now. I am perfectly content to let all of those instances remain legal indefinitely.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could, however, do away with abortion for convenience, which is the motivation in perhaps 90% of abortions?

Catz

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

it's no coincidence that the bible belt and the inner cities have the highest teenage pregnancy and sid problem in the us

one has to deal with it being a sin to even discuss it and pretend sex doesn't happen and the other has to do with funding.

but then, that would be so novel for you to actually back up your claims, we'd probably all keel over and die.

Catz

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

I have trouble with abortion for two reasons. First, I can't make up my mind which way I lean with regard to abortion. And second, the two competing interests are both compelling (at least I find them compelling).

I am a person who believes that people should be free to exercise their liberty to the fullest extent but I do support the right of the goverment to abridge absolute freedom when the exercise of that freedom materially interferes with the reasonable with the freedom of another.

For example, I am an ardent supporter of gay rights because although people have reasons why they don't like it, people simply cannot show how it materially interferes with their freedom to allow gays equal rights. On the other hand, people who oppose abortion can easily show that the unfettered right to abortions does materially interfere with the freedom (that is the freedom to life) or another (if you conclude that a fetus is a person at conception). It also tips the scale for me that women who get pregnant assume the risk that they will become pregnant by their actions. And adoption is always an option. One of the main reasons why I feel abortions should be allowed is that women will have them anyway and it is better to allow the procedure in a safe environment rather than a back room.

I honestly have days where I say I am pro-life and days when I say I am pro-choice. I usually admit to being on the fence.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I was very much pro-abortion prior to having children. I am not a religious person, but I am a spiritual person. When having my children, it struck me that the miracle of birth, of the creation of new life, is perhaps the greatest miracle that we as humans have the chance to experience in our lifetimes.

I am concerned about the evolution of our society into one in which it's weakest members are killed for convenience. It is one thing to choose suicide as an adult with a terminal illness. It's another thing to kill someone else because you feel their life has no meaning or worth.

I think that working as i do with society's throw-aways, such a practice alarms me on so many levels that I simply get nauseated about the idea of it.

Catz

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

Sex is for pleasure! the only reason animals bother with it is because it feels good! we wouldnt do it half as much if it didnt stimulate us. A good reason to have an abortion is because you are medically incapable to give birth or its problematic.

who the hell are you people to put conditions on peoples sex lives. Sex is in no way just for reproduction.

The only reason the government wants to limit abortion is because it wants birth rates up so that there are more consumers to drive the economy. People are killed all the time for legitimate reasons right? Death Penalty?

Or because we need to bring freedom to the heathens of the middle east?
Dropping bombs is okay, but a woman making a decision about her personal life about a being actually inside her is wrong. This isnt even close to the same context as killing someon who is could be taken care of by society. the baby is completely dependent on the mother at that point.
but dont worry if the united states government wont support women you can come to canada where we care a bit more.

Im so tired of people trying to rule over others, its a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing like 30 celled organism (exageration) when most abortions happen.

And if murder is so wrong i hope all of you are vegetarians or vegans, cause thats murder. Oh wait now some distinctions come out, its okay to murder animals which are more alive then the things in the body of the women up until around 5 months ill assume.

another reason abortion is good is that it allows people to not be hemmed in by one bad mistake and theres not enough people willing to adopt around, get off your asses and adopt something older than a new born.

most people wont adopt a older child, everyone wants a cute baby, hell orphanages are full world wide and no one cares, quit being stupid, we dont need more people in the world it is reaching the point of resource scarcity fast, we should all abort and adopt africans or chinese children and spread resources around that would be smart.

__________________
social critics are a pain

The problems people have with the issue of abortion stem from some basic misconceptions about the "sacred" nature of life, about fetuses, about babies and about human beings.
The pro "life" stance basically boils down to this
Life is sacred
Human life is especially sacred
Fetuses are human life

Therefore abortion is wrong.

This argument fails in many way.

Firstly life is not sacred per se. We kill things all the time. Plants, animals etc etc. We assign ethical rules to certain objects. Plants have very low ethical rules i.e. we can pretty much kill plants whenever we need to. Animals have higher ethical rules i.e we can't mis treat them but can still kill them for food and other things. Humans have the highest level of ethical rules in that we are not allowed to kill them except under the most extream of circumstances.

The next question is why do we have this sliding scale of ethical rules for different objects? The answer is that we value and respect certain properties that these objects display. The most precious of these properties is consciousness, self awareness and intelligence.
Plants do not display any of these properties but they are still alive - so we attribute low ethical rules to their treatment.
Animals display few or limited cases of these properties - so we attribute medium ethical rules to their treatment.
Humans display all of these properties and so we attribute high ethical rules to their treatment.

Fetuses display none of the properties talked about. Consequently they should be treated the same as similar objects.

Now one could argue about the potential nature of fetuses i.e. that they will display these properties one day. BUT one could say the same about human eggs and sperm. If one talks about potentiality then contraception becomes "murder" as well. If contraception is used a potential human being is prevented from coming into being in the same way as an aborted fetus. So I would reject arguments about fetuses being potential humans as it leads to all sorts of uncomfortable conclusions.

When making ethical decisions we need to focus on the properties displayed by the object at the time. Fetuses do not display the properties we want to protect and so can be aborted. Babies and children, however, do display these properties and so are to be protected. The term "pro life" implies that a fetus is a human life. It is not. Humans display the special properties fetuses do not - they are different objects!

Unless one has religious objections I can see no viable argument for the "pro life" stance. If one objects to abortion on religious grounds then fine - now you just need to convince me that God exists.

Here are a few non-religious arguments against abortion.

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3770




Why?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

errr because religious grounds are nothing if God does not exist. You can't utlise "abortion is wrong because god says so" as an effective argument unless God exists.

Taking your orther arguments from the link (bold)
1. First of all, the choices are abstinence, pills, condoms, shots, patches, and even a "morning after pill" (assuming it prevents fertilization). My grandmother had 9 kids and no choices. It's 2004, not 1904. People need to be responsible and accountable.
This is not an argument against abortion it is merely a statemnet of the alternatives.

2. I've heard many women regret having an abortion. Certainly many women regret getting pregnant. I've never personally heard of a woman regretting having her baby (even my grandmother).
So what? I have heard of many women who do not regret abortions at all. We regret many things in life this does not mean they should be banned. Contrary to your experiance I have heard of many women who do regret having children. Just think of all those kids that end up in care!! Or are abandoned in phone boxes. Or are abused or killed by their parents.

3. Abortion cheapens life. Regardless of your religious beliefs, you can see there is not a great outcry or shock when a newborn is murdered. A crying, breathing baby is certainly a person. That cannot be debated. Too much of the time, it's looked upon as just a late term abortion.
Only if you equate a fetus with a baby. They are not the same things at all. The fallicy of this argument is that you are comparing two differnt objects with different properties one the one hand a baby that is sentient, concious and self aware and on the other hand a fetus which displays none of these proerties. Please see my argument above for more details.


4. What if it's wrong? What if conception is the "magic moment"?
What do you mean by magic momment? If you mean when life is created I would say so what? Life is not sacred per se (see my previous post). If you mean conception is when the fetus becomes conciously aware and sentient then I would say you are talking nonsense. IF, however, science does demostrate that these special properties are present at an earlier stage of pregnacy than is currently thought THEN I would revise my current stance on the time limit on abortion. It is only when those special properties of conciousness and self awareness are present that the fetus moves up the ethical scale.

1. It certainly is an argument against abortion BECAUSE there are so many alternatives.

2. I've NEVER met a woman who had an abortion and didn't regret it.

3. The argument was not that fetus=baby. The argument is that abortion cheapens life. You disagree because you do not value life in the same way I do. The two college kids who killed their newborn (Delaware?) are a case in point. They got off almost scot-free.

4. In order to effectively argue against "What if it's wrong? What if conception is the magic moment?", you would need to prove that there is no God. There are many atheists against abortion, several of them are on this board. They have effectively argued against abortion on the abortion forum. Your disbelief in God is not evidence that there is none. Even the atheists I know concede that they could be wrong. What if they are?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt