[Visage of Glory]

They matter when you're talking about consent, which as I said, is nothing but an outward affirmation of intent. If the woman did not consent to being impregnanted, and reproducing was not her intent, then she has simply not consented to reproductive sex. All other facts or opinion aside - that argument is debunked.

Ok. I will accept that argument, but it does not justify killing.

It is possible to die in a car crash if you leave your house in the morning - so should we stop driving to work?

No. But we should realize that it is a possibility, and must be ready for it to happen.

Personally, I don't see that as a realistic line of reasoning either.

Being prepared for the potential consequences is good enough, and for some people, that means being emotionally ready to have an abortion.

Then we will have to disagree. Abortion should not even be an option except in a few extreme cases.

It isn't murder if it isn't illegal. Murder is a term that is specifically applied to killing that is outside of the law (besides slang usages and alts). Usage of the term in the context of legal abortion is just emotional pandering.

Depends on your definition of murder.

Dictionary.com
mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

The third definition clearly fits, and I would say that the second fits as well. Abortion seems very unpleasant.

That's fine, but my point was cautioning against trying to tell other people that the motivation for abortion is universally going to be an 'escape from responsibility'. As I have tried to illustrate with my first post, some people feel that having an abortion is the responsible thing to do, and as such they are not ducking any responsibility by having the proceedure - but are rather stepping right up to that responsibility and doing what they feel needs to be done. It's just that your sense of morality differs from theirs.

Alright, I will accept this, though I think it is still wrong. I personally cannot see how killing the fetus can be at all more responsible than bringing the baby into life.

[Demosthenes]

Oh that's such horsecrap. Once again the "you don't know so you can't say" argument. I don't need to be faced with certain moral choices to know what the right thing to do is. Morality is not contingent on experience.

Once again? I don't use this argument frequently, nor do I normally engage in this discussion I jumped in only because the self-righeousness in the air was making me sick. And just calling it a tired old argument doesn't make it untrue nor irrelevant. By this logica I should be able to dictate policy to India, simply because I know morality, and my experience their is not contigent on this.

Morality is a marriage of convienience and rationalization of one's experiences. That is not to say I am completely against a purely moralistic argument in all cases, but merely to state that no matter much people want it to be so, Some issues are jsut going to be subjective. (Yes, I know conservatives everywhere hate me now...fine)

I'll skip the rest, no sense fighting over it. It's all interperatation and some agreement. Except:

Both sides being responsible is despicable. No exceptions.

I'm assuming you meant both sides "not" being responsible.

That is the crux off the matter, and at the heart of my point. Until men step up and be REAL men they have no business tending a woman's house. When such is in order, then I will more willingly accept a militant opinion against abortion.

I also notice you attribute every abortion outside of rape, or (I'm assuming) the mother's health to a lack of moral fortitude.

Do you know which demographic has the most abortions? WHy 30+ year old married women! That's right. Not teenage girls, not 20 somethings, but 30+ married women. Now are you going to say they are morally bankrupt? That they are simply using abortion as birth control?

I think this pigeonholing of these women's lives is a little rhetorical and avoids any compassion whatsoever for her life and livlihood. I know the next question out of your mouth for me is: "What about the baby?" Well...quite frankly, I am going to refer to Noumanenenen's first post. It cannot live without the mother. Period. If you refuse to acknowledge the mother's priorty in health and welfare (and that includes the ability to see the child throgh life, finacially, emotionally, etc...) than their is no sense in further debate as we'll be hopelessly deadlocked. Sorry, the baby comes second-IMO.

The ultimate ideal here on both sides (I think) is to find ways to make abortion unnecessary. I again restate that rather than arguing about what's happening now spending more energy finding real solutions to these issues is more important. That does include more parental invoement with their teenagers, advocating abstinance, and certainly continuing to pursue greater advancements in birth control for married couples no longer wishing to procreate. Female birth control pills are not all that healthy for the mother, particularly among women who smoke.

-Ok, I'm done and I renew my vow to avoid this discussion in ALL future threads on the matter.

[Todd D.]

Once again? I don't use this argument frequently, nor do I normally engage in this discussion I jumped in only because the self-righeousness in the air was making me sick. And just calling it a tired old argument doesn't make it untrue nor irrelevant. By this logica I should be able to dictate policy to India, simply because I know morality, and my experience their is not contigent on this.

I was not referring to you using this argument frequently, but I've seen it a lot on this board, and it's bullshit. Your India example is somewhat skewed, because i am not advocating the dictation of policy, merely I am displaying my personal morality. You can't run India, but you can think that Vietnam being Communist is shitty, regardless of whether you have been there or not.

Morality is a marriage of convienience and rationalization of one's experiences. That is not to say I am completely against a purely moralistic argument in all cases, but merely to state that no matter much people want it to be so, Some issues are jsut going to be subjective. (Yes, I know conservatives everywhere hate me now...fine)

I'll skip the rest, no sense fighting over it. It's all interperatation and some agreement. Except:

Both sides being responsible is despicable. No exceptions.

I'm assuming you meant both sides "not" being responsible.

That is the crux off the matter, and at the heart of my point. Until men step up and be REAL men they have no business tending a woman's house. When such is in order, then I will more willingly accept a militant opinion against abortion.

My opinions are both, they compel both sides to face the responsibility of their actions. You can't have one without the other.

Do you know which demographic has the most abortions? WHy 30+ year old married women! That's right. Not teenage girls, not 20 somethings, but 30+ married women. Now are you going to say they are morally bankrupt? That they are simply using abortion as birth control?

In a word, yes. I don't care how old they are, they could be 45 and I'd still say that if they are getting an abortion outside of rape or lifebearing, that they are shirking the responsibility that they accepted de facto when they laid down and had sex.

I think this pigeonholing of these women's lives is a little rhetorical and avoids any compassion whatsoever for her life and livlihood.

Not at all, though I would suggest that such irresponsible actions warrant no sympathy, I certainly do advocate compassion and assistance for the situation. Chastising the woman will not help, it will make the situation worse, but to take a lax attitude and say "it's ok, it doesn't matter" is not a sollution either.

I know the next question out of your mouth for me is: "What about the baby?" Well...quite frankly, I am going to refer to Noumanenenen's first post. It cannot live without the mother. Period. If you refuse to acknowledge the mother's priorty in health and welfare (and that includes the ability to see the child throgh life, finacially, emotionally, etc...) than their is no sense in further debate as we'll be hopelessly deadlocked. Sorry, the baby comes second-IMO.

I see, so where does this line end? When the baby is born? Why? The baby is still unable to care for itself, provide for itself, etc. Does the mother's well being stull come first? In my opinion, you have it backwards. The woman and the man made a choice to partake in an activity that they knew could lead to pregnancy. Now that it has, they have the duty and the responsibility to make sacrafices that their choices have warranted, both of them.

The ultimate ideal here on both sides (I think) is to find ways to make abortion unnecessary. I again restate that rather than arguing about what's happening now spending more energy finding real solutions to these issues is more important. That does include more parental invoement with their teenagers, advocating abstinance, and certainly continuing to pursue greater advancements in birth control for married couples no longer wishing to procreate. Female birth control pills are not all that healthy for the mother, particularly among women who smoke.

I agree with this, especially the medical side. However, this is assuming a pregnancy.

[Kamil]

So to keep the woman's life how she wants it, she can kill a living being with potential to become human.

What good is it if the latent human entity is unwanted? It'll either end up in an adoption clinic or with the mother. Chances are, if the woman does not want this child, she will treat is as it is unwanted and/or will possibly subject it to an impoverished lifestyle as this potential human being can potentially ruin the mother's plans for life. Albeit it's unwanted, it doesn't necessarily signify that a subjection to an impoverished and/or hostile milieu is necessitated, although the probability is high. The fact that the baby is unwanted tells us that the woman is not fit, prepared, or ready to become a mother, or does not even want to become a mother.

Yes, if I was directly involved in bringing that baby into existance. Even if I wasn't, I would still allow it. That baby has as much right to live as I do.

It's funny how pro-lifers argue that abortion is murder when at the very same time, the vast majority of them support US occupation in foreign lands where multitudes of innocent civilians are murdered each and every year.

And yet, they all know that it is a possible outcome. Yes, women should give up their life if they are too irresponsible to take precautions against getting pregant, and too weak to accept their responsibility when it happens. And being drunk does not even begin to excuse them. It just shows more of their irresponsibility.

If the woman becomes pregnant, it is her problem and she should fully accept all responsibility for the dilemma. The woman can be responsible by taking matters into her own hands. The woman should be responsible for her actions. If she wants to abort her fetus, what are pro-lifers doing deciding for her what she should do?

Bullshit. I eat cheeseburgers because they taste good, not because I want to get fat. People smoke cigarettes because they want to get the buzz, not because they want to crud up their long. Does that mean that I should be able to yell at McDonalds or Marloboro because my intention for the consumption yielded undesireable results? No. I dare say that the amount of people that have sex without knowing that it can possibly lead to pregnancy is statistically nil. People know that the possibility exists, and accept that responsibility the second that they choose to partake in that activity.

Why should the right to further taking responsibility for the case by putting matter into your own hands be outlawed? It's the woman's problem, the fetus does not have a say as it is an illegitimate entity.

Man, it would be SO much fun to jump off that train tresell into the water. What, it's unsafe? What am I supposed to do, sacrafice good times just to be safe? YES! I could drive my car 130 miles an hour if I wanted to, but that's not safe, no matter how much fun it would be. Safety comes before the desire for a good time.

Unlike your proposed scenario, sexual relations occur incessantly and are a common solution to alleviating boredom and having a good time. Various harsh consequences precipitated by accidental and unexpected pregnancies are inflicted by people like you who deny a woman the right to do as she wishes with her body and for her to take responsibility into her own hands. What happened to the whole self-ownership arguements, libertarians? By your logic applied to the abortion scenario, once a person makes a mistake, they have no right to fix it. A fetus is marginal to that of an actual human yet it is accompanied by armies of supporters forcing the woman to carry the child.

That presupposes that the woman owns the fetus. That is arguable. I personally feel that she is carrying the fetus, but does not own it, in the same way that a woman does not OWN her children, but still cares for them and provides for them. I understand that this sets me aside from the official party platform, but this is something that I disagree with. A fetus is a human being at the moment of conception, in my opinion, as such they are sovreign, and an abortion violates THEIR rights to life.

Okay, let's remove the fetus and give it a home where it is welcomed? If the woman does not own the fetus, why must it reside in her womb?

You must err on the side of caution here, in my opinion, and say that the fetus stands to lose its life, while the woman stands to lose her lifestyle, something that she chose to accept when she had sex.

Why must she accept a lifestyle where she is bankcrupt of all opportunity, fun, and individuality by having the responsibility of taking care of a child forced onto her? By all means, as the woman does not own the fetus, at once, remove the fetus, don't abort it. Technically, she will be merely displacing what is unwanted and not hers to handle, therefore, people can find a better place for the latent human being.

So instead of removing opportunity, you just remove the life itself? By that logic, we should go to the ghettos and just shoot the poor, I mean after all, that's better than living without opportunity right?

Each life, whether glamorous or impoverished, has some kind of importance attributed to it. If someone does not desire to live anymore, they will take care of that themselves. Taking the fetus situation into hand, we see that the fetus has not experienced anything as it is an illegitimate entity and would have nothing to lose. It's only inevitable that the very same people who forced this fetus to come into being will be the people the fetus - now a human - must engage in drudgerous labour for.

[Visage of Glory]

What good is it if the latent human entity is unwanted? It'll either end up in an adoption clinic or with the mother. Chances are, if the woman does not want this child, she will treat is as it is unwanted and/or will possibly subject it to an impoverished lifestyle as this potential human being can potentially ruin the mother's plans for life. Albeit it's unwanted, it doesn't necessarily signify that a subjection to an impoverished and/or hostile milieu is necessitated, although the probability is high. The fact that the baby is unwanted tells us that the woman is not fit, prepared, or ready to become a mother, or does not even want to become a mother.

So something unwanted does not deserve to live? That bum on the street that no one cares about, and could be called a blight on society, what about him. He is unwanted, so is it justifiable to kill him?

And, I confused at your insistence that if a woman has a child, it will ruin her life. My mother, a college graduate, had fourchildren, and has a good job as a real estate agent. Of course, she took the responsible road and got married. I was born 9 months after my parents. Did I put a burden on their life, absoluotely. They were still going through school. Would their life had been easier if they had just aborted me? Sure, but then I would not exist. Really, just because a baby will put a burden on the mother and father's life, or may be unwanted, that does not mean it does not deserve to exist.

It's funny how pro-lifers argue that abortion is murder when at the very same time, the vast majority of them support US occupation in foreign lands where multitudes of innocent civilians are murdered each and every year.

This is something that has nothing to do with the subject.

f the woman becomes pregnant, it is her problem and she should fully accept all responsibility for the dilemma. The woman can be responsible by taking matters into her own hands. The woman should be responsible for her actions. If she wants to abort her fetus, what are pro-lifers doing deciding for her what she should do?

Except it is not only her problem. It is also the problem of the fetus growing inside her, and the father that assisted in creating the child.

[Todd D.]

Why should the right to further taking responsibility for the case by putting matter into your own hands be outlawed? It's the woman's problem, the fetus does not have a say as it is an illegitimate entity.

Taking responsibility does not mean the death of the offending item. Like Visage said, if he gets in deep to a Loan Shark, killing the Loan Shark is not an acceptable way to "accept responsibility" for their mistakes. That's running away from them.

Unlike your proposed scenario, sexual relations occur incessantly and are a common solution to alleviating boredom and having a good time.

I disagree. Simple as that. That may be the reason for having sex, but there are risks involved. That's like saying hunting is sollution for boredom and having a good time, so therefore if I accidentally shoot someone in the woods, it's not my fault and don't need to accept any responsibility. I mean after all, I was just trying to cure some boredom right? I didn't MEAN to shoot anyone.

Various harsh consequences precipitated by accidental and unexpected pregnancies are inflicted by people like you who deny a woman the right to do as she wishes with her body and for her to take responsibility into her own hands.

That's right, damn people like me for forcing people to accept the consequences of their actions. Damn people like me with principles and who believe in ramifications for activities taken. It's such a shame that we have people in this world that think that killing someone else is not the sollution to all of our problems. Yes, what a shame.

What happened to the whole self-ownership arguements, libertarians?

I already told you. Parents do not own their children. They care for them, they provide for them, but they do not own them. I consider it no different be that child in a car, a stroller, or a womb. Toddlers can't fend for themselves, does that mean if they become an economic burden, and the woman stops having "fun", that she can just kill it? Shit no.

Libertarians believe in self ownership, and if you believe life begins at conception, then that baby owns itself, and nobody has the right to take that life away without it's consent.

By your logic applied to the abortion scenario, once a person makes a mistake, they have no right to fix it. A fetus is marginal to that of an actual human yet it is accompanied by armies of supporters forcing the woman to carry the child.

They have every right to "fix" it, through acceptable means. Death and destruction are not acceptable means. A fetus is not marginal to an actual human in this case, because the human willingly and knowingly created the fetus.

Okay, let's remove the fetus and give it a home where it is welcomed? If the woman does not own the fetus, why must it reside in her womb?

Like I said above, a woman does not OWN her children, therefore it's ok to take her children away? No. She still has a certain responsibility to provide for that baby. If she decides to give it up for adoption, that's fine, because she is not removing the life from the human. Abortion does.

Why must she accept a lifestyle where she is bankcrupt of all opportunity, fun, and individuality by having the responsibility of taking care of a child forced onto her?

Because she chose to have sex. It's that simple. It's not forced on her, she chose it. She chose it when she had sex. Both the parents chose to accept that responsibility when they had sex. Nothing was forced on them.

By all means, as the woman does not own the fetus, at once, remove the fetus, don't abort it. Technically, she will be merely displacing what is unwanted and not hers to handle, therefore, people can find a better place for the latent human being.

I see, so it's ok to just abandon a newborn in the back ally of a gutter? What about that woman who merely displaced her children in her car and sent it into a lake? She wasn't technically "murdering" anyone, she was merely displacing an unwanted car and two unwanted children and not hers to handle. In other words, that argument is bullshit.

Each life, whether glamorous or impoverished, has some kind of importance attributed to it. If someone does not desire to live anymore, they will take care of that themselves. Taking the fetus situation into hand, we see that the fetus has not experienced anything as it is an illegitimate entity and would have nothing to lose. It's only inevitable that the very same people who forced this fetus to come into being will be the people the fetus - now a human - must engage in drudgerous labour for.

How is it an illegitimate entity, because it doesn't breathe air? Because it hasn't been carried to term yet? Who is to say that? It's disputable, and I simply think that you MUST err on the side of caution and say that life begins at conception.

Oh, and as for your "drudgerous labor" comment, come off it. Your ideology is a Ricecake. It's patently retarded to say that the only reason I am against abortion is because it increases the size of the labor force. Come off it.

[Kamil]

So something unwanted does not deserve to live? That bum on the street that no one cares about, and could be called a blight on society, what about him. He is unwanted, so is it justifiable to kill him?

Not necessarily. If one has physical possession of an entity within their body, they should have the right to exterminate it. If you won't allow that, at least allow the woman to remove the fetus from her womb and transport it elsewhere. According to Todd, the woman does not own the fetus, so why should the fetus be obliged to remain in the woman's body?

And, I confused at your insistence that if a woman has a child, it will ruin her life. My mother, a college graduate, had fourchildren, and has a good job as a real estate agent. Of course, she took the responsible road and got married. I was born 9 months after my parents. Did I put a burden on their life, absoluotely. They were still going through school. Would their life had been easier if they had just aborted me? Sure, but then I would not exist. Really, just because a baby will put a burden on the mother and father's life, or may be unwanted, that does not mean it does not deserve to exist.

Not all people have sufficient assistance to taking care of their child as your mother did. Have you ever thought that the child's father does not want to take care of the child? Besides, it also varies on what people already own, their family connections that could help raise the child, and one's intelligence. Let me ask you this, did your mother have four children prior to entering college, during, or after?

This is something that has nothing to do with the subject.

Yes it does. If you so strongly believe that everyone has a right to live, why are you silent on everything that's happening across the borders, being inflicted upon by your country?

[Kamil]

Taking responsibility does not mean the death of the offending item. Like Visage said, if he gets in deep to a Loan Shark, killing the Loan Shark is not an acceptable way to "accept responsibility" for their mistakes. That's running away from them.

There are several examples which we can both use to demonstrate our arguements from the two antithetical points of view. I'm almost sure of it that there will be no concensus in this arguement, people will just continue to repeat the same old moral standards in which they adhere to. Therefore, you can carry on the arguement, but I won't take part as my the next few days, I'm going to be busy, and I won't waste my spare time on writing and reading the same old tautology of the morality in abortion.

I disagree. Simple as that. That may be the reason for having sex, but there are risks involved.

Yes, we already agreed that there are risks; what we cannot agree on is when these risks become a reality, should the pregnant mother be able to abort her unwanted child or should be forced to keep it? I don't think we'll be able to mediate the affair as the two opposing sides are to far apart to reconcile any dissent.

That's right, damn people like me for forcing people to accept the consequences of their actions. Damn people like me with principles and who believe in ramifications for activities taken. It's such a shame that we have people in this world that think that killing someone else is not the sollution to all of our problems. Yes, what a shame.

It's not an issue of killing as the fetus is not sufficiently developed to be categorized as a legitimate entity. All it has to lose is the opportunity to life, it won't matter if it doesn't receive that opportunity as its sentimentality is not an entailed function in its fetal existence. Besides, didn't you make an acception for abortion in the case of rape? After all, you're killing an innocent entity because its creation had been affiliated with negativity and immorality. The woman, after being raped, should take responsibility for her insufficient potence to deter off the perpetrator and she herself is no better than the rapist if she obliterates the fetus. In the case of a woman becoming impregnated accidentally, why should the mother be obliged to carry the child, and after its birth, keep it or send it to an orphanage? Perhaps the woman had been drunk and sexual relations had engaged spontaneously or by another man taking advantage of the woman? Why does the woman not have a right to abort? After all, the fetus is unwanted as I reiterated, the woman is not fit, prepared, or ready for a child, or simply does not want one.

I already told you. Parents do not own their children. They care for them, they provide for them, but they do not own them. I consider it no different be that child in a car, a stroller, or a womb. Toddlers can't fend for themselves, does that mean if they become an economic burden, and the woman stops having "fun", that she can just kill it? Shit no.

If the woman does not own the fetus and doesn't want it, get it the fuck out of her property and place it in a more welcomed milieu.

They have every right to "fix" it, through acceptable means. Death and destruction are not acceptable means. A fetus is not marginal to an actual human in this case, because the human willingly and knowingly created the fetus

If humans created the fetus, why should they not have the right to dispose of it as it is their labour?

I see, so it's ok to just abandon a newborn in the back ally of a gutter? What about that woman who merely displaced her children in her car and sent it into a lake? She wasn't technically "murdering" anyone, she was merely displacing an unwanted car and two unwanted children and not hers to handle. In other words, that argument is bullshit.

What I meant was, displace the fetus, not the baby. If the woman does not own the fetus, why is it obligatory for the fetus to own the woman by living off her nutrients and forcing her to carry itself? Remove the fetus from the woman's womb and transport it to somewhere that it is welcomed.

How is it an illegitimate entity, because it doesn't breathe air? Because it hasn't been carried to term yet? Who is to say that? It's disputable, and I simply think that you MUST err on the side of caution and say that life begins at conception.

It's not developed and has not experience of life out of a womb. It won't matter to the fetus that it won't be given a chance to live if it has no sentiment and voice of its own. You do not need others speaking for the fetus. If they want the fetus to live so bad, get it out of the woman's womb and surrogate it in another woman's womb where it'll be welcomed.

Oh, and as for your "drudgerous labor" comment, come off it. Your ideology is a Ricecake. It's patently retarded to say that the only reason I am against abortion is because it increases the size of the labor force. Come off it.

It's just ironic, I'm not accusing you of wanting the fetus to labour for you or anything.

[SueDeNîmes.]

So what I propose is this: abortion is within the mother's rights as long as its passive, meaning the woman just denies it the nutrients which are part of her body and thus belong to her.

OMG Is there a recognised medical procedure for this ? Presumably the fetus would have to be somehow isolated from the placenta, the umbilical cord severed or strangulated . Wouldn't there be a terrible risk of infection? Can nutrients be withheld but not oxygen? Sound libertarian practice, perhaps, but horribly cruel and mutually life threatening.

And maybe if the mother has to starve the fetus to death over a long period of time rather than have a doctor kill it immediately, she will think twice before aborting her child.

yeah, if it doesn't kill her.

[Visage of Glory]

Not necessarily. If one has physical possession of an entity within their body, they should have the right to exterminate it. If you won't allow that, at least allow the woman to remove the fetus from her womb and transport it elsewhere. According to Todd, the woman does not own the fetus, so why should the fetus be obliged to remain in the woman's body?

It is all because of that "R" word: responsibility. It is something she accepted to do when she had sex.

Not all people have sufficient assistance to taking care of their child as your mother did. Have you ever thought that the child's father does not want to take care of the child?

It does not matter if he wants to or not. It is his duty to assist the women in all that she needs to raise the child.

Besides, it also varies on what people already own, their family connections that could help raise the child, and one's intelligence. Let me ask you this, did your mother have four children prior to entering college, during, or after?

She had one while in college, and the rest after.

Yes it does. If you so strongly believe that everyone has a right to live, why are you silent on everything that's happening across the borders, being inflicted upon by your country?

Why do you assume that I am "silent." I think it is terrible, terrible what is happening in Iraq and other places. Innocents should never die. However, I believe that overall, it will prevent deaths.

[christianfundamentalist]

It is all because of that "R" word: responsibility. It is something she accepted to do when she had sex.

I agree 100%!

[democrat-hippie]

I was born 9 months after my parents. Did I put a burden on their life, absoluotely. They were still going through school. Would their life had been easier if they had just aborted me? Sure, but then I would not exist. Really, just because a baby will put a burden on the mother and father's life, or may be unwanted, that does not mean it does not deserve to exist.

This does not mean every pregnant woman is going to end up like this. You made an example that will not be the same with every woman. Most of the time having a child prevents a woman from going to collage, and contributing to society, and having a sucsessful life.
the bottom line is that if a woman does not want to carrie a unborn fetus, she does not have to. It is her body, and why make her go through somthing she does not want to do? Anyways- if you take away abortions, women are still going to find ways to get rid of their unborn fetus. For instance- purposly falling down stairs. So if you are going to take that option away- you are going to end up hurting the mother, along with taking away the unborn fetus.

[Todd D.]

This does not mean every pregnant woman is going to end up like this. You made an example that will not be the same with every woman. Most of the time having a child prevents a woman from going to collage, and contributing to society, and having a sucsessful life.

You know what? It's gonna sound harsh, but there could be stats that show that every single woman that gets pregnant at 18 ends up a bum on the streets with needles in her arm, and I still would be against abortion. Why? Because as I have repeated over and over again, for an overwhelming majority of the instances, nobody forced the women to have sex. Both the man and the woman chose to accept the responsibility that comes with having sex. That's my position, I know I'm such a horrible person for having principles and making people accept responsibility. Sorry.

the bottom line is that if a woman does not want to carrie a unborn fetus, she does not have to. It is her body, and why make her go through somthing she does not want to do?

This is where we differ. Yes a woman owns her body, but I don't consider the fetus to be her body. I consider it an independent being that happens to be residing in the mother's womb. But again, that's a consequence she decided to accept when she had sex. Period.

Anyways- if you take away abortions, women are still going to find ways to get rid of their unborn fetus. For instance- purposly falling down stairs. So if you are going to take that option away- you are going to end up hurting the mother, along with taking away the unborn fetus.

Man, I don't know why we make spousal abuse illegal. I mean, men beat their wives regardless of it's legality, so we should just legalize it and be done with it. Idiotic argument to say "Well it's gonna happen anyway, so we might as well accept it". Sorry, I don't accept running away from your problems. I don't accept taking the easy way out at the expense of another's lives. Sorry if that makes me a bad person.

[democrat-hippie]

I consider it an independent being that happens to be residing in the mother's womb

like someone said earlier...what about the nutrience it is absorbing from her..that is hers right? And what if childbirth kills the woman..that took what is very valuable away from the mother..her life.

But again, that's a consequence she decided to accept when she had sex. Period.

So you want to force the woman to go through child birth? You want to make it so she HAS to have that babie, and she can not do anything about it?

[Todd D.]

like someone said earlier...what about the nutrience it is absorbing from her..that is hers right? And what if childbirth kills the woman..that took what is very valuable away from the mother..her life.

A fetus cannot live without a mother. That much is not in dispute. If a woman's life is in danger from the baby, that is a tougher issue, but somewhat irrelevent considering that it is not the reason that most women have abortions. If you must know though, yes I think that the baby should be carried to term. That is my opinion.

So you want to force the woman to go through child birth? You want to make it so she HAS to have that babie, and she can not do anything about it?

Yes. It's called accepting responsibility for your actions. I know that tends to be a dirty word these days, but I still believe in it.

[democrat-hippie]

so what is you opinon about rape? should a mother be forced to have the child even when she did not choose to have sex?

[Garibaldi]

They matter when you're talking about consent, which as I said, is nothing but an outward affirmation of intent. If the woman did not consent to being impregnanted, and reproducing was not her intent, then she has simply not consented to reproductive sex. All other facts or opinion aside - that argument is debunked.

No, shegives consent whether it's her intent or not. Like Todd said, I don't have the intent of getting fat when I eat Fast Food, or ruining my lungs when I smoke. However, I give consent because it is a known outcome. When you have sex, of any kind, you recognise you can cause conception and you give consent whether or not you intend to. And while you can say that a person should have the right to excircise to lose the fat or see a doctor to improve their lungs, these do not effect another's right to life. On the other hand, when you concieve a baby you can not kill it, because it now has the right to life, whereas your fat or poor quality lungs do not.

[Garibaldi]

Now, my belief on Abortion is that they should be illegal unless it threatens the women's right to life.

Setting aside rape for the time being, when a women concieves she consents to becoming a parent. A parent has rights and responsibilities wihch are a trade off, as a child and especially one in the fetus stage of life cannot act consentually. The parent has the right to determine what is best for the kid only because the kid can not determine what is best for it, and thus the the parent has not only the right but also the responsibility. While I don't believe the law has the right to infringe upon indirect causes of what's best for a kid, like alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, gambling, or sex; I do believe that direct causes, like making sure the parent is feeding and clothing the child and not burning it's skin off with various forms of acid, are within the powers of the law to regulate.

Now, the condition of rape complicates the situation, but I am a cold, heartless bastard and I believe that the mother must carry the baby until birth because it does not pose a threat to her rights to her life. Possibly if science advances and she can sell her fetus, much like post-natal adoption, then that would necessarily be legal; however, until that point it is her responsibility as a parent to keep the fetus alive.

[democrat-hippie]

But she did not choose to have the babie! why shold she have to go through the pregnancy when she did not want it to begin with? Any ways- Garibaldi, if you are a male, you have no right telling women that it is not right to abort a fetus, because you are not the one going through the prgnancy! Only Women should decide this, not men. We as men can not decide to take it away for several reasons-

1. we are not giving birth

2. We are not the one supplying it with nutrience for it to live

3. it is their body, and they decide what to do with it, not us

4. The fetus belongs to them. They hold it with in their body, they have what it needs to survive.

[Garibaldi]

That's bullshit. That's like saying convicted murderers should be the only ones who can decide the law. If a women is destroying an innocent life without it being a direct threat to hers, I have just as much right to step in as if I see a man trying to kill another on the sidewalk.