[dofe]

	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.
	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.

Well said. A lot of posters craft the abortion question as one of whether abortion is murder -- the problem is that you can't pose that question without considering the issue of the woman's right to make decision about the health of her body. Statistically speaking, aborting during the early term is safer than going through childbirth. Even at later terms, carrying a fetus has significant health consequences for the woman. Making a medical decision that affects one's own body is a fundamental right that shouldn't be subject to judgement by others.

Killing a robber is murder in colloquial terms, but the law and society excuses it when it's done for self-defense reasons. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, as it's often said in torts.

[Ekagra]

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.

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.

The current legal code values human life and forbids murder. I suppose one answer to the abortion question is to reverse the legal restriction on murder. Is that what you are proposing?

No, the issue is the value of life. Sex is the life creating act - the physiology is clear. Take precaution if you will but the best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is to avoid sex. That is the woman's (and man's) choice. Like bulimia, abortion is a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body.

Rape, of course is a special condition.

[Alex]

	The current legal code values human life and forbids murder. I suppose one answer to the abortion question is to reverse the legal restriction on murder. Is that what you are proposing?

Uh, no, since definitions of "murder" or "not murder" aren't what we're discussing here, since that isn't the point. In order to get into the discussion of "Is abortion murder", you'd first have to talk about upon whom murder can be committed; at this point in time, that would be a legally recognized person. Fetuses aren't legally recognized persons.

Beyond that, however, is how one applies the term "murder". Is self-defense - whether to escape death or subjugation - murder? Our legal system says no. If I can kill (with impunity) a legal person who is attempting to use my body for his own ends without legally committing the act of murder, then how I can possibly commit murder against something that 1) is also attempting to use my body for its own ends against my will and 2) isn't even a legal person?

So no, I love the definition of murder just as it is - the willful, unprovoked slaying of another legal person against his consent, to different degrees of compliance. Unfortunately for you, a fetus fits nowhere into that definition.

Next.

	Sex is the life creating act - the physiology is clear.

And? My rights to my body don't end when I decide, like millions of other adult human beings on the planet, that I'm not interested in children. Human beings have sex for pleasure - the physiology of which is also clear. Several other non-human species (dolphins, bonobos gorillas, etc) have sex when they're aware that it will bear no fruitful outcome.

I'll have sex for pleasure and not babies, thank you.

	Take precaution if you will but the best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is to avoid sex.

I'll tell the rather large handful of willfully child-free married couples that I know that, in order to make a few people with aberrant ideas happy, they'll need to stop having sex JUST in case their birth control methods/surgeries don't work. I'm sure they could use a good laugh.

	Like bulimia, abortion is a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body.

Using that logic, chemotherapy is a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body. Hearing aids are a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body. Prosthetics are a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body. Antibiotics are a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body. Hell, TUBAL LIGATION AND VASECTOMIES are a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body.

If nature had meant for us all to survive for as long as possible, it'd have just taken back all those nasty viruses, bacteria, and teratogens that just kept killing all of us off. What right have we, we arrogant human beings, to go against the body? It obviously knows what's best! I'll go tell a few lupus patients how wrong they are to suppress their natural, and therefore sacred, immune systems because their bodies MEANT for them to attack their healthy tissues for absolutely no reason!

By all means, if you want to go live in some hunter-gatherer utopia where humanity was at the complete whim of its own biology and its reactions to its natural environment, you go right on ahead. I appreciate science and modern medicine.

	Rape, of course is a special condition.

Hahaha, of course it is! Because the issue is only about the fetus being a person, and how killing a person is murder - and we all know that the fetus magically becomes less of a person when it's the product of a rape and not consensual sex.

Your ilk doesn't take very long to reveal itself. Banning abortion hasn't anything to do with the order of nature, or "what GAWD says", or anything but punishing people for enjoying sex, and daring to take charge of their own lives and decide when THEY want to have children, if ever.

[JustMel]

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.

The current legal code values human life and forbids murder. I suppose one answer to the abortion question is to reverse the legal restriction on murder. Is that what you are proposing? No, the issue is the value of life. Sex is the life creating act - the physiology is clear. Take precaution if you will but the best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is to avoid sex. That is the woman's (and man's) choice. Like bulimia, abortion is a disease of attachment to a way of life that is out of accord with the natural condition of the body. Rape, of course is a special condition.

Incorrect. There are cases where murder is not considered a punishable crime. Sex is no longer just about procreation and survival of the species. It is also about pleasure and intimacy. If your antiquated ideals were the norm then birth control could be considered attempted murder since the object is to prevent pregnancy.

[admittedheretic]

Chemist - Sperm has zero potential to form a human being so flushing it down the toilet or whatever is not murder. The potential to form a human begins at the first cell division after the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Ekagra - I agree with your feeling that there is no "human" stage and any opinionated stage is arbitrary.

Nobody can seem to agree on what a real definition of "human" is. I define being human simply as a living organism that possesses human DNA.

If we wanted to protect an endangered species of Bald Eagles or Butterflies, some people would argue that eggs and caterpillar don't need to be indirectly protected. This doesn't make sense to me as an egg or caterpillar is just a less development form of an eagle or butterfly respectively. A clump of cells is potentially a human with rights and I feel terminating this process is murder. That is assuming the process was started by conscious and willing people. If people don't have to be responsible with human life, why should they have to be responsible about anything?





Shamelessly from Wikipedia..

Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[25] Another study, in
1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[26]

* 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% Want no (more) children
* 3.3% Risk to fetal health
* 2.8% Risk to maternal health
* 2.1% Other


Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118 (September 2005).

[True Rune]

Up to about school age. Just because they can run and scream doesn't make them any less of parasites. You can put them to sleep like they do animals.

[Alex]

	If people don't have to be responsible with human life, why should they have to be responsible about anything?

Abortion is being responsible; just because you've decided you don't like it doesn't make that otherwise. You can quibble terminology all you like, but if the choice is between an unthinking, insensate precursor to a human being and an actual fully developed infant, I'd say the latter is in a more important stage of development. And I'd much rather the pregnancy end with the former if the people who conceived it don't even want it.

There are worse things in life than "death", as it were. Having parents who didn't even want you? Who, as a result of that, might be inclined to neglect or abuse you? Or who can't bear to give you to strangers, yet can't afford you? Can't afford medical care?

"Birth at all costs" is a terrible policy, not to mention just abhorrent when the question of rights come into play.

However arbitrary you find the definition of "human" to be, our legal system has a reasonable cut-off point with viability. If every barely-fertilized egg qualified as a legal human (not as GENETICALLY human - they're all genetically human - but having legal personhood), then we'd rightfully need to investigate every miscarriage to be sure it was a true accident and not foul play. It's an absurd proposition.

[Zsych]

I see government's responsibility as serving the whole and not individuals. Kinda like a company... ultimately intended to better the company, not specific employees.

As for miscarriage... if you define a human as being human at the point of conception then there is nothing absurd about finding out why he lost his life... Might not be a bad thing to know anyway, if it weren't particularly costly to know.

Anyway, the government IMO should only interfere if it seems likely that the people as a whole will benefit from the decision. I rather suspect that 'birth at all costs' would not be the most beneficial path.


As for when a human is actually human. I'd say it would be when a human has consciousness(whether or not the person has a well developed memory). The problem with consciousness is that there is no clear definition and no way to detect it. Being able to think doesn't automatically imply consciousness. There is no way to know that any human other than yourself is conscious. Its possible that an embryo has consciousness, I doubt it, but we don't know what mechanism causes it, except through assumption and if I was dealing with a humanoid robot that simulated human behavior, I wouldn't be able to tell with it any more than with a regular human.

If you were taking the safer route, I'd say you would go with the assumption that the embryo has some level of life. You could also say that humans only have consciousness near the point they start making real memories.. as young kids. You could instead choose to define humans as having worth purely in terms of the purpose they will be able to serve as adults... and thus invalidate the existence of many children (Gattaca style
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

The point though, is that a lot of things are open to interpretation. Different people have very different values, but ultimately government shouldn't be making decisions based on what various groups of people believe.

... If we have a soul... and we're going to be reborn anyway(on this world, in heaven, etc.) then losing our bodies isn't a great loss.
... and if we don't have souls, then we're machines and losing our existence isn't a great loss :P

[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.

Shamelessly from Wikipedia.. Reasons for abortions In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[25] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[26] * 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing * 21.3% Cannot afford a baby * 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy * 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy * 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job * 7.9% Want no (more) children * 3.3% Risk to fetal health * 2.8% Risk to maternal health * 2.1% Other Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118 (September 2005).

2005. My statistics were from 2008. Reasons change. It's easier to tell someone you don't want children NOW rather than NEVER. People invariably want to tell you that you'll change your mind if you say you never want children but are more accepting of NOW.

Abortion is actually
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
with more aggressive forms of birth control available. If you want current statistics you can go
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[Antares]

	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.
	Chemist - Sperm has zero potential to form a human being so flushing it down the toilet or whatever is not murder. The potential to form a human begins at the first cell division after the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Appealing to potential.

	Nobody can seem to agree on what a real definition of "human" is. I define being human simply as a living organism that possesses human DNA.

Exactly. So your definition doesn't stand, either. If ideologically, we can't form a definition, then shouldn't we therefore seek a more pragmatic, or materialistic path? The act of homicide removes a functioning member from society that the lives of others may otherwise hinge upon. If my father died, my family would have a hard time. If somebody killed my mother, then the source of our income would be gone, however, a fetus has no such connections, except perhaps the emotional state of the mother (and in some cases, the father), but those cases are individual; it isn't very ethical to deny everyone the right to choose just because some people can't take it.

If we wanted to protect an endangered species of Bald Eagles or Butterflies, some people would argue that eggs and caterpillar don't need to be indirectly protected. This doesn't make sense to me as an egg or caterpillar is just a less development form of an eagle or butterfly respectively. A clump of cells is potentially a human with rights and I feel terminating this process is murder. That is assuming the process was started by conscious and willing people. If people don't have to be responsible with human life, why should they have to be responsible about anything?

They SHOULD be responsible about the act of procreating; and many are, by using birth control methods, but it still happens, doesn't it? That is a burden on their conscience alone; the state shouldn't be allowed to tell them what to do with their own bodies. There you go again. You take a potential and apply it on what IS, which is, a clump of cells that are unfeeling, inhuman and no different from the bacteria nobody thinks twice about killing. I have the potential to be a doctor some day; maybe I should be able to start prescribing drugs. It's a classic case of "don't count your chickens before they hatch". Egg =/= Chicken and should not be protected or treated as such.

Shamelessly from Wikipedia.. Reasons for abortions In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[25] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[26] * 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing * 21.3% Cannot afford a baby * 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy * 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy * 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job * 7.9% Want no (more) children * 3.3% Risk to fetal health * 2.8% Risk to maternal health * 2.1% Other Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118 (September 2005).

What point are you trying to make? That's their choice. What about those who cannot afford a baby? Would you propose to force them to have it? We have enough unwanted children in the system already; if I ever want to be a parent, I'd adopt instead of procreate. Maybe the pro-life camp should do the same and think about letting mothers who don't want children to terminate their pregnancy when the fetus are still unthinking and unfeeling, instead of bringing more into this already crowded world.

[Zsych]

Except that your responsibility is to promote your DNA, on the assumption that you are a worthwhile being, and your DNA deserves to continue existing more than that of others.

Raising other people's children is all well and good, but if you are worth something, then it is important for that worth to remain in the system... if you believe most people and the people who's children you adopt were superior to you, then not having children may be perfectly fine
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Except that your responsibility is to promote your DNA, on the assumption that you are a worthwhile being, and your DNA deserves to continue existing more than that of others.

No. This may be your responsibility. This may be the responsibility of those you provide for. But this is not - I repeat, this is not - anybody else's responsibility. Your right to extend your fist ends an inch away from my nose. You have no right to assault others. Likewise, you have no right to impose your beliefs regarding responsibility on others.

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Raising other people's children is all well and good, but if you are worth something, then it is important for that worth to remain in the system... if you believe most people and the people who's children you adopt were superior to you, then not having children may be perfectly fine To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sounds like social Darwinism - or like a beginning of a very ugly speech. I am worth something, thank you very much. However, this doesn't mean that I should turn into a breeding machine and try to outbreed other, "inferior" people whose presence you seem to implying. I will do far more good if I concentrate on improving the overall living conditions in this world of ours.

[Squirelznflight]

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

Except that your responsibility is to promote your DNA, on the assumption that you are a worthwhile being, and your DNA deserves to continue existing more than that of others. Raising other people's children is all well and good, but if you are worth something, then it is important for that worth to remain in the system... if you believe most people and the people who's children you adopt were superior to you, then not having children may be perfectly fine To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Natural selection in humans is screwed up enough as it is, at least in the West, what with plastic surgery and all that. Besides, a beneficial mutation might be present in the adoptee. There's no real way to tell which would have greater genetic potential, my child with some other partner or child x who appears to have potential anyway.

[Zsych]

Admittedly, if child X appears to have potential, I'd favor him also. Still, considering the types of humans who breed more casually... you'd be letting the ratio of various qualities change.

*Remembering the movie Idiocracy....* We could afford to not over-think, and be overly caution about some things.

I agree about the issue of natural selection being disrupted. I personally object to stuff like plastic surgery. You're messing with other people's instincts and having them see you differently, while not actually being someone else. If a man doesn't find a woman attractive, there's a reason for that. He doesn't need to be duped into thinking she's attractive.

[Squirelznflight]

^By changing qualities, do you mean changing rates, as in higher likelihoods of genetically superior children? If so, 'casual breeding' and multiple offspring would certainly increase the odds of one's assumedly beneficial traits being passed on. Granted, most people don't consider the 'well-being of the species' when deciding to breed.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I agree about the issue of natural selection being disrupted. I personally object to stuff like plastic surgery. You're messing with other people's instincts and having them see you differently, while not actually being someone else. If a man doesn't find a woman attractive, there's a reason for that. He doesn't need to be duped into thinking she's attractive.

Does that mean that in your perfect world, there would be no abortions, no makeup, and no push-up bras? Hmm...

[Zsych]

I automatically distrust women wearing makeup, since it confuses my instincts a little.
So in my perfect world, yeah definitely no make-up and other such crap.

Abortions... well if people were being sensible, it shouldn't come to that. I certainly don't prefer children being killed.

Interestingly, I would be more okay with government saying that a child be aborted(or rather their being clear guidelines for cases where its allowed), rather than parents choosing to abort kids. Seems like a horrible choice to make. To de-humanize the child you were going to have if you waited a little while, and decide that its trash to be thrown away.
When you consider the kid as being alive or worthwhile really is arbitrary. In the past, people have killed children after birth, sometimes years after birth, if they weren't found worthwhile. If you don't think of it emotionally, even those aren't necessarily horrible decisions.

[Antares]

	Interestingly, I would be more okay with government saying that a child be aborted(or rather their being clear guidelines for cases where its allowed), rather than parents choosing to abort kids. Seems like a horrible choice to make. To de-humanize the child you were going to have if you waited a little while, and decide that its trash to be thrown away.

Fascinating. You'd rather have governments making life-altering decisions for women rather than having them choose themselves. What a perfect world.

	When you consider the kid as being alive or worthwhile really is arbitrary. In the past, people have killed children after birth, sometimes years after birth, if they weren't found worthwhile. If you don't think of it emotionally, even those aren't necessarily horrible decisions.

And you think that has anything to do with abortion?

[Alex]

	As for miscarriage... if you define a human as being human at the point of conception then there is nothing absurd about finding out why he lost his life... Might not be a bad thing to know anyway, if it weren't particularly costly to know.

Good grief; in the contest of lengths people will go to in their irrational disdain for abortion, this is definitely a gold-medal performance here. We should actually overburden medical and police resources even more so than they are now just so we can examine every single miscarrying woman for evidence of foul play.

Astounding.





Alex added to this post, 9 minutes and 48 seconds later...

	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.
	Does that mean that in your perfect world, there would be no abortions, no makeup, and no push-up bras? Hmm...

It sounds like a few of the people who have commented in this thread have ideas of a perfect world, and all of them sound like some twisted agrarian hellholes. When it comes to the issue of abortion, so many of them have this tendency to talk about what's "natural", what "nature" intended, our "responsibilities" as humans to spread the seed (even though we're, like, INSANELY overpopulated already) - it's like listening to cavemen talk about "the good old days".

I say, if they're so big on "letting nature take it's course", then they need to get off the internet, turn off their computers, move out of the houses or apartments they're sitting in, give up their health insurance, go kill a wild animal, put on its hide, and go hunt for their food the way nature obviously intended. Whatever diseases they catch in the meantime, tough nuggets - nature should be allowed to do its worst.

I personally enjoy the 21st century where my life isn't dictated by instinct. I may be an animal in some respects, but I embrace humanity, and its innovations, whenever I can.

[admittedheretic]

Alex - This planet is NOT overpopulated. The media has spread the overpopulation myth for some time now in the interest of lobbyists. Can we afford to populate the earth to Western Society standards? Of course not. Might I suggest that this might mean there is something wrong with the Western way of life and not an overpopulation problem. You must be one selfish human being to value your quality and style of life over bringing new lives into this wonderful world. Your argument is that life is so bad here that you can justify killing people before they even get a chance to experience it for themselves. Earth is a great place to live, but we do have problems that need to be fixed. I say we fix the problems by going after the root cause and not denying people the right to live.

Your last statement contradicts the Pro-choice point of view. When I suggest that people be responsible for the decision to refrain from sex if having a child is the worse possible thing that could happen, they ALWAYS accuse me of being anti-sexual which I am not. The Pro-choice opinion is that we can't control our sexual instincts and therefore we shouldn't have to be responsible with them. If a child would destroy ones way of life and one is aware that there is a chance that contraception would fail, simply attempting to prevent pregnancy is not being responsible. Being responsible means suffering the known consequences with respect to the decision made. You are not embracing humanity, you are embracing your selfish desires to maintain your status quo of life over giving someone new the chance to experience life.

[Ekagra]

	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.
	Incorrect. There are cases where murder is not considered a punishable crime. Sex is no longer just about procreation and survival of the species. It is also about pleasure and intimacy. If your antiquated ideals were the norm then birth control could be considered attempted murder since the object is to prevent pregnancy.

1. True but we are discussing whether killing a fetus is morally sound.
2. Rarely was sex just about procreation. Most do operate on the basis of desire. The question here concerns the balance between fulfillment of desire and a morally sound life.
3. An idea is not invalid because it is old or unpopular

[Alex]

	You must be one selfish human being to value your quality and style of life over bringing new lives into this wonderful world.

If there's one thing I've never denied being, it's selfish. I'm probably one of the most selfish people I know - at rare times, to a detriment, but mostly to a degree that I feel is necessary and justified. It's called rational self-interest, and I am not ashamed to say I possess it.

Least of all because I refuse to ever act as an unwilling incubator for any reason. I don't believe it's unreasonable that I get to decide who and what can use my body.

	Being responsible means suffering the known consequences with respect to the decision made.

I'll remember that if I'm ever in a car accident. Wrecks are VERY common consequences of the privilege of driving; I suppose I'll just bleed to death rather than accept medical help. Even if I was the one at fault for the accident - I should accept the consequences, right?

Besides, not everyone has this wide-eyed, everything-is-beautiful-in-its-own-way view of the world. Some people simply don't want children, at all, ever - even if you think them selfish for it. Worse than your perception of my selfishness is the idea that a child coming into the world should ever be deemed "just a consequence of a decision". If you're honestly suggesting that a person's existence should be based on the self-righteousness of those who believe that everyone should irreversibly "suffer the consequences" - especially for enjoying sex, something that isn't (yet) a crime - then I'd feel sorry for any of the children born that way. "Hey, great! I was born because a bunch of men got together and decided my mom needed to learn her lesson about having sex without meaning to get pregnant! What a wanted addition to the family I was!"

So far, I've been told that: I'm selfish for NOT bringing X amount of children into the "wonderful world", I have a "responsibility" to pass on my desirable characteristics (aka, argumentation in favor of social Darwinism/eugenics), that abortion should be SO reviled that we should launch an investigation for every miscarriage, so that every grieving mother-to-be can defend herself against the accusation that she didn't willingly terminate her own pregnancy; and that the desire not to have children doesn't matter if you choose to have sex - a child should simply serve as a "consequence", rather than a planned and wanted addition to a family.

Doesn't sound to me like I'm the one with the rotten attitude towards reproduction.

[Apocynum]

While we're discussing "the original topic"...a reminder:

	Originally Posted by Bobert To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assuming that you're not completely against abortion, do you believe that it's solely the womans choice to have an abortion, or that the man should, at least, be allowed to attempt to change the womans mind? (given consentual sex & non-health related problems)

	Originally Posted by someone else(not Bobert)
	This planet is NOT overpopulated. The media has spread the overpopulation myth for some time now in the interest of lobbyists.

So says the person who "unashamedly" quoted open wiki Wikipedia info on a hot button topic where there was only ONE source for the entry data?? This doesn't give me high faith that your arguments and opinions have developed from a proper and full exploitation of confirmed actual data. (Mind you, I go so far as to spot check references in books and articles I read especially where the topic is controversial. There is far too much disinformation in the world these days - another topic for another thread.)

OK-Off the side commentary that stuck out as I was trying to come up to speed (and a little off the topic myself).

I have been told I have a unique take on the topic so I'll share and see if you agree with that previous observation:
I am ultimately Pro-Choice; it is the woman's choice, but that she should consider that father's input. However, I view the topic of abortion as a conflict in rights: between that of the mother and the fetus. Where these rights conflict after birth, it is a clear and easy thing for outside authorities (government; father; family) to step in and assume the responsibility. Before birth, that is much less clear. But, as science increasingly provides us the means to interrupt the parasitic (loaded term, terrible, but precise) relationship while still maintaining a reliable result of a healthy child as a result, it makes it possible for outside authorities to step in at that point. Prior to that point, it is the woman's choice and outside authorities have to rights to insist in either direction, certainly not requiring the woman to carry to that viability point. And, yes, that viability point will need to be as constantly reviewed as science is always changing. So I don't support late term abortions, barring issues of health.

I'll hang on to all my supporting arguments for now (it's too near bedtime for me).

I will mention however, that I feel a lot of anti-abortion people seem to belittle how truely difficult the decision actually is to make. It is NOT made lightly, nor is it forgettable. I have not been in that position, but I do have a friend who was (many years before we met). We discussed it just once in all the time I've known her. It still continued to color her life at that time, and now; but she still says it was the right thing to do. She, and her life, were a mess at that time. The situation she found herself in and the decision she was faced with making were a large part of what put her on the road to getting her act together and cleaning up her life.

[Squirelznflight]

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.

The Pro-choice opinion is that we can't control our sexual instincts and therefore we shouldn't have to be responsible with them. If a child would destroy ones way of life and one is aware that there is a chance that contraception would fail, simply attempting to prevent pregnancy is not being responsible. Being responsible means suffering the known consequences with respect to the decision made. You are not embracing humanity, you are embracing your selfish desires to maintain your status quo of life over giving someone new the chance to experience life.

That is not the Pro-Choice view. The basic Pro-Choice view is that the woman has the right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Some women are not into embracing motherhood because they value their own lives and quality thereof above the fetus.

Let's say you had the capacity to get pregnant and did so unintentionally because of failed contraceptives. Imagine the child's birth would pretty much wreck your hypothetically promising future and screw over all your dreams. Then think of what would happen if abortion was outlawed and you decided getting one anyway was your only chance. Repeat this scenario times at least a thousand and at least some of those people are going to figure out some way to kill the fetus no matter how much suffering it causes. Back-alley abortions come to mind. A Pro-Life law would reduce the frequency of abortions, but at what cost?

[JustMel]

	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.
	1. True but we are discussing whether killing a fetus is morally sound.

I've already stated that it's not okay for someone who isn't pro-choice to push their moral beliefs on someone else. Abortion is not about morality it's about personal choice.

	2. Rarely was sex just about procreation. Most do operate on the basis of desire. The question here concerns the balance between fulfillment of desire and a morally sound life.

I disagree. Think of the days when you were expected to have large families to work the land, etc. Those were days of sex being procreation oriented. That was during the days you hear women speak of fulfilling "their wifely duties" etc. Currently sex is mostly about fun and enjoyment and desire. Unless you're trying TO get pregnant and having issues then it's about temperatures and ovulation and the right time, etc thus bringing back the time of sex being more for procreation and less about desire.

	3. An idea is not invalid because it is old or unpopular

Depends on the idea and the situation. It's a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. It's a man's right to choose to be with or not be with someone based on what she says she'd do with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

Some ideas are invalid due to new information disproving said antiquated ideas.