No, I think there should be restrictions on abortions. It should be very difficult to obtain one in the third trimester.

I was simply responding to your claim about the sexual morals of people who have abortions.

As is your right. I respect that.

Only if you believe, as a matter of ideology, that legally protected human life begins at conception. I don't. I do not think a fertilized egg has any particular legal rights. Certainly none that trump the mother's right to control her body.

I do, however, think a 32-week fetus has legal rights, which often trump the mother's right to control her body.

So for me, the question is "how does a fetus accrue legal rights, and when?"

I think the line is right around viability, where the fetus is capable of having an existence independent of the mother.

That's where I think the *legal* line ought to be drawn. But it should be up to every individual where their personal line is drawn. If you adamantly oppose all abortions, then don't have one. Also, feel free to try to persuade others to feel likewise.

We'll only have trouble if you seek to enshrine your all-or-nothing personal standard into law, forcing everyone -- even those who reasonably disagree with you -- to do it your way.

__________________
Man up.

I can agree with that. A few more rights than it had at the start, but not so many rights it is considered more valuble than the mother. Perhaps a little harder to obtain an abortion, as it is anyway, in late stage pregnancy.

__________________
Sharon Marie Tate: January 24 1943 - 9 August 1969
Forever Remembered

You believe this crap? Let me quote: Funniest thing I have heard all day - you mean these nutters have actually held an 8 week old fetus and pricked it with a pin, just to see what it would do? Are you nuts? Seriously, tell me how the hell they came up with that pile of tosh.

__________________
Sharon Marie Tate: January 24 1943 - 9 August 1969
Forever Remembered

So when would you have born humans lose legal rights? Whenever they lose viability?
You are ignoring individuals who are refused such rights. That makes such a law a violation of human rights.

This describes the current law we live under.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Tell me why a six week old fetus, for example, should be considered more important, and more worthy than the woman?

__________________
Sharon Marie Tate: January 24 1943 - 9 August 1969
Forever Remembered

Hardly. Once your born you're physically separate from your mother, a full human with full rights.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Hardly. Are people who are adamantly opposed to abortion forced to have abortions?

The current standard is reasonable, not an extreme all-or-nothing standard.

__________________
Man up.

My point is that the woman's convienence is not more important than the fetus's life. Tell me why a woman's discomfort is more important than a human's existence.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

When extending rights based on viability as you stated, it only stands to reason that "unviable" humans have no rights.

"every individual" does not have such rights as you state to draw that line. You are suggesting that only a select few individuals have the right to exist. This is the problem with the so-called "choice". It removes every choice of another individual.

It is reasonable only to those that will go on living after the procedure. Are aborted humans not forced to face the result of this? It is a forced action upon them. You're preface is that this action is reasonable. And to those that oppose killing innocent life, it simply is not. It is not extreme to stand up for fellow humans that are being killed, at least not to those of us that don't wish to extend rights based on viability.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Only if viability is the only measure of all rights. As far as I'm concerned, the viability standard only applies in the womb. Once you're born, you're a completely independent entity that enjoys all the rights of a full human. And note that a 38-week fetus, for example, enjoys almost full rights. Such a fetus can only be aborted in extreme circumstances.

It's still the most reasonable standard. Imposing the ideological standard of "life begins at conception" removes all choice from everybody, in service of a definition that reasonable people can disagree on. It's a great personal standard; it's a lousy basis for law.

This is true. But such is the result of the collision between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Which is fine. The problem is that in order to support your position, one must accept that a fertilized egg is a human, with full rights. I find that simply absurd except as a religious or ideological position.

2-week-old embryo? No rights. Can be aborted at will.

26-week-old fetus? Much more developed, thus entitled to more rights. Can only be aborted in specified circumstances.

38-week-old fetus? Entitled to almost full rights. Can only be aborted for extreme medical reasons, and only after efforts to produce a live birth have failed or been ruled out for extreme medical reasons.

As noted, I have no objection to people who pursue a "no abortions ever" standard in their own life. I have no problem with people who attempt to *persuade* others to adopt the same standard.

But using the law to *force* others to adopt the same standard is a different kettle of fish, IMO. The law should only impose reasonable rules that recognize the competing interests of embryo and mother -- balancing and weighing the legitimate interests of both.

__________________
Man up.

Because the woman is a living, breathing human being, and a person under law. A fetus is not. It cannot make decisions as it has no concious. The woman has the ability to make choices, so she has the right to choose. Sorry you don't like that, but it is just too bad.

__________________
Sharon Marie Tate: January 24 1943 - 9 August 1969
Forever Remembered