Wait a moment... so abortion really does = murder....

[Rivenrock]

..

[dennisrwood]

but being pro choice has always been a misnomer. the only choice is that of the mother. the baby and father have no say.

[Plissken]

Oh so a woman decides what is human & what is just useless mass of cells growing inside her? Interesting.

As Foul says, better her than the government or courts arbitrary definition. It's her's afterall. Her body, her choice, her baby.

--A

According to this logic, parents should have the right to kill their children without impunity.

The fact that this thing is inside her body does not change the nature of what it is. Neither the mother, nor the government, nor the courts, can actually change what the foetus is just by using different words.

Her body, her choice...okay, if she makes choices that result in her body becoming pregnant, what's so wrong with expecting her to respect the life her choice created. I am pro-choice - I just think the choice comes a little earlier, and that most abortions are actually the woman (or couple) trying to escape the consequences of a choice she (they) already made. No woman should have to bear an unwanted child - therefore don't make choices that lead to you being pregnant with one. It's no-one fault that sex leads to pregnancy - it's just the facts, so work with the facts and make your choices accordingly. And accept the consequences of your choices. (No choice, eg rape...completely different story.)

It's the "thing inside her body" that changes, not the just name it's given. It's precisely this kind of spurious argument, which is made by both sides of the debate, that keeps a reasonable resolution from being reached.

Arguing about "potential" is valid, when you're talking about a fetus that has survived perhaps the first two trimesters - enough time for the brain and nervous system to develop, at any rate. The fact that we don't prosecute mothers who fall down stairs or maintain a healthy enough lifestyle to keep a fetus from spontainiously aborting provides an instructive example of the difference between a zygote and a viable fetus.

[dennisrwood]

so please tell me the exact time that a foetus is a baby. if you can't, wouldn't erring on the side of caution be prudent. because if i'm wrong about the time, we still get a baby. if you are wrong and abort too late, you have murdered a child. so please show me the formula used to figure the exact time. thanks.

[Plissken]

so please tell me the exact time that a foetus is a baby. if you can't, wouldn't erring on the side of caution be prudent. because if i'm wrong about the time, we still get a baby. if you are wrong and abort too late, you have murdered a child. so please show me the formula used to figure the exact time. thanks.

Well, that's a part of my complaint: Both sides are so enamored of the "slippery slope" rationale, that even trying to find out what the "formula" would be is considered heresy.

[Rivenrock]

..

[Rivenrock]

..

[Cail]

Very well put Rivenrock. The concept of "abortion on demand" is a far cry away from the few extreme cases that may merit it. Unfortunately, NARAL and other groups have lobbied for laws that are (to me at least) patently ridiculous....A 14-year-old can't get a tatoo without parental consent, but she can get an abortion.

[Rivenrock]

..

[Rivenrock]

..

[Rivenrock]

..

[Rivenrock]

..

[Plissken]

The parent may suffer an unwanted child, society may suffer added burdens, but worst of all, the child suffers from all of this as well.

You have expressed this view several times now. You know, a lot of happy children are the result of mistakes.

My friend got pregnant at 17, had to leave school, spent the entire pregnancy being told daily by her psycho mother that she had 'screwed up her life', even got offered a BMW by her overseas father if she would abort the child (he basically disowned her when she refused). Getting pregnant was a terrible chapter in her life, but she couldn't face the idea of abortion because she felt that would be killing her own baby. She didn't want to be pregnant, she certainly didn't want to leave school and figure out how to raise a child at 17, but she did it. That child is now 19 and one of the most loved, wanted kids on earth. In spite of her meagre beginnings as a single parent, his mother has slowly but surely created her own business and is happily married now with a total of four children.

I know a couple of other people who seriously feel that an unwanted pregnancy became the child that changed their lives and made them happier than they imagined they could be. Even children born to happily married couples with other children were not always wanted...at first. A woman I know was completely overwhelmed to discover that she was carrying her second set of twins. It took months for her to be happy about the idea of having them. But they are a gloriously happy family and all their children are much loved and cared for.

Unwanted pregnancies do not have to ruin people's lives. They make life more complicated. They may result in having to change plans for education or other things. But they don't have to be the tragedy you are always purporting them to be. Like someone said, it's about taking responsibility. If someone faces the reality of an unwanted pregnancy responsibly, they can usually handle what follows. And society should support them in doing so.

Anectdotal evidence does not policy make. I myself was not planning to be a father when my daughter was concieved, and have had an absolute ball raising her - despite money, marriage, and timing issues. Here's the thing: It was my CHOICE, along with the mother's, to do so. The State was not involved in the decision. The success we've had in raising our daughter was dependent on more factors than money, willinglness, or planning.

The list of factors that contribute to the probable success in bearing and raising a child are too numerous, varied, and unique to each situation to be discussed on this forum, never mind covering them with a blanket ban on one option in the decision-making process.

[Rivenrock]

..

[dennisrwood]

and there is no hard science that life does not begin until x number of weeks. so what is the time frame based on?

[Lorelei]

I am a bit late in entering this quandry but here is my 2 cents.

Science defines life as the viability of the fetus to live outise the womb. This time frame is getting shorter and shorter as medical science advances.

As a woman...life begins the moment ot begins to grow inside of me. I cannot speak for all women, much less a woman who has been molested or raped. I feel that any life created within me is sacred. If by some twist of fate I am infertile...I would love to adopt several children to take care of as my own.

[lurch]

...Abortion as murder...hhmm...i thought the legal arguement was The Right To Have A Abortion,,not if abortion is murder. Capitol punsihment is murder. don't even..no...murder is murder..innocent or guilty of the victim doesn't matter bythe extremity of your own codes..either murder is murder..or ..sometimes it isn't murder..its " justified". If its " justified by the State ..there goes your arguement. The sancity of life..what world do you live in,,in this post atomic bomb modern era? The sanctity of Life!?
Are you anti-war to? and if not..more equivicating on the " justified"?
...Here is a proposition...If you are against Abortion..then I suggest you don't get one. You are free to do that, rite? From that point on..what another decides to do..is Her business. The Supreme Court decided that the Option to have an abortion should be available to American Woman. If you have a moral problem with that ,,its your moral problem. But before you go about trying to force your morals on eveybody else by decree and law..make sure your moral stance is sustained in evey direction..As far as i can see..it isn't. Your moral stance is more important than somebody elses freedom to choose. The Court decided ,NOT.....MEL

[dennisrwood]

at one point slavery was the law of the land. so do you advocate following whatever law is present, or do you hold deeper moral thoughts? lynching was legal at one point. stoning whores was popular and legal. how far back would you go? and the argument for when life begins is about those of us that believe that the baby has a right to live, and that right is being ignored.

[Invain]

Just finished reading through this whole thread... Great discussion, I'll add my two cents. I'm for the freedom of choice.

Starting with legal issues - here in Poland abortion is not legal. Does it stop women from aborting? Not at all. The only difference is that if it would be legalized, they could have an abortion at a legitimate medical institution, not some back-alley business.

I believe in value of life, but not at all costs. If a woman can't afford to have a child, who are we to force it upon her? If the child is to be unloved and unwanted, is it really better to sentence him to a miserable life?

Once the adoption system works right, once every child gets a chance of normal life - feel free to ban abortion. As things are now, it's more like "You're not allowed to get rid of the child, but it's not our problem what happens to it once it's born."

[dennisrwood]

so murder is an option due to finances?
oy vey.