Your stand on abortion?

[Maurepas]

A new life begins when egg and sprem join together.
Killing any life after it is created is murder.

Are you sure about that? 100% sure you don't want to reword that? Because, you know, that would make eating salad = murder.

I'm assuming your mentally handicapped. Because to everyone else it was clear, because of the context of this thread, that he meant human life. I sorry if you didn't understand that.

Im assuming you are as well, for you cannot comprehend Sarcasm...

Beyond that, regardless of the thread's context, if he does not present a coherent argument, then he fails, regardless of what he meant...He said "All Life" which means he can be taken to mean more than just Human life, yes he meant otherwise, but when it comes to his argument this is largely a moot point...

[Muravyets]

I would like to hear more about justifications for choicing to end a pregancy.

Choosing.

Her body = her right to control what it gets used for and by whom. That is the ultimate reason why abortion should always be legal. There is no need for anything beyond that.

There are lots of situational reasons why a woman might choose to abort a pregnancy. They include, but are not limited to: (1) Not wanting to be pregnant. (1) Being too poor to support a pregnancy and a new child. (3) Not being healthy enough to carry a pregnancy safely. (4) Being too old for safe pregnancy. (5) Being too young for safe pregnancy. There are others, but that's just off the top of my head.

[Muravyets]

I believe that the woman should have the right to choose

Every always says that its the woman's right to choose. But what about the father? I think they should have equal say.

I also think it should be illegal for a woman to get an abortion without telling the father (assuming the father is around)

As soon as the man carries an equal share of the physical risks of pregnancy, he can have an equal share of the decision making about it -- i.e., he can have total control over the parts that affect him directly, while the woman can have total control over the parts that affect her directly.

However, until the day that "we're pregnant" is meant literally, a woman getting pregnant does not make her body the property of a man anymore than it makes it the property of an embryo/fetus.

Also, how many women every year do you imagine abort their pregnancies without consulting their spouses/boyfriends?

[Muravyets]

A new life begins when egg and sprem join together.
Killing any life after it is created is murder.

Are you sure about that? 100% sure you don't want to reword that? Because, you know, that would make eating salad = murder.

I'm assuming your mentally handicapped. Because to everyone else it was clear, because of the context of this thread, that he meant human life. I sorry if you didn't understand that.

And I am assuming that you are unfamiliar with the concept of "flaming." There are many aspects of that concept that I would advise you to study up on, but I will emphasize just one here: Insulting your opponent while ignoring the vast bulk of her post is a sign that you are not able to defend your position and should concede the point. Or at least let the other poster speak for himself. You don't seem to be doing such a good job on his/her behalf.

[Muravyets]

23 of the fetuses chromosomes is the father's. Why doesn't he have a legal right to decide.

If my fiancé ever aborted one of our children...

I would like to know the end of that sentence. What would you do?

[Triniteras]

This argument is, as far as I can tell, original with Judith Jarvis Thomson, in her essay A Defense of Abortion. Errors in this post are likely my own. I have merely sketched the position, read the linked essay for a fuller explanation.

Article should be made mandatory reading. Offenders should be temp-banned.

[Never wrong People]

I would like to hear more about justifications for choicing to end a pregancy.

Choosing.

Her body = her right to control what it gets used for and by whom. That is the ultimate reason why abortion should always be legal. There is no need for anything beyond that.

There are lots of situational reasons why a woman might choose to abort a pregnancy. They include, but are not limited to: (1) Not wanting to be pregnant. (1) Being too poor to support a pregnancy and a new child. (3) Not being healthy enough to carry a pregnancy safely. (4) Being too old for safe pregnancy. (5) Being too young for safe pregnancy. There are others, but that's just off the top of my head.

WHY IS SHE PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF SHE KNOWS THAT SHE IS TOO OLD/YOUNG/UNHEALTHY OR POOR.

[The Babbage Islands]

This argument is, as far as I can tell, original with Judith Jarvis Thomson, in her essay A Defense of Abortion. Errors in this post are likely my own. I have merely sketched the position, read the linked essay for a fuller explanation.

Possibly the best defense of abortion I have ever read. She doesn't quite convince me, but there is a lot to digest in this well-argued essay.

I am personally of the school of thought that human life begins at conception, and therefore that abortion is homicide. (Note well--not in and of itself murder.) Miscarriage -- spontaneous abortion -- is in the same category as accidental death of other kinds. Induced abortion to save the life of the mother, or indeed simply to defend the mother from great physical danger or the potential consequence of a criminal assault, falls well within the generally understood parameters of self-defense. This means that the "exception" for rape and incest draws from exactly the same legal and philosophical concepts as the "exception" to save or protect the mother. Beyond this point, abortion should be treated as the unlawful killing of a human being.

YMMV. Thank you to UNIverseVERSE for the link.

[Octopus Magi]

Depends on the situation.
If you didn't protect yourself, your bad.
If the baby will have a horrible illness, like AIDS, you don't have the right to hurt a being in that way.

So, for the most part, yes, I do. It's the mother and father's decision, no matter what I think.

[Parthenon]

So many fallacies, so little time before the universe implodes...where to start?

The waiting list for an adoption is over 3 years in some parts of the country,

A stumble out of the gate. (I just watched the Preakness Stakes.)

1) Which country?

2) So drive over to the next county then. Or hop a plane to Romania. It is not my job to produce babies for you.

unless their is some physical threat to the mother beyond cosmetics then there is no reason to have an abortion.

How would you know?

When a person chooses to have sex that person is also choosing to enter into a game of pregnancy roulette.

And that's what abortion is for. It is one optional response to that risk.

Abortion shouldn't serve as a crutch for the irresponsible.

Ah, babies as punishment for not being a virgin, eh? Always a great way to value the life of a child, by using it to pass judgment on someone else.

You do realize that, last I heard, approximately 60% of all women who have abortions already have at least one child, right? Many are married. Many would like to have more children if circumstances were supportive, only they're not. If they had another child at the given time, they would have a hardship supporting the existing child. So tell me, how irresponsible are those women being then? Is it your definition of responsibility that a woman should abandon her care of an existing child in order to punish herself for her and her husbands' contraceptive failing?

How about rape victims? How irresponsible is it of a woman to be violently attacked (statistically mostly probably while she was in her own home, minding her own business) that you would call an abortion a crutch for her irresponsibility?

I have known plenty of women who have had multiple abortions since they cant keep their pants on, that's no excuse...

Personal anecdotes = fail. Your mythical skank acquaintances do not represent the majority of women in the world nor the main reasons why abortion is necessary to have as an option in reproductive medical care.

Oh, its going to be fun tearing you to shreds for this baseless accusation of fallacy in an argument filled with facts.

Adoption waiting lists in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Where else would we be talking about champ?) can extend well pass 3 years for infant age adoptions. One of my colleagues when I was working for the State of North Carolina a few years back was going through this very process and discussed the progress every week or so. Go ahead, call it a personal anecdote so you can dismiss it without having to show a lick of proof for your own argument. With age comes personal experience, pardon me for having the upper hand in that regard.

When dealing with out of country adoptions you also have to deal with a quite lengthy process. I know a couple that has adopted three from China and has had to go through at least 6 months of paperwork for each one. Its not as easy as you think and there are health concerns one must deal with in developing nations.

You are right about how it isn't your job to "produce children", however, it sure as hell beats killing off a potential Mozart or Beethoven. Boohoo, you might get a few stretch marks! Shouldn't have decided to be sexually active then. I take the risk of potentially entering into a lifetime of child support payments every time I make that choice, why should the male be the only one needing to deal with responsibility?

Also, I have never advocating using a child to punish a mother so I suggest you retract those remarks. I suggested adoption as a viable alternative.

[Muravyets]

WHY IS SHE PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF SHE KNOWS THAT SHE IS TOO OLD/YOUNG/UNHEALTHY OR POOR.

*removes ear plugs once the yelling stops*

1) She may not know she is too unhealthy until after she gets pregnant. She may have actively tried to get pregnant, only to be diagnosed with a condition that makes it dangerous or impossible to carry a pregnancy afterwards. In addition, there are several complications of pregnancy itself that can render it dangerous or impossible to carry a pregnancy to term. Those would be health concerns that did not exist before the pregnancy, but were caused by it.

2) Many women who are too old for safety get pregnant by their husbands/significant others as a result of contraceptive failure. So they were clearly taking responsible measures to avoid pregnancy because of their age (typically above 40, and for some women, above 35). Many older women who have not previously had sterilization procedures (because they wanted to have children) do not get them as they near menopause age because (a) what's the point, they'll be sterile soon enough anyway, and (b) there may be contraindications of screwing with their reproductive cycle while it's going through changes anyway. Of course, some women over 40-45 do choose to try to get pregnant, but of course, those women are not part of the abortion debate, and they often have high-risk pregnancies, including a higher risk of birth defects in the child.

3) For many poor women, contraceptive failure is also an issue. They may not get sterilized because they would also like to have children someday when their financial situation improves.

4) When a woman gets pregnant but is too young to give birth safely, the vast majority of such cases are incidents of the rape of a minor. So that would make her a rape victim, and that would answer your question as to why she is pregnant at all. It was not by choice.

[Xlandis]

God gave us the freedom of choice, and it's not for me or anyone else to stand in the way of that. For those who say that the child has no choice, you're right. Thats why it's such an important freedom, to be used wisely. Those who don't will be judged accordingly when it's time, but not by me.

[Muravyets]

Oh, its going to be fun tearing you to shreds for this baseless accusation of fallacy in an argument filled with facts.

Ooh, yes, I'd like to see you do that, too. *gets popcorn; eats it while typing*

Adoption waiting lists in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Where else would we be talking about champ?)

Well, since the internet knows no borders, we could be talking about anywhere, but in this case, we'd be talking about the United States, where there are many counties in each state, and if one place doesn't have a baby for adoption, you can drive to a place that does.

That would be the same United States where people who want to adopt get their kids from other countries all the time, places like Romania, China, Russia -- even Africa if you're Madonna or Angelina.

can extend well pass 3 years for infant age adoptions. One of my colleagues when I was working for the State of North Carolina a few years back was going through this very process and discussed the progress every week or so. Go ahead, call it a personal anecdote so you can dismiss it without having to show a lick of proof for your own argument. With age comes personal experience, pardon me for having the upper hand in that regard.

I'm 46. Unless you're 47 or older, you don't get to claim the upper hand in numbers of years. And based on the quality of your arguments, your experience isn't giving you much of a leg-up, either.

When dealing with out of country adoptions you also have to deal with a quite lengthy process. I know a couple that has adopted three from China and has had to go through at least 6 months of paperwork for each one. Its not as easy as you think and there are health concerns one must deal with in developing nations.

So? What do you want -- street corner baby dispensers for instant parental gratification? Three years ain't that long to wait for a commitment that will last the rest of your life, in my opinion. A couple could alway foster while they wait.

You are right about how it isn't your job to "produce children", however, it sure as hell beats killing off a potential Mozart or Beethoven.

What if they have no talent? Would you resent having to raise them then?

Boohoo, you might get a few stretch marks!

You are making up an argument and attributing it to me falsely. Kindly point out where I said anything even remotely referencing cosmetic effects on a woman's body from pregnancy. When you fail to find anything, I will advise you that I do not defend arguments I never made and I will thank you not to try to prop your strawman up on me.

Shouldn't have decided to be sexually active then.

Once again, you cast pregnancy as a punishment for a woman not being a virgin. Clearly you do not give a shit about children, if all they are to you is a bludgeon with which to beat up women.

I take the risk of potentially entering into a lifetime of child support payments every time I make that choice, why should the male be the only one needing to deal with responsibility?

Ah, and now you live in a fantasy world where no woman supports her own children. Just like with your strawmen, I am not interested in bull you just made up.

Also, I have never advocating using a child to punish a mother so I suggest you retract those remarks. I suggested adoption as a viable alternative.

I will not retract those remarks, which I repeated hereinabove as well. I stand by them. Twice, you have blamed women for choosing to be sexually active and stated that they should not be allowed to abort pregnancies that result from consensual (sp?) sex. In the first instance, you called abortion a "crutch for the irresponsible" and in the post above, you suggested derisively that a woman shouldn't be sexually active if she doesn't want to have her looks ruined, etc. Clearly, according to your statements, pregnancy and its negative features are considered something a woman should not be allowed to avoid if she has decided not to be celibate. Clearly then the emphasis of your argument is on what the woman chooses to do, not on the children you claim to be so worried about in case they could turn out to be talented or something. And clearly, you are casting both sexually active women and pregnancy in a negative light and using pregnancy as a punishment for a woman doing something you do not approve of.

[Kirby J]

If you think you have the right to tell a mother whether or not she can have an abortion, then you should also suppose that you have the right to tell her if she can or cannot become pregnant in the first place. While you might morally believe people in certain situations should not become pregnant, it is a big jump from thinking it is wrong to making it illegal. Once someone becomes pregnant, you have no more right to tell her what decision she must make than you do before she becomes pregnant. Several people here have said that the mother must bear the cost of becoming pregnant by bearing the child. Should it not then be her responsibility to bear the cost of her decision to terminate her pregnancy? You might think it is morally wrong for her to terminate her pregnancy, but it is not for you to make her decision for her.

[Saint Jade IV]

It is completely the decision of the mother.

No human being has the right to live off another.
A woman has the right to defend her own body against an invader. Be that a rapist, or an embryo.
A woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body.

At this point in my life, were I to become pregnant, would I seek an abortion? I am not sure. I am not in a position to raise a child myself financially. I am not emotionally ready or mature enough to raise a child. I am not prepared for the health risks associated with this, or the huge amount of responsibility that this would entail. Is it not far, far better to prevent the child from coming into the world, than to have it grow up with a mother who would resent it?

I am an adult woman who is perfectly capable of consenting to sex. When I choose to have sex, I am not consenting to have a child and raise it. I am consenting to sex.

[Pope Joan]

Abortion is not a "feel good" decision.

Women need to be counseled in advance about the severe physical and emotional repercussions.

It's not just like pushing "reset" on the game button.

Hey, did you see that the latest poll shows 51% of Americans now oppose abortion?

But maybe many of them are pedophile priests, now protesting against Obama at Notre Dame, so who knows.

[Jordsindia]

Care to offer a reason why it should be illegal?

I believe it should be illegal, Muravyets, because im a Catholic, and its just like murder, unless the mother is in danger.

[Verdigroth]

It should be legal until the child can feed and take care of itself. Until then it is living on the sufferance of others.

[Bryn Shander]

Until the "child" is completely viable outside of the womb without life support, it is nothing more than a parasite and killing it is no more amoral than killing a tapeworm.

[Jahca]

Are you sure about that? 100% sure you don't want to reword that? Because, you know, that would make eating salad = murder.

I'm assuming your mentally handicapped. Because to everyone else it was clear, because of the context of this thread, that he meant human life. I sorry if you didn't understand that.

Im assuming you are as well, for you cannot comprehend Sarcasm...

Beyond that, regardless of the thread's context, if he does not present a coherent argument, then he fails, regardless of what he meant...He said "All Life" which means he can be taken to mean more than just Human life, yes he meant otherwise, but when it comes to his argument this is largely a moot point...

Back at you. I was also being sarcastic. lol

Yes, his argument was rather moot.

[Jahca]

23 of the fetuses chromosomes is the father's. Why doesn't he have a legal right to decide.

If my fiancé ever aborted one of our children...

I would like to know the end of that sentence. What would you do?

Sue her.

You seem to forget that in the US the white right-wing christians rule. With all their donations i could afford a mega-lawyer.

[Milks Empire]

Care to offer a reason why it should be illegal?

I believe it should be illegal, Muravyets, because im a Catholic, and its just like murder, unless the mother is in danger.

I'm Catholic as well. I don't see using the government banhammer as the answer to this. It didn't work before Roe v. Wade (read A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry); what makes anyone think it'll work now? Instead, let's try streamlining the adoption process (to make life a more practical choice) and teaching people about more than just abstinence (to stop these pregnancies from happening in the first place). People will, in general, have sex no matter what some authority figure tells them. The idea that only telling people not to have sex will stop them from getting pregnant is as ludicrous as the idea that only telling them never to drive will stop them from wrapping a car around a tree.

[Brutland and Norden]

Against, unless the mother's physical life is threatened. Conceived by rape or incest, then it's up to her (not decided on it yet). Just for kicks, hell no. However, we must take steps in order to reduce the instances of abortion (better sex education, access to birth control methods, etc.) and encourage and support the mothers who make the decision to continue their pregnancies.

[Exilia and Colonies]

It should be legal until the child can feed and take care of itself. Until then it is living on the sufferance of others.

So legal up until the age of 10? Um... no.

[The Alma Mater]

For me it depends on how far the pregnancy is. If the fetus has a functioning brain and neural net, it is somewhat hard for me to not see it as a little person. As such I would like some restrictions on abortion in that stage.

Some restrictions? It's a person, but not really?

It is a person, but directly dependent on and influencing the life of another (the mother). If her life is in serious jeopardy, I consider it fair to let the fetus be aborted.
But if it is merely a case of "mommy has changed her mind after 8 months of pregnancy, please remove it" - nope.