I am pro-choice and pro-life.

The most importent is, if i don't have the economical power or time to take care of a child that shouldn't have come, we say the condom got broke or they forgot it. They just can't take care of it. Why should she struggle 9months of her life for then giving her child away is not fair to the parents.
I see the parents life more importent, cause they must have a good life to give their children a good life. They are living now and here, the child hasn't come to the world yet, you can't compare them. The child is living thanks to the mother and while the child is in there, Its the parents who should decide. If they don't want it or can't take care of it, why should they struggle for 9months.

Many of the anti-abort supporters, totally forget the parents and only think about the fetus. When the child is born then its 1.child then 2.parents. But while its in there its 1.parents 2.child. Without parents the child won't survive. Be pro-life and care about the parents aswell.

When logic and persuasion fail a "pictures worth a thousand words" so it is a convenient cheap shot for the right-to-life to use "shock horror" tactics, lets face it, here in Australia, those same tactics are used to anti smoking and drunk driving campaigns.

Maybe we should show pictures of parents almost dead by the time they are 40 because their twins were born severely disabled and brian damaged and they have spent the last 20 years looking after the 24/7 - maybe ask them what they did on their last vacation (it was possibly their honeymoon).

Maybe a picture of the parents, grey with exhaustion, praying for life - their own.

Judging what is another persons duty is easy to do, when you have the "choice" of walking away.
It is the mothers responsibility and has to be, ultimately, her choice and not a life-sentence imposed to assuage the conscience and sensibilities of third parties.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

I totally Agree

The issue of promotion of the abortion debate to children is very important and is one reason we should watch out for Roman Catholic Schools who have used abortion photographs to terrorise the pupils in their care and manipulate their minds to the view of the "Roman Catholic Church". Such propaganda exercises conflict with the real duty of educators - which is to equip people with the ability to make up their own mind.
And of course, whilst the Roman Catholic Church is so adamantly anti-contraception they are merely imposing a greater risk of avoidable abortions on their followers.
This is, of course, completely dysfunctional when we consider the Roman Catholic Church has been so busy covering up the perversions practiced by its priest through the violation and abuse of alterboys and other children in their care.
Plus anyone who saw the movie about the girls forced into slavery in Ireland (even in the current day) in the Roman Catholic Laundries, where they are treated as 3rd class and systematically abused by disgustingly corrupt and cowardly nuns and priests will understand exactly where the Roman Catholic Church stands on Human and Individual Rights - That is The Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church will have them - and every one else will not.
An organisation which came to power and prominence through the systematic murder of those who opposed it (heretics) has its foundations built on corruption. It remains corrupt to the present day and will continue to be corrupt and corrupting until people discard it for the abomination which it really is.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

Hmm... Good point. But you don't exactly have to be sexually active. And people should learn to take a bit of responsibility in the area...

However, I believe there's a good middle ground on all of this. We can allow abortion to those where pregnancy would be harmful to the mother, the child is sure to be a still born, or the mother is just not able to take care of the child.

But, on the other hand, I see abortion as definite murder. And the moral implication on this shouldn't be lessened, so that going out and having sex irresponsibly isn't encouraged.

Frankly, as I see it, the problem sort of stems from people being careless, people not being strong enough to say no, and people pressuring others into having sex.

I don't get why those who are anti say that abortion is murder but turn around and say that abortion is ok in the case of rape and incest. If it is murder for other cases it is still murder in these cases. So why is it OK then? Because of the emotinal stress it causes to the mother due to it being unplanned in the case of rape and the posibility of deformity for incest? If that is the case then isn't abortion saving the mother from emotional stress from an unplanned pregnancy?

Personally I feel that abortion is wrong. But concerning passing laws on limiting abortion, I think the current supreme court decision adheres to how laws are structured. Although most laws in society are based on a moral stance, not all of them are, and moral legitimacy is not a prerequisite for a law, so the fact that the supreme court decision allowed abortions to continue doesn't contradict this. I think the supreme court decision should be weighed based on the effect it would have on our perception of legitimacy of our laws. The argument on abortion is based on two opposing premises. The first premise corresponds to the anti argument that a fetus is alive/sentient/etc., and the second corresponds to the pro argument that, morally, a woman has rights over a fetus. Now all arguments concerning abortion are on the validity of these premises. But the overall logic of each side is that if the opposing premise is wrong and the collaborating premise is right than that infers that that side’s stance is morally right and our laws should reflect that stance. But the key word here is morally right. Whether something is morally right or wrong doesn’t mean there is a corresponding law to prohibit the moral injustice. Lying is morally wrong, but there are no general laws prohibiting it, unless of course the government wants to know whether “you had sexual relations with that woman” and whatnot. The law permits you to lie to people but just not Big Brother.
But anyway, taking either premise you probably come to a moral dilemma and a dead end. But by analyzing law, and the foundations of law in our society, a much more distinct conclusion arises. The law serves to uphold order and preserve rights and rights to property. If a law were to contradict others it would undermine those laws and undermine the legitimacy of those laws thereby undermining order, individual rights, and rights to property. If the supreme court were to allow the anti-abortion laws of the mid-19th century to continue than this would contradict the fundamental rights presented to pregnant women by law, which are addressed in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th amendments, and the Bill of Rights. So by law, a pregnant woman does have rights over her own body and thereby the life of the fetus. If anti-abortion were allowed, than this would be a contradiction to law because it would take away a pregnant woman’s rights to her own body as presented in the amendments above and therefore question the legitimacy of the laws as stated in those amendments. Unfortunately there aren't laws for an unborn fetus because there is still that debate about it being alive. So when looking at abortion and the laws which would allow or deny it, based on the laws of our society, it isn’t moral considerations that govern the decision but ones that adhere to the current law. To question this would be to question the very laws that we have entrusted to uphold our society.

If our forefathers ever thougth legalized abortion would be an issue they would have drafted laws against it... and everyone knows it.

With that said;

Americans have the wherewithal to deny someone an abortion. We are a land of Laws. We can most certainly devise a law denying women the right to an abortion.

What you fail to see is Abortion is the Lazy Woman’s way of birth control. If she’s so concerned about her rights to an abortion… why isn’t she concerned enough to protect her from becoming pregnant? Why are the women in this country so willing to overlook a woman’s obligation to take care of herself. Because she’s a woman????? Lame. Women owe it to themselves to make certain they never become pregnant when they don’t’ want to be. And anything less in this country, in this day and age, comes from laziness and ignorance. Shame on us for being so accepting.

1 Legalised against it - In UK / Australia, for a long time, abortion was "illegal" and the legislation was repealed (I presume parallel legislation also applied in USA).

2 Lazy & Ignorant - The best forms of contraception is not 100 % reliable and the voodoo systems promoted by the Roman Catholic Church even less reliable (although, as a non-RC I find it bizarre that any church should dare presume to dictate what a couple do in the privacy of their own bedroom)

What another person determines to do with their body does not effect me and thus I should not have any right to prevent what that person does. I respect that persons rights to decide how their body will be used. There is no shame in "Accepting" and respecting other peoples decisions when we would choose a different decision for ourself, it is this Tolerance which makes democracy work.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

please guys, it's not about choice, don't even try to make it about choice... it's whether a fetus is human or not, because if it's a human than those choices and hardships don't give anyone the right to kill and likewise if it's not a child than it's completely up to the mother...

so how is a fetus not like a child? probably something like, "a fetus does not have the same capabilities as a child" but then that would mean that anyone who is more capable than you in more valuable than you... equal rights, right?

__________________
support search and rescue... Get Lost

go Coast Guard

IT is about choice, a womans choice on how her body will be used.

A globular collection of cells, slowly dividing is not a child.

"equal rights" could apply equally to the unfertilised egg as to the fertilised egg and thus contraception would be perceived the same as abortion. The old religious edicts and controls imposed by the Catholic Church concerning contraception have been rejected not only by the vast majority of society but by the vast majority of Catholics.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

Yeah right...If our forefathers knew about legalized abortion they would have drafted legislation against it. Just like if they knew about slavery they would have drafted legislation against that? Oh sh!t, that's right, they did know about slavery but they chose to leave that out of the constitution. That is the point of laws. They do not always follow moral lines. They serve to preserve order. We can't just draft any law we would like. It all depends on how the public would react to those laws and whether those laws follow along the lines of other laws. That is why anti-abortion laws were repealed because they both would go against some public opinion and against laws already in place. Hey I agree with you that a fetus is a human and that abortion is morally wrong, but laws dont' follow those lines and it's not so easy as to pass laws out of thin air which is evidence why supreme court justices are some of the smartest old geezers we have. You can't just make it about morals because morals alone don't preserve society. Unfortunately, everyone has their own morality so we have to depend on something besides just our own morals. That is why we all depend on law and in order keep this order sometimes law supercedes morality.