My view? Abortion is disgusting and should be outlawed WITHOUT question.

Actually, experts estimate 20-30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

I agree so hard. I'll take it a step further. I'm so right to life I think we should outlaw death altogether.
Death is wrong, no matter what.

Well... I don't agree with you.
I'm tell you this very directly.

Why?
Woman must have the control over their lifes. I thik that evry woman agrees. You should be able to control your life.
What changes a woman's life more than a baby?
If turns your life up side down. One day your free to do whatever you want and next one you can't do anything because you have a child!
Premeditated babies won't became abortions.
Only those who weren't predicted at all.
Some university student who has unsafe relations and then, she cannot finish her studies.
Or a woman whose baby has health problems and will only live a few moths.

Don't you think womans should decide about what's inside them?

i agree, women should have control over THEIR lives, not the lives of others. It doesnt matter if the baby was an accident on some crazy college night... that baby does not deserve to die because of it... you take the risk when you do things like that, you need to accept responsibility. if you want to stay in college, dont put yourself in the position to possibly become pregnant... nothing comes without its consequences... and if you're drunk and make stupid decisions like that when you're drunk, stop drinking... simple solution, and guess what? no one dies from it

and, in response to the 20-30% miscarriage rate, that's fine. but 70% is a lot better than the 0% you get with aboritions. That means 70% of abortions couldve and SHOULDVE resulted in human life. life that couldve made a difference in the world.

and asimon's impactless use of sarcasm doesnt even deserve a resposne

The argument here has taken the most vital piece of the discussion for granted. Is it a baby? The Christian and others of spiritual thought must believe it to be a baby from the moment of conception, because life is termed a miracle of God's divine power. The atheist is free to make their own decision on what it is- a baby or a packet of cells no different than any other packet of cells in the body. And frankly, the discussion ends there. No one who believes it is a gift from God, with a conscience and a soul will agree that abortion is a reasonable course of action and conversely a person who believes that life comes from the biological ability of an organism to reproduce will find a much less staggering debate (thought still a complex one) confronting them if they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

To answer the most vital piece of the discussion...Yes, it is a baby. When deaths happen with pregnant women the court charges two counts of death for two human lives. But your point is more true than most realize. The current issues of the day, abortion, sexuality, embryonic stem cells, euthanasia, overall morality decisions in life trace themselves back to the topic of man's origin. Were we divinely instantly created or slowly evolved from lower life forms? If we were created, then we are not our own possession but someone esle's. If we evolved, then who cares who does whatever, b/c there is no such thing as morality - nor any meaning in anything. What we believe about our origin has a direct correlation to how we live and vote. And it's not a question of plausibility or intelligence. Meaning, the two potential origins aren't equally plausible. After all the evidence is reviewed, It is a decision of the will, not of the intellect. Our culture conflicts are over the issue of God, always has been, always will be. It is by design.

Abortion rates are about the same whether abortion is legal or not.

It seems that all of this big out rage about what goes on inside a doctor's office between a doctor and her patient would be better served working on preventing unwanted pregnancy and assisting children and families who are struggling.

I guess it is much easier to stick your nose into someone else's buisness while declaring that you want to save the "children" than to actually help a real live child.

I've met a number of women who were against the right to choose changed their tune when it was no longer about a faceless "other woman", but when they or a member of their family needed an abortion.

Here's what choice means. If you don't believe an abortion is an option for you, then don't have one. But you don't have the right to make that decision for me or any other woman.

zenjen: you seem to be sensitive where someone's right stops and another's right starts. Could you please describe to me your take on the baby's rights?

darino, a baby has rights when it has a birth certificate. That being said now it's time to ask you a question or two. Why are you more concerned with women's private health care decisions than you are the health & well-being of actual living, breathing, children?

There are millions of American children with inadequate nutrion. There are millions of American children without any health care (millions more with inadaquate health care). There are millions of American children with inadaquate supervision because child care is too expensive, leaving them susceptible to preditors because their parents work 2 or more jobs trying to keep a roof over their head. There are millions of American children who go to overcrowded, underfunded schools. There are children who are born addicted to drugs or born with fetal alcohol syndrome because their mother was turned away from treatment because she had no health insurence or money to pay for treatment (I have seen pregnant women turned away with my own eyes). How many children live their lives in foster care waiting for an adoption that never happens. How about a little moral outrage over the thousands of American kids who's parent was killed in Iraq, or the thousands of Iraqi children who have been killed or mutilated by an illegal war and occupation?


Overwhelmingly, most abortions occur in the first trimenster, yet you moralize over the preservation of the embryo and ignore the living, suffering children.

zenjen: I thought you would never ask...also, who says I "ignore the living, suffering children." My check book says differently. Anyhow, there are a lot of walking, talking children and adults around the world that don't have birth certificates. Maybe that's why we shouldn't care about mutilation from wars - many don't have a birth certificate to prove they have a right to exist. LOL. I should stop...wait one more...My sister had a quick delivery in the bathroom of her home. That baby was without a certificate for a long time...can we make it a pinata and have some fun until then? LOL. I should stop...Seriously though, all human life has value and it is only consistant to be in full support for its whole duration. But I'm not dumb, I know you aren't interested in having a consistant world view, you may be interest in convenience...I don't know. If we were created then we have no rights to ourselves - only to the creator, if we evolved then why care?

darino, you can quibble over and dedicate almost your entire response to symantics, but you know that a person's rights begin when they are born, legally and rationally.

Whereas it it sounds good on it's face that you break out your check book to give to some one or some organization, your avatar would suggest that you do not apply political pressure to create the change that is needed to better(make livable) the lives of millions of children. Your pResident just vetoed the SCHIPP bill that was just passed in Congress. The republican party has been hacking away the social safety net since the other American war criminal, Ronald Reagan, was in the White House. I could go on with a very long list that shows how the republican party continues to create policies that hurt millions of children, but I think that you get the point. You seem to find the death and mutilation of Iraqi children amusing. I find it repugnant and I believe that it reveals that your real concern is not the health, well-being, and survival of children. Stay out of my doctor's office and I will stay out of yours when you are there seeking a prescription for viagra.

zenjen, what I find amusing is your conviction that a person's rights begin when they are born (correction from receiving a birth certificate). When someone values human life, they care about it from its start to its finish - even having memorials after death for lives well lived. I find it amusing, inconsistent and suspicious when one does not value all human life but portions of human life. It makes me think they don't value human life as much as another agenda or angle. It seems like when human life inconveniences them, they value something more selfish. (I hope you don't have aging parents...euthanasia is growing in popularity.)

A woman rationalizes when she has a right to her own body, but when pregnant, she now shares her body with another human life and she doesn't have the right over THAT body to terminate it. She now has a moral responsibility to that life. Why can't you acknowledge that like you do so quickly for other human rights?

The way I see it, the government and anyone else should not have the right to tell a woman what to do. In other words, it is her body and her choice. She does have a lot to think about, and a lot of guilt to deal with if she goes through with an abortion, but ultimately, she should have the right to choose. This being said-- it is not the government demanding that every teenager get an abortion. Instead, it is them allowing each woman to choose for herself. Also, think about how many children are born into this world only to suffer. If a couple truly does not want a baby, but one appears anyway, what will happen to the child? I know that there is adoption, but it's a tedious, selective process so not everyone is able to go through with it.

Will I get in trouble if I call someone an idiot?

Damn it people, America is America for a reason. If you want the government to oversee everything you do, if you want to be stripped of free will, then MOVE! This is AMERICA, and here, we have free will, and choice. Without that, we are a shell, a ghost of what we were intended to be. Abortion is something that women have sought out since they figured out this pregnancy mess in the first place. The alternatives to legal and safe abortion are horrible, disgusting, and dangerous. I don't have any kids yet, but I'd hate for my daughter, or my young sister to die in a botched black-market abortion. I don't agree with abortion, but that's not the point. Don't you get it?

AngelinaH: There are points that both sides don't get b/c of what they value. One side values their own personal freedom more than human life and the other side values human life more than their own personal freedom. And they are both asking, "Don't you get it?"

Pretty simple, huh? What do you value?

Hey Darino!!!! That's the point...We are each entitled to our own beliefs and right to make our own decisions. It is not the place of the United States Government to slowly build a webs of legislation around us until we are nothing more than fuel for the fire of consumerism....Is this making sense to you? If you have ANY education, than you should know about the PRINCIPLES that our government has been founded on. You may have heard of a thing called the CONSTITUTION, or the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. These are things to take pride in. Instead, we have religious groups who are making every effort to PUSH THE BELIEFS OF THEIR RELIGION, onto me and an entire nation. Point blank, THE BASIS FOR ILLEGAL ABORTION IS ILLEGAL!!! UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Furthermore, abortions will never stop, they will only become unregulated, and unsafe. If you look beyond your own nose, and take a peek at reality, you'll realize that I am right. I would rather educate teens and young adults, build stronger family cells, and prevent pregnancy than sacrifice one scrap of my constitutional rights.

the basis for illegal abortion is NOT illegal if there is a life at stake. and to the girl that said that a woman might feel guilt after getting an abortion, i ask you this: if you think it is a woman's right to choose and that it is not a baby that gets killed when you have an abortion, why do you feel guilt?

because you have just murdered a young life. you have taken away the chance for a life to come into this world. and, it's true, some might have a rough life, but you know what? at least they have one

lowflyingjets...Do you want a government who governs the nation, or who governs your personal life and moral decisions? Abortion is wrong to A LOT of people, and those people have EVERY RIGHT to NOT have an abortion. The issue here is an American's right to freedom. There is more than one way to skin a cat (pardon the expression), and in this case, there has to be a better way to prevent abortion besides stripping the rights of American citizens. If you are against abortion, that's fine, and that's your prerogative. Let's prevent abortion in a way that doesn't degrade the rights of Americans. i.e. education and prevention. At this point in our history, it's important that we preserve what's left of American principles, 'cause we're a long way from where we started.

One question for all of you....If the USA were predominately Morman, Muslim, Islamist, Catholic, or Buddhist etc., would you want the government to FORCE you to live by that religion's standards? That is the point...not abortion...but freedom of religion. Please refer to consititution / bill of rights...

http://www.foundingfathers.info/

I definately agree with you LFJ. The issue here is not an encrouchment on the rights of an American woman, but rather the denyal of rights to a life that is the result of free choice. What kind of a country would this be if the government nor the people were expected to take responsibility for their actions? When a woman becomes pregnant, it is her responsibility to do everything in her power to see a child into the world, no matter what that world may be like. To say that a child should'nt be allowed to live because there is a chance that the child could be born into an atmosphere of suffering is obsurd. I dont know about you, but life is a constant struggle between suffering and pain; love and joy because thats they way things are. Denying life is the ultimate denyal of freedom. I know that what I believe might not change some of your minds, but answer me this. Does the Constitution, this Country or whatever, give you the right to stop life from happening? I can tell you why a woman feels guilty when she aborts a child. She has fallen from grace.

I want a government that realizes that an unborn child is a human life. A great point was raised earlier: if a man kills a pregnant woman, he is charged 2 counts of murder: one for the mother, one for the unborn child.

With this logic, shouldn't an abortion call for one count of murder?

Absolutely.

The government should NOT control your life. But the government has the right to step in if something wrong is going on. And there is. The government is letting this happen every single day. It's a genocide of sorts

A woman has every right to fall from grace. If god gives us free will, why should the government do any different? Women won't stop having abortions simply because it's illegal. A woman who has an abortion is usually desperate. As we all know, desperate times call for desperate measures. If she has to have it done in a back alley, that's what she'll do. How is that a solution? All the effort you guys spend trying to make abortion illegal, would be better spent targeting the group who is likely to have an abortion. Again, PREVENTION is the only true solution. There's a difference between doing what's right because you want to, and doing what's right because you don't have a choice.

i wish I could take a peek into your personal lives, and outlaw everything that I am against. You eat meat right? Well, I'm vegetarian, and I don't believe in the murdering of innocent animals. Should I lobby the government to outlaw the consumption of animal products? Should I push myself onto you? In addition to the obvious, If I go to your house, shoot your cow/pig/dog/horse/etc. and eat it, I will certainly get a prison sentence. Yet animals are raised in squalor and then killed so you can eat the way you want to. One law does not necessarily reflect equally to another issue. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. There's a BIG difference between homicide, and abortion. Maybe to a layman, it looks the same, but it doesn't work that way. THE MAJORITY OF WOMEN WANT THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, SO GET OVER IT AND LET US HAVE OUR RIGHTS. If you don't like abortion, educate your community. Speak to teenage girls and their parents about how to prevent pregnancy, and about the reality of abortion and what it really is. Why sacrafice your nation's principles when there are other ways to avoid abortion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In case you don't recognize this, it's the first ammendment y'all. Pay attention to the first few words...Remember where you come from.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Here's number 9 from that all-to-important document. Don't deny me my rights y'all!

AngelinaH: I understand your point, with a muslim country enforcing their religion on me - no I don't want that. A gov't enforcing religious convictions as law sound bad and oppressive - No I don't want that, either. I can completely see what you are saying.

EXAMPLE: Let's say the gov't doesn't have the right to rule my personal private beliefs, like religious expression - per our Constitution. And, let's say one of my religious practices is sending people to Nirvana by hitting them in the back of the head with a board with a nail in it that punctures their skull. That's what I believe sends people to Nirvana and it's my personal religious expression that shouldn't be infringed upon by the gov't b/c of my rights.

That example may put it in a better light. I believe we have a right to live and move about and make decisions (private or public decisions) until it takes away another's right. Would you agree?

I'd be more likely to say no abortion if the people who generally supported anti abortion would support birth control. And some people support birth control and frown on abortions, but usually people believe that both abortions and the use of contraceptives are wrong, and they attempt to influence people to share or adhere to both of those beliefs.

For people who are against the use of contraceptive and against abortion, pick one or the other to preach. I'm not saying that anyone here preaches both, nor am I trying to single out anyone who might. I'm saying that you cannot have your cake and eat it too when you are talking about limiting the decisions of others. If you say someone can't do this, then you should offer some sort of compensation so that the people can achieve the desired results.

I am so tired hearing people say that abortion is a religious issue, and just because I am pro-life means I'm pushing my religion on someone. The 6th commandment says "thou shalt not murder" yet no one is saying murder is a religious issue. Abortion is NOT a religious issue! At the moment of conception, the zygote is a living human being consisting of all the genetic information it will ever need. It has needs that need to be met. It's not just some random sack of cells that in 9 months will suddenly morph into a human being. Just because it doesn't take on the physical characteristics of a human right away doesn't mean it isn't a human. Bottom line: murder IS murder!

quote from angelinaH:

"I wish I could take a peek into your personal lives, and outlaw everything that I am against. You eat meat right? Well, I'm vegetarian, and I don't believe in the murdering of innocent animals. Should I lobby the government to outlaw the consumption of animal products? Should I push myself onto you? In addition to the obvious, If I go to your house, shoot your cow/pig/dog/horse/etc. and eat it, I will certainly get a prison sentence. Yet animals are raised in squalor and then killed so you can eat the way you want to."

Do you honestly see what you just did? You compared the issue of abortion to the issue of killing and eating ANIMALS. By this logic, you're putting unborn babies at the same level as, say, a chicken or a cow. That is disgusting. The issue of killing and eating animals is hardly similar to that of killing an unborn baby. Shame on you

Biologically, how is killing other animals any different? Humans are mammals, and mammals are animals, so, wouldn't you be committing murder every time you eat a steak? Wouldn't you be committing infantcide every time you eat veal?

Now although some people are vegan and vegetarian, I am not. I generally follow the mind, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? However, I consider a person someone that can biologically support themselves outside of the body that bore them into this world. This means... if the child /fetus cannot survive outside of the mothers womb under any circumstances, then it is not a person.

At this point a cynical person can scientifically argue two conclusions. First, a fetus that cannot live outside of the mothers body under any circumstances is not a separate entity from the mother, and therefor the mother can do with the fetus as she wishes as it is part of herself. Second, the fetus, quite literally needing the mother and the environment of the womb to survive, can be classified as a parasite that merely siphons resources off of the mother.

I am a cynical person; however, I am not cynical enough to agree with the second conclusion that I put forth. Though I am cynical to the point where I consider a fetus a part of the mother until it is capable of surviving outside of the womb regardless of circumstances. That means a baby can be an extremely premature birth, but so long as it can survive and grow, even if while on machines, then it is a person. Until it hits that point, the mother has the right to do with it as she pleases.

Here's the logic.

You have a pregnant mother. There is a living fetus inside the mother.

If there is an abortion, the baby is not born. The outcome is 1 living human being.

If there isn't an abortion, 70-80% of the time, a baby is born. The outcome is 2 living human beings.

The abortion is the only difference in these two situtations. If there is an abortion, 1 living human. If there isn't, 2 living humans. How can you say, then, that it is not murder?

Quick bio lesson; the following are the 7 requirements for life to exist:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

An unborn baby fulfills all but #7, which is reproduction. Once this baby reaches puberty, it will be able to reproduce. For those that will say "it doesn't fulfill all 7 categories" I ask you this: Is a 5 year old not a human because it can't reproduce?

I think Varex_Sythe formulated a very well articulated argument

" If there is an abortion, the baby is not born. The outcome is 1 living human being."


Just philosophically why is that inherently worse than two or more human beings?

It's not that this species is such a masterpiece. It sucks. It's a genuinely f@cked up "design".


You talk about reproduction as if it was some kind of virtue. You want people to reproduce for the sake of
reproduction. What's the value of that?

You think that 9 billion humans are inherently better than 6 billion? Then where is the limit?
100 billion? When would you say enough already?


Would you be mad if humans just stopped reproducing -- like some other species have done already and will do in the future?


Even if humans were such wonderful creatures the homo sapiens sapiens wouldn't be the first or last species to disappear from the face of this planet.

Billions of years from now humans may no longer be part of this universe at all -- even if somehow they can leave Earth at some point in the future.

Does that bother you?

Big deal. Nothing lasts forever.

SCM23, you are mistaken about fetuses not being fulfilling the seventh requirement of life. The ability to reproduce does not just mean the ability to create offspring, it means that an organism is capable of reproducing it's cells through mitosis. If the seventh requirement was just about the ability to produce offspring, then every pet that is spayed or neutered in this world would not be considered a living organism.

The requirement of life that could be argued is the first one, homeostasis. And that requirement of life can only be argued as long as the fetus can not support live outside of the womb. Until the fetus is capable of living outside of the womb, it cannot regulate it's own body temperature, it cannot create it's own immune response to foreign bodies, and it cannot process recourses on it's own. It requires the body of the mother for all of those.

Now, a fetus is considered a living organism regardless of the fact that it is completely dependent upon the mother for the first few months after it's conception. The question is, at what point is the fetus part of the mother and then at what point is the fetus it's own being? It is my opinion that if the fetus is not capable of surviving outside of the womb, medical aid or no, then it should not be categorized as a person.

The other ethical issue that arises is brought up by Stardate. That is the population problem. When looking at the two issues side by side (those issues being abortion and overpopulation), do we favor for the balance of those that are currently dealing with the population problem, or do we favor those who will contribute to it by being born? Now I realize that it is not the babies choice to be conceived or not, but if it wasn't the choice of the fetus to be conceived, what choice does it have to not be terminated at a point in it's development before it can develop a consciousness?

Also, there is another concept that I do not quite understand. If people who believe in abortion want to get an abortion, then why not allow them? By getting an abortion they are not passing on their own genetic code, and they are removing their potential offspring to pass their ideas on to. So in theory, if they are allowed to get their abortions, then they will end up killing themselves off.
P.S. that was an attempt at sarcasm.