Abortion: Your Views...

[ladysilver]

I am pro abortion, though I personally have 3 children myself and I wouldn't get an abortion I think that young couples (yes couples, I believe the father should be included in the choice after all if it wasn't for the father there wouldn't be a baby) should have the choice. The world can be a very hard place and raising children is one of the hardest things to do. There are alot of people that can not handle the responsiblity or can not afford to provide a decent home for their baby. Alot of women/couples also do not find they have the support of a loving family and/or partner which makes raising a child twice as hard, I don't know what I would have done if I didn't have my partner and my family helping me and my friends always being ready with a cuppa to chat and share the ups and downs. So despite the fact that I wouldn't personally get an abortion, for those women/couples that do choose it I support them and I believe they should have the right to that choice.

[SOLDIER #819]

Not trying to be rude, but one doesn't have to hold a belief in a subject to argue for it. What I'm arguing is that abortion, except in cases where the child and/or mother's life would be endangered if carried to full term, should retain its right to life.

I have absolutely no problems with you not stating your position without good reason. You're not being rude at all.

As I said before, heartbeats develop around 22 days after conception. Brain activity develops at about six weeks.

Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean by brain activity. Again, when I speak of brain activity, I mean activity that can be detected by EEG. That, according to a source like this, happens at around the 3rd month. What is your take on the term?

That depends on how much you value human life. If somebody is "braindead", are they still alive? What if they're just comatose?

That is true. By the 3rd month the fetus may be in a coma-like state. It is possible to argue that the brain has not developed to the point to where "human" consciousness is possible. Or I could say that there is no precedent for such consciousness before entering into this comatose state due to the lack of a developed brain, unlike a comatose patient, making any sort of experience impossible. However, you may be able to render this a falsehood with citations, or just assert the opposite. If you do the latter, we'd be stuck.

Therefore, if I were to assume that six weeks were the proper cut-off period for an abortion, would that bring us to an agreement? A lack of a functioning brain would have me assume there is no reason for it to be living on the "level", if you would, of a human.

I wonder if this would actually bring anything to a conclusion, however. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. We both value human life and I think it is fair to assume that the vast majority of those on either side of the debate, as well as those in between, do as well.

The issue is not with how much value we place in a human life, but where this life begins. What distinguishes a clump of cells from the sperm and egg from which they were derived, blood cells, or any other organism on the cellular scale? When and why do we distinguish a "human" from a group of cells? For me, I think that science can answer this question. Whether it's 3 months or 6 weeks, I'm willing to go along with it if it has its proper empirical basis.

The debate's answer has its roots in beginnings. Without proper understanding of the basis behind a person's words we cannot ascertain whether the entirety of the argument holds water. Critiquing one's argument may have merit, but the critique itself does not necessarily advance the critic's stance or goals.

This is why I asked why you are taking a pro-life-esque stance. I believe it is quite relevant.

[Alpha]

My personal views on abortion come from my Catholic belief system; so yes, I am pro-life, but I often question the application of my beliefs, because I find challenging my beliefs to be self-rewarding, and actively inspiring, in contrast to those who are pro-life "'cos it's in the Bible".. yeah so is lots of stuff, but what do you think. Why do you think it's in the Bible/taught at Church/encouraged by the Pope/taught at school? These are questions I wish more 'fundamentalists' questioned from time to time.

I think the most important consideration anyone can make in regards to this sensitive issue is that we do not all share the same beliefs, morals, classifications of what constitutes a 'human being' who is 'worthy of human rights'.

So, while I am pro-life, and think it is morally repugnant to 'kill' what I consider to be the earliest manifestation of a human being, I also do not want my beliefs to impinge on others. I will expand on this in a moment.

Many people consider getting pregnant a 'mistake'; perhaps the condom ripped, or the pill failed for a certain person. However if a child results, how can you consider a living person to be a mistake? A zygote/foetus/child has limitless potential (unless you consider race and class structures to be limits on potential). That 'mistake' in your uterus could be the next Mahatma Gandhi... or conversely the next Pol Pot (way to avoid Godwin's Law of Usenet Discussions [Wiki it for a lol]). Chances are your child won't become a genocidal tyrant, or a world-renown peace campaigner, but they will become a person, and abortion takes away that fundamental right, and that golden opportunity. Each of us on this site was conceived at some point, and our futures had yet to be determined. At such an early stage of our lives, only one thing can actively remove that hope for the future: abortion. So my personal pro-life position is based fundamentally on Church doctrine, but also on my applicationa nd expansion of that.

Abortion has been criminalised in the past. I think in Aotearoa/New Zealand it was decriminalised in the 1970s. This is wrong. Not all people believe that abortion is wrong, and funnily enough, that is alright! If you want an abortion (or consider one necessary), by all means go and get one, I don't want to stop you exercising your right. Sure, I might ask you "are you sure?", but if we do not have similar sentiments, I have no right to prevent you from going.

Another reason that abortion should not be criminalised is that it will still occur. Drugs are illegal, but they are still used. Legal abortions mean they are safer for mothers who decide to get one. For this reason I also believe in the decriminalisation of some drugs, such as marijuana, but that's currently irrelevant.

OK I'm not 100% sure where I'm taking this, but I will summarise as follows: I am pro-life, but if you aren't, then that is your right, as it is my right to be pro-life. I am not entitled to stop people from getting abortions, but debate around the issue should be sensitive to the differing perceptions people have of life, and alternatives to abortion should be considered before an abortion is taken out (no I did not mention it, but it's relatively self-explanatory).

Peace out, sons of freedom.

[SilkAngel]

I believe that if God didn't want a person to be born, they would never be conceived. Therefore, I don't believe in abortion weather it is because they were raped, irresponsible or some other stuff they try to say. Adoption is the only option if you don't want your child; not abortion. If the mothers body isn't healthy enough, then they need to look at every possible medical way to get the baby delivered and not just jump to abortion like some women do.

[Alpha]

I believe that if God didn't want a person to be born, they would never be conceived. Therefore, I don't believe in abortion weather it is because they were raped, irresponsible or some other stuff they try to say. Adoption is the only option if you don't want your child; not abortion. If the mothers body isn't healthy enough, then they need to look at every possible medical way to get the baby delivered and not just jump to abortion like some women do.

Careful, that could be used to condone rape. If God wants everyone who's conceived to be born, then does that mean S/He (God) wants certain people to be raped, as he 'has a plan' for these people (conceptions)? I'm not sure whether or/not I support abortion in cases of conception via rape - it is clearly a grey area, and pro-life campaigners really should slow down and consider the wider implications of a continued pro-life stance.

When I think about it, the greater crime out if rape and abortion IMO is abortion, as I consider it akin to (well, actually) murder. However rape is a very heinous act, and it almost appears that pro-life campaigners give a light sentence to the rapist, and a harsh one to the person who got the abortion. A prime example is the 'Brazilian abortion', whereby a 14 y.o. girl was raped and became pregnant. Despite the fact she was probably going to die if she carried the baby to term, she, as well as her doctor who carried out the abortion, were excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but the rapist was not. A justification for this would be that the abortion was a worse crime from a Christian Catholic perspective, and the punishment for rape would be otherworldly, however it alsmost seems unfair and unjust that this rapist appears to have gotten away from his crime, while this girl, who had already gone through A LOT, had the further shame of being removed from the Church.

Again; rape conceptions are a grey area in terms of the morality of abortion. I tentatively stand by my pro-life stance for the reasons I have outlined above, but it is uneasy. No matter what your stance, however, RAPE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED on any grounds, ever, even if you argue 'God must've wanted that because a baby was conceived'. Makes you think.

[RagnaToad]

Careful, that could be used to condone rape. If God wants everyone who's conceived to be born, then does that mean S/He (God) wants certain people to be raped, as he 'has a plan' for these people (conceptions)? I'm not sure whether or/not I support abortion in cases of conception via rape - it is clearly a grey area, and pro-life campaigners really should slow down and consider the wider implications of a continued pro-life stance.

[...] A prime example is the 'Brazilian abortion', whereby a 14 y.o. girl was raped and became pregnant. Despite the fact she was probably going to die if she carried the baby to term, she, as well as her doctor who carried out the abortion, were excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but the rapist was not. A justification for this would be that the abortion was a worse crime from a Christian Catholic perspective, and the punishment for rape would be otherworldly, however it alsmost seems unfair and unjust that this rapist appears to have gotten away from his crime, while this girl, who had already gone through A LOT, had the further shame of being removed from the Church.

That is simply perverse but sadly the nature of the Catholic church and typical for its hypocrisy. The Catholic church has never been a logical institute when it came to judging people, since it is not a court room, but a religion based on a 2 millenniums old book, composed by the Romans.

I'm not here to judge the Catholic Church, but I had to agree with this fragment of Alpha Weapon's post.

EDIT: Criticising the Catholic Church does not equal criticising Christians.

[Chez Daja]

I believe that if God didn't want a person to be born, they would never be conceived. Therefore, I don't believe in abortion weather it is because they were raped, irresponsible or some other stuff they try to say. Adoption is the only option if you don't want your child; not abortion. If the mothers body isn't healthy enough, then they need to look at every possible medical way to get the baby delivered and not just jump to abortion like some women do.

That is one of the most narrowminded, nastiest things I've ever read. How can you even take your own opinion seriously? You think that women who are raped should be forced to have the kid? You think women who have a high risk of dying during labour should have to look at all kind of alternatives, even if they still might die?

I'm fine with the fact that you're religious; that doesn't bother me, but to boarderline condone rape is pretty disgusting.

Here's a news flash; accidents happen. Rape is no accident; therefore it shouldn't even be bought into the equation. Abortions are availble to women in most places for a reason; there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies out there.

Moving on...

Do I believe that women should be made to face up to their mistakes? To an extent, yes. But do I believe an unwanted baby should suffer under parents who don't want it? No, I don't. Women shouldn't have to go through having to give their child away just because people think they should go through with the pregnancy.
If women want to go through with the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption, I think it's a very nice thing to do. But I don't think that women should have babies if they don't want to.

I do agree with some of the things that Sasquatch has said here, but I'm still pro-choice. I'm sympathetic to that possible baby... But I really can't say I'd want to have a baby right now if I made a mistake. You can call that weakminded and nasty, but I know first-hand that accidents happen; even when using sufficiant protection.

[Walter Sobchak]

Rape is no accident; therefore it shouldn't even be bought into the equation.

Rape absolutely should be brought into the equation. If someone thinks abortion is murder, it does not matter how the fetus was conceived, because it is still a life. If anything, SilkAngel's belief system is more sensible than those who want to outlaw abortion except for instances like rape.

Has anyone with such a position taken two seconds to think of the consequences of such a law? Thousands, perhaps millions, of women die in countries without abortions by sticking objects inside of themselves to rid themselves of the baby. How hard is it for someone who is willing to risk death to lie about the cause of the conception? Then a young man rots in jail for it.

I find the ID immeasurably amusing. We have a global economic crisis, conflict with North Korea, elections in Iran, and an energy situation in Eastern Europe, but people want to talk about an issue that has already been resolved. Unfortunately, I am being forced into this category as well. Team A and Team B have their marching orders, and they will be damned if they stop and read the damn thing.

[Sasquatch]

Rape absolutely should be brought into the equation. If someone thinks abortion is murder, it does not matter how the fetus was conceived, because it is still a life.

Indeed.

Thousands, perhaps millions, of women die in countries without abortions by sticking objects inside of themselves to rid themselves of the baby.

Not only is "millions" quite a stretch, the logic of this isn't quite right. I'm sure thousands of people die by misusing a lot of illegal substances, or otherwise breaking laws by doing dangerous things, but that is no reason to legalize them so we can make them "safer".

Though, given, that's not what you're arguing here. I'm just bringing up that point.

I find the ID immeasurably amusing. We have a global economic crisis, conflict with North Korea, elections in Iran, and an energy situation in Eastern Europe, but people want to talk about an issue that has already been resolved.

Why don't you make a topic about the other issues? The abortion issue is far from "resolved", as you can see by reading this topic.

[Clint]

Rape absolutely should be brought into the equation. If someone thinks abortion is murder, it does not matter how the fetus was conceived, because it is still a life.

And where is it anybody's say except for the pregnant woman as to what to do with that pregnancy? It sure as hell matters how she got pregnant. If I was a woman, and somebody raped me, I wouldn't want to carry that monster's baby.

Not only is "millions" quite a stretch, the logic of this isn't quite right. I'm sure thousands of people die by misusing a lot of illegal substances, or otherwise breaking laws by doing dangerous things, but that is no reason to legalize them so we can make them "safer".

That just makes you a hypocrite. You claim to be against abortion because it saves lives, yet even though you know that thousands of adult women die every year attempting to abort unwanted pregnancies themselves, you still don't see their lives valuable enough to even consider the legalization of abortion being ethical. I bet you support the death penalty, too, right?

[RagnaToad]

Personally I'm not comfortable with having an abortion or people in my close environment to have one. I don't like the idea of killing a developing human being because it might rumble up your life a bit. (Cause that's what you do.)

But I am a free spirit who wants to function in this liberal, democratic society we call Europe, and there are cases in which it is quite understandable someone would want an abortion. I could go on about reasons, and about how you can't let some people "who have reasons" allow to have an abortion and some people not, but I don't feel like it. There's a difference between not wanting something for yourself, and not wanting anyone to do something. Although some people would actually see the law allowing abortion disappear, I believe there are cases in which it is in the best interest of the traumatic victim of a rape (for instance) to be able to have an abortion. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the law allowing abortion disappear.
BUT I'm not gonna fight it. This topic is different in the way that it involves the life of a future human being, but it is a law nontheless, and it is not plausible to give the right for an abortion to a limited group, because that's not how our society works.

It can be a stinger, like in this case, but the democratic way society works has brought us countless more GOOD things. From what point does "the right thing" stop being the standard? It's up to the will of the (granted, often stupid) masses.

It's a shame that in this world, which revolves solely around money (don't say it doesn't!), people have their future offspring, uhum, "removed" for their own interest.

Power to the people.
If only they weren't all so stupid.

EDIT: Although I don't agree with everything you're saying, SilkAngel:

INDEED, there is BLOODY ADOPTION
Just don't drink or smoke for nine months, don't get kicked in the stomach, put lots of cream on your skin if you're afraid of stretch marks, suffer for about a day and don't day in labour.
Yes, I'm a man, and Yes, that means I don't know what a pain being pregnant can be.

[Midnight Panda]

i too beleive its murder, if you dont want the kids put them in an adoption centre

[Midnight Panda]

i agree with ragna toad. if you didnt want the child just use a condom. or when the child is born put it up for adoption. or give it to a nun

[RagnaToad]

i agree with ragna toad. if you didnt want the child just use a condom. or when the child is born put it up for adoption. or give it to a nun

I wasn't necessarily attacking abortion. Just responding to the points Nix made.

And your image of how things should be done is too simplistic. Obviously, no one is going to get pregnant deliberately to then have an abortion.

And giving children to nuns is about the worst idea popping up in this thread so far.

[Padraic]

Abortion is at the hands of the mother/parents. If your old enough for sex your old enough to make smarter desicions. Also if your a teen and its immoral for you to get an abortion isn't it also immoral to be having sex?? don't you have to married before having sex in most religions?? So religious views are just excuses if your not already married. The only times I think that abortions should be alowed is if the mother's life is endangered, if its a dead baby inside or if the mother was raped

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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.