How Much Time?

[Beta]

With each disposed condom and menstrual period there are potential lives that didn't come to fruition.

I am saying life starts when the egg is fertilized. Or essentially, when "a child would be born if you were not to interfere".

What really galls me is when right-to-lifers campaign against the "morning-after" pill that simply prevents an egg from implanting in the uterus.

I don't think anyone can argue with preventative measures (religion aside), assuming of course people actually know how stuff works.

I mean this is gonna seem pretty out there, but the act of sex is essentially the focal point of reproduction. It's how you reproduce. Why do most people have sex? "It feels good", "she's hot", "I'm drunk", etc etc etc.

If someone is going to go through the act of reproduction...then be like "I didn't plan on reproducing"...then there's SERIOUSLY something wrong with the way they think[sic].

"I walked into a fire...I can't believe I got burned! That's not what I planned on when I walked into a house that was burning!"

What the hell do people think happens when you have sex? I think people and society most of the time (myself included) lose track of what sex really is for (having kids) what we selfishly perceive it to be (just for fun).

[StrykerFSU]

The crime committed against the woman doesn't mean that another innocent person has to suffer, in this case the child. I vote for the case of birth then adoption.

Obviously you are not remotely familiar with the severe emotional damage a rape has on the psyche of the victim and her family. Your opinion on this is unreasonable.

Beta, not everything in this world is as black and white as you would like it to be and I think the more compassion we can show to individuals who actually find themselves living in the gray areas, the better off we will all be.

I think we all agree that killing is wrong but our society continues to justify it in certain situations. Some states choose to execute criminals. We certainly excuse soldiers who take lives during war. A police officer defending himself from an armed individual, also excused. Families "pull the plug" on loved ones etc. etc. In these cases society has decided that causing death is necessary to either protect the living, preserve our way of life, or as an act of mercy on the afflicted. Sometimes doing the wrong thing is OK, no?

Why do these same considerations not apply in the case of abortion? Our society and the people involved would be harmed and lives changed if abortion were made illegal. Not to mention the gall of men having the nerve to tell a woman what she can do with her body. A man can always walk away from the situation but the mother must deal with her new reality whether she likes it or not.

I don't think that anyone would argue that abortions are a good thing or a desirable choice. Abortion changes a woman's life (and the life of the father) far beyond merely "Boo-freaking-hoo". It is certainly not a decision to be taken lightly but it is one that I believe should be available to a woman should she so choose.

[OAKS]

I just wanted to point out that all of us are here and able to discuss the abortion topic because our mothers decided to keep us. Ironic huh?

I've always thought of that statement as essentially a straw man. My mother is vehemently pro-choice. It doesn't add much to your argument - you have much stronger points to rest on.

[OAKS]

If someone is going to go through the act of reproduction...then be like "I didn't plan on reproducing"...then there's SERIOUSLY something wrong with the way they think[sic].

"I walked into a fire...I can't believe I got burned! That's not what I planned on when I walked into a house that was burning!"

What the hell do people think happens when you have sex? I think people and society most of the time (myself included) lose track of what sex really is for (having kids) what we selfishly perceive it to be (just for fun).

I'd venture to say most people do indeed engage in sexual activities for the pleasure. When you have things like abstinence only education, you have skyrocketing teen pregnancy rates and generally uneducated folk as to what happens when they have sex.

Let's apply this to food. Should we all stop enjoying eating and only eat what we need to get nourishment? Why shouldn't we enjoy it (food, sex, alcohol, etc) if done safely and always with regards to the consequences. It's a moral stance, and my thoughts on the matter are that if we educate people enough, we'll see a drop in unwanted pregnancies and subsequently abortions, which is a good thing whether you are anti-choice or pro-choice.

In fact I think that gets lost in the argument. I doubt you're going to find a sliver of a percentage of pro-choice people who see abortion as a form of birth-control. They want to educate people and give them easy access to contraception and significantly reduce the number of abortions going on, but for those few dire cases still allow it, rather than to sweepingly legislate morality one way or another.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Those of you arguing this should just be left up to the states, or local communities -- sorry, but that is just a moral cop-out and a specious argument. The right to own other people as slaves should be left up to the states to decide, many you would have said 150 years ago. This is the exact same debate.

I'm neutral on the issue of abortion and I don't 'think R vs. W should be overturned, but I disagree completely Dan.

The two issues are not comparable. We have laws, passed by our elected government, that representatives from all 50 states in the Union have enacted. We have constitutional amendments guarantying basic rights to all US Citizens.

If you think abortion is such an inalienable right in the US, why not pass a new amendment to the US Constitution? You and I both know that wouldn't fly in many (red leaning) states.

Instead, you legislate from the bench. Which speaks volumes to our imperfect judicial system more then anything else.

It doesn't surprise me that you disagree, Sonny, and I have been waiting for you to chime in here. But where exactly have I "legislated from the bench"? Roe v Wade is settled law in this country, settled by the Supreme Court long before I was old enough to even understand the issue. It is others who seek to change it. I agree with you that legislation or judicial action is sometimes the wrong vehicle for changing what is defined as legal in our great nation.

Those on the right who argue for "strict, constructionist judges" are using code-speak for a litmus test on this or another specific issue. But the right-wing has no problems passing laws or attempting to pass laws that are directly contradictory to our US Constitution and specifically the Bill Of Rights, or to go to court seeking favorable rulings from like-minded federal judges. Why doesn't the right-wing try to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning, which coincidentally is an exercise that (no matter how repugnant any of us find it to be) is a clear demonstration of free speech, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? Why doesn't your side seek a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and woman exclusively?

And why is the right in America so vehemently opposed to the ACLU, whose only purpose is to consistently defend the Bill Of Rights? Isn't that a GOOD thing?

You can't have it both ways.

EDIT -- By the way, good for you Sonny that you are pro-choice inasmuch as overturning Roe v Wade is concerned. I have always admired your right to stand up for what you believe in, and I admire you for taking a stand here that is the opposite of a central plank in the GOP party platform. I only wish more of us -- on both sides -- could feel free to not always espouse "the party line". I also stated that I am personally torn over abortion, and IF I was a woman I seriously doubt I would ever consent to one in any situation, myself.

[sohotrightnow]

That the woman that got an abortion is going to feel bad? (See: Boo-freakin-hoo). If she's going to feel bad then maybe she 1) Shouldn't have had unsafe sex and/or 2) Had the child and given him/her a chance at life with a family that would care.

You never seem to take other people's views into consideration, namely a woman who has had an abortion. You try to justify this opinion by saying you know somebody "close" who has had an abortion, therefore you know their range of emotions and decisions correct? Your callousness in deriding a woman who has to face this decision is unbelievable. God forbid your GF ever gets pregnant and she is faced with this decision. What will the outcome be?

[Beta]

Obviously you are not remotely familiar with the severe emotional damage a rape has on the psyche of the victim and her family. Your opinion on this is unreasonable.

Yay for assumptions. Yes I am, and that's as far as I will go into that. Someone gets raped, and that causes psychological trauma, obviously. They get pregnant. So having the abortion is less psychologically damaging than having the child and putting him/her up for adoption?

Beta, not everything in this world is as black and white as you would like it to be and I think the more compassion we can show to individuals who actually find themselves living in the gray areas, the better off we will all be.

I understand things aren't black and white and it sucks. But how is abortion law to be made? And within that...if there are stipulations then isn't that just "telling women what they can/can't do"? The issue is ridiculously gray, but laws are black/white.

I think we all agree that killing is wrong but our society continues to justify it in certain situations. Some states choose to execute criminals. We certainly excuse soldiers who take lives during war. A police officer defending himself from an armed individual, also excused. Families "pull the plug" on loved ones etc. etc. In these cases society has decided that causing death is necessary to either protect the living, preserve our way of life, or as an act of mercy on the afflicted. Sometimes doing the wrong thing is OK, no?

All of that would apply if it were recognized that abortion is killing (by law). If abortion were recognized by all as so (under the law), then this debate most likely wouldn't be occurring.

Why do these same considerations not apply in the case of abortion? Our society and the people involved would be harmed and lives changed if abortion were made illegal. Not to mention the gall of men having the nerve to tell a woman what she can do with her body. A man can always walk away from the situation but the mother must deal with her new reality whether she likes it or not.

A lot of dad's walked away, that doesn't excuse abortion. Not everyone is a fit parent, that's pretty well understood all around.

I don't think that anyone would argue that abortions are a good thing or a desirable choice. Abortion changes a woman's life (and the life of the father) far beyond merely "Boo-freaking-hoo". It is certainly not a decision to be taken lightly but it is one that I believe should be available to a woman should she so choose.

The "Boo-freaking-hoo" is directed at the perpetrator of the terrible act (mother), since the victim (baby) has no say in things.

[Beta]

You never seem to take other people's views into consideration, namely a woman who has had an abortion. You try to justify this opinion by saying you know somebody "close" who has had an abortion, therefore you know their range of emotions and decisions correct? Your callousness in deriding a woman who has to face this decision is unbelievable. God forbid your GF ever gets pregnant and she is faced with this decision. What will the outcome be?

I thought this was about "our" views on the matter? My mistake. Then I'll go through the 1000's cases of abortion-decisions happen each year and ask all of them how they're feeling when it comes time to talk about my opinion. I cannot, nor can any man truly know what it's like to be in that spot as a woman. But since we're allowed to talk about things, we can say how we feel about the issue of abortion.

As humans, we can't know how every single person feels/thinks about every single thing. We only know what we've experienced personally.

If my gf got pregnant, she would have the baby. We've talked about it. I wouldn't want to date anyone that would ever have an abortion.

[BB]

Sounds like some bitterness coming along.

My viewpoint remains. there is no choice when deciding to end an innocent life. I think the Pro CHoice folks need to make better arguments as to why it is not a life at the point of abortion.

If they agree that it is a life then it would be morally criminal. Which is the argument of the pro lifers. It is a life, vs. It is a cluster of cells that could become a life.

People get too heated when they start arguing "shouldn't a woman have a choice" "What about sexual Freedom? a man can just walk away!" "what if she is raped/incest?" Those aren't the issues that should be at the heart of this.

Those issues should be seperate. If a man gets a woman pregnate and wants to walk away he has to pay more for child support or something along those lines so that they have to share the pain of their actions. This is an appropriate way of giving equal weight to both parties. And I guess the lifes not fair phrase from my parents comes through here. If you are a woman there are certain physical things you have to deal with. You get a period roughly once a month, cramps, menopause and if you have sex you can get pregnant. Life's not fair and there isn't a way to make it equal. But that doesn't give the woman a right to take a life because she's not ready.

Giving the woman a choice to end a life is not the solution to her decisions. I am also sorry about the incest/rape issue. I don't see how ending a life is the solution. The morning after pill should be a must for rape victims or they have a child no questions. (in my viewpoint a couple of cells that may or may not have even split yet is not a life.) But if you have not taken an action to prevent pregnancy when it is available then you have to deal with the consequences as unfair as they are. Choose adoption.

[laxfan25]

No one is telling you what you have to do, if abortion were made illegal it would be what you can't do.

No, you would be telling women that they HAVE to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, and the fact that these laws may be put in place by legislatures that are predominantly male is highly paternalistic and unfair. You can choose to have whatever view you want on the subject, but keep your hands off of me.
It certainly would add something to this discussion if we had a few women expressing their viewpoint, instead of this sausage fest telling them what is right and wrong.

[peterwho]

I understand things aren't black and white and it sucks. But how is abortion law to be made? And within that...if there are stipulations then isn't that just "telling women what they can/can't do"? The issue is ridiculously gray, but laws are black/white.

That's part of the problem. Right now, both sides believe it has to be all-or-none.

Since Roe v. Wade, the age of viability for a fetus has shifted to 25 weeks.

So, could we all agree that an abortion after that time should be illegal? Please don't worry about all the exceptions, right now, as a diversion. We can debate the amendments for life of the mother...at another time. Just answer that question.

While I personally believe that abortion is wrong at any time, I would view that change as a step in the right direction from where we are today.

[Beta]

No, you would be telling women that they HAVE to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, and the fact that these laws may be put in place by legislatures that are predominantly male is highly paternalistic and unfair. You can choose to have whatever view you want on the subject, but keep your hands off of me.

(talking about non-rape pregnancy) So they got pregnant, and they have to deal with the consequences? Like everyone in our families who is known as "mom" had to do at least once when they found out they were pregnant? If you don't want kids, you probably shouldn't go through the act of reproducing.

[laxfan25]

With each disposed condom and menstrual period there are potential lives that didn't come to fruition.

I am saying life starts when the egg is fertilized. Or essentially, when "a child would be born if you were not to interfere".

That's great - that is YOUR belief. My belief is that an embryo is not a child - that an appropriate end date for an abortion would be when the fetus is viable outside of the womb - say third trimester. Neither of our beliefs should impinge on the right of a woman to make her own choice.

What really galls me is when right-to-lifers campaign against the "morning-after" pill that simply prevents an egg from implanting in the uterus.

I don't think anyone can argue with preventative measures (religion aside), assuming of course people actually know how stuff works.

One of the issues I have with the church I was baptized in is that they espouse that using anything besides the "rhythm method" (and I don't mean smooth jazz on the stereo) is a sin. Of course this dictate is handed down by the leadership of the church that contains how many female viewpoints? Oh, that's right - zero! Women are unworthy of the priesthood. Score one more for the penile-endowed.

What the hell do people think happens when you have sex? I think people and society most of the time (myself included) lose track of what sex really is for (having kids) what we selfishly perceive it to be (just for fun).

Yes, that is really out there. I would reckon that the overwhelming instances of sexual relations that occur in the world are NOT designed to produce a child. One could say that a pregnancy is just one possible consequence of sexual activity, that the intended consequence was the explosive release of endorphins to the brain. You are imposing your own moral judgements here again - telling people that if they have sex only becausde it feels good that they are being selfish. Feel free to feel guilty, I choose not to. After all, I am incapable of creating any more pregnancies - does that mean I should stop having sex? (My wife may think so - but that's a whole 'nother story )

[Beta]

Yes, that is really out there. I would reckon that the overwhelming instances of sexual relations that occur in the world are NOT designed to produce a child. One could say that a pregnancy is just one possible consequence of sexual activity, that the intended consequence was the explosive release of endorphins to the brain. You are imposing your own moral judgements here again - telling people that if they have sex only becausde it feels good that they are being selfish. Feel free to feel guilty, I choose not to.

I know that myself and most people are guilty of that. The last thing on my mind is "man, I wanna have kids!" in that situation. But no one can deny what sex is, and what can happen. I'm not saying people shouldn't have sex, but moreso realize what the consequences are...whether or not we ever think about it. That's all. There's no hidden meanings or needed deeper analysis into my improper usages of intransitive verbs or whatever. Sex has consequences, whether we realize it or not.

does that mean I should stop having sex? (My wife may think so - but that's a whole 'nother story )

Hahahaha

[Zamboni_Driver]

To continue to stir the pot...


I have a litmus test for the anti-abortion (and the pro-choice people) to see if this issue is about saving lives or about governing people's decisions.

Previously, it was mentioned that science is being able to save pre-term babies earlier and earlier in pregnancy. It is very forseeable that within the next 50 years, medical science will be able to save a fetus that is only 12-15 weeks old (I believe the earliest now is 22-25 weeks). Thus creating an overlap the window for an abortion and medical care to save babies.

Is it acceptable for a woman to give up her fetus once medical science can take over and expect a viable, health life for the fetus?

(Logistically, at say 15 weeks a woman would enter a clinic where the baby would be removed from the uterus and placed within a technological system to continue to care for the fetus as it develops. Once full developed the baby would be ready for adoption - thus replacing the need for abortion, or waiting till 38-40 weeks for birth and then adoption)

[now please don't argue about whether medical science can provide this in the future - assume it to be true and answer the question]