
Reason #2... lack of financial support.

One needs to justify why these are acceptable instead of using an argument of self-defense as a catch all.

I think we need an abortion discussion thread where nobody is allowed to bring up the subject of rape or self-defense. Not because I don't think they are important because I do. But because they subtopics to be tackled after we take on the majority of the issue!

[pure potential]

The Woman's.

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by admittedheretic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lets try and get back on the main focus here folks. The #1 reason women get abortions... They want children later in life. Reason #2... lack of financial support. One needs to justify why these are acceptable instead of using an argument of self-defense as a catch all. I think we need an abortion discussion thread where nobody is allowed to bring up the subject of rape or self-defense. Not because I don't think they are important because I do. But because they subtopics to be tackled after we take on the majority of the issue!

Well first of all I think you're mistaken saying that the number one reason women have abortions is because they want children later in life - something tells me that the thought of future children is of no consequence to the women seeking an abortion....

I think women have abortions for all kinds of reasons that those of us not in their position can't comprehend....

Their reasons don't matter - all that matters in my opinion - is that abortion is legal because personhood is not extended to a mass of human cells. Currently men are permitted to masturbate despite the genocide of human cells that ensues... Nobody goes around smothering 3 month old babies in their sleep and not getting arrested for it....

The rest of it is a compilation of religious crazies wanting to put women back "in their place" and truly confused individuals unable to logically reconcile the point at which self awareness actually begins...

[JustMel]

Originally Posted by admittedheretic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lets try and get back on the main focus here folks. The #1 reason women get abortions... They want children later in life. Reason #2... lack of financial support. One needs to justify why these are acceptable instead of using an argument of self-defense as a catch all. I think we need an abortion discussion thread where nobody is allowed to bring up the subject of rape or self-defense. Not because I don't think they are important because I do. But because they subtopics to be tackled after we take on the majority of the issue!

Wrong. The number one reason for abortions is NOT wanting a child at that point in time. It doesn't mean they necessarily want children later in life or at all.

No one needs to justify their reasoning. It's a personal choice that is made by women and no one else. It's a personal choice. I seriously doubt your idea of a totalitarian debate of abortion would work. There are simply too many variables.

While I don't agree with multiple abortions, I also realize it's not my body and not my place to tell someone else it's wrong to have an abortion. Just as it's my body and was my choice to pick adoption over abortion.

I'll go mining for statistics later but for now;

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. [7] • The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women[3,1] • The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[8]

[Ekagra]

Originally Posted by admittedheretic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lets try and get back on the main focus here folks. The #1 reason women get abortions... They want children later in life. Reason #2... lack of financial support. One needs to justify why these are acceptable instead of using an argument of self-defense as a catch all. I think we need an abortion discussion thread where nobody is allowed to bring up the subject of rape or self-defense. Not because I don't think they are important because I do. But because they subtopics to be tackled after we take on the majority of the issue!

Quite right. The real issue here, exceptions aside, is whether abortion is murder. There have been many an attempt to define the stage at which we have a viable, independent life. The fetus must be more than x cells, have a brain stem, be older than xx, etc. To say that any of these criteria has anything to do with science significantly overestimates our state of knowledge as science does not understand the spark that makes a living thing live. Therefore all criteria relating to early termination are arbitrary, motivated as they are by other considerations: convenience, pleasure, 'woman's rights', etc. Since a viable criterion for early termination of a fetus does not exist we must adopt the conservative stance, that fetal termination is killing and should not be legal.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ekagra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quite right. The real issue here, exceptions aside, is whether abortion is murder. There have been many an attempt to define the stage at which we have a viable, independent life. The fetus must be more than x cells, have a brain stem, be older than xx, etc. To say that any of these criteria has anything to do with science significantly overestimates our state of knowledge as science does not understand the spark that makes a living thing live. Therefore all criteria relating to early termination are arbitrary, motivated as they are by other considerations: convenience, pleasure, 'woman's rights', etc. Since a viable criterion for early termination of a fetus does not exist we must adopt the conservative stance, that fetal termination is killing and should not be legal.

Doesn't matter when "the fetus is 'a bonafide life'". We do have restrictions that consider when the fetus can feel pain, which I think is as fair and humane as anything else, but all value on human life is arbitrary - our decision on whether it's okay to kill someone in self-defense before they kill you is just as arbitrary as the one that dictates that we can't just walk up and randomly slay someone. What makes human life worth anything at all? From a full grown adult to a developing fetus? It's entirely arbitrary, this question of the "sanctity" of life. I might feel that any "innocent" person doesn't "deserve" to die - but then, I'd say that a random innocent life to whom I have no connection deserves to die just a little bit more than someone I know and care about. That's me, arbitrarily assigning value to a human life.

The issue is not how "valuable" the life is or "when it counts as a person". The issue is whether or not a woman should be forced to use her organs to sustain another life form. Seeing as I have a right to kill a fully independent adult rapist if such force is needed keep him from using my body as he sees fit, I think I definitely have the right to terminate a barely-developed fetus.