Pro-Choice, but think abortion is morally indefensible.

[workenstiff]

Before you jump on me, let me state the following.

1. I support a woman's absolute right to choose, I do not want ANY government agency to interfere with this most personal freedom.
2. I am an atheist, so my opinion is not based on religious teachings.

but . . .

based on the scientific discoveries of the past few years, I honestly believe abortion is morally indefensible, with the exceptions of the mother’s health, incest or rape. I especially think it is indefensible past the first trimester.

This is the single biggest issue problem I have. I don't want any one to tell my wife, my daughter or any other woman what to do, but if asked my opinion by one of them I would tell them I believe the fetus is a human being.

Are there any other liberals who share my inner turmoil with abortion?

[Maple]

1. If you don't want an abortion

don't have one.

Simple as that.

[Kool Kitty]

4. Agreed. n/t

[Yupster]

6. Same argument

southerners used to use about slavery. If you Yankees don't like slavery, don't own one. Simple as that.

Pretty weak argument for an important moral issue, the moral issue of our time for millions of Americans.

[Maple]

10. No, it's reality

It's a personal choice and solely between a woman and her doctor.

No one said it was always easy or nice.

Life can be very unpleasant at times.

[Guaranteed]

26. Hey, if you don't want to steal a billion dollars, don't.

But, hey, I like stealing.

[noiretextatique]

36. why is this issue sooooooooooooooooo important?

to:
1) a bunch of people who will never have to make the choice...themselves

and...

2) to a bunch of people who deign to know better than those who may have to make the choice what is and is not morally defensible...

unless you are:

1) a woman who is able to get pregnant: HER CHOICE

....IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!

[Guaranteed]

39. Your arguments simply

have no validity. Those arguments don't work for any other moral issue, and it's not going to work for this one.

Find another argument. There are other ways to defend abortion other than intimidation/throwing a tantrum. Look up "Judith Thomson" on Yahoo. You'll find some interesting stuff.

[noiretextatique]

55. this is not a "moral issue"...it is a HEALTH ISSUE

there's another argument for you. just ANOTHER way of saying: unless you are making the decision: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
the problem is twofold:
1) the religious right has convinced a lot of people that this is a 'morality' issue...one that trumps a woman's god-given right to control over HER OWN BODY.
and...
2) it is a control issue, masked as a 'morality' issue...one where MEN claim rights over the sperm they deposit into women.

the issue then is this: are women capable of making complex health decisions (like many health decisions, this one has moral implications) or should men, courts, and religions make those decisions FOR HER?

and if you insist...are women capable of making complex "moral" decisions, without the 'assitance' of religionists, courts, ex-fratboy cokeheads...and men, in general?

anyway you slice it...the "morality" issue, which puts women's health care decisions in the hands of priests and politicians, reduces women to nothing but 'vessels.'

[Guaranteed]

62. You're just trying to redefine the issue.

It's clearly a moral issue. People are saying that abortion is murder. That is a matter of morality. You need to deal with it on that level. If it's not murder, tell them why.

Your arguments are just...argumentative. You're not proving anything.

And of course women are capable of making moral decisions. But IF abortion is murder, and a million + abortions are performed every year, clearly they aren't making the right decisions.

This IS an issue of ethics/morals. You're going to have to deal with it in the same way all the other issues are dealt with. Get some solid arguments. Use thought experiments. The arguments ARE out there, I'm trying to tell you.

[noiretextatique]

72. a moral issue for you...a health issue for me

do you know: abortion was NOT the issue it is today...until the religious right MADE IT AN ISSUE? too many have gotten DUPED with misinformation. in reality, abortion is SIMPLY: a medical procedure, one many medical procedures available to men and women in this country. as to the "morality" issue...it is no more or less relevant to this medical procedure than to any other. it is long past time to REDEFINE the issue...either that or...have the courts set limits and guidelines, for morality purposes, on every other medical procedure in existence. and why stop there?! if abortion is immoral, isn't birth control "immoral" too? they tend to have the same effect...and as someone else pointed out, if an abortion is done early enough, it's not different than some birth control methods. if abortion is murder...then so are most forms of birth control.

this is a CONTROL ISSUE...you can try to pretty it up all you like....but that's all it is.

[Guaranteed]

74. You can see how people can get

"confused" though, right, and start thinking you're killing a human being? That's how they confuse it with moral issues.

[noiretextatique]

76. you mean....like all the people we are KILLING IN IRAQ?

including the "unborn?" yeah...it IS confusing that people support mass murder, war, social and economic injustice, and the death penalty...but insist on snooping around in women's crotches for their "morality." :puke: clearly...they didn't lose it THERE :puke:

[Guaranteed]

79. They're prolly

saying the opposite, though...you know....how can she be pro-choice and be against the war, and all that....

[Yupster]

84. How can you believe

it's okay to kill the most innocent baby safe in his mother's womb, and then fight so hard to save a brutal mass murderer who's been put on death row by a jury of his peers.

The contradiction is strong either way.

[noiretextatique]

87. it all depends on your pov...i suppose

the innocent "host"...you know, the woman...is like a sovereign nation. and so is iraq...or, at least is was.

[Cheswick2.0]

126. and exactly what UTERUS is that fully developed human being living in

Again, the difference you pro-lifers seem to ignore.... women are not incubators.

WTF is wrong with you guys? Do you all hate you mothers or something? Why so little respect and concern for the rights/health/wellbeing of women?

[smirkymonkey]

192. What it boils down to is whether

you think a fetus is a viable human being. If not, then it is not murder. If it can't live independently from it's host, it is not a life yet, and therefore not subject to the protection of the courts or the law.

Morality is personal, and should be such. When it comes to complicated issues such as this one, the decision should be in the hands of the individual it will most affect.

[noiretextatique]

85. the common demoninator: choice

women can actually make their own moral choices (beleive it or not)...just as nations can (and not just the ones we like). we (bush, inc and its enablers) chose (and continue to choose) an immoral action against iraq, and by doing so, deprived the iraqi people of their choice...to be left the fuck alone. a sovereign nation...a sovereign body: my morality is consistent.

[Clark Can WIN]

167. Choice, you mean like some people say the "gay lifestyle" is a choice

And now weomen are somehow the moral equivilant of George Bush? What the hell is going on in your head?

Your morality is both contradictory and irrelivant

[noiretextatique]

198. i think you misread my post

you need to read it again. women are NOT the moral equivalent of bush, but bush, inc's immorality applies to both women and iraq.

[Gulf Coast J]

165. Many opposed both

The Catholic Church strongly opposed the War in Iraq. They strongly oppose abortion. Convince the Pope that abortion isn't a matter of morality.

[noiretextatique]

200. the pope will never have to make the choice

to have an abortion. ergo...the pope's "morality" or lack thereof, is entirely irrelevant.

[Gulf Coast J]

208. You will never have to bomb Iraq

So your stance on the war in Iraq is entirely irrelevant.

[noiretextatique]

225. not in my name

bush, inc represents the people of the united states...they "work" for us. we pay their salaries, and theroretically at least, they are supposed to represent our interests...not those of haliburton, exxon, bechtel, etc.
the pope represents the catholic church, and since i am not catholic, his opinion on abortion is not relevant at all to me.

[Yupster]

78. If a person believes that life begins at conception,

then to them the sperm arguments are just ridiculous.

Until conception, there isn't life because life begins at conception.

Therefore it is only murder after conception to even the most anti-abortion zealot.

People talk about all the sperm stuff thinking they're making some kind of great point, when they're talking to no one because no one considers killing a sperm abortion.

It's just part of the complete disconnect between the two sides.

[noiretextatique]

80. i think you should read up on birth control

and discover how some of the methods actually work.

[Old and In the Way]

97. Aren't sperm and a 3 week old fetus both life potential?

Why split moral hairs?

[Yupster]

111. Not to a person who believes

life begins at conception.

To that person it makes all the difference in the world. Conception is the spark of life. It is not splitting hairs. It is the moment life begins.

[Clark Can WIN]

93. No it IS NOT clearlly a moral issue

It IS a HEALTH issue. ONLY.

[NashVegas]

139. It's an Economic Issue for Many

To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The ability to not be pregnant - whether because of birth control or elective abortion - allowed women to gain economic clout in the 20th century. It will remain an economic issue - at least for some - until you can guarantee that a visibly pregnant woman won't be discriminated against in a job interview, and that no industry sector can fire a woman for being pregnant or hire someone else to take her place while she's on maternity leave (yes, it DOES still happen, employers simply find other pretenses).

Furthermore, to deny the economic element is to help the anti-abortionists who are trying to overturn Roe v Wade by taking yet another (very real and valid) argument from pro-choice peoples' hands.

Morally defendable? Not really unless you see survival of the fittest in the marketplace as moral, which coincidentally, most fundies do.

[Old and In the Way]

95. What "people" are saying abortion is murder?

Should a miscarriage be investigated by the DA...maybe charge the women with manslaughter? Accidental or premeditated? Will the State require daily monitoring of pregnant women so they be assure the safety of the fetus? Would using contraception be attempted murder?

Yes, I can see the 'Brave New World' that the right-to-lifers are leading us into....

But this really isn't the true agenda of the "moralists" is it? What they want is for people to stop having sex out of wedlock and then force women who are married to become baby machines. How 18th century of these people.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yupster]

48. It may not be so important to you

and honestly, it's not one of my most important issues either, but I recognize there are millions of good honest Americans who consider abortion their number one overriding issue. To millions of Americans, abortion is a national holocaust. Over a million babies being murdered every year in their innocence.

It may not be a big deal with you, but recognize it is a big deal with others, and any issue that is so important to millions of people deserves to be heard.

You can choose to agree or disagree with them, but I think it wrong to dismiss their heartfelt views with arguments such as some that we hear on these boards all the time.

If you're not a woman shut up.
Just don't have one if you don't like them.

I think millions of Americans who are against abortion, and many Democrats who have their own concerns over this divisive issue deserve a more thoughtful argument than "shut up."

[noiretextatique]

60. a lot of them also voted for bush...i choose to disagree with them

about that as well.

[Yupster]

64. You can disagree with them

I'd ask you not to dismiss them or their views. I believe everyone deserves better than that.

[noiretextatique]

75. i sure as HELL WILL DISMISS THEIR VIEWS

about abortion
about bush, inc
about the war on iraq
and about every other thing i think they are WRONG about...thank you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

121. this probably won't get read due to its position in the thread, but

the statement 'i sure as HELL WILL DISMISS THEIR VIEWS' is pretty narrow-minded, don't you think? noir, I usually respect your views and immensely enjoy reading many of your posts, though I disagree with you sometimes. So many people here talk about one group or another being so 'wrong' for not being willing to accept other points of view (especially when it comes to religious and moral issues) and will slam those 'closed-minded' people with great fervor. But yet, here you are being the same way...just on the other side of the fence.

Personally, I think abortion is abhorrent. Anyone in my close circle who came to me for advice on the topic (and yes, some have) would get my views explained to them with passion. At the same time, I can sit with some of my friends who are pro-choice, and have a passioned argument, never coming to an agreement, but still respect their views and give the person and their logic/passion/p.o.v. the right to be heard.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. By dismiss, do you mean that you will simply never agree with them? In that, you have every right. Or do you mean that you will simply not even listen to their p.o.v.? If that is the case, what makes your position any more defensible than those whacky anti-abortion types?

Thanks for reading...if anyone did. And, by the way, noir, i appreciate your views and will listen to and give YOUR arguments every consideration. You may not win me in the end (and you probably don't care to :) ) but I am glad you are here to discuss!

TheProdigal

[noiretextatique]

201. check this out, friend

i "dismiss" the views of the KKK
i "dismiss" the views of the relgious right
i "dismiss" the views of "focus on family"
i "dismiss" the views of scotus in "bush vs. gore"

and so. what on EARTH makes you think you have to accept abohorrent views to be "open-minded?" people have a right to think whatever the hell they want. i have the right to tell them they, and their views of full of :hurts: someone who believes "abortion is murder" is fine with me. someone who believes HIS beliefs about abortion SHOULD determine whether a woman can have an abortion...that is someone i have no reason on earth to be "open" to. someone who thinks homosexuals are sinners...fine with me. someone thinks those beliefs entitle him to discriminate against gays and lesbians...not some i will be "open" to.

as someone once said: "i'm open-minded, but my brains aren't falling out."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

211. thanks for the clarification, chum :-)

I never thought nor said you would have to accept them; neither I nor anyone else can force you to change a belief. It was my understanding in reading your post and trying to ascertain your level of emotion that you would simply throw away other possible positions without being willing to hear the points of said positions.

TheProdigal

[noiretextatique]

226. some white supremacists believe

blacks, jews, and various other "mud people" are less than human...is that a pov i should entertain...for even a second? likewise with abortion. i understand personal moral obejctions...a valid pov, imho. i don't entertain moral objections that would interfere with a woman's soverignity over her own body. hope that clear everything up.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

275. you're the best

yeah...I get your point. Something that is morally reprehensible to you is certainly tough to even hear, let alone try to comprehend.

I have been thinking this over and I think you might have changed my mind on this. My normal response when one of my beliefs is challenged is to listen to the opposing viewpoint and give consideration and if it does or does not affect my view, then so-be-it. However, if back in the day (or today for that matter) someone were to show up at my door claiming that blacks were an inferior species to whites and had all the 'documentation' to back it up (you know the kind, body diagrams, cranial cc's and that sort of garbage like was use by the Nazi's against blacks and jews) I sure as heck don't think I could stomach even listening to that...

TheProdigal

[Cheswick2.0]

127. no they deserve no further arguement than "shut up"

in what universe does interfering with my right to control my body deserve more respect than "shut up"? Please tell me why I should respect anyone who wants to force me into a state of conscripted incubator?

[bloom]

254. It makes no more sense to call a week old or month old

embryo a baby than it does to call an acorn a tree.

And fetuses are only called babies by people who want to confuse the issue and pretend that the fetus has been born.

Or perhaps they would like to change the definition of "baby"?

[smirkymonkey]

191. My questions exactly!

I think for some, it has to do with power, more than morality.

I know very FEW people who are justified in taking the moral high-ground concerning this issue.

[Lexingtonian]

56. But you forget

that the South imposed the Fugitive Slave Act on the North, which is what really turned Northern public opinion around.

Immoral institutions require a conspiracy to maintain, and in the 1850s the South managed to keep the Presidency and the Supreme Court willing to keep injustice upon injustice piling up in the name of not challenging slavery. Dred Scott, Bloody Kansas, etc.

The anti-choicers don't work by moral suasion. You buy into their dogma and distractions, and ignore their abuses, or you don't.

[Yupster]

61. I don't want to hijack this thread

into a discussion of slavery before the Civil War, but northern opinion was not for ending slavery until somewhere in the middle of the Civil War.

That's why Lincoln ran for election shouting that he had no intention of disturbing slavery anywhere where it existed. If his platform said "end slavery" he knew he would not be elected.

It's also why the Emancipation Proclamation did not cover slaves within the United States not in revolt.

Slavery in the south ended with the fall of the Confederacy. Slavery in the rest of the USA did not end until Jan 1, 1866, eight months after the war ended.

[Lexingtonian]

98. You are formally correct, but

I didn't claim that the Civil War began with the aim of ending slavery. It began because the South continued its set of violations of Northern and federal sovereignty into violating the Constitution and federal laws/government offices outright and organized lethal violence. It declared Secession unilaterally, raided federal arsenals, and then commenced organized, state-directed, military violence on the remains of defensive federal presence. Lincoln writes that if the South had been able to restrain itself from using violence, the Northern political will wasn't there to fight a war about the Union or slavery in 1860-61.

The 13th Amendment (Abolition of Slavery) was passed by the Senate in April 1864, promised to the Abolitionists (radical Republicans) by Lincoln in his 1864 election campaign, and blocked by Northern Democrats in the House until January 1865 (they thought until November 1864 that McClellan would get elected and the planned compromise with the South restoring slavery was probable). State ratification is what took until December 1865. I think your claim that "Slavery in the rest of the USA did not end until Jan 1, 1866, eight months after the war ended" is kinda tendentious.

The actuality is that the decisive Union victories of September/October 1864 decided Lincoln's reelection, Lincoln's reelection in turned ensured that the 13th Amendment would pass, and an Amendment rather than an Executive Order was seen as the appropriate monument to the historical nature of the measure. But as a historical marker/monument it couldn't be rightly be acted upon until the requirement of complete war victory was supplied.

The politics of the Emancipation Proclamation are formalities; the facts on the ground in the Border States and South were essentially dictated by the Union military in consultation with Washington in view of what was practical situationally. See how Sherman handled the crowds of ex-slaves who followed his army through Georgia and the Carolinas, O.O. Howard did things in the Sea Islands, Fremont did in Missouri, and Grant did along the Mississippi for some of the variety of things and indecision in Washington about what the upper and lower limits really were.

[Yupster]

113. The Civil War is a hobby of mine

Perhaps another thread, another day, I'll enjoy the discussion.

Just to make a point though.

Were you a slave in Delaware, you'd probably be tendentious about having to remain a slave until eight months after the Confederacy died too. Delaware by the way didn't pass the 13th Amendment until the 1960's I believe.

Enjoyed your post. Always like discussing history.

[Maddy McCall]

114. Problem is, many "yankees" owned slaves.

[Cheswick2.0]

122. really? Whoes body were those slaves living in?

not the same argument at all unless you can disregard the woman and pretend she is just some baby growing machinery.

[Malva Zebrina]

147. no, you are mixing apples and oranges

it is NOT the same argument. Think--you are equivocating a non viable cluster of cells that are, in effect, a parasite on the body of the host mother, with living breathing , thinking human beings.

[LeahMira]

157. Whose morals?

Pretty weak argument for an important moral issue, the moral issue of our time for millions of Americans.

Morals are not as cut and dried as you seem to think.

My religious tradition places a priority on the life of the woman. If you check your Hebrew Testament you will find that a miscarriage that's caused by the actions of someone injuring a woman (IOW, not a spontaneous miscarriage) is fined as if it were a property damage case, not a murder charge.

My own belief, opinion, moral conviction, or whatever name you want to call it, is that until the head is present in the birth canal we are not talking a human life that's in any way equal to mine. Up to the point at which the fetus is "taking over the controls" and not dependent on my body for its life support, I am in charge.

And, while I have great respect for your moral convictions and your right to follow as they lead you, don't you even dare try to decide MY moral issues for me!

[Heddi]

185. Yes, Whose Morals?

Jerry Falwell's Morals, who says that anyone who is gay, and lives a gay lifestyle is going to hell, no if, ands or buts? His morals that say that feminists are satanists and witches? His morals that say women should be subservient to their master..er husband, and submit to him whatever he wishes?

President Bush's morals, who says it's okay to bomb a soveriegn nation just for the fuck of it?

My mother's morals?

My husband's morals?

There isn't one defined set of morals in this world. We all have our own moral compasses, and I'd prefer to follow what *I* think is right, rather than what someone tells me is right.

Abortion is only a moral issue if you choose to make it a moral issue. That doesn't mean it's going to be a moral issue with me. In fact, it isn't. It's a medical decision.

Or maybe I'll put it this way---should I unexpectedly get pregnant tomorrow, there is a 99.99999% chance I would keep the baby. It's a moral issue when *I* deal with it, because *I* am the one dealing with it.

However, I do appreciate *MY* right to choose and to terminate the pregnancy SHOULD I SEE FIT.

I would never look at another woman's pregnancy as a moral issue. If SHE wants to make it a moral issue, then so be it, again, the CHOICE IS HERS (and well it should be). If she wants to make it a medical issue, then all the better.

But don't cloud the conversation that Abortion is ALWAYS a moral issue, because it's not.

(BTW--this is directed at the thread in general, not to the poster to whom I just replied, even though I agree with their position 1000%)

[noiretextatique]

13. it really is that simple

and in this case, since the poster is a man...it is a non-issue.

[luckyluke]

21. If you don't like murder...

...don't do it.

[Old and In the Way]

42. If you don't want to be charged with war crimes against humanity

don't masturbate.

[sujan]

45. lol

reminded me of MP's 'Every sperm is sacred' song.

[madddog]

170. no no...

it's okay to masturbate now...it helps prevent prostate cancer. I prevent cancer every time I see Anna K. lol.

[Holly]

2. Have to say

no, I don't share your inner turmoil. I wish we could change pro-choice to personal choice.

[canuckagainstBush]

3. .

I'm pro-choice and I think that getting an abortion is a very serious decision and that should it be avoided if at all possible. That's not to say I oppose abortion, I believe that it's a personal issue that's none of mine or anybody else's business. Fundamentalists would like to make people think that pro-choice means you think there should be more abortions; but that is most certainly not what it means. I'm an atheist too, I should add.

[Lexingtonian]

5. A question

So what are these momentous 'scientific discoveries of the past few years' on which you base your opinion?

[workenstiff]

25. momentous?

You should find and read the September/October 1998 issue of Psychology Today. I can not find a link to it but it is a good place to start.

It would be a good place to start.

Also you need to check out the new 3D imaging to see the amazing pictures.

[Lexingtonian]

32. Well, look-

There is no way I can do that at the moment and provide a meaningful response to your question. Could you at least tell me what impressed you, what you remember, and what it convinced you of? Embryology pictures are impressive, I know because I spent a few years in it, but many images from embryology have far more aesthetic appeal than meaningful content. (In that they resemble drug-inspired art, often.)

[workenstiff]

82. Here is a link, but I don't know if its THE article.

link to article

It looks like the article I cited.

Here are just some quotes.

"By 13 to 15 weeks a fetus' taste buds already look like a mature adult's"

"Whether or not a fetus can taste, there's little question that it can hear."

"Japanese scientists have even reported a distinct fetal reaction to flashes of light shined on the mother's belly."

"For example, a fetus, after an initial reaction of alarm, eventually stops responding to a repeated loud noise."

"More recently, he's found that a newborn prefers a story read to it repeatedly in the womb - in this case, The
Cat in the Hat - over a new story introduced soon after birth."

"By monitoring changes in fetal heart rate, researchers have found that fetuses can even tell strangers' voices apart."

[Cheswick2.0]

129. great, another male fetus worshipper weighs in

get a uterus, get an opinion on abortion. Thats my moto!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

144. I guess I'm guilty on two counts of negligent homicide

because of my miscarriages. Maybe if I hadn't taken that business trip/subjected myself to stress/drunk too much at a wedding/worked out too hard at the gym, I'd be pregnant! :eyes:

Getting pregnant is the POTENTIAL for life, and a lot can and does go wrong in between conception and actual birth. I personally wouldn't choose abortion for myself-unless my life was in danger-but that doesn't give me the right to bar others from this procedure.

It always cracks me up that the most fervent anti-abortion folks on DU are also the ones who are pro-Second Amendment. Don't interfere with someone's right to own an assault weapon, but feel free to tell a woman she's just an incubator.

[duhneece]

156. Potential vs Actual/Acorn vs Oak tree

I had an abortion 28 years ago, never regretted it. I was married, had been told I couldn't get pregnant because I didn't ovulate. But when my husband lost his legs in VietNam and came home, I DID get pregnant. We were struggling to come to some acceptance over his loss of legs and felt we were not ready to be good parents. Later, we had a son and a daughter and they know about the abortion.
The only time a man has something growing inside them that they really don't want to be there is when he has a tumor...there is no way for a man to know how it feels to have something growning (even if it is a potential person) inside that you don't want.
An acorn is a potential oak tree, but it is not an actual oak. I see a fetus in the same way.

[pnb]

148. In that case...

No male Democrats in office can fight for choice then...they're obviously not allowed to have opinions on this subject.

[demigoddess]

184. I , a woman, will support your position when you support

the end of the male form of abortion. A man when told he is to be a father will demand a DNA test and then avoid paying child support if at all possible, and then do little or no actual parenting, sometimes not even seeing the child at all. If a man is not ready to be a father why is it forced upon a woman to be a mother? and in this day of open records, there is no out just by giving the baby up for adoption as many would say is the option. I have seen teenagers forced into this position by some people ideas of what is moral and the child or children are the ones who suffer. Is that moral?

[Ellen Forradalom]

7. Yes there are

but abortion is not the only morally nuanced issue we face in our society, just the one that gets the most attention.

Let me quote Bartcop, as he says it best.

"We lose 40,000 people a year in car wrecks.  If we mandated "Bicycles Only," those lives would be saved, right?  But we don't do that because we want our mobile freedom more than we want those 40,000 lives.

"We could save thousands more lives if we did away with guns, alcohol and electricity, but we choose to have those dangerous things because we enjoy them, more than saving lives.

"We could save thousands of fetal lives if we outlawed abortion, but having Tom Delay, George Bush and Jim Inhofe determine a woman's reproductive choices is too high a price to pay."

Bart has said that abortion, like the risks of guns, alcohol, tobacco, and cars, are part of the price we pay for freedom. Are you as tied up in knots inside about cigarettes, booze, and car accidents as you are about abortion? If not, why not?

[workenstiff]

31. Good point

Are you as tied up in knots inside about cigarettes, booze, and car accidents as you are about abortion?

This is a good point. I'm not as "tied up in knots" about these things. But, I support a persons right to choose to smoke and drink and drive a car. However, my advise would be don't smoke or drink too much, and don't drive recklessly.

[Ellen Forradalom]

40. Similarly..

have responsible sex. Do your best to prevent pregnancy and try to choose helpful, responsible partners. However, the unforeseen happens; and sometimes, for whatever reason, a woman faces this choice.

Ellen Goodman recently wrote that the group that attended the signing of the partial-birth abortion ban do not think of woman as responsible, competent moral decision-makers. I think the ruckus about abortion boils down to that. A great many people do not trust women to make responsible reproductive choices and feel the need to legislate their wombs. They are much more concerned about this than the other questions of personal responsibility which are faced by both sexes.

[Guaranteed]

37. Yeah, but the same thing happens every time.

Abortions aren't accidents. People accidently shoot each other (or on purpose), but it's not the case that every gun will be used for something wrong. And certainly cars kill lots of people, but they're more "useful" than abortions are, by far. Unless you consider not having a child around a practical purpose (which I guess in some odd way, it is).

The point is that these other things you're bringing up have unintended consequences that sometimes/rarely go along with them. An abortion is an end in itself. The point of an abortion is to get rid of the fetus, and that's what happens when a woman has an abortion. There's no "whoops, well, we're just gonna have to deal with that." It's a deliberate action.

This issue does relate very closely to a person's autonomy and freedom- in fact, those ideas are at the very heart of the abortion debate. But abortions are not something that one should accept as one might accept the existence of cars or guns. It's not the same thing.

[bloom]

253. The analogy probably works better if one says

That everyone should abstain from sex so there is no chance that anyone will die in a miscarriage or abortion...

So nobody own a car so there is no chance that anyone will die of a car wreck...


And nobody should own a gun so no body will be shot....


Nobody should make nukes....


and so on and so forth.

[SmileyBoy]

8. Here's my stance:

1) I personally think abortion is morally wrong. I frown upon abortion.
2) I will NEVER EVER EVER support governmental desicions to make abortions illegal. Even though I'm personally against it, I feel that it is a necessary evil that exists, and the consequences that would occur if it was outlawed are far more dire than abortion currently being legal. I will for the rest of my life be personally against abortion, but for the same time, I will defend the right for women to choose to have one if they feel the need to.

There are some things in this world that you can be morally against, but at the same time understand that they have to exist. Now likewise, I am personally against prostitution, but I feel that it should be legal in a regulated brothel-type setting where the women are unionized, and recieve routine STD tests, and where condom use is mandatory.

Just my 1/50 of a dollar.

[southerngirlwriter]

12. You expressed my feelings and thoughts beautifully.

Thanks. :-)

[Yupster]

18. To clarify...

are you saying you would be against any governmental restrictions on abortion rights at all?

I'm pro-choice, but I'd want the process heavily regulated. It is after all a tremendously ponderous issue of human morality - the killing of a human being. I am for parental notification for minors, few abortions with fetal viability, and in my opinion other reasonable compromises.

[SmileyBoy]

24. I'm against it being illegal. I'm not against regulations.

After all, it's the regulations that prevent the situation of the "wire hanger back-alley abortion".

[bloom]

256. Regulations may not

"prevent the situation of the "wire hanger back-alley abortion"...

If a teenager was unable to get one - her parents didn't consent, etc. and she thought it was her only alternative.... it could happen.

[Old and In the Way]

49. Does anyone "like" abortion?

Do any women get pregnant so they can get an abortion? Of course not. It's never an easy decision to terminate a pregnancy, but it is not the end of the world, either.

As a male, I have no real say in the decision....I really don't know how a bunch of hypocritical white psuedo-conservatives can decide they have this right either.

BTW, I've been "party" to this decision and I fully supported it. Neither of us are particularly worried or upset by that decision.

Why don't the so-called "right-to-lifers" worry about their own spiritual inventory on the day they die and I'll worry about mine, deal?

[Yupster]

53. What does race

have to do with this?

[Old and In the Way]

57. Race? I admit to being a member of the male race,

but I don't follow where you're going with your question, Yupster.

[Yupster]

68. my first dupe

kind of momentous.

[Yupster]

67. "White pseudo-conservatives"

Why inject race?

If they were hispanic pseudo-conservatives, would it be any better or worse?

[Old and In the Way]

81. Because

it was an all white male group of psuedo conservatives that were party to the signing ceremony.....I so no other race or females represented there. Rather symbolic if you ask me...

[Yupster]

90. The sex part I understand

I don't get the race part. Somehow the decision or the ceremony would have been better if there were two A-A men, two hispanic men and two white men rather than six white men?

I don't see why race should be injected into an already explosive issue like abortion.

Not a big deal. Was just wondering why the racial comment.

[Old and In the Way]

101. Maybe because they couldn't find any blacks or hispanics

to sign onto the bill? Or because this POS legislation was cooked up by the Republican Party? BTW, I'll be asking my 2 white female Senators why they weren't hanging with George and Rick for the signing.

[1songbird]

9. I believe that we all have free will.

Abortion's not for me personally but I can't condemn another woman for making a choice for herself.

[bearfartinthewoods]

136. what does condemn mean?

about ten years ago, i found out a acquaintance of ours has had two abortions. not for health reasons. i can't help that my opinion of her has changed drasticly with this knowledge. i hold her in the same level of (dis)respect as i do a male acquaintence of mine who is, what i call, a serial father. he has fathered five children via three women and supports none of them.

have i condemned them? condemned them to what? nothing i guess, but they certainly aren't people whom i respect.

[1songbird]

155. You don't know what internal conflicts that person went

through. We have to believe that the individual made the best choice for themselves at the time with the information that they had. Simple as that.

[Clark Can WIN]

11. I am offended by anyones moral self-rightousness in regards to my control

over my reproductive rights.

most especially when that pious disdain comes from a MALE.

So excuse me if I say "Screw you and your moral indignations"

Your religious morality should not control my body.



Exactly what moment is a fetus a full human being to you? Please do tell, I am more anxious than you know to find out.

On Edit: I am a female who has had an abortion. It may or may not have been for medical reasons or for the "health of the mother". The truth is it's none of your GD business WHY it was. Surrice to say it was not a happy occasion and having shitheads DUMP on you raises a feather or two.

[noiretextatique]

19. i agree with you

perhaps we should discuss the morality of some folks judging a choice they will never have to make as 'morally indefensible.'

[Holly]

20. Well said

I find it frightening and alarming that someone who could never, ever be in a position to make this decision would presume to judge a woman's morality.

[noiretextatique]

23. welcome to america, holly!

did you happen to catch that pic of bush and a bunch of old, white men yucking it up as he signed that bogus "partial birth" bill?
a classic, and perfect depiction of exactly who is doing the judging and controlling...and why.

[Holly]

29. Thanks noireblu

Oh, I caught that.Even using the term partial birth is offensive to me. Clearly designed by the anti group to outrage. Glad there's no lurking danger up here.

[workenstiff]

38. Why does the MALE opinion not count?

"Your religious morality should not control my body."

Did you even read my post?

I said I was an atheist.

A man has been involved, at some point, in EVERY pregnacy that has ever occured. Why then, does a male opinion not count?

"Exactly what moment is a fetus a full human being to you?"
I don't know the answer to this. But, I do know that a fetus can feel, can learn, can respond to it's environment. However, a fetus probably does not have self-conscienceness. But, never does a new born baby.

I was not dumping on you or anyone else. I am not judging you or any one else. It is you who have been rude and judgmental.

[Old and In the Way]

54. Would you want Hillary Clinton and 6 other female legislators

enacting a law that requiring that all males make daily sperm deposits so that the sanctity of life is preserved? Wouldn't that be an infringement by the government on your right to choose what to do with your sperm? All them sperms are potential life, you know....

[Guaranteed]

69. And a piece of chicken is a potential sperm.

And a piece of corn is a potential chicken. And the feces of a male bovine is potential corn. Therefore, bullshit is to be sanctified.

[Old and In the Way]

83. Eggzactly.

[Guaranteed]

58. It's funny...

A philosopher named Tooley argued that babies weren't really people because they had no capacity for self-awareness (murder is killing a person, and his definition of a person is a being with self-awareness). Thus, he argued, killing babies is alright. Yeah, it's a crazy sounding argument, but it's actually very strong. No one really seems to be able to counter his argument without also countering against abortion, or without just saying "It's common sense."

[Clark Can WIN]

70. As an athiest you should have the least objection of all

What the hell? Pork one, she doesn't want it, pork another right?

Keep going till you find a willing breeder.

I can see objections to infanticide but that was not the premise of this post.

Infantice is the termination of a living or viable infant with a reasonable expectation of independent life.

[Guaranteed]

71. Killing an infant is like killing a dog.

They don't really understand. It's kind of wrong, but, not that big a deal, because they're not self-aware.

That's according to Tooley, of course.

[Guaranteed]

216. I only mean that in absence of "religious morality"

because for all practical purposes babies are just pets. Note my sarcasm.

You guys are being just as bad as the right-wingers. You're trying to label a legitimate concern for human health as some kind of religious fanaticism. PLEASE.

[workenstiff]

89. Absence of God does not mean Absence of morals

[noiretextatique]

96. morals are not absolute

if you think so, you haven't been living in the same country i have...since November, 2000. look at who is in the white house...the very eptiome of immorality, imho. funny...he's whining about 'partial birth' abortions...bet he's paid for a few in his lifetime. and do you think the 'morality' he seeks to impose on some women would apply to his daughters? or to the daugthers of any of those old, white men yucking it up with him when he signed his decree? i think not.

[Clark Can WIN]

105. exuse me.......extract the religious referense

and you still have no leg to stand on.

I would begin by saying I do NOT beleive you. Hhhmph.

You talk about a fetus being able to feel and learn like it was a kindergartener. But you refuse to answer WHEN..............

[Cheswick2.0]

130. your opinon doesn't count because

this is a choice you will never have to make. Is that so difficult to understand?

[Holly]

14. I have a problem with your question

morally indefensible? Surely you can think of some situation where it could be defended. Since you state that you support a womans right to choose...you are saying that it is defensible.

[scottcsmith]

15. I do.

I have never resolved this issue for myself satisfactorily. I'm pretty torn. On the one hand, I support women having this choice as it is the law...on the other hand I struggle with the potential ethical and moral implications because of my religion. Regardless of what I may think, it's not my choice to make, and the government should not get itself involved in a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. Why should incest and rape be a qualifier?

I am totally pro-choice here, but have never understood anyone who made the "rape and incest" argument.

If a fetus is a human being and aborting a fetus is murder then why murder a human being who had no choice in how it was conceived?

[roughsatori]

47. I always am astounded by that detail too

These anti-choicers claim that the fetus is a "living baby" and that to abort it is to "kill" the "baby." Then they say it is OK to abort if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest. I guess they think it is alright to "kill babies" when they decide it is--but not when others do so. That position has always struck me as unethical.

I'm surprised how many posters in this thread sound like they are close to having an anti-choice stance.

[Yupster]

52. The real anti-choicers

don't want any exceptions including rape or incest. We used to point to that stance in the Texas Republiican Party platform. I don't know if it is still like that. That was over 10 years ago.

[bloom]

261. Some anti-choice positions (from the planned parenthood site):

American Life League (ALL) - 250,000 members
Founded on April 1, 1979, by five families, including that of the current president, Judie Brown.

ALL is opposed to

* abortion
* cloning
* comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education
* contraception
* federal funding for family planning
* fetal tissue/stem cell research
* homosexuality
* international family planning
* living wills
* organ donation
* Planned Parenthood and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
* reproductive technology ? artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization
* right to die
* welfare reform

ALL falsely claims that emergency contraception, the Pill, Depo-Provera®, and Norplant® are unsafe abortifacients and abortion causes breast cancer and severe psychological trauma

_____

Concerned Women for America (CWA) - More than 500,000 members
Founded by Beverly LaHaye in 1979

CWA is opposed to

* abortion
* atheism
* Beijing+5/ Cairo+5 (women?s rights conferences and declarations)
* comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education
* drug and alcohol education
* equal pay for equal work legislation
* Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
* federal funding for child care
* feminism
* fetal tissue/stem cell research
* gays in the military
* hate crime legislation
* homosexuality
* insurance coverage of contraception
* international family planning
* Medicare
* National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
* Planned Parenthood and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
* right to die
* separation of church and state
* teacher unions
* Title X
* U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
* United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
* universal health care
* women serving in the military

CWA supports

* abortion bans
* abstinence until marriage
* abstinence-only sexuality education
* creationism
* higher defense spending
* home schooling
* Nicaraguan contras
* Outcome Based Education and other non-traditional educational experiments
* parental notification laws
* privatization of Social Security
* school prayer
* state reporting of names of people with HIV to federal agencies



* public misinformation campaigns ? CWA falsely claims that abortion causes breast cancer and severe psychological trauma, and the IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and the Pill are abortifacients

________

Eagle Forum

Founded by Phyllis Schlafly in 1972 as Stop ERA,
80,000 members

Eagle Forum is opposed to

* abortion
* affirmative action
* comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education
* Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ? Eagle Forum was instrumental in its defeat
* federal funding for child care
* federal spending on education/school-to- work programs
* feminism
* fetal tissue/stem cell research
* gays in the military
* gun control
* hate crime legislation
* international treaties, conferences, and executive agreements including the U.N. treaties on the Rights of the Child and Women
* liberalism
* Planned Parenthood and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
* statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
* Violence Against Women authorizes funding for sexual assault and domestic violence prevention, including sexual assault prevention training for judges, battered women?s services, state-based services for victims of domestic violence, and transitional housing for victims of domestic violence
* women in the military

Eagle Forum supports

* abortion bans
* abstinence until marriage
* English as the official language of the United States
* home schooling
* school prayer
* Strategic Defense Initiative
________

Family Research Council (FRC)
Founded in 1983 by Gary L. Bauer. FRC merged with Focus on the Family from 1988-1992, then reorganized separately and incorporated in October 1992.
400,000 members

FRC is opposed to

* abortion
* comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education
* contraception
* feminism
* fetal tissue/stem cell research
* gays in the military
* hate crime legislation
* homosexuality
* funding international family planning programs
* needle exchange programs
* Planned Parenthood and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
* pornography
* right to die
* separation of church and state
* welfare
* women in the military

FRC supports

* abortion bans
* abstinence until marriage
* anti-obscenity laws
* censorship
* HIV partner notification laws, national reporting and tracking of HIV, disclosure of HIV testing results to insurance companies
* home schooling
* parental notification laws
* school prayer

* public misinformation campaigns ? FRC falsely claims that emergency contraception is an abortifacient, and that homosexuals are pedophiles

[workenstiff]

66. It is ethical to defend oneself.

A woman who has been raped by a stranger or by a relative (incest) has been invaded, and forced against her will to become pregnant.

I believe it is reasonible and yes ethical to defend oneself.

AGAIN, this issue is a personal opinion of mine about the morality of abortion NOT the legality of it.

[Old and In the Way]

77. So every women that wants an abortion will have to sign an

affidavit attesting to the fact that she was raped by a stranger?

I can only imagine the legal growth industry that abortion laws will create. I can see a Department of Period Checking just around the corner.

Try as you might, you cannot legislate morality.

[Cheswick2.0]

132. ACCCCCCCCCCCCkkkkk! what screwed up reasoning

it is okay to kill a baby if its father is a rapist?
So what you are saying is that you should decide what is moral and not the woman carrying the fetus? You are substituting your moral values for hers? Your judgement is better than hers, therefor you should have the choice?

Get bent

[TorchTheWitch]

282. oh brother....

A woman who has been raped by a stranger or by a relative (incest) has been invaded, and forced against her will to become pregnant.

If the condom breaks a women has been "forced against her will to become pregnant."

Maybe it's news to you, but the vast majority of women getting abortions weren't trying to get pregnant. :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

94. bingo..."when THEY decide"

command and control...this is the crux of the issue.

[Guaranteed]

17. It's almost morally defensible, but not quite.

But, just because it's immoral doesn't mean that it should be illegal.

I happen to think that abortion is pretty damned wrong, but, at the same time want to leave it open to the woman to do legally and safely.

On edit: Wrong except for the incest/health clauses, of course.

For incest it's probably the RIGHT thing to do, in fact, because the child has a much, much higher chance of having very serious genetic problems.

The moral ramifications of aborting a rape-induced pregnancy aren't very clear....

And, obviously, if a mother's life is threatened by a fetus, the fetus could be aborted, since if the mother dies, the fetus has a serious chance of dying too.

[TexasMexican]

22. Abortion is a waste.

I'm pro-choice, but thats mostly because of apathy. I dont care too strongly one way or another.

However I do think it is a waste. Why waste the time, money, and health when you can just use birth control right off the bat.

Also if you are going to have an abortion why procrastinate about it? Get it done in the first month or two or whatever dont wait 6+ months.

[noiretextatique]

28. you do know that birth control is not 100% effective

don't you? you may also know that not all pregnancies are perfect, and for this reason, sometimes late-term abortions as necessary to save the life of the mother. in fact, most late-term abortions are performed to that reason.

[Holly]

30. And you do remember

being a teenager, raging hormones in the back of a Chevy don't always stop before you get the drug store.

[TexasMexican]

34. maybe...

but I was smart enought to pull out, althought that is a pretty limited form of birth control, it seemed to work the times I did use it.

Well when me and my girlfriend (hopefully wife some day) do decide to have kids, I'm definately going to make sure that they have birth control available when they are in thier teens. Hopefully by then they will have the pill for guys too.

[noiretextatique]

43. the pull out "method"

is one of the LEAST effective forms of birth control. perhaps now you understand how women may get pregnant...even when using more effective methods.

[Clark Can WIN]

110. I doubt it........... men are already cumming about 3-4 seconds before

they even know it.......... in that time the trickle starts.


Any long married woman knows this.

That's why "good" Roman catholics do not rely on the "Pull out" method but rather the abstinence method.

[madddog]

172. we used to

call that the "Amtrak" method, for it was contigent upon the train pulling out of the station on time lol.

[Bridget Burke]

120. So, you've been having unsafe sex?

You should be using some protection. Unwanted pregnancy is not the only possible result of not wrapping it. Options include: AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamidia, etc.

You also say when you "decide" to have kids....but you may not have that option. Pulling out early is such a bad method of birth control that your success might have more to do with "firing blanks" than being "smart".

[Cheswick2.0]

134. Oy!

women get pregnant while using birth control all the time. Most women who have abortions were using birth control when they got pregnant. Furthermore women do not procrastinate about this issue. There are a whole host of other reasons women have abortions after the first trimester, most having to do with health issues.

[RainDog]

27. I think the stats show most abortions are first trimester

the birth control device, and IUD, works in basically the same way that abortion does, by not allowing a fertilized egg to implant if fertilization does occur.

it's surely a very hard and very personal decision which is exacerbated by the fact that this country does so little to nothing to help raise the children of this nation either by incentive or by legislation.

as far as Bush's teary-eyed "partial birth" decree...too bad he didn't have that same compassion for those he had executed in Texas, including one most certainly innocent man. I wouldn't doubt there were many more.

And Karla Faye was ministering to other prisoners as Bush mocked her. How much time has he ever spent doing anything for anyone who didn't offer him some kickback?

Anyone who is anti-abortion but pro death penalty has absolutely no credibility with me. Why is the religious right so up in arms about abortion, but so blood thirsty when it comes to capital punishment or the slaugher of innocents via war?

I can only assume it has to do with their desire to control and regulate female behavior and punish females who do not behave in the way they would like, since most abortions do not occur at the point at which a blastocyte or even fetus is a conscious being.

We also allow family members to disconnnect feeding tubes in hospitals if family members are "brain dead." --of course, cases arise which show the need for a living will-- but again, that is considered a personal, family decision, and not the province of one religious group over the whole of the nation.

[ClintonTyree]

33. I hate to see it happen..............

but I believe it's a woman's choice and I'm sure said woman went through the moral deliberations before the act. Just yesterday, upon opening our local Democratic Headquarters for the day, I found a piece of paper slipped into the door. The sign of the door reads "Highlands County Democratic Headquarters". The note read (scrawled on a piece of an envelope in almost unintelligable writing), "The baby killing party". Nice, huh?
I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. Being a male I cannot fail to see the hypocrisy of old men making decisions for women. If males were the ones to bear children, you can bet there wouldn't eeven be an arguement about abortions. They'd be all for it. It would cut into the more important things in their lives; you know, sports and stuff.

[demconfive]

35. In a perfect world.....

We wouldn't need or condone abortion. But guess what? We ain't in a f*cking perfect world. Abortion is one of those fuzzy gray areas that you just have to suck up and deal with as best you can. And it doesn't help if people who don't have to deal with that decision try and stick their two bits in.
If you want moral turmoil, how about taking kids just out high school and training them to kill people they've never met at a moments command, then shipping them out to do just that, all the while having them face their own mortality.

[Phatfish]

41. well

I think it comes down to a few simple questions, "Is a human embryo a living human being and do they deserve the same rights as anyone of us?" All the rest of the chatter (partial-birth abortions, stem-cell research, abortion limitations, and even prenatal care) stems from how you answer those questions.

On a side note, I think what many of us pro-choice believers forget, is that this is not an argument for many people. It is a deeply held belief that may rightly or wrongly, be engrained into their principles and positions. We call them names and hiss at them as anti-woman but we need to see that many of them feel they are really trying to save the lives of innocent people. It seems almost like how a capital punishment opponent fights for their cause.

[Guaranteed]

46. It's just an extremely complicated issue.

I'm not entirely sure there's a right answer.

I think it's fairly clear we need to keep abortion legal, but the moral nature of it is just a philosophical quagmire. People have tried to prove it both ways, and have always failed.

[Phatfish]

59. the problem is

it is impossible to prove either way. The notion is a part of a religious philosophy and of faith (I know that there are some a_theists who still believe life at conception). This idea is not meant to have a definative answer, much like the idea of the existance God. It is battle of beliefs, covictions and ideas.

[Old and In the Way]

65. Right, you can't prove it.

Like you can't prove God exists. Or there is a heaven or a hell. You can choose to believe or not to believe...that is your right.

Same for abortion.

[sujan]

44. are you a woman?

[dobak]

86. does it matter?

Should blacks or slaveowners have been the only people to worry about slavery?

No.

Abortion is an issue for everyone. It needs to be discussed more, and in a more civil manner.

I think it should and needs to remain legal, but that doesn't mean I think it is good or moral.

[atreides1]

50. I disagree

St Augustine(AD354-430)said, "There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation", and held that abortion required
penance for the sexual aspect of the sin.

Pope Innocent III wrote that the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her, is when abortion became homicide. This was called "quickening".

Pope Gregory XVI agreed and designated quickening as occuring after a period of 126 days(17 weeks).

It wasn't until 1869 when Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction an animated and non-animated fetus.

The changes by Pope Pius IX was seen by some as a means of countering
the rising birth control movement, especially in France, with its
declining Catholic population. In Italy, during the years 1848-1870,
the papal states shrank from almost 1/3 of the country to what is now
Vatican City. It has been argued that the Pope's restriction on
abortion was motivated by a need to strengthen the Church's spiritual
control over its followers in the face of its declining political power.

Politics, a real moral issue

In the 19th century the main opponents against abortion was not the
public but physicians. However, "there is substantial evidence that
medical men were concerned not only for the welfare of the potential
victims of abortion but also to further the process of establishing
and consolidating their status as a profession".

Sounds like doctors were doing it not just to save lives, but to
pad their own agenda. Real moralists here.

In Canada there was concern about what was called "race suicide" of
the Anglo-Saxon population in relation to the burgeoning French-Canadian and "foreign" immigrant populations.Anglo-Saxon women who
refused maternity by employing contraception or abortion were condemend as "traitors to the race". The Canadian parliament made
CONTRACEPTION illegal in 1892.

Racism, another moral reason.

From the time of St Augustine until 1869 the Church had no problem with abortion, and from 1307-1803 abortion before the "quickening"
was not punishable under English Common Law.

American historian James C. Mohr makes the point that from an historical perspective, the nineteenth century's wave of restrictive abortion laws can be seen as a deviation from the norm, a period of
interruption of the historically tolerant attitude towards abortion.

So we can see that morals played very little part in the establishment
of anti-abortion laws. What was important, was political power, the status of a profession, and plain simple racism. Not much morality in any of these reasons for anti-abortion laws. And it's still a matter of choice, and it's a good thing that a woman is not required to ask for your advice.

I do have one question, why is it that the same religious groups who
are against abortion, support political candidates who favor cutting
funds that help children. It's been my experience that they are only
concerned about the child until it's born and then they couldn't be bothered.

So the way I see it abortion is much more morally defensible, then those who speak against it and then do nothing to help the children.
This does not apply to anyone here, but if the shoe fits, as they say.

Which scientific discoveries are you referring to, could it be the various birth control products?

[E_Zapata]

51. then don't have one.

And that's the whole point.

[SPellier]

63. It's an unresolvable issue, but I'll say this...

I first learned of the concept of abortion in grade school - probably 8th or 9th grade. We were all Dems and we loved ol' Jimmah (Jimmy Carter).

We learned about abortion and I immediately assumed that only a Republican would kill his or her own child. Dems were good, Pubs were bad...it was simple... Sadly, no.

Apparently, the good guys were the ones who thought it was okay for a woman to NOT be pregnant. It was a very confusing thing... It was even more confusing when you factor in that I was, I am, and I will always be an atheist.

I toed the libertarian line for a while, but ultimately I reasoned that regardless of my politics or religion, abortion was completely indefensible. Eventually it would became apparent that one of the biggest failures of the right was their attempt to fight abortion with their biblical myths. Abortion isn't about God, it's not about silly Christian morality. It's about irresponsible people wiping out entire generations, wiping out thousands of people, on a whim...

Not acceptable. I'm not going to elaborate, but, given the current political climate, too many on the left have now turned abortion into a political football and all they want to do is run it down the field and spike it in the end zone. Defeating the Fundies is all that matters... It's all so nauseating.

[Old and In the Way]

73. I'm nauseated also.

Morally constipated , too. You see, I have this 13 year-old son and I can hardly sleep at night thinking about how many generations he is personally wiping out.

[SPellier]

102. Good luck

Your little boy spooging his sheets is a little different than a woman getting knocked up and killing her offspring.

I'm genuinely glad you CHOSE not to kill your child. Down the road, when you begin to find life difficult, you may truly appreciate your choice.

[noiretextatique]

109. who would "knock her up"

and would he have an "moral" problem in doing so, especially if he took no responsibility for birth control?

[SPellier]

115. It doesn't matter who knocked her up, but thanks for asking

Hypothetical, Noiretblu:

Guy takes all precautions and responsibilities for birth control, yet woman gets pregnant. Guy is willing to take the child, raise it, give it a home... In fact, he begs the woman to give birth and let him raise his child. She can walk away after birth.

She chooses to kill it. Are you okay with that? Would you let a woman kill your child?

Hypothetically speaking, of course...

[Maddy McCall]

116. Ohhh. so the woman is to serve as an incubator for the child for 9 months?

The guy goes on with life as usual, while the woman incubates his fetus, goes through the expense--physical, emotional, economic--of bearing his offspring. She gives up all her goals, her life, her occupation, schooling, possibly family, so that she can be pregnant at HIS request.

And what happens, pray tell, if after the baby is born, he has movedo on to another relationship and renegs on his agreement? She is again stuck with the weight of the child's birth. If the baby isn't white, and she decides to place it for adoption, it will probably end up in an institutional setting or passed off from foster family to foster family for the rest of its childhood. Boy, that's a good life, eh?

Hypothetically, your remedy sucks. It shows that you have given very little thought to the matter.

[SPellier]

117. Why is it...

When I post a response it tends to disappear?

Not fun!

I guess I'm pissing people off...

[Maddy McCall]

154. What are you talking about?

YOu haven't had any post deleted in this portion of the thread. Maybe you have no adequate, logical response?
.

.

.

.

.

I thought not.

[Cheswick2.0]

135. will he also carry the child in his body for nine months?

sorry, but that is the bottom line. If you think pregnancy and child birth are not a lot more life changing and medically dangerous than a first trimester abortion then you need to get educated on the facts.

[RainDog]

88. this statement is indefensible

"It's about irresponsible people wiping out entire generations, wiping out thousands of people, on a whim..."

--this is nothing but incendiary lies and thus discredits any argument you could make for your position.

irresponsible people? how? because they don't use birth control?

I know for a fact that that is not necessarily the truth because both of my children were conceived while I was using birth control. I know of other women who've had the same experience.

are they irresponsible because they're teenagers who don't have access to the most reliable birth control?

are they irresponsible in the cases of rape or incest? (not saying that these are the majority of cases).


and...wiping out entire generations???

uh, excuse me, but do we have any missing generations in America?

and...on a whim??

do you think any woman would make such a decision lightly?

I'm sure you can find one to hold up as an example...but if you think that the majority of women are blithe about the issue of pregnancy and abortion you are out of touch with reality.

may I ask you if you have any problems with killing children as "collatoral damage" in a war? Surely you know that children, young children, were killed by the bombs we dropped in Iraq.

That action is much more likely to wipe out a generation in a country than the legality or not of abortion.

It is not a simple issue, and it cannot be reduced to your skewed view of women and their attitudes.

Statements like yours make me vehemently pro-choice, simply because of the crudity of the assumptions it contains.

[SPellier]

107. Sad

I obviously struck a nerve and that was not my intention. I'm afraid I've known quite a few women who were violently opposed to abortion for very personal reasons, and you seem to fall into that category.

By all means, enjoy your Choice with pride.

[Old and In the Way]

227. Those women you know should definitely NOT have an abortion.

What is so hard for you folks to figure out about this? If abortion bothers you, by all means have babies! If others don't have the same perspective or share your particular view of morality, why can't you respect that?

If we are wrong, you'll have the smug satisfaction of seeing us roasting in your vision of hell. If we are right, then you should have minded your own business like we are telling you.

Think about this. If government is able to ban abortions, it can also do precisely the opposite. Maybe you should be joining us and supporting the fact that it is not the function of government to make decisions about the most important biological processes of human beings.

[Alenne]

91. That is because you think abortion is wrong

I don't believe it is wrong so I can morally defend it.

[Guaranteed]

92. Alright, I'm going to bed.

Look, you guys....I see the classical pro-choice hard-line you guys are taking, but it doesn't work very well. It comes off very angry and dismissive, and actually seems to avoid what's really at issue. Get some courage and take it by the "moral" horns- cede that it's a baby, then prove them wrong. There are some great analogies out there just waiting to be invoked. That way you even get the fallback, after all the arguments, of "It's not even a baby."

You may not win (you'd be close, though), but nobody ever wins this issue. Take these assholes head-on.

[REP]

99. A Fetus Isn't a Baby

Can a baby live inside a fluid-filled uterus? Of course not; it would quickly suffocate there.

Can a fetus live outside a uterus? Only if its lungs are sufficiently developed; about 36 weeks gestation at the least (ans the mortality rates for that age is 75%). No fetus can survive outside a uterus when over 90% of abortions of choice are performed.

One needs to do no handwringing over the precious preborn poppet to justify one's stance on abortion. Either you think women are sentient beings capable of making their own decisions, or you see them as vessels valuable only for what they might be carrying. The woman and her wishes are the the only issues worth considering; either women have value or they don't.

[redqueen]

188. At some point, though, it is.

And it's way before 36 weeks.


"One needs to do no handwringing over the precious preborn poppet to justify one's stance on abortion."

You're talking about people. People.

:(

[REP]

258. It's A Baby At Birth

Yes, we're talking about people - WOMEN. Not precious preborn poppets. WOMEN. Living, breathing, thinking women with hopes, dreams and families. I put WOMEN ahead of unthinkinking, unfeeling, uncaring, nonsentient fetuses any day of the week. It is very sad and very telling that you do not.

[redqueen]

289. Not unfeeling, or unsentient, or unthinking...

Do you really think fetuses are unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, and nonsentient until they're born?

Did you know the baby knows its parents voices before it's born?

Did you know that they do think and feel, probably much earlier than you'd like to consider?

What I think is sad and telling is that 'liberals' would hate to execute an innocent person who is already born, but that empathy stops as if it has run into a brick wall once the subject of execution is an unborn infant.

[noiretextatique]

104. angry and dismissive

this is a part of the problem with this "argument"...there is no "winning" argument...no reasonable, rational "debate" that will move people from their strongly held convictions. the term 'partial birth,' for example, is a creation of anti-choicers, and has no medical meaning whatsoever. the right is "winning" NOT because of the strength of their argument...but because of the strength of their POWER. i don't believe there is much hope of changing minds on this issue...we need POWER. and we need those on "our side" to stop being duped by rw arguments...on this issue, and other "wedge" and "cultural wars" issues. a good rule of thumb...if they are for it, i am against it. it works!

[Old and In the Way]

108. Works better than vacuous arguments that rely on a religious

dogma to "prove" the case that abortion is "bad".

Tell you what BGL....I won't force you or your wife to have an abortion....and you won't force me and my wife to have a baby we don't want...deal?

[uhhuh]

100. So What?

As an atheist, I would imagine that you do not believe that people have an inherent existence beyond the time they spend here in a human body. Why, if you are an atheist, do you think finite human life has any essential value that needs to be defended against abortion?
If people cease to be, what difference does it make? If all humans died out and there were nothing but other forms of life on the planet, or no life at all, why should it matter? We won't remember anything that happened here or get to see where things go ahead to?
Why, as an atheist, do you put such a high "moral" value on a grouping of matter that we commonly refer to as a fetus? Why is it any less "moral" than fumigating your house when you are faced with an insect infestaion?
If you are an atheist, why do place such a high value on humans? What makes them so special that they NEED to exist?
If this is all there is, isn't it just selfishness and bigotry against anything other than humans, to say that it is ok to eradicate viruses and kill diseases that all live on one level or another?
If you are an atheist, why worry about what other people do at all? We will all die one day and fade into dust. Some will live longer than others, but the bottom line is none of it will matter whether any of us do much to foster life or destroy it. If you are an atheist, we will never get to know how it all turns out anyway, so why should you concern yourself with it?
Pleasure or pain, love or horror, they are all just experiences. Some have them, some don't. When they're gone, they won't matter. Live a moment in the mother's womb, or 130 years, what's the difference? Why should your need to be surrounded by things that are pleasant or acceptable to you be more important than a fly on a pile of dog shit? You are both finite beings, destined to die someday and cease to be and cease to matter, if you are an atheist.
What is "moral" for the atheist? What makes your desire to see untenable or unsupportable offspring of one species on this planet of supreme importance if, as things go, all humans will probably one day be extinct? If that is the case, why should you be so concerned to prevent it? It will almost certainly not affect you personally. You will alomost certainly be long dead by the time that happens, and even if not, it would just be another soulless life form that failed to adapt properly and and faded away. Big whoop. Right?
By the way, I am not an atheist, and am 100% pro-choice!! I am in no position to decide what is right for another person. I believe that there is much more than this life, and while I think that sometimes there might be some that chose to abort for reasons that I might have not personally agreed with, it is not "moral" to put myself in a position to pass judgement on them, or presume to think that they are IN ANY WAY less of a good person for deciding the way they did. If I was in their position, I may have done the same thing. I don't think that there are many, if any, women who go to get an abortion that don't wrestle internally with the descision, but they feel that they are making the best choice at the time. They may be right or they may be wrong, but I don't believe in anyone taking their right to make that choice away from them.

[phrenzy]

118. Okay, Thumper

OK, Thumper. We get it. You don't like Atheists and do not see how a non superstitious person can make sense of life or find a reason to live or care about anyone else.

Ok, how about the belief that we all only spend a short time on this planet. We may as well make the ride as fun for ourselves and others as possible.

Then, yes we will (and YOU will) turn in to dust and return to the cosmos from where we all came.

No matter how much you pretend otherwise.

I, for one am totally fine with returning to the makeup of the universe after I cease to exist as a human. I don't need to believe in fairy tales in order to accept that either. You obviously do.

[Spentastic]

133. Thoughts

" As an atheist, I would imagine that you do not believe that people have an inherent existence beyond the time they spend here in a human body. Why, if you are an atheist, do you think finite human life has any essential value that needs to be defended against abortion?"

"essential value?" Who are you to define essential value? An atheist can make a choice based on experience, reaction and foresight. It's as dim to ask about "essential value" as it is to ask an atheist to deny pain as it should be immaterial (just a state no?). Atheism does not require one to be a nihilist. Life as a state may be viewed as desirable by atheists, other atheists may disagree. It's not for the God squad to define what atheists wish to opine.

"If people cease to be, what difference does it make?"

Well people including atheists may mourn their passing. They may be missed. I just don't believe that anything else happens to them. They are gone.

" If all humans died out and there were nothing but other forms of life on the planet, or no life at all, why should it matter?"

I couldn't give a flying fuck. What right do we have to be here? Seems we're messing things up pretty badly to me.

"We won't remember anything that happened here or get to see where things go ahead to?
Why, as an atheist, do you put such a high "moral" value on a grouping of matter that we commonly refer to as a fetus? Why is it any less "moral" than fumigating your house when you are faced with an insect infestaion?

Do I get the same feeling killing a fly as I do when I kill babies? Why not? Because God says so? Or are animals instinctually protective of their young? (I believe this is where the right won the battle). However, is it moral / reasonable to kill your own species? Can an atheist not make an argument without referencing a deity?

"If you are an atheist, why worry about what other people do at all? We will all die one day and fade into dust. Some will live longer than others, but the bottom line is none of it will matter whether any of us do much to foster life or destroy it. If you are an atheist, we will never get to know how it all turns out anyway, so why should you concern yourself with it?
Pleasure or pain, love or horror, they are all just experiences. Some have them, some don't. When they're gone, they won't matter. Live a moment in the mother's womb, or 130 years, what's the difference? Why should your need to be surrounded by things that are pleasant or acceptable to you be more important than a fly on a pile of dog shit? You are both finite beings, destined to die someday and cease to be and cease to matter, if you are an atheist."

Magnificent hyperbole. I think therefore I am. I bleed, I can empathise with others and at times this life thing can be fun. It's nice to share with others and have great moments. Does it add up to anything? No, I don't think so. Should it be denied / belittled on that basis? Again I don't think so. Those that need to construct a framework to justify their existence are far more delusional than us atheists.

" What is "moral" for the atheist? What makes your desire to see untenable or unsupportable offspring of one species on this planet of supreme importance if, as things go, all humans will probably one day be extinct? If that is the case, why should you be so concerned to prevent it? It will almost certainly not affect you personally. You will alomost certainly be long dead by the time that happens, and even if not, it would just be another soulless life form that failed to adapt properly and and faded away. Big whoop. Right?"

Who are you to define moral for an atheist? Perhaps moral is a term that has been co-opted by the religious to make themselves feel superior. Perhaps there is no "moral". Perhaps there are only opinions. Morality based of a fictional framework is no more "Moral" than that suggested by an atheist without this crutch. You are correct, humans will one day become extinct. Good.

[uhhuh]

260. A reply

"Magnificent hyperbole. I think therefore I am. I bleed, I can empathise with others and at times this life thing can be fun. It's nice to share with others and have great moments. Does it add up to anything? No, I don't think so. Should it be denied / belittled on that basis? Again I don't think so. Those that need to construct a framework to justify their existence are far more delusional than us atheists."

I think therefore I am. Do you have a proof for that?

At times this life thing can be fun. Can you show me a scientific measure for that?
It's nice to share things with others. Truly? Nice? How would you quantify the word "nice". What is it's value? Draw me a picture or equation for it. What is empathy? Put it on a table in front of me.
Some people think sharing is bad.

"Do I get the same feeling killing a fly as I do when I kill babies? Why not? Because God says so? Or are animals instinctually protective of their young? (I believe this is where the right won the battle). However, is it moral / reasonable to kill your own species? Can an atheist not make an argument without referencing a deity?"

Why are animals instinctually protective of their young? What does it mean? Why does it matter? What is instinct and where is it derived from?

"Who are you to define moral for an atheist? Perhaps moral is a term that has been co-opted by the religious to make themselves feel superior. Perhaps there is no "moral". Perhaps there are only opinions. Morality based of a fictional framework is no more "Moral" than that suggested by an atheist without this crutch. You are correct, humans will one day become extinct. Good."

That's a good question. Who are you to question my opinion? We're all just animals of the same species, right? Are you superior to me for some reason? If so, can you point to what proves your opinion superior to mine? If we are not equivalent, where does our status diverge?
If you notice I never decided what is moral for an atheist. And the original poster didn't either. They just made a value judgement and left it to hang there. I asked a series of questions that it seems have to be answered by opinions rather than facts. I stated that I have a belief, not a certainty. Atheists often speak in certainties that they can't prove or measure.I'm glad that you admit that your atheism is just an opinion. I BELIEVE that there is more to life than this existence, and I did not qualify that belief, yet it seems that you chose to attribute a large delusional framework to that, when I presented none. In fact, my belief that there is more to existence than this life is about as far as it goes. I don't have a specific fairy tale I prefer to represent this view, and just feel that we continue to consciously exist in some fashion outside of this particular existence. However, you seem to believe in a lot of things that you cannot demonstrate, and make a series of value judgements based on...well, nothing. You just seem to think everything should be "fun" or "nice". I think that's a perfectly good opinion, but it doesn't seem anymore reasonable than being of the opinion that what we do and experience and learn can continue after we're no longer here. Can you tell me why your opinion is demonstrably better? I'm not feeling inferior to you right now. I need to be taught a lesson from the more rational and superior atheists.

[Spentastic]

280. You need to get another chip for balance.

"I think therefore I am. Do you have a proof for that?"

Brilliant, we could have an argument about Kant vs Cartesian thought. However, I'm happy that I do in fact exist. If I do not in fact exist then my thoughts on such matters are irrelevant. Certainty is illusory. However the balance of evidence would lead me to conclude that I think, therefore I am. I note that "proof" of things seems required by believers except for their beliefs. For example evolution.

"At times this life thing can be fun. Can you show me a scientific measure for that?
It's nice to share things with others. Truly? Nice? How would you quantify the word "nice". What is it's value? Draw me a picture or equation for it. What is empathy? Put it on a table in front of me.
Some people think sharing is bad. "

I'll show you a bunch of brain maps and associated behaviours / reactions. I'll show you stimuli vs response data from trials. Most of these responses have some selection benefit attached. For example sharing and the pleasure associated with may benefit the group thereby increasing the chances of genetic distribution. There's no evidence to suggest that nice / happy feelings are the result of an external influence. Is your standard of "proof" putting stuff on a table? Well I guess gravity is just some idiotic theory too.

"Why are animals instinctually protective of their young? What does it mean? Why does it matter? What is instinct and where is it derived from? "

Not all are of course. But behaviour towards young is a biologial imperative. What does it mean? Nothing. What is instinct? Biological survival programming. Where is it derived from? It's evolved.

As for the last part of your respone. I belive you live, then you die. As for superior? I tend not to think so. I find it frustrating that I can to some extend present a rational (in the scientific sense) defense of my position but there is no rational basis for believing that humans are somehow special. This is an gap too large to bridge. I can tolerate but I can't find any beauty in the constructs of others.

[uhhuh]

307. Good

Then you can join me in believing that the original poster's assertion that a moral quandry regarding abortion is silly.

"As for the last part of your response. I belive you live, then you die. As for superior? I tend not to think so. I find it frustrating that I can to some extend present a rational (in the scientific sense) defense of my position but there is no rational basis for believing that humans are somehow special. This is an gap too large to bridge. I can tolerate but I can't find any beauty in the constructs of others."

Surely you see that humans analyzing results on other humans are inherently biased. Especially since they are not special enough to be trusted with the analysis.


"Not all are of course. But behaviour towards young is a biologial imperative. What does it mean? Nothing. What is instinct? Biological survival programming. Where is it derived from? It's evolved."

What is the impetus for evolution? I'm not arguing that it doesn't exist, but what causes it? Why are biological mechanisms motivated to survive. What is the purpose? You open your statement that not all life is protective of their young. Why is that? If they're not then it would seem to contradict the idea of a biological imperative.

"Certainty is illusory. However the balance of evidence would lead me to conclude that I think, therefore I am. I note that "proof" of things seems required by believers except for their beliefs. For example evolution."

"Certainty is illusory". I find that statement somehow ironic.

I'm glad we agree. Your opinion, based on the balance of evidence, leads you to conclude something. I choose to conclude something else. You obviously don't require proof for your ideas any more than I do. You are taking it as an article of faith that scientific analysis to this point has not found something, so it does not exist. That's cool. I take it as an article of faith that nothing the scientific analysis has found to this point contradicts the idea that there may be an intelligent design to the universe and there may be more to existence than what has been measured at this point. I haven't seen proof of either position at this point, so I have just taken a position. So have you.

You may say that, scientifically, you must accept that things that are not proven, or shown to be inconsistent, must be believed to be false. It think that is as much a dogmatic statement as those who might say that you must worship whatever god or you will go to hell.

Both are making assumptions at the start that ideas that in both cases are crafted by people, are inviolate truths.
Science has been shown to modify itself based on new information. I would say that so has spirituality. I have not yet seen evidence yet that has convinced be that one is true and the other is false. I have seen much more to show me that both are true.
I understand your frustration with those who put forth ideas that they can't prove. You know, like saying that science and reason have got all the answers. It's frusrating when an ordinary biological mechanism asserts what is truth as if it was singularly equipped to make that judgement. Who do people think they are anyway?

[REP]

103. How Nice For You

That certainy is a swell little opinion you have there, and if you ever find yourself pregnant, I certainly support whatever decision you make.

Other than that, I really don't give a flying fuck about how you feel about abortion as long as you don't try to make it illegal. I don't think anyone likes abortion any more than they like cataract surgery or triple bypasses. No one wants you to like a medical procedure, or is that interested in why you don't like it.

[Kinkistyle]

106. A baby is a PARASITE on the mother.

I agree that if we could seperate the fetus from the mother and raise it in a test tube, then all this abortion hullabaloo would be over with. Someone who wanted an abortion would just have the fetus extracted and have it raised in a fetus-farm, problem solved.

In the meantime, a fetus literally feeds off the mother like a leech, taking a portion of her nutrient and physical make-up to use as its own, not to mention causing her great physical burdens on a daily basis.

Let me pose a question. If an expectant mother who happens to be alcoholic, experiences a miscarriage due to her drinking, should she be charged with murder or manslaughter?

[Guaranteed]

214. THAT'S where you need to start

if you want to keep abortion legal. You have to cede the point that it's a baby, then prove that it's still moral.

[REP]

259. Know *Anything* About Obstetrics? Didn't Think So

Williams Obstetrics, a widely used textbook on the the subject, describes the fetus as a "very effective parasite."

"Conceding" that a fetus is in any way equal to a baby would be like conceding that 2 + 2 = 5. You may think that the two are the same, but that is due to a lack of knowledge on the subject.

[Guaranteed]

266. You have no idea where this is going.

This has nothing to do with medicine. It's a philosophical tactic to concede your opponents main premise, in this case that the fetus is a baby, and then show them that they are wrong anyway. The BABY being a parasite is a good place to start, because even if it's a human being, if it's leeching off of the mother, the mother might have moral justification to cut it off. THAT'S the idea.


Know anything about philosophy? Didn't think so.

On edit- Look at this: http://brindedcow.umd.edu/140/thomson.html

That's your best shot. Everything else is argumentative or political. You ARE trying to prove them WRONG, right?

[REP]

271. Duh

No one has the rights to the bodily resources of another. A parent cannot be forced to give blood or organs to their born child even if the parent is the only possible donor and the child will die without the donation. Why is pregnancy different?

Know how to frame an argument? No? Well, maybe when you are older.

[bleedingheart]

112. Lucky for me I have never been placed in that decision

all my pregnancies were wanted.

However, I think the thing I am most upset about are the people who bring children into the world that they abuse to death.

[phrenzy]

119. Questions For Those Who Are Opposed To Abortion.

- Are condoms murder?
- Is 'the pill' murder?
- Is RU-486 murder?
- Is an embryo in a test dish a viable human?
- Is it murder within the first week of pregnancy?
- How is it NOT murder if it is rape / incest?


If you are anti-choice it is quite simple. You either think people are 'killing innocent babies' and it is a holocaust or you don't.

[trumad]

123. If Men got pregnant, the only er...moral question whould be:

if it was OK to put the Abortion Clinic in a Jiffy Lube or a Texaco?

I'm sick of dumb-ass men feigning or feinting over the morality of a womans choice.

Imagine a group of Politicians, (all women) standing around a table, signing a bill that would limit a man's right to an abortion....SHIT!
We'd smack a coup on their ass so fast they wouldn't know what hit them!

[ozone_man]

143. You've got that right.

Why is it primarily men that seem to have these morality problems with women's bodies?

[Kool Kitty]

299. Good question.

And who gets to decide what is moral, what would be the standard? One person's sense of moral might be another person's sense of immoral, you know?

[Old and In the Way]

229. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a holy sacrament.

I'm sure we'd have figured a way to make it a sacrificial offering to the Cloud Being,,,

[Mushroom]

251. No doubt

Especially if men got impregnated by a female. Wouldn't they need some sort of holy cleansing or something?

[Yupster]

265. So often on these boards we see these

blanket insults and belittling attacks on men just in general as a group.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

125. moral opposition to abortion here...

but do agree that they are MY morals and religious beliefs and are only offered in a discussion forum like this or when specifically asked for...I am not asking you to accept them.

1) Are condoms murder? No, a sperm, in and of itself, cannot become a human being. It requires an ovum...

2) The pill (as I understand its function) is not murder. The pill prevents ovulation to prevent a sperm and ovum from joining.

3) RU-486, by my definition of life would be abortion (the term murder to me implies malevolence). Once the sperm and ovum are joined (the moment of conception), my religious beliefs are that life begins. RU-486, in preventing that fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, is intentional destruction of a human.

4) An embryo in a petry dish is of course not capable of surviving on its own, but to me, you have the genetic makings of a unique person and to destroy it is not right.

5) Not murder in the first week, just abortion.

6) Yes, it is still abortion, even if it is the taking of an embyro created through rape/incest.

My views are, admittedly extreme on this. But my views are purely moral and religious and have no place in governmental policy. For the record, I am against the taking of any human life for any reason other than defense of life for self or those who cannot defend themselves. Heck, I had a hard time cutting down a tree in my yard last year...so, call me whacky...but thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my views.

TheProdigal

[Old and In the Way]

233. Would it be murder on the 8th day? Or the 9th day?

What day (down to the hour/minute/second) does it become murder? Answer must be in the Bible somewhere....

And since it must become murder, at some point, shouldn't the government, the new arbiters of morality, be invited in our homes to monitor the viability of the fetus? Maybe encourage daily pregancy "check-ups"? Because, if murder is committed, best to get the criminal arraignment done soon so the investigation can locate the fetus.....or maybe, women would need to file a missing person's report? Your honor, it was there the last time I checked.....little Johnny (or Susie) must have left my uterus without my permission".

It's nice to pretend that you can have an absolute position with regards to abortion...the only problem is dealing with the unintended consequences that such simplistic thinking bears forth.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

276. I can see your point...

but the problem lies in the statement revolving around the government being the 'new arbiters of morality'. While that may indeed be what is happening today, the government should not be in the business of telling people rights and wrongs on moral issues or religious ones. And since there cannot be any real scientific information about the exact moment when a fetus becomes 'alive' then it will remain in the religious court.

I do think this is little more than a religious issue. And I don't just mean Religious-Right or any group limitation like that. Even an atheist could have a 'religious' conviction about the moment at which life begins being prior to actual birth. Essentially, I believe life begins at conception...but that is a religious belief of mine. Somone else's beliefs should not be required to match my own. Would I try to stop someone intent on abortion??? Well, if they wanted to talk to me about it and get my opinion, then yes, I would. I would explain my veiwpoint and why I think it is right. But, if someone has no qualms that would prevent them from seeking an abortion, then I certainly don't have the rigth to enforce my religous world view on them.

Hope that makes it clear as mud! :)

TheProdigal

[outinforce]

234. Questions for Those who are OPPOSED to Abortion??!!

Hmmmmm...

Questions for those who are opposed to abortion?

Do I take from your header that you are not opposed to abortion?

And would that then mean that you are pro-abortion?

And, if you are pro-choice, are you also not opposed to abortion?

And, if so, does that mean that you are in favor of abortion, as opposed to simply being pro-choice, with no regard to the choice that a woman might make regarding abortion?

[Melsky]

303. Message deleted by poster. Had second thoughts. Sorry.

[Isome]

128. Interesting question:

I'm not going to scroll back up to see who asked it. But, it's telling of the hysterical ravings from the right, and all those who cannot get pregnant: unlike India (and I believe Pakistan) the United States does not have a missing generation of children because of abortions.

I found some eye-opening history:

From 1800 through 1825, approximately one in every 25 pregnancies was reportedly ended by abortive means. By the 1860s, the number soared to one in 6 births, and in some areas, even higher, due to the greater availability of and acceptance of the use of abortifacients. By the time of the Civil War, at least 25 different arbortifacients were being sold at pharmacies and through newspaper advertisements. They were discreetly sold as patent medicine cures for "female problems" with euphamistic names such as "Infallible French Female Pills", and a "Cure for Interrupted Menstruation".

By 1861, a woman could obtain a surgical abortion for anywhere from ten to one hundred dollars, however, by this time, it was becoming more difficult to legally end a pregnancy. Between 1860 and 1890, forty states imposed antiabortion statutes, which left the crucial decision largely to the physician.

Contrary to common belief, during the first half of the century, abortion was--for the most part--generally accepted by society as long as it was performed in the early months of pregancy. It was, however, still a cause of great shame for women, and few talked openly about it. (That remains true today.) Once the anti-abortion statutes were widely in place, illegal abortion cases were usually dealt with leniently by the courts. Many cases simply lacked the evidence in order to convict. Some women, who either could not afford the fee for an abortion, or feared the legality of it, attempted to perform abortions on themselves, often with tragic results. Attempted methods included the use of abortifacients, rolling on the floor, jumping off furniture or stairs, and sadly, the use of blunt instruments.

Ah', the good ol' days!

[bloom]

263. The other pre-Roe method was to go to a psychiatrist

Who would decide whether or not it would be psychologically damaging for the woman to carry the fetus to term. (More available for people with extra money.)

[Zynx]

131. I agree strongly with you.

I'm a Catholic who strongly believes in the existance of God, so my problems with abortion are not as meaningful as yours to many people, but I personally find it to be a horrible thing that women, other than because of life-threatening problems, get abortions.

I find those who say that it is just a choice just like getting a nose-job to be disgusting, personally. I am only pro-choice because I don't want it in the back alleys again. I am finding it very hard to read some of your posts which say "Babies are like dogs" and the like. What in the heck is wrong with you people?

[trumad]

137. Actually the Baby, Dog thing was quoted by a stealth Pro-Lifer

in post 71.... and he was quoting someone else. If you find it hard to read these differing posts then stay the hell out of the thread!

And if you believe in God then why do you supoose he allows abortions?

[Zynx]

209. I find it hard to read because it disturbs me how little people care for

life around here.

Your second comment is downright easy to answer. We are judged by what actions we take here on earth. Abortion, theft, murder, acts of kindness, charity, and all sorts of other things are actions governed by men. Virtually all problems on earth are caused one way or another by the actions of humans and we will be judged by these actions.

[Old and In the Way]

235. "We are judged by what actions we take here on earth"

So God is judgemental? Is there a heavenly court? Trial by jury?

Seems you are limiting God to your own personal human biases.....sorta rigs the game in your favor, right?

[Zynx]

283. I have no idea how you got those comments out of what I said.

But you atheists are entitled to your views. Just don't shove them down my throat.

[Guaranteed]

215. I'm not a pro-lifer.

Don't label me.

I'm trying to show you classical pro-choice hardliners that YOU NEED BETTER ARGUMENTS. Your arguments SUCK!

[Old and In the Way]

236. You're not a pro-lifer, but you think pro-choice "hardliners" have

sucky arguments.

Pro-choice means options and shades of gray. Pro-life means absolute. Seems that only "hardliners" are in your camp.

[Guaranteed]

267. They do.

I've already said why, and I've said there are other arguments you could be using. These arguments are stale and reek of politics. They're not going to convince anyone. We need some new talking points on the issue. I'm just trying to bring them out...some other posters have touched on them.

And, I TOLD you: I'm pro-choice. So, for MY sake AND yours, get some better arguments.

[noiretextatique]

284. in fact, your arguments suck

but thanks for all your efforts to "help" us poor "hardliners." :eyes:

[Kaylee]

138. DeLurking for a question:

How come no one talks about what happens to this "unwanted" child when it is born. What type of life situation will this child be born into. Will it have parents who love it. Will it have a stable roof over it's head.

All while RW'ers are moaning about how horrible abortion is, they are reducing the funding for head start, forbidding sex education in our schools, cutting child care subsidies (I pay close to $1,000 a month for my daughters day care), cutting prenatal programs, and attacking planned parenthood. It appears too often in this society that a higher value is placed on the fetus than the child that has been born.

I am no fan of abortions, but why don't we focus on the economic and social situations that exist that make it an consideration in women's lives should the unexpected happen. I have heard of very few stories of women who use abortion as a form of birth control.

Just my .02

[Spentastic]

141. Welcome and stay delurked!

It's easy, they condemn the unwanted kids to poverty, thereby forcing them to consider joining the "volunteer" army as a way out of poverty and kill them that way instead.

[chiburb]

203. Welcome !!!

Glad you're here!

[Old and In the Way]

238. Great question and welcome aboard Kaylee.

[soupkitchen]

140. Bringing an unwanted child into the world seems more morally offensive

to me. And with worse social ramifications. There is a study by a couple of economic professors out of the University of Chicago that concludes that the drop in crime is attributable to one major factor: the availability of abortions on demand. Fewer unwanted children means fewer criminals.
Now I'm not arguing for Eugenics here. I'm just trying to point out that being born unloved is not a fully human experience. And I would argue that the energy spent protesting abortions would be better utilized trying to create a world where children are not born unloved; where every child is guaranteed the opportunity to succeed. In such a world fewer woman would opt for abortions.

[LeahMira]

142. Here's another thought...

This is the single biggest issue problem I have. I don't want any one to tell my wife, my daughter or any other woman what to do, but if asked my opinion by one of them I would tell them I believe the fetus is a human being.

Everyone else has opinions about that just as you do. The thing is that our opinions differ and any legal enforcement of your opinion would necessarily negate someone else's opinion.

Generally, opponents of abortion stress the right of the fetus to be born, and the possibility of adoption if a woman does not want her child. I do question the premise that a woman does not want her child, but since the focus has come to be on the child, perhaps we ought to ask some of those children who were born and grew into adults how they feel.

In fact studies have demonstrated that adoptees have stress rates higher in anxiety than prisoners of war (Reynolds, Levy, and Eisnitz: 1977), and one-third of them state that they would have chosen not to be born if they had to be adopted again (Campbell, and Silverman: 1981).

Of course that's just one population, but I wonder what we would find if some brave individual could do research on adults whose parents seriously contemplated abortion. What would they have wanted for themselves if they had the choice? Too bad that those statistics will probably never be available, but I thought I'd give you something else to think about.

[Palacsinta]

145. Would any like to know my reproductive history?

and my mom's, my sisters', my daughter's? Why don't I list every decision we've ever made and then somebody weigh in. We're probably representaive of the last 3 generations of ob/gyn history in the US, beginning say, 1936 to present. We ought to set up a health-o/moral-o-meter and come up with some sort of national standard. Then we can assign blame, penalties, guilt, absolution, punishment, awards, etc as the case may be. Really...I'd like it all set out for me......

[DemExpat]

146. I share your feelings about abortion, workenstiff,

and I'm female - non-religious, not atheist...
I support abortion only in the first trimester, and that is a big compromise with my belief/feeling that a fetus is a human being.
I have little turmoil over my view on abortion because I value women having a choice in the early weeks, but, to me, I guess I am condoning murder then, to be consistent!
That probably makes the fundie anti-all choice more 'moral' than me....:-(

After 3 months the nervous system is in place, all organs, the complete human is there to further develop, so around that time I draw MY line...

I also abhor unwanted/neglected/abused children, but I hope for a society one day that will have abundant contraception and education on birth control, support for mothers and fathers, etc. so that pregnancies are welcome.

A solution-oriented society in finding ways to nurture all life instead of throwing it away.
I can't help but feel very strongly that a society that condones freely available abortion is de-humanizing the society as a whole - like any other violent -to -life actions taken/made within society.

DemEx

[noonwitch]

149. I think a lot of people feel the way you do

I support Roe v Wade because I don't think the rights of a fetus should ever supercede the rights of the woman carrying it. That doesn't mean that I think abortion is a good thing, I just recognize that it is sometimes a necessary thing and the government should not ever restrict a woman's access. Of course, more people should be more responsible about sex, and men need to stop raping women and committing incest with kids in their families.

It always kills me when people support a ban on abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. I understand that isn't what you said, you said that was your personal opinion, not the policy you support. But how can that ever be enforced? Does rape have to be proved in a court of law before the abortion can be performed? That would take too long, the baby would be born before that could happen. Who decides whether a woman should be allowed to have an abortion? A court? A doctor?

[Q]

150. This is a great WEDGE issue...

...for the old white men in the Republican party.

- Meanwhile...the Bushies are robbing our treasury blind, waging illegal war and turning us against each other so we'll talk about anything but what THEY'RE doing to us.

[Woodstock]

217. Good point, Q

[in_cog_ni_to]

151. I knew you were MALE

before I even looked. :eyes:

I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. Until YOU have a womb and can give birth, you have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body! :mad: :nuke:

[WoodrowFan]

152. Should not pro-choice mean the right to think abortion is wrong as well?

I think abortion is a sin so I call myself pro-life*, but I also don't think it's any of my bleeping business in my neighbor has one.


* and yes, I am also anti-death penality in ALL cases and anti-euthanasia.

[IronLionZion]

153. Freedom of choice

especially if she is going to die from childbirth. IF you don't want an abortion, choose not to. In a perfect world, people will make the choice not to.

There just aren't enough orphanages to absorb the unwanted children and they shouldn't be forced to live with negligent parents who don't want them.

[TSElliott]

158. I agree with you.

In my opinion abortion is the same as the death penalty and I find both actions disgusting. If a woman wants to have one though it's her right and I would never interfere with ones right.

[outinforce]

163. Help Me to Understand

"In my opinion abortion is the same as the death penalty and I find both actions disgusting. If a woman wants to have one though it's her right and I would never interfere with ones right."

Abortion the same as the death penalty?

Help me to understand this, please.

I can certainly understand why someone would feel that the death penalty -- the putting to death of a grown, living, breathing, human being -- would be "disgusting".

But putting to death a mere fetus? Something that has not even been born yet? Something that cannot exist outside it's mother's womb? Why would putting something like that be the same as the death penalty, and why would putting to death a mere fetus be "disgusting"?

I also have a bit of a problem understanding why abortion could be considered the same as the death penalty. In the case of the death penalty, the person who is killed is first tried in a court of law in which s/he is given the opporturnity to plead for her/his innocnence and life. In the case of abortion, though, the thing that is put to death (if indeed, anything is put to death in an abortion) is given no such right. In fact, in an abortion, the fetus has absolutely no right at all to have its right to life asserted by anyone.

[TSElliott]

166. Simple I do not recognize it as just a fetus.

A fetus is just a term used to describe a different stage in the human life cycle, an example being fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult and elderly. Since there has never been a documented record of a woman giving birth to anything but a human it must be accepted that all fetuses are human.

Now when it comes to criminals and the death penalty it is true that most of them get to plead their case before a court and jury, however they do not get to choose their punishment. Thus, when they receive the death penalty it is a fate that is chosen for them much like the fate of a fetus whose mother decides to have an abortion.

I have no problem with women who choose this method, it was there decision and something they have to live with. I am sure they can justify their decision much like a jury can justify a death sentence that has been issued.

[outinforce]

174. I still do not understand.

I'm sorry to be such a pest here, but I am really having difficulty understanding what you are saying here.

You say that, for you, "A fetus is just a term used to describe a different stage in the human life cycle, an example being fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult and elderly."

Fine. For the sake of discussion, I'll agree with your statement here.

However, I find that statement very difficult to square with what you said earlier: "In my opinion abortion is the same as the death penalty and I find both actions disgusting. If a woman wants to have one though it's her right and I would never interfere with ones right."

Here's the problem I am having with the two statements you have made. In the first, you say that a fetus is just a term used to describe a different stage in the human life cycle. And I understand that to mean that just as a teenage is a potential adult, so a fetus is a potential teenager (and, by extension, a potential adult).

But in the second statement, you say that you would not want to interfere with someone's right to kill a fetus. I assume that if, somehow, the Supreme Court were to find a right that allowed parents to kill their infants or toddlers or children or teenagers, you might have a bit of a problem with that, and that you might be moved to interfere with that right.

So why is it that you have no problem with others exercising their right to kill the earliest and most vulnerable stage in the human life cycle?

It seems to me that in order to hold those tow positions, it would be necessary to say that the fetus is somehow different from other stages of humabn development, and that its right to life is also different from other stages of human development. It also seems to me that if one holds to the position that a fetus is a different stage in the human life cycle, but one which does not enjoy the same right to life as other stages in the human life cycle, then one is recognizing that stage of human development as "just a fetus" -- an inferior form of human life with no inherent right to life.

And, if that is the case, then why would abortion of an inferior form of human life with no inherent right to life be "disgusting", or troubling in the least?

[TSElliott]

181. Sorry but not all views are black and white.

You stated, "So why is it that you have no problem with others exercising their right to kill the earliest and most vulnerable stage in the human life cycle?"

I did not say that I have no problem with abortion, because I most certainly view it as a barbaric method of dealing with an issue. However I recognize it as a right given to women that allows them to choose what they can and cannot do with their bodies. If this right was to be taken away who is to say that other rights that I value may not be taken away also.

And do not forget that abortion is not the only time that humans legally kill their children. For instance a parent could refuse medical treatment for a child resulting in death or remove a child from life support. I would not agree with either action and view them as quite disturbing, however it is a parents right to choose what they feel is best for their child.

[outinforce]

207. I'm Still Not Understanding Your Position Here

I hate it that I am having such a difficult time understanding your position. I hope you will bear with me here.

In your most recent post, you said, "I did not say that I have no problem with abortion, because I most certainly view it as a barbaric method of dealing with an issue.".

I must have, then, misunderstood you when you said earlier that "I have no problem with women who choose this method"

I certainly do not want to put words into your mouth, but it appears to me as though you are saying that you have no problem with women who choose abortion, except for the fact that they are engaging in a barbaric practice. Is that what you mean to say, or have I totally misunderstood your point here?

And I am having great difficulty understanding why you would consider abortion to be a barbaric method for dealing with an issue. What, exactly, is so barbaric about it? If, as you state, abortion is a right that women have which allows them to choose what they can and cannot do with their bodies, then why in the world would abortion be any more barbaric then, say, the removal of an appendix or the removal of some tonsils? I just don't get it -- you say, on the one hand, that abortion is barbaric, but in the next sentence you say that it is a right that women have to control choices about their own bodies.

It seems to me that if you believe that abortion is simply a matter of choice that women have concernihg their own bodies, and if you at the same time assert that abortion is barbaric, what you are really saying is that women choosing to control their own bodies is barbaric. It would also seem to me that if you want to assert that abortion is barbaric, you would need to give some specific reasons as to why abortion is different from other methods women use to control their own bodies -- in other words, how abortion is different from the removal of an appendix or the removal of tonsils.

You also say, "However I recognize it as a right given to women that allows them to choose what they can and cannot do with their bodies. If this right was to be taken away who is to say that other rights that I value may not be taken away also."

You're quite right here. It's much like the argument segregationists used to use in the 1950's and 1960's -- before the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. The argument went something like this: "I value the right to rent or sell my property to whomever I want to or to serve lunch at a public lunch counter to whomever I want to. If this right is taken away, and I am forced to rent to, sell to, or serve Black People, who is to say that other rights that I value may not be taken away also?"

In the 1950's and 1960's, the segregationists used the "slippery slope" argument pretty effectively to keep Black folks down.

[TSElliott]

212. I understand why it may be confusing.

It is extremely hard for me to explain but I will try my best.

When I said that, "I have no problem with women who choose this method."

What I meant was, "Even if a woman was to have an abortion I would still have compassion for her, in other words, I would dislike the action but still love the person."

When I described abortion as "barbaric", it was because I feel that a civilized society would never use death as a solution for an issue, this would include un-born children, execution of prisoners and dropping bombs on villagers.

[outinforce]

232. If THIS is what you meant.....

"When I said that, "I have no problem with women who choose this method."

What I meant was, "Even if a woman was to have an abortion I would still have compassion for her, in other words, I would dislike the action but still love the person."

When I described abortion as "barbaric", it was because I feel that a civilized society would never use death as a solution for an issue, this would include un-born children, execution of prisoners and dropping bombs on villagers."

If that is what you meant, then you and I do not disagree.

[TSElliott]

290. That's exactly what I meant.

;)

[Hep]

159. Fortunately, morality is subjective.

n/t

[outinforce]

161. It Is?? Really?

I had no idea that morality is subjective.

If indeed morality is subjective, then the following statements can never be shown to be correct:

1. It is wrong for one person or one group of people to hold another person or group of people in slavery.

2. It is wrong for men to deny women the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

If, as you state, morality is subjective, then a person could say something like, "Well, I understand that from your point of view, slavery is wrong, but I happen to think that it is perfectly OK.", and no amount of reasoning or logic could prove that this statement was morally wrong.

Similarly, if morality is indeed subjective, then a person could say, "I understand that you think that it is wrong for men to deny women control over their own bodies, but I happen to think that it is perfectly moral for men to do so." Here again, there would be no way to determine whether such a statement was morally right or morally wrong.

[Hep]

164. Get a grip!

I had no idea that morality is subjective.

If indeed morality is subjective, then the following statements can never be shown to be correct:

Not true. It's also fortunate that you don't get to make the rules of this debate. The fact of the matter is, there is no way YOU can dictate to me what I find moral. Your strawmen and emotional appeals are moot.


1. It is wrong for one person or one group of people to hold another person or group of people in slavery.

At one point in time, slavery was not only OK but quite common. By today's standards, it is immoral, but that hasn't been the case throughout history. Anyway, it's a stupid analogy. There are things that we can all agree on in terms morality. Rape is wrong, murder is wrong, slavrey is wrong, and those things all have an underlying theme in common: Forcing your will on someone elses body. If you treat the analogy fairly, and if you want to apply moral standards blindly across situational canyons like this, outlawing abortion would be more akin to slavery and murder than HAVING an abortion.

But since the analogy is stupid, it's not really even worth debating.

2. It is wrong for men to deny women the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

While I hold this to be true, it also han't always been true, and lots of people today consider it untrue. Therefore morality is subjective. What you find immoral doesn't necessarily have to be what I find immoral.

If, as you state, morality is subjective, then a person could say something like, "Well, I understand that from your point of view, slavery is wrong, but I happen to think that it is perfectly OK.", and no amount of reasoning or logic could prove that this statement was morally wrong.

And that's precisely the case. But you use the emotionally charged hypotheticals like they're OxyContin and you're Rush. Let's take a more even handed approach to balance out this extremism you're so eager to toss out.

Some people think eating meat is wrong. Others don't. The morality of eating meat is subjective. With me?

Similarly, if morality is indeed subjective, then a person could say, "I understand that you think that it is wrong for men to deny women control over their own bodies, but I happen to think that it is perfectly moral for men to do so." Here again, there would be no way to determine whether such a statement was morally right or morally wrong.

Exactly. Some people really think it's ok for a bunch of white men to tell women what they can and can't do. YOu don' thave to determine who's right for it to be subjective. The term only serves to demonstrate that that which is subjective is up to the individual. Someone finds abortion morally reprehensible. Fine. It's a good thing that morality is subjective, because I disagree.

[outinforce]

171. My Grip is Just Fine, thanks.

"At one point in time, slavery was not only OK but quite common."

OK. I can agree with that.

"By today's standards, it is immoral"

Wait a minute, who are YOU to tell me what today's standards for morality are or are not? Aren't you the one who is saying, "The fact of the matter is, there is no way YOU can dictate to me what I find moral."

"There are things that we can all agree on in terms morality. Rape is wrong, murder is wrong, slavrey is wrong, and those things all have an underlying theme in common: Forcing your will on someone elses body."

So, am I to conclude from what you say that the measure for morality is how many people agree that a particular act is or is not moral? Just for the record, I would point out to you that even though you and I may agree that rape, murder, and slavery are all wrong, there are many people in this world who think that rape, murder, and slavery are just fine. And, even though you and I may agree on the immorality of murder, rape, and slavery, who are WE to dictate what others would fine moral?

[Hep]

186. ABout grips

Wait a minute, who are YOU to tell me what today's standards for morality are or are not? Aren't you the one who is saying, "The fact of the matter is, there is no way YOU can dictate to me what I find moral."

Yeah, I was making an observation that I think you will agree with. That slavery is commonly perceived and generally accepted as immoral. At least in this country.

So, am I to conclude from what you say that the measure for morality is how many people agree that a particular act is or is not moral?

Well, yeah, pretty much. We can look back in retrospect and say that we were wrong to think that slavery was OK, but it doesn't change the fact that 300 years ago, it was generally perceived as OK. It's just not that simple. It really comes down to the individual.

Just for the record, I would point out to you that even though you and I may agree that rape, murder, and slavery are all wrong, there are many people in this world who think that rape, murder, and slavery are just fine. And, even though you and I may agree on the immorality of murder, rape, and slavery, who are WE to dictate what others would fine moral?

Exactly. And even if we do take it upon ourselves to dictate morality for others, we can't make them THINK differently. Morality is subjective. We can force morality on them, but we can't change their minds that way.

[smirkymonkey]

196. I think that what is missing here is

the distinction between morality, which I believe is subjective and personal, and the law, which may be influenced by the morals of those who set and interpret it, but once enacted, becomes enforceable.

One's subjective moral views may be in disagreement with the law, but this opinion on its own has no power to negate the moral positions of those he opposes. However, there are those who wish to see thier moral positions legislated, and that is really what is at stake in this argument.

We live in a democracy (or used to, anyway) and the will of a small, but powerful group of rabid "moralists" should not have the power to determine the law of the land.

Oh yeah, and I would like to say to our joke of a government - Keep Your Laws off MY BODY!!

[outinforce]

210. This Comes Pretty Close

"We live in a democracy (or used to, anyway) and the will of a small, but powerful group of rabid "moralists" should not have the power to determine the law of the land."

I was alive in the 1950's and the 1960's, and I remember very well some of the arguments used by the segregationists to deny Black folks their civil rights.

The statement above (we live in a democracy....the will of a small, but powerful group of rabid "moralists"....,etc" was an argument that segregationists used to use quite a lot.

They directed a lot of their anger toward that "moralist", Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and his small, but increasingly powerful group of like-minded individuals.

And many of those segregationists used to like to tell the government to "keep your hands off of my property."

I, for one, am very happy that in the 1960's, a small group of moralists, led by Dr. King, forced their moral view on the rest of US society.

[smirkymonkey]

213. I put moralists in quotes to

underscore the fact that the word itself is subjective. I happen to equate the word w/ Moral Majority types, who preach morality while practicing a hateful agenda.

There are those, such as Dr. King, whose moral views are similar to mine in that they espouse rights for all of humankind (do not want to get into fetus argument here) and are prepared to fight against oppression. Fortunately, in that case, his ability to inspire a critical mass led to actual laws that were passed and an ensuing shift of consciousness occured in the minds (well, not all minds, of course) of a previously disinterested public.

One group was fighting against oppression and another (the pro-lifers) is fighting for it (and as a woman, that is how I see it). If for some reason their "morality" were to be legislated, I would certainly hope for a leader with the courage of Dr. King to lead the fight in overturning it.

[outinforce]

237. Interesting.....

"One group was fighting against oppression and another (the pro-lifers) is fighting for it (and as a woman, that is how I see it)."

That "one group" that was fighting against oppression had several people who most assuredly did not think that they were fighting against oppression.

In fact, the segregationists of the time thought that Dr. King and all of the other people who wanted to legislate their own view of morality were trying to impose a new form of oppression.

The segregationists felt that Dr. King (an ordained pastor who used his pulpit to denounce segregation) was trying to take away some pretty important rights -- like the right to choose who could buy your property, or the right to choose who could come into your place of business.

For segregationists, the right to choose the people to whom they could sell their house or the right to choose who they could serve (and not serve) at their places of business were terribly important rights.

And Dr. King and his group of "moralists" were trying to take away the right of the segregationists to choose -- choose who could buy their homes and who could enter their places of business.

The segregationists feelt very strongly about what they thought was a new, religion-based form of oppression.

The segregationists resented and feared it so much that they had their US Senators filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As segregationists, they viewed this act as little more than an attempt to shove the morality of some down the throats of everyone.

And they, like you, hoped that "If for some reason their "morality" were to be legislated" a leader with a great amount of courage would lead the fight in overturning it.

[smirkymonkey]

291. Never mind...

we've really strayed off the topic, and I don't think the analogy to the civil rights movement really compares to the struggle for abortion rights in any significant way. Both important, but different.

This is a debate that cannot be won by anybody.

[arewethereyet]

310. no it isn't. people want to think it is

this allows them to rationalize whatever they want to believe.

[Blue_Chill]

160. I agree with you workenstiff

I can't support any pro-life movement because I don't think they give a rats ass about a womens health. At the same time I can't agree with some that compare abortion to removing a tumor or just like any other doctor visit.

It isn't.

[lapislzi]

162. I hear you, workenstiff...you could be me

It is incumbent upon the ethically-minded to work to create a world where abortion is never necessary.

Until then, sadly, I believe it must be an option. It is a private matter between a woman and her doctor...and perhaps her family. None of us can presume to make choices for another.

[madddog]

168. Not that anyone cares

but my own .02:

In my perfect world, abortion wouldn't be a form of birth control, but a last resort for truly unwanted pregnancies, and in cases of the mother's health. Having said that, I'd also make every form of birth control on the planet available to anyone who wants it in order to make abortions all but unnecessary.

The problem today is that many anti-abortion folks seem hell bent on making sure abortions happen, by opposing any form of birth control, sex education, condom handouts, etc. At the core, they oppose SEX except under the very limited terms of their particular religion, which I don't agree with.

I don't personally agree with women who get abortions because they weren't willing to make sure they didn't get pregnant. I know the man bears some responsibility, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the woman.

In the end, though, it's absolutely a women's choice what she does with her own body, and I'm firmly in the "don't like abortions, don't have one" camp. I certainly don't have a right to impose my own personal feelings on anyone else, whether or not I agree with them...and I can't but feel there's a hint of misogyny in the ultra far rights' anti-abortion stance.

[lapislzi]

175. in what world, exactly, are you living?

Where did you get the idea that abortion is a form of birth control? In what universe do women make cavalier decisions about their own pregnancies? Do you suppose a woman wakes up one morning and says "Hmm...I'm sick of being pregnant. Think I'll get an abortion today!" Or... "Gee, we forgot the condoms. Oh, well, I can always have an abortion." Get real!

And on what planet exactly do rape and incest victims "need to make sure they don't get pregnant?"

If you are posting from the People's Republic of China, or some other place where forced abortions occur, then you are excused. Otherwise, you need some serious education about reproductive rights and responsibilities. And if you're a guy, please keep that thing in your pants until you can take responsibility for what it can produce.

[outinforce]

176. Are You Suggesting??!!

"Where did you get the idea that abortion is a form of birth control? In what universe do women make cavalier decisions about their own pregnancies? Do you suppose a woman wakes up one morning and says "Hmm...I'm sick of being pregnant. Think I'll get an abortion today!" Or... "Gee, we forgot the condoms. Oh, well, I can always have an abortion." Get real!"

Are you suggesting that women should not have the right to use abortion for whatever reason they want -- even birth control??!!

Are you suggesting that there is something "wrong" with women who might wake up one morning and make what you consider to be a "cavalier" decision concerning her own pregnancy?

Are you suggesting that there is somehow something wrong or less than feminine with a woman who wakes up one morning and says, "Hmmm....I'm sick of being pregnant. Think I'll get an abortion today!"?

Or are you suggesting that such a woman should be denied the right to get an abortion?

Or are you suggesting that there is something not quite right with a woman who thinks or says "Gee, we forgot the condoms. Oh, well, I can always have an abortion."?

It seems to me that if you want to talk about reproductive rights, then you will want tot talk about those rights -- and not about your own judgment as to whether anyone happens exercises those rights in a way in which you happen to find acceptable.

[lapislzi]

179. I'm saying I think it's a rare thing

Pregnancy is a big deal, and I don't think women undertake it or its consequences lightly. At least none of the women I know do. I've never heard of someone using abortion as birth control. Perhaps you know people who behave this way.

I believe abortion should be available to anyone who wants it, whatever the reason.

I find certain positions morally indefensible, but it's none of my business after all.

[outinforce]

180. I guess this means then

"I believe abortion should be available to anyone who wants it, whatever the reason."

I guess this means then that you believe that abortion should be avaiable to anyone who wishes to use it (regardless of how rarely this may occur) as a form of birth control.

I guess this also means that you believe that abortion should be avaiable (again, regardless of how rarely this may occur) to healthy women who ake up in the eighth month of their pregnancy and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore, and decide to abort their perfectly healthy fetus which poses no risk to her health or her life.

[lapislzi]

194. Yes--my ethical position is not germane

Although I think the scenarios you are positing are absurd. That was my point.

It doesn't matter what I think about the practice. It's none of my business.

[outinforce]

195. Fine. I guess we won't be hearing from you any more. How Sad.

If you really think that your ethical position on the issue of abortion is not germane, and if you also think that it doesn't matter what you think about the practice, then I guess that would mean that you won't be posting on this thread (or any other thread dealing with abortion, for that matter).

How sad.

I happen to think that the views of other people concerning abortion is certainly germane to discussions about abortion. I also happen to think that an issue like abortion affects all of us, and that it does matter what we think about the issue.

But, since you, apparently, do not share my views on this, I will certainly respect your views that your personal opinions and ethical considerations concerning the issue of abortion are of no importance whatsoever (even though I happen to think personally that they are).

[lapislzi]

197. 'Course I'll discuss it. I am, aren't I?

Perhaps I should make my position a little more clear. As I have already said, I believe access to abortion should be unrestricted.

Having said that, I don't think it is my nor anyone else's affair how a woman, or a couple, or a family, arrives at a decision to abort. It is a private matter.

Having said THAT, I do have opinions about the decisions people make, but they are not germane. I would like to believe that the decision to abort is for everyone, a difficult one. I think it is a grave matter (no pun intended). But I would never in a million years expect people to take my opinion into account, or even to agree with me. Maybe I'm out of step, and it is cavalier. Who am I to judge?

I have been involved in a decision regarding abortion, and I can attest that it was harrowing, and I still think about it (it was 20 years ago). Perhaps I am solipsistic to believe that most people are like me. Whatever your beliefs about the status of the fetus, it is at the very least, a potential human life.

Again, just my opinion. Which is valid for me, and me alone. I suppose plenty of people are cavalier about human lives. Fortunately, I don't know many. Most of the ones I've seen live in DC.

[noiretextatique]

288. you do you realize...you are proposing this 'radical' notion:

people (including women) are perfectly capable of making complex moral choices...without the help of religionists, politicians, and pious internet posters :eyes:

what an f'ng concept, eh? :toast:

[Guaranteed]

219. LOL

Funny stuff

[madddog]

178. in this one

there are women out there...I know several...who had abortions for reasons that boiled down to lack of birth control. I think YOU need to get real, and face facts that not everyone in the world is as responsible as you'd like them to be as far as birth control.

I wasn't talking about rape and incest victims, which fit into the "health" category. Besides, I'm really on your side, if you'd bother to calm down. Although I find great humor in the fact that some women want total control over their reproductive system (which I'm all for), but don't take total resonsibility for avoiding pregnancy (from consensual sex).

[lapislzi]

199. Did not mean to offend (really!)

You're right that responsibility can't be legislated any more than morality can.

I think both genders should be responsible for prevention of the unwanted consequences of sex, including STDs and pregnancy. Of course, the words "should be" are pretty silly, and I know this.

You are also going to come across instances where the man takes part in the decision, appropriately, or not. Once you start getting into case specifics, unfortunately, you start down that slippery slope. You can't generalize about it (and I apologize if I did). And that's why I think we mustn't judge people. It just becomes too hard.

[Scairp]

169. An atheist?

If so, then you cannot claim this to be "morally" indefensible in your own mind as most morality is religiously based. Your argument is strictly a religious one and should have no meaning to you since you have no religion.

[TSElliott]

190. Definition of Morality

The term “morality” can be used either

1.descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
society or,

a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

[Blue_Chill]

202. strictly a religious one?

Says who? You? lol you don't get to decide what people choose to define as moral or not.

Nice try though.

[Scairp]

221. That's right

All right wing anti-choice groups worship the fetus as a sacred thing, a life that will not be snuffed out by it's selfish mother so that she can go have fun instead of raising the bloody brat. That is always their definition. I also take issue with the originator of this thread, that, although they see abortion as morally indefensible but that they would make exceptions for rape, incest, etc., as frankly, a joke. Either it's wrong in their mind or it isn't, regardless of how the conception came about. The product of the act is same.

[Mattforclark]

173. Only women should decide

whether or not abortion should be legal and in what circumstances it should be so. Males should have no input on the question. I say this as a male. Sure I have possible, and sometimes conflicting thoughts about it, but I do not have the same capacity as a female does to imagine what it is like to have a child, or to actually have a child.

This is different, for example, from only slaveholders deciding whether there should be slavery because all people were capable of owning slaves. The equivalent for slavery would be letting all people decide whether it should or should not be legal. Saying that the equivalent would be only slaveholders who decided whether or not slavery should be legal is invalid because the equivalent of that would be only people who get abortions should decide whether or not it should be legal, which is not what the other side (I) am saying.

Since there is discussion about morality, here is a summary of the scientific view of it:

[outinforce]

177. So, Since Roe v. Wade

So, since Roe v. Wade was decided by a Supreme Court composed of nine males, I think you are suggesting that we should throw out that decision.

And, since the decision in that case was written by a notoriously white and infamously male person, Justice Harry Blackman, I guess you are syaing that that opinion is of absolutely no value at all.

I'd be careful, if I were you, about such extremist pro-life views as suggesting that Roe v. Wade be invalidated.

[Mattforclark]

187. Interesting

I am speaking about what I would do if I had control of an ideal world. I recognize that males hold important roles in the abortion debate in the real world.

"So, since Roe v. Wade was decided by a Supreme Court composed of nine males, I think you are suggesting that we should throw out that decision."

I didn't think I was suggesting that. In court cases over abortion, female judges should decide the issue. Ideally, there would have been 9 female supreme court justices to decide the issue.

"And, since the decision in that case was written by a notoriously white and infamously male person, Justice Harry Blackman, I guess you are syaing that that opinion is of absolutely no value at all."

Not that it is of no value at all. I think that males can talk to females and say what they think, but they should not get a vote on the issue. Males can say things and females can take them into account, if they so choose. In my ideal world.

"I'd be careful, if I were you, about such extremist pro-life views as suggesting that Roe v. Wade be invalidated."

I would too. I am not advocating overturning Roe v. Wade. I am saying 1) Roe V. Wade should have been decided by females in the first place. 2) Females should decide future abortion cases. My personal leaning is that it shouldn't be invalidated, if for no other reason than that abortion would still exist but be unsafe. Females can take this into account if they wish, or reject it if they wish.

[outinforce]

193. I'm Sorry, But Wasn't it You Who Said.

I am having a bit of difficulty here.

In your earlier post, you said, "Only women should decide whether or not abortion should be legal and in what circumstances it should be so. Males should have no input on the question.."

Now you suggest that Roe v. Wade, even though it was decided by nine white males is not such a bad decision after all. One wonders what you might think if nine white males had decided Roe v. Wade differently.

It seems to me that you are saying that you have no problem with males providing input on the issue of abortion -- as long as that input agree with your own position.

And, regarding your position that ideally, Roe v. Wade should have been decided by nine female Supreme Court Justices, do you really think that you would support a decision by nine justices of the sort that Bush is now trying to put on the Federal Bench?

I think I understand you to be modifying your view concerning whether or not males should have any input on the question of abortion. Your first posts says that men should have no input. YOu most recent post, as I read it, clarifies your position to say that men should be allowed to voice thier concerns and opinions on the subject of abortion, but they should not be allowed to vote on the issue.

If that is the case, then would you also support a position that says that childless women who are no longer able to become pregnant should likewise not be able to vote on issues concerning child care or child abuse?

If I understand you logic concerning bot allowing men to vote on the issue of abortion, it is that since men can never become pregnant, they could never understand what it is like to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. And, if I understand your position correctly, since this is so, men should not be allowed to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own fetuses.

Using this same logic, wouldn't you say that people who have never had children and who could never have kids should not be allowed to vote on issues concerning how parents raise and treat their own kids? Why should I, a gay man who will never have kids of my own, be allowed to vote on issues of how parents are allowed to treat their children?

[Guaranteed]

220. LOL again

That's two. I like your style.

Isn't it funny how you can agree with someone, more or less, on an issue, and still despise their approach to it?

[Mattforclark]

223. To further clarify :)

"I am having a bit of difficulty here.

In your earlier post, you said, "Only women should decide whether or not abortion should be legal and in what circumstances it should be so. Males should have no input on the question..""

Yes, I think I was not sufficiently clear. Thank you for pointing this out. What I meant by input is determination of policy towards abortion. I can see how that would suggest that I mean males shouldn't say anything about abortion, so I won't use input that way any more. I guess I was thinking of 'input' in the sense of 'policy input.' Anyway, my fault. To be clear: males should not make the decision, but they can say what they think. Females can then take this into account if they wish when making the decision.

"Now you suggest that Roe v. Wade, even though it was decided by nine white males is not such a bad decision after all. One wonders what you might think if nine white males had decided Roe v. Wade differently."

Whether they are white or not matters not to me. Whether I personally think that on balance Roe v. Wade was a good decision is a seperate question from whether the judges who made it should be the ones to determine abortion policy. If the nine males who decided Roe v. Wade decided differently and I felt the same way about abortion as I do now, I would say that I don't like the decision.

"It seems to me that you are saying that you have no problem with males providing input on the issue of abortion -- as long as that input agree with your own position."

They can provide any input (meaning talking, not deciding). Women can then do with this input what they want. A court decision is not input, however, it is output.

"And, regarding your position that ideally, Roe v. Wade should have been decided by nine female Supreme Court Justices, do you really think that you would support a decision by nine justices of the sort that Bush is now trying to put on the Federal Bench?"

What I meant was that female supreme court justices should make the decision, not that the decision should be exactly the same but have been made by female judges. If the 9 supreme court justices suddenly died or retired tomorrow and Bush appointed 9 females who then overturned Rowe v. Wade, I would disagree with their decision but think that it was legitimate where Rowe v. Wade was not. 9 sudden new supreme court justices probably raises its own questions of legitimacy, so it is probably better to think of them coming onto the court over a period of time.

In real life now - if there were enough women on the Supreme Court, I think it would probably be good for male justices to recuse themselves from the case. Maybe if there were 7 women and 2 men instead of the other way around then the men could recuse themselves on abortion cases. But that is of course a very strange system, and clearly wouldn't work with only 2 female judges. I doubt it would with 3, it might with 5, etc...

"I think I understand you to be modifying your view concerning whether or not males should have any input on the question of abortion. Your first posts says that men should have no input. YOu most recent post, as I read it, clarifies your position to say that men should be allowed to voice thier concerns and opinions on the subject of abortion, but they should not be allowed to vote on the issue."

Yep, I see how that can seem confusing. So I will try to explain it as I see it. My mental picture before this series of posts was that it would be better if males just shut up and let females decide what to do. Maybe that is just passing on responsibility, and maybe not all males think that being male changes their view of the issue. The closest male equivalent I can think of is something like circumcission, and even that doesn't fit and isn't a good parallel to abortion. But I sure wouldn't want females making a law (or deciding a court decision) about circumcission.

So what I would do, personally, is not go around saying 'ban abortion' or 'make abortion legal.' But if someone making the decision wanted my opinion on whether or not it should be legal, I would tell them what I think as a male and they could take it into account if they wanted.

"If I understand you logic concerning bot allowing men to vote on the issue of abortion, it is that since men can never become pregnant, they could never understand what it is like to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. And, if I understand your position correctly, since this is so, men should not be allowed to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own fetuses."

Essentially, yes. But that doesn't necessarily translate to the standard pro-choice position. Women can tell other women what to do with their own fetuses, presumably if after arguing about it with each other they decide that the 'fetuses' are actually 'people' and not part of the body, because then they would have constitutional protection as people.

I put these following 2 paragraphs together becaues they are asking the same question broad.

"If that is the case, then would you also support a position that says that childless women who are no longer able to become pregnant should likewise not be able to vote on issues concerning child care or child abuse?

Using this same logic, wouldn't you say that people who have never had children and who could never have kids should not be allowed to vote on issues concerning how parents raise and treat their own kids? Why should I, a gay man who will never have kids of my own, be allowed to vote on issues of how parents are allowed to treat their children?"

That's an interesting question. But I think it is flawed because women and you have experience being children which you can remember, so you can imagine what child abuse would be like as much as anyone. You can also (or at least you should be able to) adopt a child.

[redqueen]

182. Yes, there are.

I'm one of them.


on edit:

Eventually, we are going to have to calm the $#&* down and think rationally about this.

At SOME point -- BEFORE the baby is born -- it is a PERSON.

If the baby is viable, then it is no longer a 'parasite'.

God help me, when people use that term in arguments about this issue it literally makes me wonder what has happened to empathy... is it only for the born, now?!

We have to think long and hard about when we think that 'fetus' becomes a person. IMO it's as soon as it's viable.

Whatever your opinion is, this country will come to a consensus, and neither radical pro-choicers NOR radical pro-lifers will like it.



And I want to echo an excellent point made by BullGooseLoony earlier in this thread:

"A philosopher named Tooley argued that babies weren't really people because they had no capacity for self-awareness (murder is killing a person, and his definition of a person is a being with self-awareness). Thus, he argued, killing babies is alright. Yeah, it's a crazy sounding argument, but it's actually very strong. No one really seems to be able to counter his argument without also countering against abortion, or without just saying "It's common sense.""

This argument should have its own thread.

[Old and In the Way]

239. It's a person if the mother wants to bring the fetus to birth.

She makes that ultimate decision. If she plans to bring it to birth, then of course she bonds and begins to think as a soon to be born child. If she is not interested in motherhood, then it is a tissue mass to be dealt with.

It is her decision, and only hers, on how she wishes to define the collection of cells growing in her body.

[redqueen]

287. Sorry I just can't agree.

That fetus at some point becomes sentient and is viable outside the mother's body.

After that point, her feelings toward the sentient being she has helped to create and has nurtured up to then do not in any way define what that being is.

It is a person, and as such she has no right to end its life unless it is putting her in mortal danger.

[dkamin]

183. Sort of

I don't understand why you think a fetus is a human being.

I'm assuming it's because science is increasingly able to nurture fetuses outside of the womb, moving the effective date backwards on the "can the fetus live outside of the womb" test.

At some point in the near future, science will effectively be able to support a baby from fertilization to childhood, all outside of the womb. Does this mean that masturbation (the waste of millions or billions of sperm) or birth control is also morally wrong?

I just don't see a fetus as a human being, and haven't seen anything to indicate to me otherwise. In my view, in a philosophical/religious sense, a fetus isn't NOT a human being, but it also isn't a human being. It's somewhere in between, and it's our general insistence as a Western society upon polar black/white answers that insists that the fetus must either be a human being or it must not be.

My answer? It's not a human being, but it's somewhere close enough that it has a moral status. In other words, in a classic legal sense, the fetus is not a person, and therefore abortion should not be outlawed as murder. Do I think it's immoral to have an abortion? Yes. But there are all sorts of immoral things we do, and the essence of a classically liberal society (as opposed to say, the Taliban or Pat Robertson/George W's vision of a good society) is that we allow individuals to make those moral choices, so long as they don't disproportionately impact other human beings. And that's why I'm pro-choice.

[psychopomp]

189. I agree

I believe in the woman's right to choose and find abortion as a means of birth control repugnant, especially past the first ten weeks.

[mdguss]

204. I'm Pro-Life:

I'm pro-life because I believe that the choice is whether or not to have sex. Pretty simple, if you don't have sex, you don't get pregnant. (I was adopted at the age of three weeks...I guess I may have been an "unwanted pregnancy, but I thank my biological mother for making the right choice and allowing me to be born).

But to be truly pro-life you have to support measures that take care of infants born to poor mothers. You have to support measures to improve day care (head start, etc.). And you have to support measures to improve under-performing schools in both urban and rural areas. (This DOESN'T mean passing an unfunded mandate--it means finding solutions and implementing them). And most importantly, you have to fight very hard for health clinics to ensure that good prenatal care is provided for all human beings.

There may be some instances where abortion should still be an option. (in my view, rape, incest, the life of the mother and the possible paralysis of the mother).

But there is no way that abortion should be used as birth control. That is endorsing (at best) an irresponsible position.

Flame away. I'm a proud Democrat, but this is an issue where I think that most progressives have went along with a litmus test that they know (in their hearts) to be wrong.

[Heddi]

205. "abortion should not be used as birth control'

You guys just got us slutty gals all figured out, don't you?

I mean, here's MY to-do list for today:

11:30-1:20: Physiology class, room 1308

1:30 head to lunch with the girlfriends, chat about how much we love having unprotected, recreational sex, and we don't care about the consequences

2:00 : Go to Fred Meyers for cheese and an oil pan

3:15 get abortion, since it's so much more convenient than using birth control

5:15 pick up hubby from work

6:00 dinner reservation at Chago's

8:00 SURVIVOR

9:15 have sex with husband without using birth control in hopes that I get pregnant just so I can have another abortion 2 months from now.

Man, you got us ALL figured out.

Whoops--look at the time! I really hve to go to Planned Parenthood--did you know that they TOTALLY CONVINCED me to have an abortion?! REally. They came up to me on the street, held a gun to my head, and told me to do it.

Oh well. Not the first abortion, won't be the last. THis is the 15th one I've had this year! That's three up from last year, and 5 more than the year before.

I hope to have reached 100 abortions by the time I turn 30....it's a stretch, but I'm sure I can do it

[mdguss]

206. Look:

I believe that abortions are (in most circumstances wrong). And I'm sure it's tramautic for people who do have abortions.

But that doesn't mean we can't invest in a better adoption system, that doesn't mean that we can't give good prenatal care to poorer mothers. And that doesn't mean we can't hope people are held responsible for their actions.

I hold men and women equally responsible for unwanted pregnancies. There's no way I can see for a person to justify having an abortion just because they don't want to raise a child. It's there actions that brought that life inot being, and why should that live be ended because of mistakes of someone else.

That's the way I see it. I'm sure you see it differently. But, for the moment, it's still a free country. When both sides cool down enough to talk to each other, real progress on reducing abortions will be made.

[Old and In the Way]

241. Buy bulk and save!

I hear that PP has a deal....get 9 abortions and the next one's on the House!

[arewethereyet]

257. most abortions are expensive birth control, face it

sure there are some related to incest, rape and health but the vast majority are not. they are the result of ignorance, lazyness or an occupational hazzard.

so what ?

its still nobody's business except the woman's.

her choices are her's alone. same as my choices are mine alone so long as they do not interfere with your life liberty or property.

she does not need for you to be her mother hen and you even simply advise at your peril.

[dawn]

218. my thoughts

I'm stupid to admit this on a public forum, but I had an abortion when I was 18. We'd used protection, but it broke. My boyfriend at the time was an alcoholic who was verbally abusive. Yeah, I used to date real winners when I was a kid.

I wanted to have the baby because I thought it would make him love me more. I confided in my college roommate and she basically talked me into having the abortion. She took me to the clinic. I saw the pro-life protestors, and I was very angry. I wanted to ask them to examine their own lives before judging me. But my roomie wouldn't let me talk to them.

Many years later, I am still sad that I ended a life, but unfortunately I think it was the best decision at the time. I don't think the child would have had a good life. And I don't think I would have been able to handle giving up the baby for adoption. I also was afraid that my b/f would have turned physically abusive while I was pregnant.

I still think it's killing, but then again, I think eating meat is contributing to the killing of an animal, and is reprehensible. Do I do it? Unfortunately, yes. I eat fish and very occasionally chicken.

I'm Buddhist, so I do acknowledge the abortion as having karmic effects in my life. And I've vowed not to do it again. And yeah, I'm trying to phase eating fish out of my life too, in case anyone is wondering.

But it has to remain legal. And I don't think people should judge people who have done this.

[Nobody]

222. I joined this party late but I want to put in my 2 cents

This is a far from perfect world. I'd be overjoyed if no woman was ever raped, no birth control ever failed, no doctor ever refused to perform a tubal ligation because the patient was young and childless and knew for a fact she didn't want kinds, no one ever discovered halfway through a longed-for pregnancy that the fetus was dead/going to die/horribly deformed/going to kill the mother during birth, and tons of other things that can and do happen every day.

If I was the parent of a teenager, I'd tell them abstinence was best, but give them detailed info on birth control as a backup.

Abortion isn't ideal, but it is necesary as a backup.

And now for the most important part of my views on abortion:

Women are moral, thoughtful people. They are of value and their opinions matter and their decisions are to be accepted.

She therefore has veto power over what happens to things inside her body.

No one dreams of insisting that men have no right to get a vasectomy. his wife may have reasons why he should, but he is the one to veto the decision as it's his body and he has sovereign right to what happens to it. (and keep in mind that considering another person's opinion doesn't mean they have to accept it) It's his vas deferens and therefore it's his final decision to make.

No one dreams of second-guessing your decision to undergo knee surgery. No one sues for custody of your knee stating that you're doing a reprehensible thing by taking a tendon from their dead relative (who you wouldn't know the identity of anyway) and replacing your torn ligament with it.

"But what about the fetus?" I hear in the background. Well, what about it? Who is the sentient human life already here? It's the woman.

Since it's the woman who has to go through the body changes, sometimes permanent body changes, it has to be her choice, her decision. Otherwise we as a society value a fetus over an already existing woman.

And remember the Aesop's fable that states that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush?

[Zomby Woof]

224. I am a real pro-lifer

I favor a woman's reproductive rights without condition, overbearing moral authoritarian sanctimonious judgment, being subjected to the personal distaste of others, or any other barrier which the enemies of life and freedom put up in the way.

A woman can terminate a pregnancy when she damn well pleases. It is her body, her conscience, and the zygote/embryo/fetus is only subject to nature's will or the will of the woman carrying it.

The woman's quality of life is contingent upon her freedom, and so being pro-life means being pro-choice.

[Frangible]

228. Cthulhu always favors abortion...

But I do not.

It all comes down to what you define as having value.

1) Does sentient life have value?

Yes... I'd hope everyone can say it does. Whether it's a human, an alien, or a computer AI, I'd think most people would agree sentient life has instrinsic value.

2) Is it wrong to kill something may potentially become sentient?

This is kind of silly; egg and sperm die every day. I don't think "wasted potential" falls under anyone's definition for killing.

3) At what point does a fetus become sentient?

Ahh. Now this is a tough question. Obviously, it isn't for a while. But there eventually will be a point or period it does.

4) Is killing another sentient life to make your own life more convienient "OK"?

Is it? If I don't like my neighbor, can I go and blow his head off? No, of course not.

5) Does the fact the sentient life is dependant on you change #4?

No, I don't think so. Even after the baby is born, it is still dependant on you for survival, yet you cannot kill it then.

Therefore, this is what I can logically conclude:

1) At some point in development, a fetus becomes sentient life
2) It is wrong to kill sentient life
3) It is permissable to kill a fetus until it becomes sentient, but it would be morally wrong to kill a sentient life form, even if it is dependant on you after that

And to all you "you don't have a uterus, it's not your choice!"

Yeah well... you don't have a gun, but that doesn't it make "A-OK" for me to go and shoot someone because it will make my life more convienient, now does it?

But really... morality is realtive.

The issue comes down to how much you value you assign to sentient life

[redqueen]

231. Great post. n/t

[Yupster]

269. I'm about where you are frangible

Legal until some point. The problem is where is that point. Thinking is probably as good a spot as any. The other point I've thought about is feeling pain. I think this very complicated and morally challenging issue calls for middle ground and compromise.

The only position that makes me shake my head is this one seen on these threads over and over again.

"On the issue of abortion, why don't you just shut the f**k up."

edited to clean up cuss word.

[noiretextatique]

297. do you consider females sentient life?

and who gets to decide what decisions female sentient life make about their own bodies? you? gw bush and the gaggle of old, white men giggling as he signed his decree? the pope?
is it possible that the female sentient life can make their own decisions?
another question...if the female sentient life's health is threaten by the fetus, which sentient life gets to live?

[Yupster]

298. We all through our elected officials

decide what people can do with their own bodies all the time.

There are laws against prostitution, drug use, and suicide.

[mitchum]

230. Well, what makes it morally defensible in the case of health, rape,...

or incest? Do you feel that it's not a human being if it arose from an "act of evil"? How very Cotton Mather of you.

Choice all the way!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

240. I think that is a perfectly reasonable position. I don't believe one MUST

support or believe in abortion in order to support a woman's right to choose.

[w4rma]

242. That sounds like a good stance to me. I think I'm close to yours.

Both pro-life and pro-choice.

Note, I'm a Baptist Christian.

[arewethereyet]

243. I agree but without the turmoil

In essense, its got nothing to do with me and ewverything to do with the woman. Its her business alone. I don't even think the sperm donor gets a say.

Its no different than if I choose to overeat, smoke or use drugs. Its my choice and so long as it does not interfere with the life liberty or property of another (that tissue is NOT the property of any other till its born in the Judeo-Christian ethic) then its none of anyone else's business.

I hope that noone ever feels that they need to consider this again.

I'm not going to get that wish.

Its their choice and they are the only ones who have to contend with whatever consquences there are for them. They have no need to offer defense to me or anyone else. Period.

May not be the standard answer but thats how I see it.

If you care I AM a Christian, changes nothing except for the decisions I make about me and what I choose to teach my kid. But my "Y" chromosome will eliminate me having to consider it.

[Alenne]

244. Great post nt

[arewethereyet]

245. you're too kind... I blush

and the funny thing is, I feel that way primarily because I am a Christian.

Kooky !

[workenstiff]

246. never allow facts to interfere with their beliefs

Many of the people who have commented on this thread have simply ignored the issue I brought up. They have stated "my body, my choice", or they have accused me of judging them, or they have stated that a man has no right to an opinion.

But, this thread is about liberal, pro-choice people who struggle with the new and exciting discoveries modern science has revealed about fetal developement.

I thank all those who were brave enough to admit this inner struggle.

I learned one thing from this thread, the fact that some people will never allow facts to interfere with their beliefs. I guess some liberals are as closed minded as the wing nut fundies. SAD.

[Alenne]

247. Maybe they don't have an inner struggle. nt

[arewethereyet]

252. think of it as making choices based on principle

Principles do not change, facts can change freely. The fact once was that the world was flat. The principle is that it is the job of the church to preach the Gospel. For the church to condem a man (there's the first violation of the Gospel) for belief of a secular concept defies the principle. Its no more or less wrong by virtue of the discovery that the world seems to be round.

And I honestly have not heard anything new about fetal development that wasn't pretty obvious when I was a kid watching Kennedy get his head blown off.

That being said, the importence of chosing good principles cannot be underestimated.

[funkyflathead]

248. While I'm pro choice and support access to abortion.....

just don't expect me to celebrate someone getting one.

It does end something living, just not a baby.

[mdguss]

249. Judging Life to be poor?

Perhaps a baby born to a poor 20 year-old mother won't have what we here define as a "good life." Maybe they won't have all the neat toys; maybe they won't get to go to a great school. But that doesn't mean that they won't enjoy their life. Doing that is essentially preimposing our values on someone else.

Here's my case: I was born to a poor, challenged mother. The state determined her unfit for motherhood, and I was taken to the orphanage.

By that logic, "Well, the orphanage is a bad place, and he won't have a good life."

I totally disagree. Since I was taken away, I've been adopted by two wonderful (though poor) parents. I've worked really hard in public schools, got a grant to go to a great college, got a degree, worked as a political consultant (I love what I do), and I am now putting myself through graduate school.

By material standards, my life isn't that great. But life is about so much more than material.

We can't really know if people will enjoy their lives or not. But we can allow them to be brought into the world, and make that decision for themselves.

We need education on adoption. We need a better adoption system. We need good prenatal and infant care. In short, we need a national Casey Act. That would do a lot for the cause of life.

In closing, I note there have been many great pro-life Democrats (Bob Casey, at one time Dennis Kucinich, Bob Casey, Jr., Ron Klink, most Pennsylvania Democrats, etc.) There are pro-life Democrats to look up to, and I'm proud to be a Democrat and proud to be pro-life.

PS--Specifically regarding rape and incest--government needs to be sensitive to the needs of victims, and they should be able to decide the best path for themselves.

[Yupster]

270. New Governor Blanco

may be a real role model as a pro-life Democratic woman.

[Malva Zebrina]

250. If someone is pro-choice that is good enough for me

what they think otherwise is irrelevant, but probably very important to them and that is fine :shrug:--as long as that view is not forced on women who do not think the same.

[corarose]

255. One is the limit!

You make the Mistake a second time and it's your fault and you have to have the baby but if someone is raped or molested they can have an abortion.

Also, 1st Trimester is the limit unless the Mother's health is in jeopardy.

[REP]

272. Ah - The 'Baby As Punishment' Argument

You've made the classic pro-lie argument of sex being a crime and pregnancy/childbirth a punishment. That's why people like you go along with the rape/incest exception - it's not about the 'innocence' of the precious preborn poppet; it's about the ugly and vulgar sin of a woman agreeing to and possibly enjoying sex. It's like insisting that the morbidly obese not be allowed gastric bypasses; after all, it was their own fault they got fat because they couldn't stop stuffing their faces. I'm sure yu don't agree with that argument - why do you agree that women should be punished with pregnancy?

You will be surprised to learn that any pregnancy in any woman puts her health in jeopardy, and that by definition you support abortion at any trimester.

[corarose]

273. Your wrong about me

Speaking from a person with experience as having one and not having any kids right now If I could turn the hands back in time I would have had my kid or kids (My Mom was a twin and twins run in the family).
I am not against abortions at all but someone shouldn't' use them as a form of birth control like someone shouldn't use gastric bypass as a form of weight loss.
I also said the 1st trimester and I believe it should be done in that length of time because I had a friend in High School who went to another state and had an abortion at 8 months yes 8 months when she was pregnant and that was MURDER in my book because that baby could have lived and she could have put it up for adoption but she was a bitch because she broke up with the babies daddy and her Mom didn't want a half Korean half Irish kid in the family.

[REP]

277. Let Others Make Their Own Decisions

just as you made your own. Anecdotes about illegal abortion in the 8th month are not evidence, and certainly nothing to base laws upon. Just about everyday there's a story in the news about another parent killing their born children, but nobody talks about making childbirth illegal.

You had your abortion and your gastric by-pass - why not others make their own decisions? You seem to regret your abortion, but most women do not (source: Koop Report and Guttmacher Institute).

Nothing in your post refutes a thing in mine. Perhaps you simply forgot to make an argument.

[Fescue4u]

262. How can feel that way?

If you feel that abortion is morally wrong, how can you defend that choice?

Its like saying that its very bad to kill your wife, but it should be legal to do so (kinda like in the Muslim world)

(Note: I didnt take a position on abortion, just a position on a very strange position)

[diamondsoul]

264. Jumping in very late but-

I do understand where you're coming from.

I'm probably one of the most die-hard PCers you'll meet, and yes I have had an abortion, and YES, I do have my struggles with the subject. I don't regret my decision because I believe it was absolutely the best choice of those I had available.

Even so, I'm aware that I chose to end the life of my potential offspring. Nature also chose to do that for me on two other occasions, one a blessing and one a time of great sorrow. I say potential offspring because there's no certainty that fetus would ever have been born even if I hadn't aborted it.

It was a painful decision to make, for me. It took two weeks (all the time I had left to decide before the first trimester was passed) of intense thought, difficult conversations with my parents and some of the worst abuse I've ever suffered from a significant other to reach that decision. It wasn't something I just woke up and decided I wanted to do.

I do believe that human life begins with conception, and I believe that because every single existing human being was once an embryo. Alongside that belief is the, equally powerful, belief that there are worse things in life than death.

I had a decision I was faced with, and it was a difficult one. I weighed everything I had by way of facts at that time and made a choice. That's all any of us can do. Because of that abortion, I have two beautiful and deeply cherished daughters today. They would not exist if I had had a baby the first time the opportunity arose. I know this because I would either be dead myself or be embroiled in bitter legal disputes with a man who could never have been a loving father to my child.

Let me ask you this- would have been morally defensible for me to subject an innocent baby to an abusive man in its life? Would it have been morally defensible for me to have deprived my family of having me around because I couldn't live with handing my child to strangers? I suppose what I'm suggesting is that you consider the morality of the other options faced by many of us before you say that abortion is the only morally indefensible one.

[Andyjunction]

268. I basically agree

It's an individual moral dilemma. If the decision could ever face me in my personal life I would not choose abortion based on my individual beliefs. But the dilemma is too deep for me to extend my beliefs beyond that.

It would cross a much more definite line for me to restrict a woman's right to control her own body. I'm unwilling to cross that line.

[kayleybeth]

274. Probably not the smartest thing I've done all day

but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and agree with the original poster. I personally feel that abortion is morally wrong except in the most extreme cases.

That said, I'm just not comfortable leaving it up to congress or the courts (or to me for that matter) to decide exactly when abortion should be legal. So ultimately, I have to support a woman's right to choose.

[onebigbadwulf]

278. it is only morally indefensible

when the fetus is no longer an obligate parasite- meaning, if it were removed from the womb it would be able to survive.

This transition is vague and therefore one could claim that 2nd term abortions are not always morally wrong but 3rd term definitely are.

[kentuck]

279. Morally indefensible?

But to take the other position would be to take a "constitutionally indefensible" position. So in the final analysis, one cannot take one position without at least considering the other, without being intellectually dishonest.

Is it "immoral" to take the position that a woman does not have control over her own body, but it is really up to the government to make decisions about her body? Although, there have been compromises as far as abortion goes, with decisions about trimesters, "partial-birth", etc. Where is the immorality in that?

How moral is it to take the other position and say that a fetus has more rights than a woman from the moment of conception? That is the beginning of a life, there is no doubt. Our religious and moral bearings prevent us from ignoring that fact. But therein lies the reason and rationale for the concept of separation of church and state. If we were a theocracy, then the woman would not have control of her own body. How do we explain the concept of freedom if a person does not have control of their own body? Really, how much different is that from slavery? So which is the "moral" position?

[onebigbadwulf]

281. It's simple

It's morally and constitutionally moral to abort if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb.

If it can survive outside the womb, then it should simply be removed from the woman and given up for adoption.


I don't see the conflict.

[bloom]

296. The conflict would be

in the time that it would be questionable whether the fetus could live on it's own.

Plus - it doesn't seem like anyone including the mother would want to do anything besides going to term (or as long as possible) if abortion was not chosen at an earlier time.

It's not that simple.



"In a retrospective study conducted in two teaching hospitals in Teheran,..The youngest surviving neonate was a female whose gestational age was 26-27 weeks and birth weight 1500 grams. The smallest surviving (in weight) was a female infant of 750 grams and a gestational age of 28-29 weeks. This study revealed that an increase in the age and weight of preterm neonates leads to a rapid decline in mortality rate."

http://www.emro.who.int/Publications/EMHJ/0102/05.htm


____________For another view:

19 Weeks

* This is the youngest that any baby has been born and survived. Babies born this young may have problems with infections, since their immune systems are still immature, and may have trouble breathing. They may also suffer from developmental problems later in life.

24 Weeks

* This is the age at which the law considers a baby "viable", or able to survive outside the womb. This is a legal distinction, not a medical one. Babies born younger than 24 weeks may survive.

38 Weeks

* This is the age at which a baby should, ideally, be born. At 38 weeks the baby's lungs are fully functional and his or her immune system is ready for the outside world.

http://www.abortiontv.com/HowUnbornBabiesGrow.htm

[West Coast Democrat]

285. I don't think men can fully understand this issue

therefore, I don't care much how men feel about abortion.

[TreasonousBastard]

286. Whoa!

I don't have time to read all these replies, so I'm probably repeating a lot of what's already said.

I agree almost entirely. I'm not an atheist, but still don't believe God has made his intentions known about this, so there isn't any higher authority than my own conscience. The question is, of course, largely irrelevant to me, since I won't get pregnant.

Science has no true answer to whether a fetus is a person or a blob of tissue.

So, I am uncomfortable with the idea of abortion myself, but I can't think of a single reason to stop anyone else from having one or stop anyone from advocating it.

It is, at this point, a question entirely between the interested parties, and everyone else should keep their noses out of it.

[Heyo]

292. Im conservative mostly but also pro choice...

...within certain limits.

I am pro choice in the first trismester, maybe the second.. it's not toally black and white to me.. the more it starts to resemble a living newborn that could live on it's own, the more leary I am of it.

I am against partial-birth abortions...

(of course common dicates that when the there is a risk of death or serious injury to the mother that abortion should be 100 percent legal across the board..)

Here's where my conservative side comes out a little...

Although I respect the right of people to choose.... I am really against abortion... I ask why not just carry to term and then give it up for adoption?

"Freedom to do what I please with my body" is often said.

I'm sorry about that, but if you need an abortion, you have already excercized your freedom to do what you wish with your body..

What you want with abortion is a way out of resonsiblity for what you did with that freedom.....

Heyo.

[West Coast Democrat]

293. You Try Carrying An Unwanted Baby To Term, Buddy!!!!

Then perhaps you'll see it's not so simple as "giving it up for adoption."

When accidents happen, the woman shouldn't be FORCED to bear the burden. It's as simple as that.

[aquart]

294. We kill human beings all the time.

You planning to give that fetus the right to vote? Burn the mother at the stake if she miscarries?

Your airy fairy morals are nice. Unchallenged and ivory tower, but nice.

And it's sweet how you're thinking of your wife and daughter. ONE daughter? Not ten? So if your wife got pregnant pretty near every time you had sex, you're willing to work your tail off to support them all? Because they're human?

So how many will you take? Five? Ten? Twenty? They shoot children like vermin on the steps of cathedrals in birth control free Catholic South America. Will you take some of those? They're human.

Rumania forbade birth control or abortion and wound up with thousands of institutionalized children. They're a little warped and getting older but they still need homes. They're human. Want 'em?

It's so damn NICE of you to allow your women to choose abortion. Now what are your bloody morals going to do for the women who had the babies?

[West Coast Democrat]

295. You make excellent points, Aquart!

Thanks for your post.

[Mushroom]

300. hugs to aquart

That's the problem, isn't it? They just want to talk morals.

But are they married with children? Are they doing enough to fight crime, poverty, inequity? Prove yourselves.

Show medical records, school records, diplomas. What sort of sex are you into? How many times do you do it? Can you do it? Have you ever done it? Have you ladies ever experienced multiple orgasms? One? What's your sperm counts, gentlemen? How many showers do you take in a week? How many times do you change your soiled underwear? We want to know it ALL.

How much do you make a year in salary? Do you have health insurance? Well, why not! Are you ladies stay at home moms? Well, why not! Where do you live? Are your homes presentable? Will anyone vouch for you? We want to take a looksee under your dishpans and socks. And while you're at it, tell us just when did morality conquer science.

You want a public piece of our crotches to munch on and spit out at the dinner table, on a forum? You want us to drop to our knees to belt level to profess to you we're vile in payment for our reproductive/health freedom, your "necessary evil"? You willing to expose yourselves? We women have had no choice in that matter.

From what I've read in this lame moshpit of morality, I can't see why we should bow our heads in shame anytime soon to the Great Kazah!

And if you ask me, this is just one of those many times we women are expected to play saint for the sinner. We great equalizers.

[snoochie]

301. I agree, but no turmoil.

If birth control were more effective / available, this wouldn't be an issue.

I think it's shocking that more people don't realize that 'fetuses' can feel (use sense of touch) at five months, and can hear at six months. They react to the mother's voice as well as voices outside, and also react as expected to calming or exciting music.

It's sad to me that choice has to be such a huge issue. I hope as more is understood that liberals will stop advocating the right to kill one's unborn child with such aggression.

The Democratic party's advocacy with workers' rights and economic fairness is literally overwhelmed by this issue. Sometimes I think it's been hijacked completely. Most Republicans are pro-choice to a certain point, but because we've let ourselves be forced into supporting abortion at all costs, as a party platform, many people who see murder as a more important issue than workers' rights or economic justice or anything else will never even consider voting for us. IMHO on this one we could learn something from the Republicans, and stop defending this issue so vehemently.

[Mushroom]

302. MOAB

The fetus is being used to de-humanize women. What is considered sacred inside a woman (fetus) is being used as a weapon against her. That's a huge, cruel, devaluing threat to me and my fetus. Add the fact that people feel forced to choose between a woman and her fetus and injecting that new moral standard in a woman that she must make the ultimate choice/sacrifice for herself and fetus, is beyond brutal abuse on every level. Now THAT's turmoil and immoral and aggressive. I'm beginning to think Jesus was a woman.

If people want to call a fetus a human being as the president politically, monetarily and egotistically desires, is their own business. But, for the good of humanity, perhaps they are the ones who must make an ultimate choice. Yet another frightening aspect that has risen out of all this is that even though people say they are not a bush follower, they are still connected to and energizing his insane agenda through morals that were hijacked.

The republicans can learn something from ME.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

304. Let me tell you,

you have a conflicted position friend. You rightly recognize abortion as morally indefensible, but you're pro-choice? Do you believe abortion is morally indefensible based on the fact that the fetus is a life? If that's the case, then the choice to have an abortion, is nothing short of choosing murder. I don't think you are choosing murder, not at all, rather I think you're stuck where I was. You abhor government interference in the mother's womb, but you abhor abortion. The thing that converted me was the reality that if the unborn child is a living person, then to take its life is wrong. If it's not a person, then why would abortion be morally indefensible?

Don't think you're alone. I believe most Americans who are pro-choice think like you do. I was there. One question keeps popping up in my head: I believe in the woman's right to choose, but what about the unborn child's right?

As far as incest, rape, and the life of the mother, as for the last one, we're talking extreme cases, and as for rape and incest, I'm all for exceptions in those areas, but I still think there's a better way.

The Democratic Party gets killed every election cycle, for their aggressive defensive of abortion. Why do groups like NARAL and NOW campaign like mad for the right to INCREASE abortions? 40 million is enough, my friends. Liberals like us should oppose abortion, and protect the equal rights of the unborn.


This pro-life liberal wishes you luck, and we'll work on your atheism another day.

P.S. The Republicans don't give a damn about abortion. They need an issue to fight the Democrats on. The Dems need to rethink their position on the issue, if not for moral grounds, than for political ones.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

305. If you think it's murder then why be for an exception in the case of rape

and incest? Isn't it still murder? Seemt to me we CREATE moral dilemmas for ourselves by working out the details of other people's lives rather than our own.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

306. Let me clarify...

I do believe abortion is basically murder. I don't favor throwing women who have abortions in jail, but I don't think its wrong. In the case of rape, the question of responsibility is nullified, because the woman didn't ask for the baby. However, it is still wrong to punish the baby for the sins of the father. I don't agree with the decision to abort the baby after rape, but I understand that decision. It's not murder in the legal sense, but there are still other options, and abortion should be the absolute last resort.

[Mushroom]

312. Jail the rapists

How long does it take you to order dinner?

[Cheswick2.0]

311. what right "equal rights of the unborn" are you talking about?

the unborn have no rights that trump those of living breathing women. Sorry, but you are way off base.

[[e-mail]]

308. Good thing

I'm Pro-choice. However, an abortion is something that nobody shopuld be completly OK with. If it was someone I knew, I would support them but I would be a little uncomfortable with it.

[DoNotRefill]

309. Read the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution...

Forcing women to carry a child against her will is putting her in a state of involuntary servitude. I HATE abortion. That doesn't mean it should be restricted in any way. My wife is currently pregnant with our first child. If she had an abortion, it would probably kill me. But despite my depositing half of the genetic material, IT'S NOT MY FRIGGING CHOICE TO MAKE. IF IT'S NOT MY CHOICE TO MAKE, WHAT MAKES ANYBODY THINK IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:grr:

[TXvote]

313. When We Can Provide

A loving home for all children, a society that prevents all sexual voilence against women, and a safe pregnancy 100% of the time I will re-consider my support of ensuring medical care for all including access to a safe and legal abortion.

My question for the right to lifers is: How many unwanted children have YOU adopted?

Peace,
Teresa
www.votervirgin.com