I am a new user here. I can immediately tell that many of you have not had your daily dose of moral fiber.

There is an inherent risk of pregnancy when having sex despite the use of contraception. When two consenting adults make the decision to have sex, they also make the decision to potentially create a life. I don't see a separation of the two concepts, nor should you. Even if it is sex for pleasure...there is still a decision to engage in an act designed for reproduction and creating a life.

Setting life threatening circumstances aside...I think aborting is a way for people to reject the responsibilities and consequences for their actions. In my opinion, humanity will ultimately suffer.

"Moral Fibre" as you call it, has nothing to do with my view.
"Responsibilities and consequences for their actions" as you call it, has nothing to do with my view
"In my opinion, humanity will ultimately suffer" as you call it, has nothing to do with my view.

Society respecting the sovereign right of a woman to decide how her body will be used viz- whether to carry a baby or not -
Has Everything To Do With It.

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

Your sense of Disappointment is your personal issue for which we are (I am) neither responsible nor accountable - grow up and get over it!

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

I dislike abortions but I don't want to outlaw them. What we need to do is to reduce the number of abortion cases as much as humanly possibly by making them unnecessary. There are ways to do this, here are a few things that needs to be done.

1. Good economical support for parents, no one should ever be forced to have an abortion of economical reasons.

2. Massive use of mandatory contraceptive education in schools, no one should be able to avoid this knowledge. Besides, condoms do help to protect against STD, it isn't foolproof but it helps.

3. Easily available contraceptives, this do includes a no age limit requirement for their purchase, if they are going to do it make sure they do it safe.

4. The society must cease to look down on single mothers, an habit that have caused countless loss of life by forcing womens to use extreme measures to end pregnancies and in some cases their own liefs.

5. Employers must cease their habit of closing the job market for women that are or may become pregnant.

6. Cheap or even free kindergarten services must become available to all parents in need of these so that they can make themselves available on the job market.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you. It was my first post. I was gauging the audience.

Don’t you think that the woman should exercise her right to choose what she does with “her” (which is no longer her own when she is pregnant) before engaging in an act that is intended to create life? And if she engages in that act? Wouldn't that be the more appropriate time to choose between carrying and not carrying a baby?

At what point does she (the pregnant woman) change from behaving irresponsibility (contraception or not); to being the rally point for 500,000 people in the streets of DC and the poster child for woman’s suffrage?

I guess you could say I am pro-choice. It’s just that the man and woman should exercise that choice before they have sex, and accept the consequence after having sex. Adoption is a viable alternative.

I view my body as sovereign territory over which there is only one ruler, ME.
I can do with it as I please, treat it with respect or abuse it (as we all do to some degree and in some form or other)

I believe abortion is a terrible thing BUT

The woman who carries a baby in HER BODY should be extended the same sovereignty over her body as I expect for myself.

Thus
Regardless of whatever anyone else thinks
Regardless of the passion with which they hold their view
Regardless of how abortion may offend them and how it would never, ever, be their choice -
The choice is still that individual lady, coming to terms with one of the most critical and terrible decisions it is possible for anyone to have to make.
If she chooses to go full course and deliver - fine
If she chooses to terminate then, that is her sovereign choice and not for me or you to deny her.
If she terminates then she will carry the burden of that decision with her to the grave and ultimately be held accountable for her action by a higher authority.
I do not believe the decision to abort is easy. I know someone who has made such a decision in the past and I know it effects her still after 30 years.

As to your specifics

"Don’t you think that the woman should exercise her right to choose what she does with “her” (which is no longer her own when she is pregnant) before engaging in an act that is intended to create life? And if she engages in that act? Wouldn't that be the more appropriate time to choose between carrying and not carrying a baby? "

A womans body is and always remains "her" body regardless of her being pregnant - or not. Critically when a baby emerges from the womb the mother remains in her body. Because she is pregnant does not diminish her "sense of self" one iota - unless you presume a pregnant woman is no more than the life support system for a womb.

"At what point does she (the pregnant woman) change from behaving irresponsibility (contraception or not); to being the rally point for 500,000 people in the streets of DC and the poster child for woman’s suffrage? "

Don't know and don't care... I am not talking about rallies but a womans irrefutable right to choose.

"I guess you could say I am pro-choice. It’s just that the man and woman should exercise that choice before they have sex, and accept the consequence after having sex."

That "choice" is not always an available option and not all the "consequences" are necessarily known at the moment of "sex"

"Adoption is a viable alternative" - that is a presumption which, again may not, necessarily, be available.

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

You're talking about a right to choose what goes on with your body??

hmmm... yes i completely agree with you.
So, what about life?
If that babe is growing, it is life.
That baby cannot communicate about whether or not it wants to die, but that doesn't make it any less an individual, does it?

That little baby, IS an individual, and its human equivalence to the mother... make them the same level in terms of life.
However, just because the mother is highly more advanced in mind and physical abilities, doesn't mean she has authority over the baby's chance to live.

We are always realiant on someone or another.
We need our friends to cheer us up.
We need our parents to care for us.
We need our teachers to teach us.
But that doesn't give them the authority to kill us. Does it?
Not because we are under their care?
Not because we rely on them to survive??

The woman has authority over her body, yes. But once that baby begins to grow, she holds a body that isn't hers to control: even if it is inside her. The body is the baby's alone. And as the body develops; it becomes more self-sufficiant. and begins to rely on other means of survival.

To me, the care and protection of a mother, as the child is inside her stomache, do not change as the child grows into an adult. As the child comes out the womb, learns to slide along the floor on their bum, to crawl, to waddle, to walk... to run... the maternal sense of protection stays the same.
Yet at no point can the mother have authority over that childs chance of life.
because if that was so, my parents would have that authority over me. And yours over you. Or wouldn't it?

Your body is your own, yes, so treat that baby's body with respect, because that baby is no less human than you, is it?...?...

__________________
"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the
same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present."
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Very early and at an as-of-yet-to-be-determined time, the mass of cells dividing in the uterus becomes a human being still wholly reliant on it's mother for life support. Fully functioning brain, heart, fingers, toes, all the organs. Keep religion out of this, stick to the science. Obviously at some point in time, this human being has the ability, with risk, to live outside the uterus. I assume most who are pro-choice agree with the above.

Now, let's cloud the issue. Should a person only be charged with assault if they intentionally batter a woman's pregnant belly resulting in spontaneous abortion/fetal death (depending on how you see it)? Or how about secretly feeding a woman RU-486?

If you are pro-choice, but believe deeply in women's rights, you should be able to see the paradox. Without fetal protection, a man could cause an abortion with only a simple assault charge or practicing medicine without a license. No different than punching the papparazzi

I personally believe that a woman should have a right to an abortion when we are still dealing with a mass of dividing cells. Obviously this leaves timing to debate. But when you all have the chance to feel a 4 month-old "fetus" kicking away in your belly, I'm quite sure you will then feel differently about abortion.

Please Pro-Choice people you are fooling yourselves and it shows you are not well thought out. Abortion = legal murder. Plain and simple. Abortion by definition is murder with an exception.

First of all a woman does have a right to do what she wants with her body. When a woman gets on her back or whatever position to have sex she just made her choice unless raped. Now let me see, what kind of choice are you making as a woman when she is not murdering or killing or disposing of her own body? HMMMMMM As a matter of fact almost fifty percent of the time, a woman who aborts her own baby is murdering and taking choice away from another female. A women carrying a baby is a hypocrite when she makes a choice for another female and ends up murdering that female via abortion but says she has a right to choose because it is her body when she is not terminating her body or her life.

We all know as medically proven that a human being can only give life to another human being and both egg and sperm must be human and alive to combine to give the total ingredients for total human life with all the ingredients necessary for a total mature human life and all the ingredients necessary to create a new and total human life occurs upon conception. Upon conception a fertilized egg is total human life and all the baby/fetus (FETUS is the LATIN word for Baby! Need we say more?) needs is food and protection/shelter just like a newborn baby, just like an elderly person in a nursing home who needs to be fed or just like a person in a coman.

Remember, upon conception a total human being emerges and there is no questions what it is. When you abort you abort or murder based on the age of the baby. Saying a fetus or the silly term zygote is not a baby is like saying a baby is not an adult or a teenager is not a senior citizen. DUH How stupid for anyone to rationalize in this fashion. Bottom line is, a fertilized human egg, human fetus, newborn baby, child, teenager, adult, senior citizen are not all the same periods during the life cycle but ... all of them are human beings! As scientfically proven, it is a human being. It is not a horse! It is not a cow! It is not a mouse! IT is a human being as scientifically proven! And, to say you should be able to choose what you do with your body is true right before you used your body for sex. After that honey, you now have another body that you are responsible for and you should not be allowed to determine whether or not that "other" female, human body should live or die because of your own whim or for convenience. Plain and simple. Black and White. No questions asked. Case closed.

The only counter to yer premise is thee opposite: thah right uf thee unborn child supersedes that uf the woman in questshun.

In the end, what matters is which frame uf refrence prevails at thah polls.

Garsh: more births means mo' votes. Never fear, though. It wouldn't be logical tah say a person "spared the knife" would necessarily be some wacko, anti-Roe v. Wade. Why, jez look at all the breathing souls on this discussion who is fer thee indiscriminate slash o' thah knife!

Well, might as well git it over wiff, an' expose what pro-abortion folks sees as a chink in mah pointa view. Namely, I do seez a point in cases whar it's a matter of imminent physical threat to thah mother, or in cases like incest er rape. "Gotcha, Sam--yer argument has holes...exceptions!" Tah which all ah kin say iz, "better most of the woulda been's is saved, than none of 'em".

The position fer thee emotional-health-of-the-mother argument is a real leaky one. Why'nt we concerned that a mother wasn't healthy, but didn't know it, and was able to acturally deliver? Maybe we needs guv'ment programs to catch these victims; we could make sure all mothers was emotionally healthy 'nuff tah make a good choice? Bummer, wouldn't that mean thee mother would be sufficiently healthy to deliver?

Give me your homeless...yer children....

__________________
Later buds,

Sam,
Laffer Curve, Arkansas

"Semper Holler Fiddles"