Abortion: Your Views...

[T.G. Oskar]

6 pages on whether one should kill a sperm or not? **** sake people.

Heres how it should be, if a child is unwanted by the person/s that created it, it should be their right to abort it. Nobody else should have a say, are they gonna carry the child for 9 months and then raise it ? No, so why do they have a say?

Again, it seems like a cowardly position. How do you expect to teach a person, or assume a person must assume its responsibilities if it doesn't attend to that? Besides, what if one of the sides opposes?

Also, adoption.

Birth is not a miracle, it is not special.. no more than you squeezing a turd out of your ass while squating over a toilet bowl. its a genetic reaction, get over it.

Ooo, just retorted to Dr. Manhattan there. 2 million sperm, only one (or two, or several, give or take) gets the "lucky" prize. How are you going to expect having any kind of "sexual responsibility" if you are eliminating the one reason why it exists anyways?

We, humans are a virus with shoes. We should look after the millions of hungry/starving/homeless people/children already in the world. Instead of crying and moaning over the death of an unwanted sperm

World Vision. Or adoption, or mostly contributing to end that trouble. You can't peg the idea of "don't bring children into the world if you don't want them" on people that don't have that choice, that wish to have a family but are poor enough to be unable to do so.

Odd that you didn't advocate for self-extermination, Agent Smith.

My opinion however only covers the early stages of pregnancy, if it has a head/arms/legs then yeah i oppose. Little teeny weeny not aware of its own consciousness do whatever ya like

Lawl, disclaimer. Thing is; just how early can a sperm-embedded ovum be considered an embryo, or a living person? You can argue that while on the ovum, or before the blastocyte period, but after...well, it's not as easy as taking it as a joke.

I'm a realist, if a mother and father decide its not a good time to have a baby as it could drasiticaly finacially cripple the family...

Then why not go through contraceptives. Heck, why think of sex...?

[...]or if they know they wont be good parents[...]

Why think about sex, either. It's like buying a puppy because it's cute, but ditching it because it turned into an ugly dog. It's lack of foresight. I can't stop those who don't have it, but makes sense to at least think about it before actually doing it...

[...]or if its a baby created through the act of rape[...]

I think I gave a good reason why a mother should have the child. Call it idealism, if you like. Surely beats being a cynic for anything but defending against world idiocy.

or if someone was in a swimming pool and got unlucky.

So you'll allow abortion over a silly excuse like that? Now that's sillier...talk about being realist...

I could go on forever with the many reasons why it would be best for a child not to be born.

You could have gone with each and every one of them. Not everyone will consider them solid and irrefutable reasons.

Also id like to add that the absence of a father figure in the early stages of life, from the baby being born till between the age of 5 and 7 when the child begins to develop his super ego is not a good thing.. As many case studies show the absense of a father figure increases juvenile delinquency, and they turn into criminals and it goes on and on and on. Now im not saying all fatherless children are criminals, but most end up troubled.

What about single mothers? Responsible single mothers. Or single fathers, as well. Responsible single fathers, that is. Which is what I assume that you speak about fatherless children (or motherless children, too); as well as the slight chance the child ends up trying to make it on its own.

What about uncles? Grandparents? Cousins? ...Godparents? (That's actually the reason why they exist; to take care of their godchildren if their parents are away, as well as teach them religion; though, that's mostly regional at best)

Adoption you say? Take a look around the world at the children that face misery and starvation daily, i dont see anybody rushing to whisk them off to safety. This is an entirely different discussion in itself right there so im not gonna delve to far into adoption, just know its not the answer.

It IS an answer. Every little thing helps. Being a realist doesn't mean being a cynic for the lulz; it means being pretty much on the mid-point of idealism and cynicism.

The human mind is delicate and fragile, we need to start being careful with it. The world is over populated enough if ya ask me and we need to sort out this whole food/air ordeal, think of it in 100 years from now. The population will have drastically increased and if history has anything to show us, were gonna be in a whole world of shit, there are too many of us and we cause alot of damage to the world around us as a collective.

Be it through abstinence or contraceptives... It's mostly a point of showing just how important is sex, not the joke that gets shown through us by TV and the Internet and whatnot. That's mostly giving permission to those who think of sex as entertainment to be irresponsible. Not everyone does: oddly enough, most of the people who are Pro-Choice aren't promiscuous or irresponsible people; these are people who have careers and solid lines of thought. But they're defending a choice for others who don't even care for what reasons they defend abortion to rub it the wrong way with their irresponsibility.

In short: don't defend abortion for the sex-crazed youth. Do it for something perhaps a bit more valuable, even if I and most others here don't agree with your position.

But let me know, am i really being too harsh?

No. Bits of comedy aren't so bad every now and then. It surely lends to a less tense discussion

Would you rather see a child come into the world unwanted, to be abused, have a harsh life and grow up to be a rapist/child molester/ murder?

Or would you lean more towars the "unwanted tadpole not yet conscious child" be stricken from the record book before been even entered into it?

Hey deadbeing, you want a mass?
Catholic: nothing, but it would certainly had loved it while alive.
Christian: nothing, but it certainly wouldn't since it doesn't believe on it.
Nihilist: nothing, because it ceased to exist.

...kinda silly, but it's an empty question. It doesn't allow other options, nor it seems it will accept those who probably are capable of getting in. Not everybody will think like you, actually. Just like the three dead people; who can't answer jack but whom you might guess their answers.

If you think killing a "child" thats not even a month old and hasnt developed much at all is murder, then i suggest we put a hold on masterbation too. We shoot 2 million sperm each load, and if thats the case everybody on the earth is a hitler

Then I suggest we put a hold on sex as well. Only one of 2 million sperm gets the lucky shot; perhaps two or even three. The other 1,999,997? They also die. Or, when you have wet dreams.

Also...doesn't the brain and the ear organs develop the fastest?

Still, that's a pretty decent way to put it. If you think of sperm as a living organism, it makes you think the importance of sex.

Also, didn't you lost the discussion? Godwin's Law has been invoked, and the corollary is inflexible.

There's something about this discussion that bugs me, RagnaToad. (Phoe)Nix is clearly stating his point of view while you only criticize it. When he questions your view you attempt to render the inquiry invalid either by saying that you haven't stated your opinion or that he's just "ridiculing" you. It's great that you're attempting to inspire thought, but this isn't really a debate. It's a critique.

Isn't that the point of a debate? Making the other kneel before you and accept you're right? Perhaps it can open a bit of thought if the debate is left inconcluse (as it always does), but if you beat the other through the discussion, it's pretty evident that there's nothing to think about.

I don't think that Phoenix, nor a large portion of people who take a similar stance, think they are murdering children here. An "unborn child" is just that, unborn. There is the consensus that "they" (which are not actually "they"), as a human being, have not yet come into existence. There is a sentimentality that is riddled throughout our language and it is easy to get lost in it, but it truly only expresses the POTENTIAL for life and not life itself. It is impossible to end what has not begun. That is why he feels that conception alone does not make it human and can likened to sperm, I believe.

I'm not part of that large portion of people. Nor those who have accepted a faith. Nor those who believe on an idealist philosophy. I'd rather go for "a certain portion of the population", though. There's still no consensus, since there are still people that defend the need of a fetus to exist; there would be if there was no people to defend the other position. There's a rising trend, or perhaps a sizeable amount of support to the idea that fetus aren't living creatures. There's also a sizeable amount of support as to why they ARE. With normally solid positions, but still going through subjective bias and sentimentalisms (or don't tell me that appealing to the rage of rape isn't sentimentalism? The holier-than-thou aren't the only ones that use the weapon...)

It seems like a reasonable way to look at it, but think about what the person really believes. Can the sperm reproduce on it's own? Can the sperm feed? Can the sperm grow, outside of the ovum? I'm not sure whether the sperm has cellular respiration, but I can concede that one. It can be debatable right from the moment of conception to, perhaps, the moment where it is considered a multicellular organism. If you want to risk it and do it because you don't feel it's bad, I can't do more than give a warning (friendly or not). If you want to play safe, then stop it before it even begins. The way you like, actually. But after it happens? It's not going to be the easy choice.

I might sound idealist or perhaps a bit cliche'd, but it's a valuable point, just as Nix made the sperm point: how do you really know the impregnated ovum isn't already a living organism by that moment? Just as much as how do you know sperm isn't a living organism and not an organ of your body, or a bodily humor. 1,999,997 sperm unused doesn't seem like mass murder; more like working as intended. One ovum lost without fecundation isn't murder; it's working as intended. One impregnated ovum? Debatable. One blastocyte? Even more debatable. One fetus? I dunno, but that would seem like murder.

[SOLDIER #819]

RagnaToad: I personally don't believe you've made your opinion very clear. On the one hand you do not feel comfortable with abortion. On the other you are progressive and liberal-minded. And then you claim that you're not necessarily attacking abortion when you quote Phoenix. These aren't in contradiction, but they do not add up to a whole. I could guess, but I think having the opposition define/guess at your views is unfair for both parties.

Phoenix is fully capable of defending himself. The guy will come in and say what he wants to who he wants regardless of what I say. I'm simply trying to take a different approach to the same question since we (seem to) take similar stances. I'm without problems concerning this subject, though. I just feel that this isn't much of a debate if both parties don't clearly state their viewpoint to the best of their ability.

Oskar: You could certainly view a debate like that. The only issue is that there has not yet been a stance for RagnaToad to be right or wrong about, making it hard for anyone to counter at all. It's just a matter of fairness.

I'm not part of that large portion of people. Nor those who have accepted a faith. Nor those who believe on an idealist philosophy. I'd rather go for "a certain portion of the population", though. There's still no consensus, since there are still people that defend the need of a fetus to exist; there would be if there was no people to defend the other position. There's a rising trend, or perhaps a sizeable amount of support to the idea that fetus aren't living creatures. There's also a sizeable amount of support as to why they ARE. With normally solid positions, but still going through subjective bias and sentimentalisms (or don't tell me that appealing to the rage of rape isn't sentimentalism? The holier-than-thou aren't the only ones that use the weapon...)

That's an interesting viewpoint and I can somewhat see where you're coming from. There is no doubt a fetus is living on some level. The question is how we should classify its existence.

It seems like a reasonable way to look at it, but think about what the person really believes. Can the sperm reproduce on it's own? Can the sperm feed? Can the sperm grow, outside of the ovum? I'm not sure whether the sperm has cellular respiration, but I can concede that one. It can be debatable right from the moment of conception to, perhaps, the moment where it is considered a multicellular organism. If you want to risk it and do it because you don't feel it's bad, I can't do more than give a warning (friendly or not). If you want to play safe, then stop it before it even begins. The way you like, actually. But after it happens? It's not going to be the easy choice.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it leaves behind one very large implication. Humans are indeed multicellular organisms, but not all multicellular organisms are humans. That would mean we should extend this kindness to ALL beings that fit into this classification. Naturally, this means plants and animals. If you do not agree with this then I think it is necessary to explain why multicellular organisms born from a human egg and sperm are given priority. If you do agree... well, we're dead.

The issue is when we can finally call a multicellular organism a human. Before that, it is merely potential. I would say that the brain would need to develop to some particular stage before you could label it as such. It's really a debate left up to science, but I am not under the impression that it begins at conception. If it is, we really need to broaden our definition of what it means to be human.

As for the issue of rape... ethically, I suppose it becomes extremely hard to justify abortion even under those circumstances if it is in fact living and thinking as we do. But I have no reason to assume that a living organism is human simply because it is conceived, which in my mind gives a window of opportunity for choice. Beyond that... it's just a tragedy, and the feelings of those who have experienced that pain are just on a level that I could never completely understand.

[nix]

Sigh,

I had a big **** off counter to everything said and my ****in work computer logged me out FFS!!!!

I'll do it up again later if im arsed

[T.G. Oskar]

RagnaToad: I personally don't believe you've made your opinion very clear. On the one hand you do not feel comfortable with abortion. On the other you are progressive and liberal-minded. And then you claim that you're not necessarily attacking abortion when you quote Phoenix. These aren't in contradiction, but they do not add up to a whole. I could guess, but I think having the opposition define/guess at your views is unfair for both parties.

I'd actually throw a slight bone at him. Not the whole skeleton, but just a bone. Perhaps he's not exactly liberal-minded, but inclining towards moderate thinking? Being liberal-thinking does not mean automatically accepting abortion as legal or ethically permissible (same thing with homosexualism and other "usually liberal" themes); it just means you think the opposite way of how conservatives do: if the now liberal stand becomes the majority, and some time passes, it will become the new conservative stand, and those who think differently will be the liberal thinkers.

Though, it's true that being shaky in assuming a position doesn't help much.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it leaves behind one very large implication. Humans are indeed multicellular organisms, but not all multicellular organisms are humans. That would mean we should extend this kindness to ALL beings that fit into this classification. Naturally, this means plants and animals. If you do not agree with this then I think it is necessary to explain why multicellular organisms born from a human egg and sperm are given priority. If you do agree... well, we're dead.

I'd like to see how you'd be dead if I agree with the position of extending kindness to plants and animals.

Still, it's something that you'd have to see from three points. One, the fact that it's a "potential" of your own species, something that to various degrees involves facing your own moral and ethical standards. You can argue that, given the potential circumstances of the fetus' birth, it can be even a blessing to the future organism that it does not reach birth, for it may be a potential criminal, murderer, even a genocidal maniac. On the other hand, you may be deriding the world of a possible savant with the right set of circumstances to allow breakthroughs in science and technology, or a possible reformist with the right mindset to solve humanity's problems, or at least reach a point where improvement can be seen.

This ties to the second point. Would you consider yourself responsible for the success or failure of that potential? Would you consider it is in your hands, or in the hands of the parents, to allow or cripple that potential? I must say no, but I must admit it's because of religious issues; not everyone will be supporting this, but I believe there's a higher being that has larger authority upon those potentials. If you do not believe in that, then consider to what do you respond, to whom you respond, and whether it is possible to bear the burden of such responsibility by merely assuming a position or not. This is not asking you to see it from another person's eyes, but to see it from your own perspective: are you willing to assume that responsibility? Most people can't, and think that ditching those responsibilities away they'll stave off or solve the problem; the end response is usually that they will not be capable of assuming any responsibility at all, and when that comes back to haunt them, they won't handle it. Those who do make a conscious choice to defend that position do it from their own perspective, having their own degree of understanding as to what's that responsibility and how much they must assume it.

Third, and this may sound completely ironic, is the worth of that possibility, and how the human being as a being of abstract intellect is naturally driven to discrimination, as a method of defense and as part of its point of view. Excess is definitely bad; racism and chauvinism/extreme feminism are examples of what happens when that discrimination is taken to extremes. However, it is difficult to determine just how effective can that discrimination be; the correct measure of discrimination and acceptance. I say this because of your position towards multicellular organisms: this is a question of discrimination, actually. Why give a human fetus, or even a blastocyte of all things priority over the blastocyte of an animal, or a seedling? Well, that depends on your degree of discrimination and acceptance. And the ironic point is this: you and I are humans (as far as I know), so I believe there's more importance in a human being than on other animals. Ironic, because it's going a bit counter to what I explained earlier. But feasible, as it is a product of my thought process: you might wish to save the fetus of an animal if you desire, but there's little importance to it unless it's sentimentally attached to you, or you see a depth of potential in it (using royal "you", just in case). Vegetarians wouldn't agree with me; I'm no vegan, so I can't say I agree with them. But, there's just a few set of moral boundaries that forbid me to even think in the case of human beings. Not the same moral boundary of, say, a Buddhist that believes that all life, no matter what, is sacred.

However, that doesn't mean there should not be any respect for that to which you don't agree with. One thing is to not agree with a vegan or a Buddhist but respecting their opinion and not be cynic about it; another is to ask someone to respect their beliefs when at times they don't seem to respect theirs. I don't see why I should respect a doctor that's willing to chemically burn a fetus, or even shred it to pieces, and then neatly placing it on a biohazard bag. Not every pro-choice supports such treatment, but it's important to consider that while both sides have some shady stuff to deal with, part of the propaganda against pro-choice is pretty gritty.

(Note to add: I've heard the statement that true Christians should be Vegans. They have pretty solid points. Quite solid points. Doesn't mean I won't respect them, but doesn't mean I'll stop being an Omnivore with inclinations to meat)

The issue is when we can finally call a multicellular organism a human. Before that, it is merely potential. I would say that the brain would need to develop to some particular stage before you could label it as such. It's really a debate left up to science, but I am not under the impression that it begins at conception. If so, we really need to broaden our definition of what it is to be human.

Funny that you find the entire purpose of this thread. And of most discussions, actually. What makes a breathing, consuming, growing, self-reproducting, humanoid-shaped being with near-human intellect not a human being? Genes? What if it shares the genetic pool? Faith? What if it has the same religious inclinations? Intellect? What if there's a small part of that population that's truly outstanding, to the point that they exceed the human average?

I'd assume the opposite position, but mostly out of religious determinations (and even then, I can be flexible about that, since I don't know everything and probably won't in the expense of this lifetime); there's a possibility that life begins at conception, and that we won't know it because of the limits of modern science. Not everything should be left only to science; there's a bit of room for philosophy as well. But it's a good base to work from.

Mine would be this simple, perhaps even outdated position: a sperm-embedded ovum probably doesn't fulfill this, but when the first steps of cellular division begin, the potential gains the capability of reproduction. Eventually, to keep dividing, that mutating unicellular proto-being gains the abilities of cellular respiration and nutrients to consume. By the time it becomes a blastocyte, it should be considered a multicellular organism that has no other choice but to grow or die. Again, might sound outdated, but if it has the ability of self-respiration, a method of feeding, a method of self-growth and a method of either sexual or asexual reproduction, it should be considered a living organism. By the moment it reaches the blastocyte period, given the fact that it can split and form a second blastocyte and thus a second organism, it should be already considered on the side of the living, if not suspiciously upon the edge.

As for the issue of rape... ethically, I suppose it becomes extremely hard to justify abortion even under those circumstances if it is in fact living and thinking as we do. But I have no reason to assume that a living organism is human simply because it is conceived, which in my mind gives a window of opportunity for choice. Beyond that... it's just a tragedy, and the feelings of those who have experienced that pain are just on a level that I could never completely understand.

Again, that is mostly point of view. I'd admire a woman that raised her child and proved such event didn't make a dent upon her, for showing courage. Perhaps you don't see it the way I do, and believe that rape events will leave a mark at any moment. I don't see it as a tragedy if the woman manages to overcome it, learn from that experience, and live her life without fear of such person; I believe that completely ruins the intention of the rapist, for it failed on perhaps its most important mission (scar a person's life for a prolonged period of time). I can't say, though, if that is a valuable position or not since I haven't experienced it; what has formed my point of view upon the matter is outside experiences of people who have done so, and managed to defy the odds despite that. Others, though, won't probably have the same support or line of thought to defy those odds, and will live traumatized by that. Even then, I still consider that aborting the result of such event to be morally debatable, and I consider it's a higher moral victory to raise the child to be the exact opposite of what the other parent isn't. Perhaps even mocking the rapist, I'd say. That's why I say that going on with the abortion is a victory for the rapist; you can't bear to face that, and are taking what seems to be the easy path. It's hard to do so in the face of such trauma, but that doesn't mean it's not entirely possible at all.

@nix: Perhaps it's not entirely a bad thing? You have a new chance to make it, and probably even deepen the argument a bit further. Perhaps it's for the good of the discussion.

Alternatively, perhaps the answer was so long and winded, and it would eventually be too easy to defeat, that it would end up better not to post it.

In either case, think of it as a chance of working it out again.

Or perhaps your work computer won't let you post the retort because you invoked Godwin's Law?

[nix]

Would you prefer if i refered to Reagan or Nixon instead of Hitler? Only if your that anal about me refering to mass murderers of the nazi variety

Oh and what was the reference to Dr Manhattan? Went right over my head.

[SOLDIER #819]

I'd like to see how you'd be dead if I agree with the position of extending kindness to plants and animals.

We don't milk humans (often) or harvest parts of them. If I extend this right to plants and animals... then how am I going to eat?! =P

One, the fact that it's a "potential" of your own species, something that to various degrees involves facing your own moral and ethical standards......

Judging a potential life and how it will end up as a member of society is beyond our scope. If these potential human lives were to come into existence they would probably gravitate toward whatever the average in our population is with its regular anomalies, positive and negative, taking current trends into account. I'm sure there are people who would argue that this is an oversimplification as some of the women faced with the choice of abortion are also dealing with various issues that might impact the child physically, socially, or mentally. But, I don't see any reason to speculate about this matter very much. It just brings up too many things that neither of us really know or can't know.

If you do not believe in that, then consider to what do you respond, to whom you respond, and whether it is possible to bear the burden of such responsibility by merely assuming a position or not.

I don't see potential in itself as being human, which is what separates us. You may believe for your own reasons that it is destined to become living and breathing, but I don't believe in destiny in so far that it be preordained and that I am breaking some natural law. Responsibility here is also purely subjective and will vary based on beliefs. To me, if there is something I have to take responsibility for with making this sort of decision, it is not that I will have taken the life of a human being.

Third, and this may sound completely ironic, is the worth of that possibility, and how the human being as a being of abstract intellect is naturally driven to discrimination, as a method of defense and as part of its point of view......

Appending value to life is very difficult and I believe we do it much of the time as a means for survival. Then there are times where we do it simply for comfort, like with animals. But the reality is that, on some level, we destroy life and consume what's left in order to survive. If it isn't an animal then it is a plant, which is still living even if it doesn't walk like an animal or talk like a human. That's just how the world works, for good or for worse.

Potential is far removed from this equation. We can view living things directly, but we can't do that with the concept of potential life. We simply abstract its meaning and implications. Yet, how it is abstracted varies between people, but I don't expect that my view be "right" and your's be "wrong." I respect your opinion and believe they can coexist as long as you respect my boundaries and I respect your's.

What separates our stances is that I cannot force my views onto other people if abortion were to be kept legal. I cannot force you to abort what you feel is a living and breathing human being. But if abortion were to be banned, you would be forcing your views onto someone else by not allowing them to abort what they feel is not living as a human.

Imagine what would happen if vegetarians/vegans/Buddhists/etc. made up the majority and started pushing to ban the consumption of meat even if it had a negative impact on the livelihood of certain groups, beyond not being able to eat a juicy steak. Or maybe not being able to eat meat for the sake of it is enough for some. "Pro-choice" in this case would allow for the tolerance of both views and the ability for both parties to live their own lives to their liking. "Pro-life" would be forcing you to halt the activity of doing what you find acceptable, for whatever reason.

Granted, there is a key difference in that this example deals with protecting existing life while abortion seems to deal more with what something could potentially become. The effect of tolerance vs. restriction is the same, however. I don't want to go too far off-topic though, as this deals with implications of taking a certain stance as opposed to the stances themselves.

... there's a possibility that life begins at conception, and that we won't know it because of the limits of modern science. Not everything should be left only to science; there's a bit of room for philosophy as well. But it's a good base to work from.

That leads to the problems many philosophies are facing, however. People believe in their ideas, many of which they believe are innate and just, and claim that we simply have not found them yet without first giving substantial proof as to their existence. It is the same with abortion. No matter how far science goes without proving that life as a human begins at conception, people will continue to say otherwise until it is proven. Even if that time never comes.

Even with philosophy in play I am still an empiricist, which, fortunately or not, leads into a good deal of skepticism. I just don't find it fair to force people to wait for a conclusion that may never come. Even more so when the assumption made is not assumed by everyone.

[Locke4God]

In a way I understand peoples need for a right to choose, but if you're going on the merit's of the arguement, and somebody says they believe that life begins at conception, then unfortunately that means that abortion is murder. And if you don't believe that life begins at conception, then where?

Mind you I'm not stauchly a right to lifer, and it's not a top issue for me, but if I had the pick a winning arguement, the Pro-Life arguement, is just a better sell.

Now I do propose a compromise. It's simple. Abortion is legal in the first tri-mester only, and only for severe deformities, rape, incest, and health hazards sufficient to provide significant risk to the mother's life. I think that's a pretty fair compromise, and one we could all settle for. Both sides give a little, and there it is.

[SOLDIER #819]

In a way I understand peoples need for a right to choose, but if you're going on the merit's of the arguement, and somebody says they believe that life begins at conception, then unfortunately that means that abortion is murder. And if you don't believe that life begins at conception, then where?

But is the basis with which they make the claim that "abortion equals murder" justified? Why do they believe this? If one is to claim something then the burden of proof should fall on them as well.

"The issue is when we can finally call a multicellular organism a human. Before that, it is merely potential. I would say that the brain would need to develop to some particular stage before you could label it as such. It's really a debate left up to science, but I am not under the impression that it begins at conception." That is how I view it.

Now I do propose a compromise. It's simple. Abortion is legal in the first tri-mester only, and only for severe deformities, rape, incest, and health hazards sufficient to provide significant risk to the mother's life. I think that's a pretty fair compromise, and one we could all settle for. Both sides give a little, and there it is.

While it is a compromise, I'm not sure it would satisfy either party. A person is not given the right to choose regardless of circumstance within the first trimester. At the same time, a person who supports the opposite stance would normally say that life is precious regardless of circumstances or deformity pertaining to the child. The only likely exception would be if the mother's life was in danger.

[T.G. Oskar]

Would you prefer if i refered to Reagan or Nixon instead of Hitler? Only if your that anal about me refering to mass murderers of the nazi variety

Oh and what was the reference to Dr Manhattan? Went right over my head.

Oh, silly. I was just pointing Godwin's Law. Look at it over the interwebz, pretty nifty rule.

Though not Nixon, or Reagan. Castro, on the other part...

As for the reference to Dr. Manhattan, the reason is that both the movie and the graphic novel state Manhattan's detachment to his own humanity, by whichever reasons they are (I say it's the Big Bad's blame). Right when they're in Mars, he makes a really epic quote about how the existence of a human being is something akin to a "statistical miracle", because of the combination of factors that involve human procreation. That's what makes Manhattan make the decision to move along and stop being an a**.

I was referring to how you just countered (whether successfully or not) the statement of human birth as a statistical miracle (for lack of the actual words he used) by claiming that is no more special than a genetic reaction, akin to dropping a turd. When I saw it, I had no other thing to write than "dang, you just bitchslapped Manhattan right over there".

We don't milk humans (often) or harvest parts of them. If I extend this right to plants and animals... then how am I going to eat?! =P

What about not harvesting them? I have the distinctive belief, if albeit jokingly, that we DO harvest human organs.

Lifelink, or organ donations, is one way.

A more closer way is the black market, and how people suddenly end up suffering a clandestine operation. That's as close to harvesting an organ as I can see it.

But that's how the third point I stated went. It's mostly the issue of discrimination; you wouldn't extend that to plants and animals since their purpose, whether abstract or not, is to provide food and perhaps some utility. Perhaps you may refrain from X or Y specimen, for sentimental reasons, but most of the time you would consume them as food. Not like you shouldn't have some respect for them, but not go overboard with sentimentalism. Which, while it may seem to apply to the discussion, it ends up on a very different way since it's not speaking of someone not of your species, but rather someone of your own, quite possibly even your family.

There's a reason why there are charges for "homicide" and "manslaughter", and those charges are dead serious.

Judging a potential life and how it will end up as a member of society is beyond our scope. If these potential human lives were to come into existence they would probably gravitate toward whatever the average in our population is with its regular anomalies, positive and negative, taking current trends into account. I'm sure there are people who would argue that this is an oversimplification as some of the women faced with the choice of abortion are also dealing with various issues that might impact the child physically, socially, or mentally. But, I don't see any reason to speculate about this matter very much. It just brings up too many things that neither of us really know or can't know.

See? I wasn't wrong about that at all. I presume that is a reflection of your moral and perhaps even your ethical standards: you don't believe it is yours, or society's, mission to judge the potential of a life. Speak of others, who believe that only the best specimens are meant to survive (eugenicists), or that believe that they truly are meant to decide whether a life is important or not, or those who don't even care and see abortion as a "commodity", much like tobacco or alcohol, so to speak.

While it is not similar to the stance you are assuming, I also don't believe it is my position to judge how a human life will end, but I do believe there is someone who can. Out of respect to that someone, I can't also assume that because there is no one to be capable of judging said life, it must be relegated to a possibility that couldn't came to being.

I don't see potential in itself as being human, which is what separates us. You may believe for your own reasons that it is destined to become living and breathing, but I don't believe in destiny in so far that it be preordained and that I am breaking some natural law. Responsibility here is also purely subjective and will vary based on beliefs. To me, if there is something I have to take responsibility for with making this sort of decision, it is not that I will have taken the life of a human being.

Only certain parts of responsibility are subjective to the society a person lives in. Others are shared between nearly all societies, barring their possible exceptions. Nearly all societies, from nearly all parts of the world, believe that taking a human life is a crime, running from the very serious to the unforgivable.

The main difference is what it is judged as a human life. Your argument mostly consists that there is a period during conception and birth in which that future creature is no more living than, say, a seed. I presume even you agree that, by the moment the fetus shows signs of movement and reaction to it's system, it must be already considered a living being and not just mere potential. By the time it's about 7 months old, attempting abortion there would be manslaughter, since albeit with external aid the baby would be capable of surviving. At times, even during the 6 months of gestation. You would say that during that moment, the one where the fetus, or even the blastocyte, isn't considered a human life per se, there is no responsibility upon it.

I, though, wouldn't like to take that risk. I consider birth, from the moment of pleasure (with the woman) to the moment of pain (for the woman), to be something upon which I can't decide, and if something happens with it, I must bear that responsibility. Call it a societal quirk, but I wouldn't want to take that risk of not considering a future child a "possibility" and thus not considering it human life.

Appending value to life is very difficult and I believe we do it much of the time as a means for survival. Then there are times where we do it simply for comfort, like with animals. But the reality is that, on some level, we destroy life and consume what's left in order to survive. If it isn't an animal then it is a plant, which is still living even if it doesn't walk like an animal or talk like a human. That's just how the world works, for good or for worse.

Ironically, while you mostly destroy life and consume it in the case of animals, apparently plants are better in that case: they remain alive, and even after digested, are supposedly better than destroyed life.

Not my point, though. That's mostly Vegan thought (I have to listen to it quite a lot, actually). For those people, getting a fruit isn't destroying life, but actually respecting life. Or eating herbs, or tubercles, or farinaceous.

According to them, such lifestyle actually both improves us, and it's the natural way of life. Again, not what I say (I'd be anathema to them, as I have no qualms in consuming meat since I see it as a byproduct of some animals, and the main product of others); it's their position. And for what it seems, it seems to work nicely.

I'd like to hear their response when you state that. It's a bit of a thought-inspiring comment, but even in the very end, good or bad, it's something you may not place much attention. However, applied in different circumstances, it does.

Potential is far removed from this equation. We can view living things directly, but we can't do that with the concept of potential life. We simply abstract its meaning and implications. Yet, how it is abstracted varies between people, but I don't expect that my view be "right" and your's be "wrong." I respect your opinion and believe they can coexist as long as you respect my boundaries and I respect your's.

What separates our stances is that I cannot force my views onto other people if abortion were to be kept legal. I cannot force you to abort what you feel is a living and breathing human being. But if abortion were to be banned, you would be forcing your views onto someone else by not allowing them to abort what they feel is not living as a human.

Some opinions aren't meant to coexist. One must eclipse the other, no matter how valid it may end up being. I can understand where you're going: it's not like, say, legalizing homosexual marriage will end up forcing people to become homosexuals. The premise is ridiculous in theory, as it is a concept of personal rights and moral points of view. However, abortion adds something to the equation which will always be present no matter how much you believe it is irrelevant. It's not just the possibility of human life, it is the possibility of potential homicide that's present. One side can say that, so as long as it is done at a certain period during gestation, it is not murder and thus can be possible, but that there is no rush or command to do it, just an option. The other side can, and probably will, say that the gestating fetus is a human being, and being born in the specific country makes it a citizen, which means it's meant to have the same degree of rights as anyone, and that removing his definition as a human being removes it from any law that might protect it, thus potentially turning into a violation of rights.

Your position is that, being merely a potential and not a fully fleshed human being, it is not subject to law. You also seek respect to your position, stating that you will respect your opponent's position and rights to believe in what they want. I must respond with "what about the rights of that potential?", what about respecting my belief that said being is a human being in formation, that it probably has life, that it probably will become a citizen of the country where I live in, and that it has rights that cannot be violated.

That's something I'd like you to think. Even as much as you might want to, there's something that you won't be capable of respecting, or a position you simply can't allow. I can't allow a human fetus to be aborted, even though it violates your right to choose. On the other hand, your position implies that I must keep shut and swallow my belief that said "potential" being has inalienable human rights, and that I must ward over those because said being can't.

Imagine what would happen if vegetarians/vegans/Buddhists/etc. made up the majority and started pushing to ban the consumption of meat even if it had a negative impact on the livelihood of certain groups, beyond not being able to eat a juicy steak. Or maybe not being able to eat meat for the sake of it is enough for some. "Pro-choice" in this case would allow for the tolerance of both views and the ability for both parties to live their own lives to their liking. "Pro-life" would be forcing you to halt the activity of doing what you find acceptable, for whatever reason.

Look up. I mostly drove to this point, since your example quite well elaborates what you believe in through a different lens. Both sides will always have something that they won't be capable of dealing with. While you state that the "pro-choice" side (aka, the meat-inclined Omnivores, and to a certain extent near-Omnivores and ovo-lacto-vegetarians) will promote respect and tolerance to both sides, the point remains in that you are, in the side of the other group, violating the natural laws that protect those animals' right to live. Or worse, the cosmic laws that promote reincarnation, which means you become an instrument of Samsara and are preventing people from reaching Nirvana. "Pro-life" may seem a bit less tolerant, but in the end, they recognize that they are serving a law that's probably more important than human law; what they'll tolerate, though, is people rambling against it. Not the same degree of tolerance or respect, but it still exists.

Yeah, it sounds a bit too long, but here's what it should be: no matter what happens, there's a point in which you won't tolerate or respect their position. You must assume your position with respect, but knowing that eventually, there will be a point that you must say "I can't respect that". Mostly, because if you are to respect and tolerate my position, you must respect that which you probably haven't considered. That implies, in the case of vegans and Buddhists for example, that you* are consciously violating their own rights in order to promote their own. In the case of abortion, you* are quite probably violating the rights of that fetus in order to protect or support your* own.

*Both examples use the royal "you", just in case.

Granted, there is a key difference in that this example deals with protecting existing life while abortion seems to deal more with what something could potentially become. The effect of tolerance vs. restriction is the same, however. I don't want to go too far off-topic though, as this deals with implications of taking a certain stance as opposed to the stances themselves.

It's natural that it happens. While you didn't wanted to assume that, I took the liberty of assuming that implication for you. It's important to do so, though. It's certainly not off-topic if the implications of assuming pro-choice or pro-life relate to the topic of abortion. I could understand it's making the post larger than it should, but I don't see it's counter to the interests of the debate: furthermore, I say it's exactly what the topic needs. Examples are good, so as long as they support the topic and not derail it.

[Darkdragoon]

yes im 12 but i know a little of this. Weird aye?
I think it's wrong, killing an infant while it's in the whom. I think that's what it is right? Still, i think it's just wrong.

[SOLDIER #819]

Silverdragoon: It's good that you're getting involved and asserting your opinion so early on.

Ironically, while you mostly destroy life and consume it in the case of animals, apparently plants are better in that case: they remain alive, and even after digested, are supposedly better than destroyed life.

That's an interesting way justify something, haha. It's the first time I've heard of it.

Some opinions aren't meant to coexist. One must eclipse the other, no matter how valid it may end up being.

I do not believe that this is a matter of oil and water. One person does not have to meld and conform to both viewpoints. They simply have to live with the fact that not everyone share their own. Casting tolerance aside to assert one's beliefs over another just paints a very sad picture for me.

I can understand where you're going: it's not like, say, legalizing homosexual marriage will end up forcing people to become homosexuals. The premise is ridiculous in theory, as it is a concept of personal rights and moral points of view.

It's weird that you'd mention this. I have a friend who, at least at one point, seriously believed this. It seems similar to your example about becoming a "tool of Samsara," barring that the school of thought I am familiar does not believe that you could drag someone else "down" with you through your actions alone. However, I think that forcing your beliefs on others would do more to hinder than help you in either form of ascension. I am no theologian though. Either way this is moving away from the point.

I must respond with "what about the rights of that potential?", what about respecting my belief that said being is a human being in formation, that it probably has life, that it probably will become a citizen of the country where I live in, and that it has rights that cannot be violated.

One issue is something I have stated in a previous post. Potential has not yet been realized so far as science is concerned. If we are to judge by your belief system in place of science, then I can only ask why we do so. While science's laws are assumed by man and science itself is not without its limits, it appears to explain many aspects of the physical world with a stunning degree of accuracy and the benefits (and sometimes tragedies) it provides are quite real. What gives your belief system priority? What evidence makes you assume that it is truly something all people should follow? Though it should be noted that what I am speaking of is more of a question of definition of human life and not one of morality, the latter of which I am not sure science can ever answer.

The second point refers to something you said later on. You claimed that my respect for your beliefs has its limits. That is only true if you attempt to surpass your boundaries and attempt to exercise control over mine. This, I personally believe, is why harm to others is construed as a crime. It attempts to forcibly twist a person to the whims of the offender. Banning abortion is akin to this in that there is little reason for it other than forcing one's boundaries to conform to that party's beliefs. If you believe the justification is greater than that...

... then we are led back to my first point. There is little to suggest in our world of senses that a life form can exist as a human without something like a working human brain. Even if down the line we are forced to shorten the valid abortion period it would be completely dependent on what we observe within that particular organ and does not point to conception. If you were to then rely on something beyond empirical evidence, such as your beliefs, how can you weigh them against another person's belief system? Personal beliefs when set against each other can only push at one another with equal force. That is to say, neither one will ever win out on its own merits and we're back to square one. What then is the determining factor? I would say it is what we find empirically. It really is all we have left.

[ForeverZero89]

we can all argue about trimesters and such but fortunatly there is a fine and definate line: birth. anything before birth, its your body do what you want, but after? yea its murder.

[RagnaToad]

we can all argue about trimesters and such but fortunatly there is a fine and definate line: birth. anything before birth, its your body do what you want, but after? yea its murder.

So by that standard killing a baby the day before it is due is alright?

That's pretty unethical, even if you're trying to be objective about it.

[ForeverZero89]

So by that standard killing a baby the day before it is due is alright?

That's pretty unethical, even if you're trying to be objective about it.

thats the thing about medicine you absolutly have to be objective about what you are treating and cannot place your ethics on another person. just because you think its not right does not mean that its wrong. sad? definatly i myself love babies and we need to protect our children, but like i said we can draw a very clear line between right and wrong in the case of abortion.

[Alpha]

thats the thing about medicine you absolutly have to be objective about what you are treating and cannot place your ethics on another person. just because you think its not right does not mean that its wrong. sad? definatly i myself love babies and we need to protect our children, but like i said we can draw a very clear line between right and wrong in the case of abortion.

If I thought murder of an adult was unacceptable, are you saying that I should keep this to myself and not impose my ethical standards on others? If I think abortion is murder I will say so, just as you think it is not murder, and say so. In both cases we are imposing our personal ethical beliefs. You can't avoid it.

[ForeverZero89]

we can both agree that an adult is a "person"(for lack of a better word) but until the fetus is born it it is not a "person" or "baby". that is where people have a differance of opinion. would i abort a fetus a day before its birth? no a week? a month? no i wouldn't i in fack love children my best friend has tree and i adore them very much i'm just telling you what think and that the decition to abort must come from the would-be parents.

edit 1: its time for me to go to bed, see you on the flip side.

edit 2: i just want to say that im glad we can have a disscusion/debate with out it turning into a flame war or having to insult one another because we don't agree on something

[nix]

Cogito, ergo sum.. a quote from Descartes in relevance to consciousness. It translates to: I think, therefore i am.

The brain cannot think until its fully developed, therefore a "multicellular organism" as its been labeled is not conscious.

With that in mind, the termination of a multicellular organism is no different to me, than a fish.

Its all philosophy i know and cant actually be prooven at this stage in time, either can any religion for that matter so you cant contradict it without being hypocritical.

Abortion is a touchy subject, its a hard choice as its in our nature to be caring for infants thanks to the development of our super ego.

But at the end of the day the choice should be given to the parent/s whether the child should be born. Yes we should have strict rulings in place so people dont abuse the system, when i say abortion should be legalised i would want it to be regulated in a strict manner.

I'm gonna finish up here before my boss catches on im spending my work time talking about abortions.. eek!

[RagnaToad]

thats the thing about medicine you absolutly have to be objective about what you are treating and cannot place your ethics on another person. just because you think its not right does not mean that its wrong. sad? definatly i myself love babies and we need to protect our children, but like i said we can draw a very clear line between right and wrong in the case of abortion.

You failed to answer my question. And I guess we should forget about ethics and morals right?

Cogito, ergo sum.. a quote from Descartes in relevance to consciousness. It translates to: I think, therefore i am.

Umm. That has absolutely no relevance to this topic. You're pulling a quote of some 17th century philosopher totally out of context.

Believe me.

I could go on and explain how wrong that quote is used here. But I don't feel like it. I literally had my Philosophy exam 1 hour ago, so I'm not going through that again.

If you really want to know, VM me.

And the brain doesn't stop developing until the age of 20 or so. So that argument is simply worthless.

[nix]

Why PM when you can post?

Do it

Dont bother posting if you have nothing constructive to add

EDIT: And just to add, im quoting Descartes to give an idea of how my frame of mind is when it comes to how i perceive when a human entity becomes conscious. Digest that how you will, i know full well the question he poses is one that is directed to one self.

And when i say fully developed brain, i mean from sperm to full grown baby. **** sake man stop nit picking on the shitty shit, if your gonna discard my opinion atleast elaborate on why you are, otherwise your presence in this thread is pointless o_0

[Locke4God]

If you look objectively at the arguements, then it's hard to argue against the logic that life begins at conception. It's the starting point. Bar none. Any other arguement, such as for life beginning with the heartbeat is really just arbitrary and so one has to conclude that abortion at any point is wrong.

Now I do add stipulations for myself, and you can debate those. Mind you I'm not a religios zealot predisposed to be against abortion. I also would argue that allowing abortion breeds irresponsibility, but I understand that arguement that it would be best not to bring a child into an unstable family. Either way, for myself I am accepting of abortions in pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother, are assured of severely handicapped children, or in the case of rape. For me all abortions would have to take place within the 1st trimester only. If you don't fall into one of those categories, then perhaps you should invest in birth control or abstinance. I think that's a pretty good compromise.

[Jeordam]

**snip**

EDIT: And just to add, im quoting Descartes to give an idea of how my frame of mind is when it comes to how i perceive when a human entity becomes conscious. Digest that how you will, i know full well the question he poses is one that is directed to one self.

**snip**

I think that it would be....troublesome...to use Descartes philosophy that an individual becomes a human entity upon consciousness. Why? Because there are many circumstances when a person looses their consciousness (a coma), yet they are still given all the rights of a "regular" human.

And then one comes across the difficulty of ascribing exactly when a person develops consciousness. We know that newborns certainly are not conscious of their environment, but instead are running on almost pure instinct. For that matter, toddlers are hardly conscious in the full "philosophical" mindset, as they are not able to...well...understand the world around them. Yet when it comes to matters of law, order, and society, newborns & toddlers are given all the rights of a "regular" human.

This then brings up the question on how do we regard those with different degrees of mental retardation. Anything from severely handicapped to highly functional Down's Syndrome...they would not necessarily be considered conscious, for the simple reason that they just aren't equipped to be...yet they are gien all the rights of a "regular" human.

It is very difficult to base public policy (such as abortion) upon philosophy, religion, or matters of faith. Why? Because they function in realms which are not easily quantifiable, measured, or observed....those are attributed which laws must be based upon (at least in America). As such, the debate surrounding Abortion should be based upon something scientific...a definable difference between what was and what is.

~Jeordam

[Locke4God]

Agreed with Jeordam here. There is only one way to treat all fairly in this matter without prejudice and that's to define life as beginning at conception. Every other definition is dealing in arbitrary shades of gray.

And I'm not an ardent pro-lifer. It's just logical. This isn't even a top issue for me.

As I mentioned in a completely different political topic, you're talking here about what a person has the right to do. You have a right to own a gun, & drive a car, but as you'll note in those two examples, all of your rights bare with them an amount of responsibility. In the case of abortion, you do have the right to have sex, but again that comes with responsibility to yourself and to the person you conceive, if in fact you do. But getting an abortion does not bare with it any responsibility. It relieves you of responsibility, and therefore by a pretty simple definition, it is not a right.

For those who may not be aware, the Roe vs. Wade decision did not establish abortion as being legal. It merely states that a woman's right to privacy prevents others from knowing she had one. By that definition I should be allowed to murder people so long as I do it in private. That's simply what the opinions in that case state.

Now I do make exceptions. If you were raped, then you were put under the responsibility of carrying a baby under no will of your own and I personally don't hold you responsible for carrying the child to term. If the baby threatens the mothers life, I place higher value on the mother. If your baby has severe deformities, I honestly think it's acceptable to abort, but in all of those cases I feel it must be done within the first tri-mester.

[Alpha]

I am accepting of abortions in pregnancies that ... are assured of severely handicapped children...

THAT is an entirely different issue. I think aborting a child on the basis that they have a mental 'defect' is one of the highest forms of moral wrong. By doing so, you are sending a message to all those who are living with mental 'defects' that they would be better off dead - i.e. aborted 'when we had a chance'. My 15-year-old brother is 'severely autistic and profoundly intellectually disabled' (doctor's words), so would it have been a good thing to simply have disposed of him while we had the chance - before it would officially become murder? While my brother cannot talk, hold a pen, understand what anyone says to him, etc. (though in no way physically impaired), he is perfectly capable of being happy and experiencing enjoyment. I do not see how it can be considered proper to abort a child based on the knowledge that they will be born with a disability. They are still human, and deserve just as many rights.

[Locke4God]

@ Alpha - I can't argue with that. You make a good point. I was just including it as a compromise, and when I say that I mean severe deformities that would require consant attention and are most likely life threatening for the child right from the beginning. But I completely see your point.

[Josh_R]

I am pro-abortion but I do see flaws like the fact that the taxpayers are the ones who pay for these countless abortions, I think it is okay to get one but if you do the cash should have to come out of your pocket and not the taxpayer's...

[Freya]

Oh boy... Kisuke_Hellsing: Why are you pro-abortion? What are your arguments?

In my opinion, there's no pro or con for abortion. It all depends on the situation, on the person and the environment. You can't say that you're FOR or AGAINST abortions. You can't say that for EVERY situation.

I suppose it's been mentioned before, but if a girl was raped, I'd probably say that an abortion is okay. I wouldn't want to give birth to a child of such a person, to be honest. I'm not sure if I, personally, would do it, but I think it's justified in this case.
If anyone is totally AGAINST abortions - how can you say that in this case? It probably wasn't her fault that she got pregnant, so it should be her right to "get rid" of this problem.

If you're just - sorry to say it like that - too stupid to prevent pregnancy... then I wouldn't say that you an abortion is needed. Though you also have to consider that parents who don't want the child will not treat it right...

You see, this is a complicated topic and I can't say what's wrong or right.

The only thing I can definitely tell is... that I wouldn't do it. If I - even by accident - got pregnant, I probably just wouldn't "kill" the child. I can't explain why I want that child to live (though now we could discuss endlessly at which time a child "lives"), it's just that it doesn't feel right. :/

[Muramasa89]

I'm okay with Abortion. As long as it is under certain circumstances, those being such as:

Rape victims.
The birth will kill the mother.
The child will be born with deformities.
The child will be born with life-threatening diseases.
The child cannot be supported by the parents (such as poverty).

If you get an Abortion for the pregnancy being an accident, then I condone it. Be more careful, rather than wasting a future life. I understand even with condoms, the pill, etc, there CAN still be accidents, but those are rare circumstances and can't be helped. But a lot of people think they can go around having unprotected sex then just abort the baby like nothing ever happened.

[Reverend Red Mage]

I agree. Normally, this isn't a topic I like to even touch with a 10-foot pole.
My stance on it is simple... it should always be a last resort, and should not be outlawed. I know there are a lot of arguments about that, but I think that it shouldn't be reduced to 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'. Everyone is both pro-life and pro-choice... you're either for or against abortion.

The nature of this debate seems to be where to draw the line between fetus and human being. Personally, I don't think a fetus is a human; if it were, why do we not count it in the census, and why is it that a woman will say, instead of "I have three children", "I have two and one on the way"?
(homage to George Carlin, there...)

[RagnaToad]

I'm okay with Abortion. As long as it is under certain circumstances, those being such as:

Rape victims.
The birth will kill the mother.
The child will be born with deformities.
The child will be born with life-threatening diseases.
The child cannot be supported by the parents (such as poverty).

If you get an Abortion for the pregnancy being an accident, then I condone it. Be more careful, rather than wasting a future life. I understand even with condoms, the pill, etc, there CAN still be accidents, but those are rare circumstances and can't be helped. But a lot of people think they can go around having unprotected sex then just abort the baby like nothing ever happened.

You're giving these circumstances, but then you say it's alright when it's an accident. That pretty much means it's allowed in any situation, according to you. And did you forget about adoption?

The nature of this debate seems to be where to draw the line between fetus and human being. Personally, I don't think a fetus is a human; if it were, why do we not count it in the census, and why is it that a woman will say, instead of "I have three children", "I have two and one on the way"?
(homage to George Carlin, there...)

1. counting unborn babies in the census is just ridiculous, and I assume you're kidding around about that.
2. People don't call unborn babies born babies, because they are unborn. That has nothing to do with them being humans or not. In your logic, a baby is a human being the day it is born, but the day before, it is not?

[Sasquatch]

I'm okay with Abortion. As long as it is under certain circumstances ...

Translation: You're okay with abortion. The question with abortion is whether or not the child is a human life. It's a yes-or-no question. If the child is a human life, then it's wrong to end it, period. It's it's not a human life, then it's not wrong to end it. Period. No "certain circumstances", no double-standards -- either it's wrong or it's not.

Rape victims? What makes them special? The mother is carrying a child that she doesn't want. Whether the child is the result of rape or the result of irresponsible sexual habits, it's a child that she doesn't want. Is it alright for a mother to kill her unborn child if she doesn't want it, or is it not?

(By the way, rape makes up about three-quarters of a percent -- that's three out of every 400 -- cases for abortion.)

Cases where the birth will kill the mother are extremely rare and have never been contested. They are also usually not known until it happens. Almost never is a pregnancy encountered that is likely to cause the mother's death if carried to full term.

And if it's not wrong to kill an unborn baby with a "deformity", when does it become wrong? When the child is born, and doctors see the true extent of the "deformity" -- or realize that there is one, something they couldn't see before birth? Or is it alright to wait a few years to give the kid a chance and see how it does, then cut it into pieces and suck it through a vacuum?

Life-threatening diseases? Like I said, either an unborn child is a human life or it isn't. If it isn't, you don't need "certain circumstances" -- if it is, it's wrong, period. Even if you wanted to place limits on it, they would have to be universal. If it's alright to kill an unborn child because they might have a life-threatening disease, then it's alright to kill a five-year-old child because they have a life-threatening disease. Or a fifteen-year-old. Or a fifty-year-old.

What else you got ... when the child cannot be supported by the parents? That doesn't narrow it down at all. First, there's such a thing as adoption -- you know, where a biological parent doesn't have to slaughter their own child, but doesn't have to raise it either. Second, the people who have the most irresponsible sex are the people with the lowest incomes.

All in all, out of the millions of abortions performed in America every year, about one-and-a-half percent are done for health reasons or for rape. That means that 98.5% of abortions are done for convenience.

Personally, I don't think a fetus is a human; if it were, why do we not count it in the census, and why is it that a woman will say, instead of "I have three children", "I have two and one on the way"?

While Ragnatoad already addressed the nonsense of your "examples", I have a question for you. If an unborn baby is not a human, why is it illegal to kill them against the mother's will? Why are murderers of pregnant women charged with two murders instead of just one? (i.e. Scott Peterson)

(homage to George Carlin, there...)

If you got that last part from Carlin, I haven't heard it. If you were referring to your "everybody is pro-life and pro-choice, it's for or against abortion that's the issue," that's from a Penn & Teller episode.