This thread has been started to discuss opinions on whether abortion should be illegal or not. This issue has already been discussed at length in another thread. I have started a new thread so that the topic of the other thread stays on track.

To see what has been previously posted about this topic, browse through this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11455

...now please post your opinion!

Frencheneesz:

"I say stop the process before it starts." We have to see that people just WON'T stop it before it starts, so we have to focus on making less people stop it before it starts, and also how to help the people who already got it started

Ok, I am not saying we should force women to (A) get pregnant, (B) keep the baby, AND (C) go through it alone, and be forced to raise a child she didn't want in the first place.

What I am trying to say is:

If a woman gets pregnant unintentionally, it is because she had sex. Now there are only two ways that this would happen to a woman. One way is consenting to sex. The other is rape. I have pointed this out earlier. I don't think anyone can argue that. I want to stress the word unintentionally. Otherwise I know people will bring up artificial insemination, which obviously is an example of intended pregnancy.

Ok, sex is the means in which women unintentionally get pregnant.

What now? People are assuming that by not providing abortions, I think we should not assist those women. That isn't the case. I think there are still decisions that need to be made.

I think that once a woman knows she is pregnant, her first thoughts shouldn't be 'when can I get rid of this burden and move on with my life'. I understand why some women would think like that...especially if they're 16 and want to continue their education.

I want to go ahead and state the obvious now. Consentual sex is done knowing that men have sperm and women have eggs, and that if the two were to come in contact, the process I referred to earlier (in the other thread) begins.

That being said, it shouldn't come as a surprise to those young women when they become pregnant.

Ok, I will continue.

My opinion is that if a woman becomes pregnant, her 'choices' should be whether or not she wants the child once it is born. Those, I believe, are the only choices a woman should have.

This could really go in depth, but I think the alternative to abortion would be programs set up by the government (state or federal) to help women through the pregnancy process. It really doesn't have to be the government's choice. The citizen's can decide the best process (this is a little relevant to the previous thread, since I mentioned 'government'!). For example, setting up programs that would enable pregnant teenagers to complete high school with their fellow classmates. There would have to be some changes to the rules, but in a society where it has become socially acceptable to have sex at a young age, we must be willing to adapt.

There would also be programs to assist women after pregnancy. The most important one would be for women that don't want to keep their children. That's what this is all about, after all. Women that either don't want to have the burden of raising and caring for a child, or women who don't feel they are ready to be mothers yet. This program would take the child from the mother after birth, and therefore lift the burden.

I agree that having to carry a child you don't intend to keep for 9-months would be very inconvenient. It all goes back to the process. Everyone knows that when a woman becomes pregnant, that means a process has begun that will ultimately result in another human being. Eggs=nothing. Sperm=nothing. Eggs+sperm=a new life is being created. Once that process is started, I don't think the woman has the right to stop it. I think she shouldn't be forced to keep the child and be a mother either. There is an in between in where, ultimately, both will get what they want. The child will have a chance at life, and the mother will go on with hers after the pregnancy. Wouldn't this be a better deterrent than providing abortions? And better than stopping the process which creates life?

Ok, I've rambled for too long. I could continue, but I want some input (Pollux :) )

Why are we so moralistic about "killing" in some circumstances, yet have no problem offing 500,000 Iraqis?

Not really an abortion topic.

I have a problem with offing 500,000 Iraqi's. I respect their differences. I don't think we are fighting the Iraqi citizens. We are trying to give Iraqi's the freedom they deserve. I'd love to visit Baghdad some day. I don't want it to be run by a bunch of westerners, either. I want to see a country flourishing, and being able to have it's own beliefs.

When people are in power that have proven to be a threat not only to 'Zionists', but also to their own people, someone needs to intervene. Has Saddam given any hint that he can live in peace? No. He is still shooting at British and American planes, and hasn't complied with the UN resolutions. We didn't go over there and bully Saddam. He invaded Kuwait, remember? This was all his decision.

Maybe you don't watch the news, when they have former members of Saddam's army on. Maybe you don't see the many times Bush has given Saddam options. Saddam shouldn't even be in power right now. You won't see anyone in Iraq supporting the overthrow of Saddam, but you can't say it's because they like him. It's because they fear him.

I don't think anyone ever suggested intentionally killing half a million Iraqi citizens.

Maybe you don't see the many times Bush has given Saddam options

Are you crazy??? There were no options to begin with. Since Bush and his lackeys began hyping this whole thing a few months ago, no matter what occured he had only one intention: to get americans to support him in his attack on Iraq. Bush said that inspectors should be allowed in unconditionally, Iraq complied and agreed. Bush still wants to go to war, even if the inspectors are allowed unfettered access to the entire country. After all, as my hero Scott Ritter has said, it isn't easy to hide the facilities they're looking for. There's exhaust. There's mass transit for the materials. Ugghhh...it boggles my mind, Vakemp, how anyone can believe the bullshit our president spews at us every single day.

And, to reiterate, the government should not get involved, because it is not the government's choice, and the bureocracy that our government is would totally screw things up. It should be illegal and the woman should choose if she wants to bear the burden of pregnancy or not. Neither you nor me have any moral say in such a decision. None. It is the mother's, not the child's, and the mother's alone. I'm sorry, but the horror stories I've heard from my grandfather, a doctor, about women who attempted to get an abortion in the dark ages of the very subject are just horrific, and under your idea they would occur anyway, and people would needlessly be mutilated. It is unfair not only to the mother but the child itself.

There was never an option on not attacking Sadam. There were many ways the Bush administration could have phrased their goal if they wanted to give options:

We want peace in Iraq
Safety for the Iraqi people and others outside
Disarming of Iraq

But they choose their goal as; Get rid of Saddam. Clearly illustrating that their biggest concern is not peace, is not safety and is not lowering of amount of world weapons of mass destruction (though, that woudl be hugely hypocritical anyway) - it is to oust Saddam.


Anyway. The #1 reason for anti-abortion folk to be against it seems to be either religion or because "killing is wrong". There's a couple basic reasons this seems useless to myself. Religion, well, laws should never be based on your religious conviction. "Christianity says you can't have an abortion!"
"But I'm not a Christian."
"So?"

As for "killing is wrong"... If you're not religious you can probably agree that morals are entirely subjective. Laws should never be based on something 100% subjective. Saying something is "wrong" is subjective as it pertains to morals. As far as I'm concerned laws should be based on what benefits societies. And abortion is a benefit to the society.

If anti-abortioners want to argue that its killing something then I will argue it's part of the mother...it's not a functional being. If you want to get technical and say, we'll it breathes and its heart beats....I will argue that every cell in your body does respiration why kill them?

I consider the baby to be a human being the moment it wants to get out of the womb.

Life is fragile, life is short, life is a privlige, and if people are not prepared to take of it, then it shouldn't be there.

It is the mother's, not the child's, and the mother's alone.

Like I stated earlier, the murderer decides whom he kills. We call the people he kills victims. Is the fetus not deprived of life? It is a victim. If you know that fetus will grow and become a human, and you rob it of that chance, you are in essence murdering.

Murderers don't need to kill, but they do. Women who are pregnant don't need to kill the babies, but some do. Are you saying they have no alternative to killing the fetus? There is.

I'm sorry, is the burden of keeping another living being in your body too much for you to handle? How'd it get there? Oh, you had sex? Seems to me people should learn to take responsibility for their actions.


it boggles my mind, Vakemp, how anyone can believe the bullshit our president spews at us every single day.

I do try and make informed opinions, Pollux. I don't read a headline and regurgitate it here. I follow this topic as much as I have time to.

There is no proof that Saddam is an aggressor.

...except that his military is still shooting at American and British planes.

Ok, maybe I was wrong earlier. President Bush might not have given Saddam that much leniency.

The world has, though.

He invades a country. A coalition, led by the US, pushes his forces back into Iraq. We leave him in power and tell him he needs to follow our rules if he wants to stay there. It doesn't ask for much, just takes away his capabilities of being the aggressor, if he complies. He doesn't comply, and kicks weapons inspectors out in '98.

No one has bothered him since. Well, actually, the US and Britain have. We have ensured his compliance with the no-fly zones in the north and south. Now, President Bush is pissed because Saddam isn't living up to his end of the bargain. I don't see what's wrong with that. The President is tired of Saddam blowing off the UN, and the US. So now he's wrong for doing something about it?

I'm glad you all live in countries run by dictators that invade neighboring countries, are pushed back into their borders, don't comply with UN resolutions, and won't accept harsher resolutions for not complying in the first place. Why? You know how Saddam feels. You can relate to him, and have sympathy for him. Saddam is a victim. He had no choices. We want to throw him out because we're heartless bastards, not because we feel he is a threat.

If you know that fetus will grow and become a human, and you rob it of that chance, you are in essence murdering.

No, it's not the same. A murderer kills someone who is alive, a thinking, breathing, caring organism. A fetus is only capable of breathing. It is not alive, and to say that it will eventually be alive is a ludicrous argument. You're only killing what it is at the moment, not what it will be, because what it would have been will never exist, therefore it will not and never care.

It all comes down to destiny and fate.:cool:

Personally I view sapience (and thus soul) as coming in increments. I think it should be considered to rise in direct ratio to the complexity of the organism until it develops a functioning brain. After that it should be considered in more conventional ways.

I think a zygote has about as much value as a bacterium. It has human genes but so does your toe nail clipping. At fetus stage it should be considered of the same value as a salamander. As a newborn about the value of a monkey.

Of course I despise the idea of unecessary cruelty to animals and I think abortion should be done only if the mother or baby probably would die if the baby was caried to term. Another reson is if the baby would have no quality of life due to deformity, disease, or the like.


And yes, I know I am a cold calculating Bastard.

It all comes down to destiny and fate.

Destiny and fate...

A pregnant woman shouldn't be held accountable for having an abortion, because the fetus wasn't destined to become a human?

Let's apply this to life, then.

Once again, the murderer.

I go and kill someone on the streets. I'm not guilty of murder. It was the victim's destiny to die by my hands. Everyone I kill is therefore destined to be my victim. No need to be alarmed.


No, it's not the same. A murderer kills someone who is alive, a thinking, breathing, caring organism

I don't know what's worse: killing a 'living', breathing, caring organism, or the organism that never got the chance to live, breathe, or care.

It's all about opinions.

...but I don't think you'll ever meet a woman that wasn't scared as hell when she got an abortion, or who didn't feel that gut feeling that told her she was doing something wrong. If it is such an innocent thing to do, why are so many women who receive abortions traumatized?

Vamp, you're being an idiot.

Here, so far this is all you have said:

"Abortion should be illegal because murder is wrong and abortion is murder."

Now, absorb this, I don't care if it's murder or not. The word wrong implies morals and ethics, which are subjective. And any half-conscious being can explain to you that laws should not be made based on morals (unless this being is Christian). So, what basis do you make it illegal?

And don't say - it's murder! Because I don't fucking care. Murdering a living human being is illegal because it is detrimental to society. Not because "it's murder". That is not a good enough reason. You need to explain yourself.

"If it is such an innocent thing to do, why are so many women who receive abortions traumatized?"

Becuase their's a maternal bond. And so many women who give a child to adoption have unbelievable problems coping with that. Know why? Maternal bond. So what's the only option left? Keep the child?

I honestly can say that if you have a daughter and she gets pregnant at 15 I want to be there to see you make your daughter have a child.

Abortion should not only be legal, the Department of Health should launch a campaign to encourage it.

My opinion on abortion is that unless youre a woman you have no right to an opinion on abortion. A woman carries the child, and when the shit hits the fan in this society the woman gets stuck with the child. For men abortion is a completely theoretical concept.
Personally Im against it in most cases, Im also smart enough to recognize that Im not entitled to an opinion.

Vamp, you're being an idiot.

First off, it's VAKEMP. Just wanted to bring that to your attention, first and foremost. (and I spell it in caps, so I'm not 'yelling' at you)


So, what basis do you make it illegal?

Ok, so you want me to justify why I think murdering a fetus is the same as murdering an adult. Is that what you're saying?


And abortion is a benefit to the society.

Ok, picture this, Tyler:

Pick the person you admire most. Now picture that person never being born because the mother had an abortion.
There are so many reasons NOT to have abortions. If I had the amount of abortions that happened last year available, I'd start with that number. It's a human life. You have no right to say that the child will not benefit society.

I'm being an idiot?

You're being selfish, just like the women who get abortions.


Becuase their's a maternal bond. And so many women who give a child to adoption have unbelievable problems coping with that. Know why? Maternal bond. So what's the only option left? Keep the child?

I can almost guarantee you that the trauma the women who have abortions go through is worse than the women who have the child and give it up for adoption. The women that have the children and give them up for adoption at least have a choice. I don't think the women who have the babies and end up giving them up for adoption ever regret their decision. Maybe they regret not being the child's mother.

Have you ever seen or heard a mother say of their three year old "Damn, I should've killed him when I had the chance. I don't know why I bothered having him". I don't think so. I'm sure many women who have had abortions have regretted doing so. I know I have heard women who have had abortions say such things.

So, according to you, if something doesn't benefit society, it should be killed?

What if it were determined that you weren't a benefit to society? You're saying you would allow people to determine your worth as a human being? That's too bad. You might be sitting on your ass now, just typing away on your keyboard, but who's to say that tomorrow you won't save mankide from otherwise certain extinction? Even if it is just in your own small part. ;)

And if I had a daughter, and she got pregnant at a very young age, I would want her to have the baby. It would be her decision to keep it or not.

We learn from our mistakes. You don't learn anything if your mistakes are erased away like they never happened. That is what abortion is: A way to encourage irresponsible people to continue being irresponsible.

My next response will be at least 8 hours from now, as I am going to sleep now (0245 here).

My current count is that it's 6-1, in the favor of 'pro-choice'. Please be gentle with me, as I am holding the 'pro-life' fort all by myself, it seems...

"First off, it's VAKEMP"
Apologies.

"Ok, so you want me to justify why I think murdering a fetus is the same as murdering an adult. Is that what you're saying?"

No. You don't seem to understand. Saying something is murder is not reason enough to make it illegal. It does not justify it.


"Pick the person you admire most. Now picture that person never being born because the mother had an abortion.
There are so many reasons NOT to have abortions. If I had the amount of abortions that happened last year available, I'd start with that number. It's a human life. You have no right to say that the child will not benefit society."

Unfortunatly you do not understand simple logic so this debate cannot continue. I've been hallucinating for a good hour and I sitll understand this. It's not whether the hcild will benefit society or not dumbarse, it's whether or not abortion being legal will benefit or be detrimental to society.


"I can almost guarantee you that the trauma the women who have abortions go through is worse than the women who have the child and give it up for adoption"

Go get me stats. Otherwise you're just another Christian who thinks he knows the entire world without a stat to back himself up.


"So, according to you, if something doesn't benefit society, it should be killed?"

You're the dumbest human being alive. I said laws are made based on benefit/detrimnt to society.


"My current count is that it's 6-1, in the favor of 'pro-choice'. Please be gentle with me, as I am holding the 'pro-life' fort all by myself, it seems..."

Then you bestest start following logic. So far I've seen two very strong cases for anti-abortion:

The "it's muder case" - these people (like you so far) believe that murder in all cases is wrong. Here's the kicker, I don't care what's wrong. That's subjective. And laws aren't based on subjective morals.

and

The "it's against God's will" - this is a strong arguement because someone stupid enough to argue it will never learn.

I think there is a reason you are holding the fort by yourself. You are on the wrong end of this. That was what Roe vs. Wade was all about.

Of course this is a moral decision in one sense, it is a very personal decision on another level. That of the individual. It is very easy to sit and say what you would want. You are not the one with the problem of dealing with the pregnacy. When it cuts to the bone, there is always the potential for a birth to be life threatening. Any birth. This is the mothers' choice and should always be so. If your daughter died in child birth, how would you feel having removed that choice from her? Not like you do now, I assure you. In your private moments there would always be that nagging doubt and you know it. You may not admit it on the boards but you know deep down what I say here is true.

Abortion was already discussed to a certain extent here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7931&highlight=Abortion

ABORTION- Post opinions here!

Well, it's a mixed bag. On one hand, I see the value of a human life. On the other hand, I see the importance of having control over ones own body. The thing that bothers me is the idea that, often, someone must die simply because two people did not take appropriate precautions. That is sad. :(

Even birth control pills and depo shots are not %100 (they are listed statistically as over 99%). Are you saying married couples should not be allowed to have sex? It happens sometimes to those who don't want kids.

Ok, never mind that - that comment was not too accurate of me. This only occurs rarely (99%, not quite - rarely, but it happens).

But, I don't see a prob then. If not you'll have another lonely kid growing up in a potentionally abusive orphan home; proly until he is 18, or going from one set of adoptive parents who don't want him (or her) to another. Couples shouldn't required to raise kids when they have protective sex.......

You're being selfish, just like the women who get abortions.

Hey, don't diss them. They keep the population down. I mean, what if Hitler's mum had an abortion when she was pregnent with him? BINGO! No WW2.

I read xev's quote above

If someone in this thread said

"You're being selfish, just like the women who get abortions"

Then you don't deserve to have sex without getting a baby :p Idiot, I know you would value sexual pleasure over going the rest of your life (or from 10 years old starting at puburity to 90 years old of a natural death) without risking getting a woman pregnant. You sound like the self righteous arse holes who shoot doctors who work at abortion clinics (I think most of those who are strongly against abortion are :rolleyes: )

It really doesn't have to be the government's choice
No. It isn't the government's choice and it never will be. Women will have, or not have, an abortion irrespective of what the law says.

If you know that fetus will grow and become a human, and you rob it of that chance, you are in essence murdering.

Pick the person you admire most. Now picture that person never being born because the mother had an abortion

who's to say that tomorrow you won't save mankide from otherwise certain extinction
This, I think, lies at the heart of much of anti-abortionist thinking. It's a concern with a rather dreamy notion of "what might have been," not, "what is", as Pollux has already pointed out. You cannot murder a dream or, as you like to think, be a murderer because you robbed something of a chance. Is a pregnant woman to be tried for involuntary manslaughter if she falls down the stairs and spontaneously aborts?

For the pregnant woman, there are several much more complex visions of the future, immediate and long-term. Your vision is altogether too simplistic.

For starters, you state that pregnancy is is "very inconvenient". Not only is that remarkable as a ludicrous understatement, more importantly, it's vastly irrelevant to why a woman decides to have an abortion. (Make note of the word "decides". That implies thought and a weighing of options, many painful, not, as you seem to feel, a glib auto-response to pregnancy.)

Further, your simplistic vision encompasses a clear idea of the typical abortionee, a simplistic grid of what their options are, an ultra-simple view of what you feel their reasons for an abortion are (notably, "convenience") and a very pat solution - "programs to assist women" - that has no relevance at all and serves no purpose because their existence or otherwise has no bearing on why women have an abortion. Except in your simplistic vision.

People aren't having abortions because the support isn't there, because of failings in the adoption process or whatever. Really, that is wishful thinking. You have a clear picture of why people have abortions and therefore a nice clean answer that would make the outcome as you'd like it. Such support exists already, en masse, by the way.

Oh and by the way, 2 out of 5 American women will have at least one abortion in their lifetime. This is going to happen whatever the law says, let alone what you say. So, you can save your opinionating for if and when one of those women is in your life, assuming, that is, that she thinks you thinks you have a right to know.

You're being selfish
Your piece de resistance in simplicity.

Exactly, Macz. Women are going to have abortions anyway, so it should be easier for them to decide if they're going to keep the baby or not. But either way, Vakemp, Tyler and I have a very alternate perspective from that of a woman, as does the predominantly male government we all presumably live under. So, in conclusion, let the woman decide.

Tyler nailed it on the head. Ethics and Laws, ahh the two have angrily coexisted since the human race began. Generally, at least for us, common opinion (hopefully backed with legitimate facts) makes or breaks laws, correct? So the two are related more than we would like to admit.

Vakemp, just to clear something up, are you an active religious participant?

These opinions we've all garnered here undoubtedly originated with that of our parents, thus, we all have very different outlooks on life. Some look at things on a moral perspective, some on one of societal benefit, and others of both. They are simply slivers of a common truth:

A woman has the power to, once impregnated, abort her baby.

Moral:

The woman should not, because the baby will be a person, and according to my beliefs it is immoral.

Societal:

Any law allowing or prohibiting abortion should be beneficial to society as a whole.

Both:

The woman should decide if aborting the baby is immoral, whether or not society says it is legal.

This is based on what I've read and absorbed, hopefully I'm not dead wrong....

I think Pollux got it right on and well explained.

Morals are subjective. To say "it should be illegal because it's murder" implies that it should be illegal because murder, under any circumstance, is immoral. Problem is, it is not up to you, me or the government to decide what everyone else in the nation's subjective morals are.

Problem is, it is not up to you, me or the government to decide what everyone else in the nation's subjective morals are

Yeah, yeah yeah. Vakemp, you drink alchohol. It has been proven time and time again that alchohol is the cause of many bad things, so it has been outlawed in the US. However, it generally only causes 'bad things' to happen if it is abused. You don't want the government telling you not to use something that may or may not be bad, you want to decide for yourself.

It's the same thing. Alchohol, like abortion, is the citizen's choice based on their morals, and it is not the government's place to tell you what is right or wrong. It is their place to 'keep the peace,' that is, keep society in order. By preventing murder among other things its mission and ultimately its purpose is accomplished.

Heh, now all we do is wait for him to reply:D

. Alchohol, like abortion, is the citizen's choice based on their morals, and it is not the government's place to tell you what is right or wrong.

And if you murder your child because he's/she's an inconvenience, what is the moral choice there? It still looks like murder to me. If you saw someone killing another, would you blow it off as simply an individuals choice based on their morals?

Morality is often dictated by the governed through their representitives; and killing a person is considered, in most advanced societies, immoral and criminal. But we have managed to redefine the human fetus as being something less than human, so that we can remove the questions of morality and murder. It makes abortion more acceptable when the fetus is seen as nothing more than a lump of living cells.

Don't get me wrong. I'm on the fence where abortion is concerned.

no opinion on abortions, but killing fetuses? a grand parlor game!

Pollux, what you've just mentioned is often a prob.

I am all for freedom of the people...... in fact that is kind of my belief in life. I am for it as long as it is not severely harming or killing innocent people - which, in fact, it is.

When you have little goverment control like in the u.s., people, including me to a certain extent, spend all of their money on themselves and let trinkets, and let others starve to death; as what is going on in Africa, which I am sure I have mentioned many times, but also other peeps have mentioned as well (so don't start telling me I am obsessing :p ) It almost seems like things always go down hill with the peeps morals when this happens - almost like they abuse it. tissa says he wasn't surprised someone has just slammed a boeing 747 into the WTC, and so have many other peeps cuz of americas immorality.

When you have the government dictating peeps lives, you wind up with something like Afghanistan where women were murdered for taking off a veil in 100 degree weather.

I'm not really for goverments cuz I don't believe in having alot of official laws (there are too many variables and special circumstances in life for universal laws without exceptions) - and at times am not a big fan of structure and organization.....

I don't believe the gov should be able to control peeps in any way - but it seems like these types of situations lead to a stale mate, where innocent people wind up in terrible pain and dying, as a result of others; even if sometimes only indirectly.

I don't like a gov, but maybe the goverment should have control over certain things (like sharing - but not morals in respects like these). It seems greedy peeps are just proud arse holes who claim they like to kill commie bastards.

A former shrink of mine once said, it seems like any time you turn something over to the gov, they seem to mess it up. *shrug*

Maybe it is because the gov is often composed of screwy people..... though as I stated above I don't really support a gov

If you know that fetus will grow and become a human, and you rob it of that chance, you are in essence murdering.

By that logic, I've killed several people. Let's see....I've been fertile for four years. I've never had a child, although I could concievably bear one every nine months. 48 by 9 gives 5.3333 - so I've killed about five potential humans.

It's worse for men. Everytime you masturbate, not only does God kill a kitten, but you kill thousands of potential humans.

I love weird logic.

Originally posted by airdog
no opinion on abortions, but killing fetuses? a grand parlor game!

Skeet shooting :)

Originally posted by Xev
By that logic, I've killed several people. Let's see....I've been fertile for four years. I've never had a child, although I could concievably bear one every nine months. 48 by 9 gives 5.3333 - so I've killed about five potential humans.

It's worse for men. Everytime you masturbate, not only does God kill a kitten, but you kill thousands of potential humans.

I love weird logic.

What if you only masturbate on pregnant women? Is there overlap in potentialities?

And if you murder your child because he's/she's an inconvenience, what is the moral choice there? It still looks like murder to me. If you saw someone killing another, would you blow it off as simply an individuals choice based on their morals?
There are three subjective words here: murder (an opinion), child (it's a fetus), inconvenience (a limited, naive and presumptive assessment of why abortion occurs). The house of cards having fallen down, the closing question has no relevance.

When people realise, as surely they do, that their view is subjective, they ought also to realise that it's time to mind their own business.

MacZ,

Maybe I can be more objective in my view. Hmm...try this: human life and death.

"There are three subjective words here: murder (an opinion), child (it's a fetus), inconvenience (a limited, naive and presumptive assessment of why abortion occurs)."

But we have managed to redefine the human fetus as being something less than human, so that we can remove the questions of morality and murder. It makes abortion more acceptable when the fetus is seen as nothing more than a lump of living cells.

"...naive and presumptive assessment of why abortion occurs."

I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are abortions...one reason why i sit on the fence.

Hey everyone! Thanks for posting your opinions about abortion.

A few things before I respond:

Tyler: Thanks for getting my name right.

All: What I write is my opinion. I am not trying to force my will upon anyone. I'm sharing my views. I've not insulted anyone for having their own opinions here, even if I don't agree.


Idiot

dumbarse

You're the dumbest human being alive

...I'm sure I've missed some.


Vakemp, just to clear something up, are you an active religious participant?
No, I'm not. I've never been baptized.


By that logic, I've killed several people. Let's see....I've been fertile for four years. I've never had a child, although I could concievably bear one every nine months. 48 by 9 gives 5.3333 - so I've killed about five potential humans
Are you a woman, Xev? Do you know what the difference between an egg and a fetus is? I do.

Fetus:
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind ; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

...before three months, it's an embryo

Embryo:
a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching

...before conception, it's an egg

Egg:
an animal reproductive body consisting of an ovum together with its nutritive and protective envelopes and having the capacity to develop into a new individual capable of independent existence

...I don't think it's wrong to ovulate or ejaculate. Like I've stated previously, I think it's wrong once the life process has been started (the semen enters the egg).


Hey, don't diss them. They keep the population down. I mean, what if Hitler's mum had an abortion when she was pregnent with him? BINGO! No WW2.

I love weird logic.

Ok, so you think we should kill all of our offspring because *GASP* one might be a crazed lunatic. Nice logic, Xev.


Problem is, it is not up to you, me or the government to decide what everyone else in the nation's subjective morals are.

I agree with you, to a certain extent!
I thought that would impress some of you. I actually agree, a little.

Basically, people are free to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms. Last time I checked, murdering someone does in fact infringe on their right to live.

If I didn't respond to something that one of you feel deserves my attention, please let me know.

"Basically, people are free to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms. Last time I checked, murdering someone does in fact infringe on their right to live."

I can turn your words around right here. Vakemp, do you know the difference between a child and a pre-6 month fetus? I sure hope so...

Anyway, I think you have an interesting view here. It infringes on a person's (well, fetus, but let's pretend they're the same for a second) freedoms, eh? Like, a person should be allowed to control their own body? So then, of coruse, all drugs should be legal.

Search for conversations between myself, Xev and Nelson (Truthseeker) if you think we've insulted you.

I am extremely impressed with everyone's posts! I wonder, though... how many of you have actually HAD an abortion? Being one of the unfortunate who have made this painful decision, I must tell you that it is indeed a traumatic experience which I may never fully recover from. My decision was not due to selfishness on my part... oh no, it's sadder than that. At the time (I was 17, a senior in high school), I lived in a community which had NO community resources of any kind. Public health education was non-existent. My parents gave me an ultimatum ~ lose it, or get out. I am a victim of what you might call a "perceived" lack of options.

...I don't think it's wrong to ovulate or ejaculate. Like I've stated previously, I think it's wrong once the life process has been started (the semen enters the egg).

Yeah, but your opinions are asinine and you are boring. I liked my reduction ad absurtium of your crappy argument about "potential for life".

I think abortion is usually a good idea whenever a woman decides to have one if their decision is based on practicality instead of moral. Moral can be very overrated.

Hi LACLY,
I have.

LACLY,

Your parents did the right thing. It is very stupid to get pragnent as a 17 year old, it would have been beyond stupid to become a single mother.

I would be much more comfortable with women getting elective (vs. medically necessary) abortions if they were required to first complete some sort of pre-abortion counseling. Perhaps they "want" the abortion simply because they just don't know what their options are. I know I would have made a different decision...

Originally posted by Joeman
LACLY,

Your parents did the right thing. It is very stupid to get pragnent as a 17 year old, it would have been beyond stupid to become a single mother. <p>Joeman: I understand where you're coming from. However, that decision haunts me to this day. It's entirely too easy to get the abortion and expect the problem to go away. Pregnancy is far more than a physical condition. You may terminate the pregnancy, but (in my case, anyway) that baby will always be there.

Hi MacZ

btw Joeman... I'm actually a bright individual. My pregnancy at age 17 was more a result of irrational teenage defiance, rebellion, and that curious desire to grow up. Stupid, no... naive & ignorant, a resounding HELL YES!!!!

My ex was pregnant at 16, had an abortion. I can't blame her. She was not even slightly ready to raise a kid. In fact, she's barely capable of any normal human interaction even now. That was long before I met her of course. I've never had to deal with a girlfriend being in that situation. I'm reasonably certain I won't have a solid opinion on the matter until I have.

Are there any recent statistics that show the number of abortions per age group? I'm curious if there is any strength to the argument that teenagers should practice abstinence.

Bowser: I am not sure if this is what you are looking
for but this site has stats for teen pregnancy, birth
and abortion:

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0010.html

20-24 years of age has the highest rate, but the chart I'm looking at is old.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/age.asp

But, then again, the CDC has this chart...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4911a1.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s911a1f2.gif

Hmm...

Yeah, but your opinions are asinine and you are boring. I liked my reduction ad absurtium of your crappy argument about "potential for life".

Good for you, Xev. Go show it off to your friends. It must make you feel powerful to belittle the only person with a different opinion than yours. I'm boring, yet you continue to post on the thread that I started. If that is the case, you must be extremely desperate for attention.

You must save your intelligent conversation for elsewhere, because I haven't seen any from you here.

I think abortion is just the same as murder. Think of it what you will, that is my opinion. Whether it is legal or not, I don't agree with it. I've stated why I feel this way. It's a difference in opinion. Ultimately, most of you don't think there is life until the child is born. Or, if there is life before, that it doesn't have a right to live if it is a burden to the mother. Ok, those are your opinions.

I would never tell anyone that I approve of them getting an abortion. Bottom line.

It doesn't mean that if my daughter were to get one, I would disown her. I would not approve of it.

Some of the posts here have influenced me in that sense. I leave it up to informed decision. Just as we teach our children about sex and it's possible consequences, we should bring up abortion and it's consequences.

It would be wrong to force someone to go through a pregnancy if they were against it. I've thought about it today. I'm sure if it were mandatory for everyone who were pregnant to have the baby, we'd see an increase in the amount of suicides for females.

So, as much as I oppose killing another human (and I believe abortion is just that), I would not kill others to force my views. I would hope we could find better ways to prevent abortions. Celibacy cannot be the answer, as that again is forcing people to do things they don't want to do (and they will do it anyway if they really want to).

Ok, so you have convinced me that making abortions illegal is not the answer. Abstinence isn't either. I guess we can only hope that other birth control methods become available, and that the parents are open minded enough to allow their children to use them.

What you have stated is that you are morally against abortion. There is no way I'm going to convince you to change your morals. However, it's good that you recognize that laws should not be based on your, or my, morals.

more orgasms, less babies.

protect yourself. ;)

I know lotsa people think the only pro-lifers that exist are Chrisitans, but almost all the atheists I know despise abortion also.

Now, I'm a Catholic, but I'm not against abortion because it is murder, but because it is taking responsibility out of society.

Not one person on sciforums, or probably any kid 12+, knows that if you have sex, you have the chance of getting the girl pregnent. Therefore, the simple solution is to [gasp] NOT HAVE SEX.

Isn't that simple?

Don't give me shit about sex drive and crap like that. I'm a teenager and music addict, but I've gone for months at a time without any more than one hour of computer, TV, and radio time (1 hour total, not per) a week.

If you're ready for a baby, more power to you, but not a soul who is capable to have sex doesn't know what it causes. Therefore, it is a case of irresponsibilty. Let the ignorant and dumb figure out their own problems, without destroying it.

http://www.onlycondoms.com/

The trouble, YoungWriter, is that there is a large percentage out there that are not going to do as you do. Pregnacies do not come from eating watermelon seeds.

Because a young girl is not ready for a baby does not stop nature from having it's way. Nor will those young girls who feel the pressure of their boyfriends wanting sex. Sex is a fact of life. So are abortions. You, I, nor the government has any right to take away the choice from the woman who must choose.

But that doesn't solve the problem of teenage pregnancy an abortion, Wet. It sounds very noble, but it doesn't do much that is useful or productive.

Less than 1% of abortions are done under the circumstances of rape, or where the woman's life is endangered by carrying and/or having the baby (I'm assuming the stat is directed towards phsyical harm).

That means 99% of abortions are used as, more or less, really late birth control.

I believe that, as intelligent individuals, we should let them deal with the problem. There should never be a job that lessens the responsibility of the individual. Unfortunately, there are many.

People need options to consider. Abortion is one such option. If you want less women to get abortions, you need to change the tactics that aren't working.

<b>Abstinence</b>. This form of teaching is predominantly from religious folk who preach that pre-marital fornication is best saved for marriage (i.e., committed relationships). As <b>YoungWriter</b> has said, it is very possible to exercise some self-control and abstain from having sex (as well as any kind of a social life). Just because people have the ability to have sex doesn't automatically entitle them to do so as soon as the urge arises.

Complete abstinence is not the answer, however. As has been seen in the media of late, a total denial (to oneself) of some of life's leanings can eventually lead to crimes against others (and if you're anti-abortion, then abortion can be included in this).

<b>Contraception</b>. Unfortunately, the Catholic religion spent copious amounts of time and money (and considerable political muscle) in suppressing this ultimate form of birth control. Less babies meant less members, and that was not an option. The religious right also happen to be the same people that are against homosexuality (even though the chances of conceiving a child in a true homosexual relationship--without the help of artificial insemination--are effectively zero). Instead of denouncing homosexuality, it would seem reasonable to accede that homosexuals are the true pro-rights activists, yet they are continually repressed.

Masturbation is another way for people to release pent-up feelings of desire. But, since many religious folk tend to denounce this form of self-expression (again, the chance of producing offspring by single-handedly stimulating oneself is relatively nil), masturbation is seen as sick, demented, a factor in several unrelated sex abuse cases. Considering that nearly 90% (a low figure estimate) of the world's population engages in masturbation, by the same logic above it would make sense to say that all of us house a sexually-motivated maniacal sociopath within. Joyce Elders (former US Surgeon General) received far too much media-attention when she actually went out of her way to preach masturbation as a form of sex education.

Some CNN poll recently said that 60% of kids (18 and below) have engaged in sex at least once. Seeing as how more and more kids are being told to not do drugs, wouldn't it make sense that they would find other ways to amuse themselves? Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect their desires into something, well, less productive (pregnancy).

Too many people preach "Keep it in the pants" without realizing that their lifestyle either doesn't require it now (they're married or in a relationship of some sort), don't have the drive for sex (whereas these same people have quite the hankering for alcohol or over-the-counter drugs), or believe falsely that their way of life is the true path (anything sexual is of the devil unless it's within the confines of marriage).

It's funny that the heterosexual community engage in so many sexual acts which can in no way produce children, yet those same positions (Kama-sutra ad nauseum) are not taught to others as options at the very least. If people thought they had more options/outlets--masturbation, contraception, different positions--perhaps there would be less unwanted pregnancies.

Since people grow up thinking (in the US at least) that sex is taboo except when it comes to marriage, those same people learn to associate it with behind-closed-doors scenarios. So that eventually when they do have sex (even if it's before marriage), they usually don't think to put on a condom or get themselves on the pill because that would mean that they're having sex and that can't be right. Their parents ask them if they're having sex and they reply, "No, of course not." And then they get pregnant and the parents scratch their heads. Morons. Pre-emptive medicine is not a bad thing; how much easier would it have been to assume your son or daughter was having sex and then proceeded to teach them about safe sex. You can denounce it all you want, but as long as you cover your bases so that the children won't be inclined to hide the experience from even themselves, chances are good that many more unwanted pregnancies would be caught.

I guess it would be pretty redundant to say that throughout history, the majority of abortions have been from the daughters of god-fearing parents. Having a child out of wedlock does wonders for the parents' respect in the community, so the best way to ensure that the parents retain their respect is abort the baby.

It must come as quite the surprise to see their sons and daughters engaging in such behaviour especially since they've been taught from the time when they were knee-high to a grasshopper that sex was only sanctioned within marriage.

Egod! If people were just taught openly that sex is a fact and that there were many other ways of engaging in it, perhaps the taboo of sex would lessen. Perhaps contraception would become commonplace and acceptable. Even when I'm in the store I still see some guys trying to deftly grab a pack of condoms without it looking like they're grabbing condoms (hell, I can't knock them--I was like that for a while myself). Perhaps taking the necessary precautions and realizing that your son or daughter is sexually active and sitting down with them while you still have the chance wouldn't be that foreign of an idea.

Out of sight, out of mind is the mentality that too many hold. Just don't think about it, they say. It's like a local saying around here, "Whoever said genealogy was fun has either never done genealogy or has never had fun." Meaning that just because it's a cinch for you to keep yourself pure before marriage doesn't mean it's that easy for others. As long as they had options, wouldn't it be better and more acceptable for people to have sex instead of having kids?

Wow, that soapbox was creaking long before I got off of it.

Thanks!

prag

Here are some things to throw in the mix.

Young folks, becoming aware of sex, have hormones speaking louder than good sense. Most, upon losing their viriginity will not return to abstinance. Fact of life.

I lightly touched upon this in the previous post. That a young lady considers that she may be abandoned by her boyfriend unless she conceeds to sex. Also peer pressure asserts another force to push them to comply. If ladies felt that everytime they had sex they would get pregnant there would most likely be considerably less. However nature plays a dice game. Sometimes the dice are load for, sometimes against. Good sense doesn't play well in the heat of passion. That is natures design.

Who are we to tell some one that they made a mistake and now must suffer for it the rest of their life? Who are we to condemn a woman who has yet to discover life in its most real sense to a life of poverty because she was not ready when nature made plain reality? Till that point, being young leads one to believe they are bullet proof and what has happened to millions of others will not happen to them. I am not saying that everyone must have an abortion. I am saying the choice is and should always, in the end, rest with the mother. No more, no less.

Funny, I am not female. Yet I take a stance for the mother. I will never become pregnant within this life. I will say this. I am responcible. I believe that the one who must bear the burden is the one who in the end must always make a choice.

Like some of the others, I have no horse in this race, but find the arguments interesting.

Tyler - you've twice said that you don't think the government should legislate morality, but that's just what governments DO. Laws against killing people are "legislating morality". I assume you aren't against such laws as that, so I think you need to refine your thoughts on this matter.

Defining the argument in terms of "choice" may be a winning debating tactic, but intellectually it's weak. If a human fetus is a human, then killing it would seem to be murder. So, we CAN (and some have) engage in a debate over biology, but that leaves the decision in the hands of scientists, and even then it isn't clear. But there are good arguments for killing fetuses even if they are human -- and I haven't heard them here yet.

Clockwood's ideas about sentience are very much along the same lines as mine.

"Tyler - you've twice said that you don't think the government should legislate morality, but that's just what governments DO. Laws against killing people are "legislating morality". I assume you aren't against such laws as that, so I think you need to refine your thoughts on this matter."

Actually, you seem to have totally missed what I also stated twice. Murder is NOT illegal because it is immoral. Laws are based on what is beneficial or detrimental to a society. Murder being legal would be highly detrimental to a society. Therefore, it should be illegal.

Name any law you think is based on morality (and probably wasat some point) and I guarantee you I either think it is for the benefit of society to be illegal or shouldn't be a law.

Tyler -- your philosophy as stated presents a lot of questions. WHO decides what is beneficial? The Germans under Hitler thought getting rid of the Jews would be beneficial --- and they may have been right. Very often what's beneficial for some hurts others. How do you balance these effects?

I suggest that laws are made more on the basis of what we WANT. We all put our wants into a big bag, count them up, and that's what we make into law.

"Tyler -- your philosophy as stated presents a lot of questions. WHO decides what is beneficial? The Germans under Hitler thought getting rid of the Jews would be beneficial --- and they may have been right. Very often what's beneficial for some hurts others. How do you balance these effects?"

What it raises is debate. And my system would only truly work if the majority of citizens took an interest in politics and logic.

Who decides what is beneficial? The citizens. They elect members of parliament who represent their feelings on what is beneficial.

The Germans under Hitler thought....? And they were damn right. It did benefit them. However, if they had forsight (which people in the midst of depression rarely do) they would have seen the problems which would inevitably be raised by genocide. Here's where it becomes a matter of debate. Some politicians would say the benefits of killing Jews outweigh the detrimints. Some would say otherwise. They should be allowed to argue their sides and then the citizens make an informed decision.

How do you balance these effects? You take into consideration all ends and means and you decide which is of more objective value. It's difficult. I causes much debate. But it is a fuck load better than "my morals are RIGHT!"

"I suggest that laws are made more on the basis of what we WANT. We all put our wants into a big bag, count them up, and that's what we make into law"

The majority of Germans wanted Jews gone.
The majority of Americans wanted Communists kicked out.

not entirely true
it is whoever speaks the loudest, has an influential lobby doing their bidding and of course oodles of cash

Yes, and that's what happened isn't it? You are stating what you believe SHOULD be the case and I'm stating what I believe IS the case.

How do we determine what is beneficial and how do we decide what all to take into account? You make it sound as if intelligent, informed people could determine whether the result of any proposed law would be beneficial. Aside from the difficulty of ascertaining matters of fact (is global warming caused by human activity?) though, we have to answer questions regarding minority rights and how much weight (if any) to assign to psychological happiness.

It IS possible to grant human status to a fetus and yet be in favor of killing it:

Two arguments:

1) Women have a right to sex. Sometimes, pregnancies occur even though reasonable precautions are taken. Therefore, you wind up with women pregnant through no fault (note that I didn't say "action") of their own. Now, along comes the fetus (another human being and in effect, it says. "You must support my life until others can." It would not at all be unreasonable for the woman to say "Why?"

2) Clockwood's sentience argument. We value human life above all other NOT because it is human but because of its sentience. A human fetus has NO sentience (or at least no more sentience than individual cells do) until the 8th week of life. Even at birth, it has less than, say, a dog. (In fact, I've read reports that the smartest breed of dog, the border collie, has the sentience of a 2 1/2 year old child.) So, a fetus, SHOULD have less protection than a dog or many other animals which we kill -- and even eat. Of course this argument brings up questions about infanticide. But infanticide is something that I also could support.

Roe v Wade was a ridiculous decision. The supremes just sort of waved there hands over the constitution and then came out with 50 pages or so of mumbo jumbo. The decision on whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, and all the details, should be left to the people, via their representatives (or even directly, by initiative), IMO. I fail to see why Supreme Court members have any more moral authority than any other citizen.

spookz -- it is true that the people who oppose abortion usually feel much more strongly about it than most of those who favor it. If the issue were returned to the legislatures, they would do everything they could to make their wishes weigh more than their opponents. This is an issue with democracies and democratic republics that cuts across many issues. I don't call it a "problem" because I don't know that it's a bad thing for people who feel strongly about an issue to be able to count more than people who don't.

Ridiculous or not, Roe vs Wade is now the law of the land. I think it was a good call. It elimanated the fly-by-night abortions. No longer are women found dumped, bleeding, and dead or near dead from inadequate training and shysters. True medical help is available from professionals. Much like drugs, this a practice that will not stop because it is illegal. The past has shown us that just like drinking alcohol and doing drugs being illegal will not stop either those who wish it or those who will preform the service. Far better that it be legal.

As far as going out and shooting somebody because I do not agree with the law of the land, it ain't going to happen. While I believe that it should be available to women I have no axe to sharpen against folks who think different. I just think them wrong. What is not taken into account is the silent majority. Those you don't hear from. They speak at the polls at voting time.

wet1 -- it is ridiculous that Roe v. Wade IS the law of the land for the reasons I sited.

You and I hold opposite positions: you care strongly about abortion and don't care how/what it takes to get your position codified as law, I, don't care one way or the other about abortion, but care strongly that the people's will be heard on this issue, not the will of 9 supreme court members.

You say the silent majority is heard at the polls. I say too often the silent majority doesn't bother to vote, and that's why strong-caring minorities are often able to get laws enacted that reflect the anti-majoritarian beliefs.

I think it is a pretty well known fact that before abortion was legal, it was far less common than now. Also, I think when alcohol was prohibited, consumption of it was way down. Laws do often work, to an extent. This seems a side issue to me, though.

Roe vs. Wade is not the law of the land, it is the ruling of the Supreme Court. My biggest beef on Roe vs. Wade was the way it came about, and what it did.

Roe vs. Wade, for those who don't realize it, was a court ruling by 9 individual judges over a legal case. It was NOT passed by represenetives in the house of the senate. It was NOT voted upon by elected represenetives. It overturned anti-abortion laws in states which were very pro-life. It affirmed pro-abortion laws in states which already had abortion.

When Roe vs. Wade came into effect, it struck down dozens upon dozens of laws in multiple states at once, which were passed by duly elected officials, and citizens engaging in the democratic process of law.

Now, look what's happened in 20 years. With the Government legalizing abortion as a whole, and it being part of most public sex education courses, it's changed the legal (and thus moral) standards of a whole generation. For the record, I am not touching the moral issue here with my own opinion of what is moral or not, I am talking about the effects of Roe Vs. Wade.

In 1992, the US Supreme Court nearly did strike down Roe vs. Wade in the court case "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey". However, in the end it affirmed it, basically because that between the mid 1970's and now, a whole generation of young people were brought up free of the moral constraint of pregnancy in sex.

The point I'm comming to is that NO ONE who says that Pro-Lifers are trying to impose morals has much ground to stand on in view of how Pro-Choice came to be legalized.

Actually Xevious, it is the function of the Supreme Court to interpret the law of the land - i.e the Constitution. Whether you buy the 14th amendment argument or not.

I know that. My quesiton is WHY did it have to be a court ruling? The answer is rather obvious. If this battle occured in the Senate and in the House of Represenetives, it would be a national battle on all fronts. Even today, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other groups do not introduce their own legeslation or laws for approval by the senate, in favor of court action.

The only reason to not introduce a law into the senate or house which legalized Abortion is because it quite likely would not pass in Congress. Think about it: It's been over 20 years since Roe vs. Wade and morals in the country have changed as a result of it. A federal law which made Abortion legal would be MUCH stronger than a court ruling in terms of legal applicability. Yet, none has been introduced.

Then again, the last time morals were imposed on several states at once via the Federal Law, a whole civil war broke out. I wonder if that is the real fear. With radical pro-choice people already attacking and violently maiming pro-life protesters, and framing some of them, and extreme pro-lifers killing abortion doctors and blowing up abortion clinics, I think that statement EASILY stands on it's own merits.

Xevious:


Then again, the last time morals were imposed on several states at once via the Federal Law, a whole civil war broke out. I wonder if that is the real fear.

Ummm, have I slipped into a parallel dimension where the US has a wildly different history?

I don't seem to remember ANY of this from my history books.

In any case, your point remains, well, pointless.

Slavery is a matter of morals isn't it, and morals are purely subjective aren't they? In fact, Aristotle supported slavery as a natural state for some human beings.

Last time I read US History, the issue of slavery was a good part of why the War Between the States broke out. That would mean that militarily, AND by legeslation, the Federal Government imposed morals. By my point of view, Roe vs. Wade was an imposement of morals. Then again, the states which outlawed Abortion were also imposing morals.

The point I am trying to make is two-fold. ONE is that it doesn't matter if the Pro-Life OR the Pro-Choice position is the one the Government adopts. In either case, SOMEONE's morals are being used, be it the moral "It's a woman's choice" or the moral "It's a human being." The idea that outlawing abortion is imposing morals is true. The idea of allowing abortion to anyone who wants one is ALSO an imposing of morals. You can argue "I think women choose for themselves" but that is in itself, a moral argument. Namely, the moral is that women have the right to decide if they choose to carry a child or not.

It is also my point that these two morals go far beyond the subject of if a fetus is a child or not. We are dancing around a VERY old issue of mankind, just in new ways. The issue is: What is the criteria for establishing who is human and who is not? Is this based on age and development? Do those who can take care of themselves have a moral obligation to take care of those who cannot? Is person interests as the primary rule the way society should be, or should society require compassion of everyone to help those who cannot help themselves? These are all OLD questions.

Abortion is just another verse in an old song and dance. It's a song and dance that has been related to the same disputed values which come into play when wars break out.

Since when was the Civil War about slavery?

"What can the white man say to the black woman?

For four hundred years he ruled over the black woman’s womb.

Let us be clear. In the barracoons and along the slave shipping coasts of Africa, for more than twenty generations, it was he who dashed our babies brains out against the rocks.

What can the white man say to the black woman?

For four hundred years he determined which black woman’s children would live or die.

Let it be remembered. It was he who placed our children on the auction block in cities all across the eastern half of what is now the United States, and listened to and watched them beg for their mothers’ arms, before being sold to the highest bidder and dragged away.

What can the white man say to the black woman?

We remember that Fannie Lou Hamer, a poor sharecropper on a Mississippi plantation, was one of twenty-one children; and that on plantations across the South black women often had twelve, fifteen, twenty children. Like their enslaved mothers and grandmothers before them, these black women were sacrificed to the profit the white man could make from harnessing their bodies and their children’s bodies to the cotton gin.

What can the white man say to the black woman?

We see him lined up on Saturday nights, century after century, to make the black mother, who must sell her body to feed her children, go down on her knees to him.

Let us take note:

He has not cared for a single one of the dark children in his midst, over hundreds of years.

Where are the children of the Cherokee, my great grandmother’s people?

Gone.

Where are the children of the Blackfoot?

Gone.

Where are the children of the Lakota?

Gone.

Of the Cheyenne?

Of the Chippewa?

Of the Iroquois?

Of the Sioux?

Of the Mandinka?

Of the Ibo?

Of the Ashanti?

Where are the children of the Slave Coast and Wounded Knee?

We do not forget the forced sterilizations and forced starvations on the reservations, here as in South Africa. Nor do we forget the smallpox-infested blankets Indian children were given by the Great White Fathers of the United States government.

What has the white man to say to the black woman?

When we have children you do everything in your power to make them feel unwanted from the moment they are born. You send them to fight and kill other dark mothers’ children around the world. You shove them onto public highways in the path of oncoming cars. You shove their heads through plate glass windows. You string them up and you string them out.

What has the white man to say to the black woman?

From the beginning, you have treated all dark children with absolute hatred.

Thirty million African children died on the way to the Americas, where nothing awaited them but endless toil and the crack of a bullwhip. They died of a lack of food, of lack of movement in the holds of ships. Of lack of friends and relatives. They died of depression, bewilderment and fear.

What has the white man to say to the black woman?

Let us look around us: Let us look at the world the white man has made for the black woman and her children.

It is a world in which the black woman is still forced to provide cheap labor, in the form of children, for the factories and on the assembly lines of the white man.

It is a world into which the white man dumps every foul, person-annulling drug he smuggles into creation.

It is a world where many of our babies die at birth, or later of malnutrition, and where many more grow up to live lives of such misery they are forced to choose death by their own hands.

What has the white man to say to the black woman, and to all women and children everywhere?

Let us consider the depletion of the ozone; let us consider homelessness and the nuclear peril; let us consider the destruction of the rain forests in the name of the almighty hamburger. Let us consider the poisoned apples and the poisoned water and the poisoned air and the poisoned earth.

And that all of our children, because of the white man’s assault on the planet, have a possibility of death by cancer in their almost immediate future.

What has the white, male lawgiver to say to any of us? To those of us who love life too much to willingly bring more children into a world saturated with death?

Abortion, for many women, is more than an experience of suffering beyond anything most men will ever know; it is an act of mercy, and an act of self-defense.

To make abortion illegal again is to sentence millions of women and children to miserable lives and even more miserable deaths.

Given his history, in relation to us, I think the white man should be ashamed to attempt to speak for the unborn children of the black woman. To force us to have children for him to ridicule, drug and turn into killers and homeless wanderers is a testament to his hypocrisy.

What can the white man say to the black woman?

Only one thing that the black woman might hear.

Yes, indeed, the white man can say, Your children have the right to life. Therefore I will call back from the dead those 30 million who were tossed overboard during the centuries of the slave trade. And the other millions who died in my cotton fields and hanging from trees.

I will recall all those who died of broken hearts and broken spirits, under the insult of segregation.

I will raise up all the mothers who died exhausted after birthing twenty-one children to work sunup to sundown on my plantation. I will restore to full health all those who perished for lack of food, shelter, sunlight, and love; and from my inability to see them as human beings.

But I will go even further:

I will tell you, black woman, that I wish to be forgiven the sins I commit daily against you and your children. For I know that until I treat your chil dren with love, I can never be trusted by my own. Nor can I respect myself.

And I will free your children from insultingly high infant mortality rates, short life spans, horrible housing, lack of food, rampant ill health. I will liberate them from the ghetto. I will open wide the doors of all the schools and hospitals and businesses of society to your children. I will look at your children and see not a threat but a joy.

I will remove myself as an obstacle in the path that your children, against all odds, are making toward the light. I will not assassinate them for dreaming dreams and offering new visions of how to live. I will cease trying to lead your children, for I can see I have never understood where I was going. I will agree to sit quietly for a century or so, and meditate on this.

This is what the white man can say to the black woman.

We are listening. "

-Alice Walker

Blacks were practicing slavery when white man got there. White man just happened to be far more efficient at it than jungle bunnies.

im so glad that you see that abortion is bad and we need more people to take a stand if you are stil unsure about the issue visit www.prolifeaction.org or mr. ahern always helps.
;)

This may have been discussed here previously, but I wanted to get your perspective on this. Now, I haven't come to own conclusions about this, but I think it is worthy of debate. From Exodus 21:22-25

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


Footnotes
[a] Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

So, this would then refer to the value that was placed on the unborn in Old Testament theology. It appears that The Old Testament declares the unborn child is not then considered as an equal, or am I reading this wrong? Thoughts?

Has anyone else heard that abortion leads to a decrease in violent crime?

Here's the pdf:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

and here's the google cache:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:FX7fM0XdTiEJ:pricetheory.uchicago.e du/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf+abortion +paper+steven+levitt&hl=en&client=safari