> Petrolstone wrote:

> if pro-lifers had been aborted.

Abortion isn't politics. It's state funded murder.<

You want pro-lifers aborted but you call abortion "murder"?

Que?

abortion shouldn't be left up to individual choice because the individual most drastically effected by it doesn't have a choice in the matter... it is fact that the fetus is a human being and is alive; i don't see any valid justification short of the mother's life being seriously threatened.

Absolutely. Too much time is wasted on discussions of principle in the abortion debate. Not that it's bad to have principles to one side or the other, but it's long been obvious that neither camp is able to convince the other. While in practical terms, the question is indeed answerable: either allow abortions and control them or don't allow abortions and let them retreat to the black market. And yes, they will. Right now, most forms of abortion are illegal in Poland, so here in Lithuania, we receive loads of polish "abortion tourists" every year. If we were to criminalize abortions too, all those people would still get them - by going to other countries or by themselves. Or we'd get an increase in orphans or even infant murders.

Interestingly, this issue is akin to those of gun control and drug legality, and people still declare having taken up "principled" positions even though they contradict each other.

But someone else (like me) could just as well take the view that the foetus has rights which should be defended. The real debate isn't "is abortion OK" it is "does the foetus have the right to life". Unfortunately that is not an argument which can be proved either way and which people with opposite views will never be able to convince the other of.

I would not dare to suggest that having an abortion does not come with emotional baggage, but that does not stop it being an avoidance of responsibility. If it is not an avoidance of responsibility then what is it? What is the motivation for someoen to have an abortion (assuming they are not at undue risk from the pregnancy)? I also think it is a bit of a dramatic use of language to say that abortion is a way to "save people who made a serious mistake". They are not in grave danger, they are going to have a child. They don't need "saving".

"The real debate isn't "is abortion OK" it is "does the foetus have the right to life"."

I disagree. I think the coreissue is this: "Does the foetus' 'claim' to life, in whatever social environment, outweigh the right of the involved (wich is in the worst scenario only the mother-to-be) to organise its own life?"
The social environment is an important factor here. Is the newborn better off alive in an environment that initially didn't want it? This will have psychologic implications to the child sooner or later..

SD, the overdramatic language has only one origin: english is not my native language, and therefore, my vocabulary is a whole lot smaller than yours. The point remains though. A child always changes your life dramaticly. Most abortions happen to teenage girls, so they should be our focus when we're discussing the matter. In most cases (at least here in Belgium, and the studies I read show a similar trend in most of European countries) teen pregnancies severly changes the course of studies. They usually end up with less valued degrees or quit school all together. So in a way, an abortion is a saving procedure. On top of that, I think not all teenagers are capable of taking care of a child. More importantly, an adolescent is still not mentally an adult. They should not take the responsibility of a child when they decide they're not ready for it yet..

"Abortion is being pushed as necessary for a woman's growth, a duty to themselves to permit a focus on their own advancement, by social workers and Democrats."

It is a fundamental right for women to decide wether they want the foetus to become a baby or not, that's a motion I agree with.  A government must not decide for them. Instead, they should be determined to allow women the choice, and give them all the necessary tools and help to make a choice that was decided after thorough reasoning. Again, an abortion is never decided upon in a jiffy..

As it has been said befoe: it's a matter of personal choice on wich the complete society and its biased morality shouldn't have absolutely no say in it whatsoever. Boundaries are needed though, but those should be set by a commission consisting out of medical and ethic-philosophic specialists.

>>"Abortion is being pushed as necessary for a woman's growth, a duty to themselves to permit a focus on their own advancement, by social workers and Democrats."

It is a fundamental right for women to decide wether they want the foetus to become a baby or not, that's a motion I agree with.  A government must not decide for them. Instead, they should be determined to allow women the choice, and give them all the necessary tools and help to make a choice that was decided after thorough reasoning. Again, an abortion is never decided upon in a jiffy..<<

No, I don't agree that's a right. 

And the practice in the USA at least, and I have to wonder about elsewhere, is to emphasize the ability of a woman to get an abortion in 24 hours or less. In fact the Supreme Court doesn't like mandatory waiting periods since that supposedly impedes access to this right.  And the practice in the USA is for medical professionals to urge minors to have this potentially lethal surgery despite their parents and without their parents knowledge before or after.  It's illegal for a kid to get braces without a parental signature, but they can go to a school nurse and most likely get a ride to the clinic and get an abortion that afternoon.

The idea that it's never done easily or in a jiffy presumes there's something significant about pregnancy at any stage--an idea the abortion mills want to discourage. 

>> I think the coreissue is this: "Does the foetus' 'claim' to life, in whatever social environment, outweigh the right of the involved (wich is in the worst scenario only the mother-to-be) to organise its own life?"<<

I think the term "right" is being abused.  In traditional US terms a "right" is not just "something better than its absence" or a "social goal if convenient", it means "I'm doing it, and you and the government can both go to Hell".  I have a "right" to free speech.  I have a "right" to due process.  Don't like it, F off!

I can't imagine you think I have a "right" to "organize my own life" in the same sense that I have a "right" to due process in an arrest.  I can't imagine you would describe an action of the government, such as a tax, or registering for a governmetn program, or applying for a license to do something, or a punishment, as void and proscribed if it conflicted with my "right to organize my life".

> Douglas Reynholm wrote:

> I have put myself to the defence of abortion before, so here it goes again. Abortion is never intended, by anyone, as the first of best solution to what the people involved consider to be a problem. And abortions are always a emotionally loaded thing. Although when those people opt for abortion, they shouldn't be limited by other people's (often god-inspired) morals. Those are irrelevant, or at least they should be. Abortion, again, is never the easy way out and it's always a hard decision to make. So, I don't think the often used argument that it's the easy way to escape consequences of irresponsible behaviour fits. I consider it to be the last, drastic choice of intervention to save people (and their direct social environment) who made a serious mistake.

why should other people's morals not have an effect on laws? people consider murder wrong, so they make laws against it. people consider rape wrong, so they make laws against it. if people consider abortion wrong, why shouldn't they be able to make laws against it?

> Douglas Reynholm wrote:

> "The real debate isn't "is abortion OK" it is "does the foetus have the right to life"."

I disagree. I think the coreissue is this: "Does the foetus' 'claim' to life, in whatever social environment, outweigh the right of the involved (wich is in the worst scenario only the mother-to-be) to organise its own life?"

i think thats a really simple question. if the claim to life does not outweigh the right to organize its own life, then all murders would be legal; furthermore if you kill a living human being for your right to organize your own life you are robbing the fetus of its right to organize its own life...

A lot of silly Liberals come up with arguments that a fetus or embryo is not human until it is born. Or they argue that it is not a human being until the third trimester, where it looks like a human being. But as for a small cell in a woman's womb, zomg it has no similarity to a human being, so who cares? Such arguments are arbitrary, and a human being should not be defined by his/her similarity to other human beings. That kind of reasoning is barbaric and is a motivating force behind genocide.

When defining a human being, we need something less arbitrary. My opinion is that evolution and genetics is the answer. Among biologists, they don't argue that a pregnant bonobo is not pregnant with a bonobo. Hey kids, it's not a bonobo yet until it pops out! Although there are exceptions, like mules from a donkey and a horse, we can 99% of the time say that the offspring of humans carry the genetic instructions of a homo sapiens sapiens. So lets stop with the arbitrary crap and look at the genotype. And even if something whacko happened, like an alien pregnancy, we could still tell that the offspring was not entirely human with genetic testing.

how about some other cases, such as when a rape victim falls pregnant as a result of the crime?  is it fair to make her keep the baby, knowing full well that that child will always remind her of the horrific ordeal she went through?  even further, if criminality is in any way genetic, is it fair to let that child live knowing that half it's genetic makeup is that of a rapists?  how about if people are using birth control, of whatever form and it fails? these people obviously don't want children, are doing everything they can to prevent having children, but get caught out due to whatever failings of the preventative measures.  can they not have the morning after pill, or if they felt secure in their preventatives, choose to have an abortion as they don't want a child at that point?

will you even follow this further, with the reasoning that sex should be for reproductive coupling and not for pleasurable purposes?  will you ban people from using preventative measures, which is again THEIR personal choice to do so  (or to not do so)?

is it fair to bring a child into a social situation where it will be unloved, uncared for, or unwanted?  can any of you actually say that it is without being completely heartless?

how about the situation in china, where overpopulation and agricultural issues have meant they've had to institute laws preventing people from having more children?  is it fair to bring a child into a situation where it will mean that themselves (and others) will starve?

ultimately the decision is one of personal choice, and rests with both parents.  either decision (yes/no) carries risk, emotional considerations, economic considerations (yes it's crass to view human life in this way but it's a fact that it is), and a big level of commitment.  neither decision should be taken lightly, and there should be more support for people facing this decision to help decide WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEM INDIVIDUALLY.  There is no way you can make blanket regulations/guidelines on such a varied range of personal circumstances, and you shouldn't attempt to (something all of you have done).  It also shouldn't be a 'snap decision' by the people involved, there should be a proper framework of support over a set timeframe to enable an educated, well thought out final decision.

I think on most issues I would fall into the "liberal" side of this forum, although I dislike the word. However I disapprove of abortion. Even though I disapprove of abortion I am pro-immigration and would want society to take care of poor people. Justinian and East, how does that fit with your two dimensional models of what people should think?

Walking Corpse, I have every sympathy with the woman who falls pregnant to a rapist and I tihnk this may be one of the cases where perhaps abortion should be allowed. However, I think you will find that to be a pretty rare event. I don't know where it would be possible to find the rate per 1000 population per year who fall pregnant to a rapist but I am absolutely confident that it will be a tiny proportion. Given that it could be possible to make an exemption in this case and the rarity of the event I don't think it can be used as a justification for other abortions.

As for failing birth control - if you use birth control whether it is condoms or contraceptive pill or whatever else you should be aware of the failure rate of those methods and choose to carry on "at your own risk".

No I wouldn't say that sex is just for reproductive purposes and I don't think that argument follows, what I would say is that if you choose to have sex then you accept the risk of pregnancy including the failure rate of contraceptive methods, and no of course I wouldn't ban contraception. That doesn't follow at all. The point is not to ban people from doing things (e.g. having sex) the point is to make people take responsibility for their actions and not to destroy another human life just to escape from their own responsibilities.

You ask if it is fair to bring a child into a situation where it will be unloved or uncared for. If a child is truly unwanted then there are adoption schemes which can deliver the baby to a couple who do want the child, and even if not I don't think being unloved is a good justification for destroying a life. The child should have a right to life the same as all of us.

Personally I am speaking from the point of view of someone in a developed, western country so I don't think the situation in China or the developing world is necessarily relevant. Even so, I think your point is a bizarre one. I don't know where you are from but I assume from the usual demographics of the people on this board that you are moderately wealthy living in a developed nation probably with as much food as you ever need plus a whole lot more and enough money for things you don't really need too, like a computer with access to the internet. You are then saying people in China don't have enough food, so it is justified for them to kill their unborn children? Is it really "OK" to let poor people do that so that they can survive when we are all sat here in plenty?

probably wouldn't even die, you know how females constantly change their minds

>.It's all very well to sit back on your high horse and say 'No, that's wrong' when you've never been in the same position as most of the people that are even considering abortion.  I also don't believe that you can 'put yourself in the other persons shoes' for a decision of this magnitude.  I wonder how many of your views on this subject would be altered if you were actually in the situation mentioned. <

I never felt so horny I had to rape a woman.  Can I condemn that?

I never had a drug network threatened by a snitch who was only vulnerable at home with his kids.  Can I condemn a murderous arsonist in that situation?

I never had to live in a mud hut next to Tutsis and put up with their Tutsi bullshit til the day came when I could chop em up with a machete.  Am I a jerk to look down on that too?

What can I condemn?

Mail fraud? Trespassing?  Parking on the wrong side of the street on a snow day?