Is abortion about women’s right or is it about the right to life?

1. 65

   JRScarbroughposted 10 years ago

   Is abortion about women’s right or is it about the right to life?
   
   I get so mixed up in that debate, it would seem that the right to life outweighs any right of personal choice, but many see it much different. What is your opinion about abortion? What supersedes what? Do men have a right to a choice or are women the only ones involved?

   replyreport
2. 60

   David Carlposted 10 years ago

   Isn't it about selfishness and money. People want to be able to do what they want to do, when they want to do it.
   
   Groups that provide abortions make a lot of money. It's a big business.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      not so.selfishness & $$ are not the major motivations.Only the individual knows their own heart. We have no right to judge others on a moral basis.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i agree. we cant judge a persons motives. we have no idea why people make the decisions they do. we can only judge the act.

      replyreport
3. 85

   tsmogposted 10 years ago

   Abortion is very complex once one does research. On the surface is the argument between right to life and planned parent hood. Yet, simply taking a look at the legal reviews offered at Wiki offers more insight. Digging deeper we see the debate took place in England during the early 1800's. History shares with cause of miscarriage going back to 1760BCE with Code of Hammurabi. In China it dates back to 500 BCE.
   
   The debates are legal and definitely philosophical. Then comes religion with views of life. There are great articles comparing divorce to abortion at the philosophical level as being the same within certain religious definitions of life. Something of the two are joined together as one flesh thus new life. Or, is or is not divorce aborting a marriage. That brought out arguments of abortion both for and against on the plane of philosophy and apologetics regarding the meaning of "abortion."
   
   Legal issues deal with morality. Moral philosophy is ethics. Morals are both of the individual and the societal. In today's world that divides once more into cultures and sub-cultures. One view is abortion is a battle simply between freedom, liberty, and morality complicated with who has the rights of governing - the individual or society. Again society is not only the government it is cultures and sub-cultures, and, too inclusive of "all religions," which is inclusive of atheism. That is where it becomes complicated. Does the whole of society rule the individuals rights - male or female, child or adult, and etc,  and abortion is only an issue bringing that to light?
   
   Again Wiki is a great source for this to begin reading. From there it is a curvy road with many twists and turns. You may end up supporting the legal issue of abortion and not agreeing with abortion at the family level or cultural level. Next is the religious view? I dun'no . . . that is why I tend to stay away from the conversations as it does take a lot of investment of time and self to discuss "all" the ramifications and etc.
   
   Then another curve ball comes along once the debate begins - both define "Life" and explain "Life." Can that be answered with a universal answer for all - religion, spirituality, biology, social, legal, and etc?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      JRScarbroughposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. It’s complicated. My only problem is when either side decides to simply deny the rarity of it. I don’t agree with abortion when a choice a person willingly made resulted in pregnancy. Rape, incest and such things are a matter of its own.

      replyreport
   2. 85

      tsmogposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed with statistics available in the US, yet world wide?. Researching I learned forced miscarriage was practiced in ancient times. I read an argument likening male masturbation to abortion philosophically. Where does the argument begin and end?

      replyreport
   3. 65

      JRScarbroughposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This is precisely why it is a legal issue. The law never ways circumstance. It is black and white. The whole entire debate could push eventual legislation that begins to define morality either too loosely or too tight. Morality is not a legal matter.

      replyreport
   4. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      bottom line: the law has no right mandating morality when that term is so vague.The courts R never rational when they R struggling with their own beliefs about morality.The majority has no right 2 mandate morality either.Crimes R not moral judgments

      replyreport
4. 38

   Borsiaposted 10 years ago

   To me it is a fairly simple matter of government intrusion into an area of private life where they have absolutely no business.
   ALL medical decisions, whether it is abortion, end of life or any other, should be made by patients with their doctors. Nobody else need apply or be heard.
   A woman has every right to decide that she doesn't want to have a baby. Every couple has the right to decide that they can't handle having a child.
   The idea that all they have to do is put the child up for adoption is pure BS for the majority of unwanted children. Society has no obligation to pay for the upbringing of the unwanted and for all their bravado and indignation against abortion the anti-abortionists aren't lining up to take in and care for them either.
   Abortion has been around since the beginning and will always be around so long as there is a need. The rich will always have the option for safe sanitary abortions in clinics around the world. So be clear that when you talk about banning abortion you are really saying "ban abortion for the poor".
   Statistics show that these unwanted poor children are far more likely to get involved with crime and drugs so society pays not just once but over and over with both money and blood.
   For the most part the objections to abortion are based on religious beliefs which means that you once more have the religious trying to cram their beliefs down the throats of those who don't hold those beliefs.
   Nobody is trying to force anyone who doesn't want an abortion to have one, or even suggesting it,,, yet.
   But as the population continues to grow unchecked driving this tiny planet into ruin it is only a matter of time before that changes and the right to reproduce becomes a privilege, and most likely a privilege held for the rich.
   There is certainly no logistical reason to ban or even restrict abortion. There is no shortage of people.
   The way to prevent abortion is through education and birth control, stop it before there is any need. But the same zealots who are demanding an end to abortion are also doing all they can to block education and limit birth control. No very logical or righteous just egotistical zealots who want to control others without any regard for their lives or rights.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      what if parents decide after the baby is a moth old, that they just can handle it and its too much money and too hard to raise a child. should they then be allowed to get rid of it?

      replyreport
   2. 38

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They have the option of putting it up for adoption at that point. In many states a child left at a care center will be taken care of. certainly not ideal but better than keeping and ending up abusing the child or raising it in poverty.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      is the option of adoption not available before that point? whats the difference in terminating it then or before?

      replyreport
   4. 38

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Adoption is only a reality for a few.
      Better not to add to the numbers of unwanted orphans. There will always be far more than the number of loving families. Like all problems it is better to prevent it first than to try and deal with it after.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      prevention is best, i agree. shouldnt that be done through being responsible in the 1st place? why is it better to terminate giving the child 0 chance, than to give them an opportunity through adoption? difference between terminating then and before?

      replyreport
   6. 65

      JRScarbroughposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don’t like this ownership thing Borsia. The fetus belongs to the mother, unwanted children ( there is no such a thing when it comes to infants). What is it with this possession idea? We are not suppose to devalue life based on other peoples wants.

      replyreport
   7. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      when we make laws restricting anyone's rights, we R in essence taking ownership of their lives & controlling behaviors that we do not like or understand. We should 1st live our lives in the manner that we see best for us, & let others do the

      replyreport
   8. 65

      JRScarbroughposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don’t want to invade anyone’s privacy. I just see no difference in abortion than forced sterilization on undesirables. If a mother can decide to end a life indie her, then government could rationalize how it is our mother and do what China does.

      replyreport
   9. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      we can over stretch our imaginations in any direction,but deciding how a woman deals with her private life is certainly interfering in personal privacy. take a better look at the argument U propose & apply some logic, & U might see a differen

      replyreport
   10. 38

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       responsibility means dealing with consequences. Deciding not to have a child can be the most responsible answer. Only the mother can make the decision as to what is the best answer for her in her situation in her own life. She is not a slave

       replyreport
   11. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       im for not having a child being responsible if you think your not ready. however, once a girl is pregnant, she has a child. only difference is location. whats the difference in killing it inside her or outside? a question that keeps getting avoided

       replyreport
5. 0

   christiananrkistposted 10 years ago

   it depends on if you seen the fetus as an object or a human being. if you see it as a human being, then abortion is ending a life. if its just an object until entering the outside world , then its a choice equivalent with getting rid of a tumor. i like to ask these questions to pro abortion. what about the location makes the fetus less human? when the murder of an expecting mother takes place, they murderer is convicted of 2 murders. why is that if the fetus isnt human. if only mom gets to make that decision, is she then also aloud to kill her 2 month old? women like to say they have the right to do what they want with their body. are they getting rid of a part of their body, or exterminating an entirely different body?

   replyreport
   1. 38

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I've never met anyone who is pro-abortion. But up to the point that it can live outside the woman's body it is part of her. Murder is all about intent. If the mother intends to bring the child to term then it is murder for another to kill it.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      anyone who thinks abortion is ok is pro abortion. I agree murder is about intent. isn't the intent of abortion to end the child's life? can a new born support their own life even outside the body? if not then abortion should still be ok after birth

      replyreport
   3. 65

      JRScarbroughposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Murder is simply murder. You can drive drunk and not intend to kill anyone but since you chose to drive drunk, you murdered someone even when legal definitions lower the crime to manslaughter, you still murdered a person by making a bad choice.

      replyreport
   4. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Most people who defend individual rights don't condone abortion, but do believe that under certain circumstances its their personal choice 2 make not the law. All abortions R not murder per se & it is wrong 2 ban all abortions based on personal v

      replyreport
   5. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      intentionally taking a life without justified cause is murder. can you describe a scenario where abortion is not murder?

      replyreport
   6. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ur reaching again. If a fetus has 3 heads, 8 arms, a tail, & animal like torso you believe that it should be forced to be born? & if terminated, the mother and doctor should be fined or imprisoned for murder?

      replyreport
   7. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      you example has never happened. most cases of abortion there is no indication of child being born with deformities. and even if they are, does this give us the right to kill those with deformities who have already been born?

      replyreport
   8. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I assure U my descript is not far from fact.i have cared 4 many grossly deformed adults. Taking a life after birth is a different matter as U well know. U argue 4 the sake of argue, but never offer a legit solution. There R no easy ans & no 1fit

      replyreport
   9. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i don't argue for the sake of argue. the solution is don't abort. just the same as don't murder. I don't see taking a life after as different. that's my point in this matter. besides location, what is the difference?

      replyreport
   10. 75

       d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       its a moral issue (abortion) & not 2 B mandated by law. The Government is NOT in the business of mandating morality & i pray 2 God it never will be. There can be no blanket laws on abortion. Murder is another issue & must be addressed sep

       replyreport
   11. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       youre avoiding the question. whats the difference in killing a baby inside as opposed to killing it outside the women? I don't care about the gov. I agree that's the last place I would get my morality from

       replyreport
   12. 75

       d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       no 1can determined when life begins. It's a moral  'dilemma' that religion cannot dictate. After birth there is no question of sentient or viable life. Armchair debates can't  decide either, so the ? you ask is 2 B debated only in a moot court.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       if no one can determine when life begins (which i disagree with) should we be treating it so lightly? isnt this an argument for pro life? if you weren't sure if someone was alive or dead, is the best action the grave or to help them?

       replyreport
   14. 75

       d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       now you are just being silly. No matter how dramatic you get, or how you rephrase your comments the answers are still the same.

       replyreport
   15. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       what exactly is silly about what I said? you believe since life cant be determined, its ok to kill , rather than err on the side of caution? im not trying to be dramatic. if you think that its probably because death is kinda dramatic.

       replyreport
   16. 38

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The decision of whether it is a child or a cluster of cells is one that can only be made by the mother, as is the decision of whether she wants to have a child. She and only she should be making that call. Not government not a religion nobody but her

       replyreport
   17. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       reality is what determines that. if 2 people do the deed, what they want is relevant. we are responsible for our actions. whats with the gov and religion comments? my argument is that its taking a life. in what way is abortion not murder?

       replyreport
   18. 38

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       They are taking responsibility for their actions. It simply isn't the way you would prefer they deal with their predicament. But it is their predicament and their solution that fits their life. This is why it is their decision to make and not ours

       replyreport
   19. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       im saying abortion is murder of a child. you say they are taking responsibility of their actions by having an abortion. is killing someone a legitimate way of handling our predicaments? youre right. thats not how i handle tough situations.

       replyreport
   20. 75

       d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       ck: i don't think i can be any clearer than my previous comments.It seems that everyone has the wrong idea except you.As previously stated Ur arguments R only valid in a moot court.If not sure what the means look it up.

       replyreport
   21. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I don't see how they are only valid in a moot court. I do think im right obviously, but im not the only one with this idea. I don't know why, but you refuse to answer the questions. a simple one. how is killing a baby inside the mother different?

       replyreport
   22. 38

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Its pointless to continue arguing about it. We have different definitions of when a fertilized egg becomes a viable life and about what self determination means. Abortion will always be available the question is will it be in alleys with coat hangers

       replyreport
6. 75

   d.williamposted 10 years ago

   The abortion issue is about both women's rights and the right to life.  Where the dilemma comes in is when other people try to push their personal beliefs onto others.
   The only people who have the right to decide on whether a woman has an abortion, or not, are the woman involved, her doctor, and her family.
   It is not the business of anyone else.  Especially when those opinions are based on personal belief systems.
   A child does have the right to life but when the fetus is damaged and the quality of life of the unborn is dependent of an uncaring society, the law should be left out of that equation.
   No one can determine when sentient life begins, but we certainly can determine when a child is able to live on his own - and that is only when it is removed from the womb. 
   The values of people differ and no one should have the right to mandate their religious "morality" beliefs on another person.
   When most women decide to have an abortion for legitimate reasons the father (if present) usually is part of that agreement. 
   Absent fathers, or unrelated people, have no vested interest in the decisions made by the mother, and therefore should keep their noses out of other people's business.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      if one views it as taking a life unjustly (basically murder) should they keep their noses out of it? the thing with the argument of the child possibly growing up in an uncaring society is we dont know that. abortion is 100% no chance of life.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank God it is not Your decision to make. And i am sure women across the world feel the same way. There are no people perfect enough to judge others, and that includes you (and I)

      replyreport
   3. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      im sure they and you do. god forbid women (and men) take any accountability for their actions. its much better to throw babies in the trash

      replyreport
   4. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      ck: U do tend 2 over dramatize. all the"what ifs" do, is muddy the waters. the personal decisions any 1 makes is between them & their higher power. Not between them, you, & me. We have no vested interest in another's choices, except 2 pass ju

      replyreport
   5. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i dont disagree that i tend to over dramatize.  i feel my point is valid though. i also believe my question is still valid. if abortion is murder, should people be stopped? if it isnt murder, how is it not?

      replyreport
7. 0

   Lybrahposted 10 years ago

   Abortion is totally wrong, period.  It is also selfish.  I feel sorry for the poor babies, who never had a chance at life.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      let's pray U R never the victim of a violent rape, the victim of incest, or have a mutated fetus inside U. U might think differently about your views.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think its horrible that you find killing people with deformities is ok. rape and incest are among 1% of abortions according to planned parenthood. special circumstances aren't in question. even so, should a 2 yr old from rape qualify to be killed?

      replyreport
   3. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      ck: Ur still trying to superimpose 1concept on another. If U can't understand the subtle differences there is no further discussion 2  B had.Ur argument is-if orange&apples R both fruit, then orange&apple must be 1 & the same.this is not

      replyreport
   4. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      maybe i cant understand due to you never answering the questions. you keep avoiding them. why is that? if youre for abortion you must have thought about some of these. how is killing inside differ from killing outside? what exactly is the subtle diff

      replyreport
   5. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      ck: http://dwilliam.hubpages.com/hub/Irrati … iscernment 
      Perhaps it is time for you to learn the difference between these two concepts. Conformity 2 irrationality is not a viable compromise

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Lybrahposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It is not up to me to decide whether someone lives or dies.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree with you Lybrah about your stance on abortion. Do not listen to these with reprobate minds!!

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Lybrahposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It's just, if you've ever been there when a baby is born, or just been in the presence of a newborn baby, you see that they come into this world ready to be loved, ready to love, ready to feed.  To deny them that, to turn them away, is heartbreaking.

      replyreport
   9. 65

      ThompsonPenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Babies are born ready to be loved, I agree. But what if it's into a family that isn't ready or capable of loving it? Not every family or person is able to give the child what it needs for a quality life. It's more than just "i like babies"

      replyreport
   10. 0

       JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       So.. just kill them because their parents are bad people?

       replyreport
   11. 65

       ThompsonPenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I never said parents were bad people, they just might not be in a situation to where they can provide a good enough life for the child. Because adoption is an option, doesn't mean it is a good one. What about kids that don't find a home?

       replyreport
   12. 0

       Lybrahposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Then they shouldn't have sex!

       replyreport
   13. 65

       ThompsonPenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Then tell that to rape victims

       replyreport
   14. 0

       JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, the less than 5% that become pregnant. Have you actually watched an abortion? I suggest you do so.

       replyreport
   15. 83

       gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Abortion is not wrong if it is done in the earliest stages.  No child should be unwanted and women should never have to endure an unwanted pregnancy.  That is ALL I have to SAY on the subject.

       replyreport
   16. 70

       Erin Trefzposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I agree it is wrong.  I think if you are raped and cannot handle having a baby with a defect there are many people who would love to adopt him. I think it should be up to God.  He can heal all wounds.

       replyreport
8. 72

   aliasisposted 10 years ago

   Well, the debate is certainly about both. If you ask someone's opinion, they'll have an answer that's either:
   
   -"far right" (a fetus, even 24 hours old, is a "life" equivalent to that of a human, and a woman must carry it to birth whether she wants to or not)
   -"far left" (a fetus is not equivalent to a human, and a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to endure pregnancy) or
   -"middle" (something like, abortion is sometimes acceptable, such as in cases or rape or incest, or if the fetus has extreme medical problems that would hugely impact a potential baby's quality of life)
   
   If you ask me, I would say no, a fetus, especially early term, is not equivalent to a human, and yes, women should have 100% rights over their bodies. No, men do not have the right to choose for women. It's their body, not men's, they aren't the one who has to be pregnant and potentially give birth. That doesn't mean men in relationships with women shouldn't be consulted, but ultimately, it's completely the woman's choice. Additionally, I am pro-baby, that is, I think all babies deserve the highest possible care and certainly love, and I am more saddened by the concept of unwanted babies than I am of aborting fetuses that cannot feel pain or think. Another important point is that not all women who have abortions "don't want the baby" - I've personally known women who go to abortion clinics because the fetus is already dead and/or the woman's health is at severe risk (yet the protesters still harass them, it's so incredibly cruel).

   replyreport
   1. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Great reply. I may not believe in all abortions, but i sure will defend the woman's right to make her own choice. All others should mind their own dam business.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Joseph Benposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you. Thanks for sharing such a great feeling.

      replyreport
   3. 36

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent answer.  So many people want to make it a black or white issue without seeing the grey areas.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Fetuses do in fact feel pain, and feel great pain during the procedure.  They also think and are sentient.  Please do research and open-minded thinking before posting on topics such as this.

      replyreport
   5. 72

      aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Please research unbaised, scientific sources, Ben. Without a nervous system, how can cells feel pain? Without a brain, they can't think. How exactly are you defining "sentient"? Women should have the right to choose, period.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, women have the right to be responsible in the first place. How can you justify this murder in our society? And yes, this murder no matter how you want to sugarcoat it. Would you sit and watch an abortion being performed? That may change your min

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Naomi Balchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ben Blackwell whatever your belief on this subject may be as a male I find it hard to believe that you can mention open mindedness when men will never face the decision of abortion but are the quickest group of people to judge.

      replyreport
9. 79

   Attikosposted 10 years ago

   The debate itself is irresolvable. Both sides are sincere in their views, but there is no way to reconcile the conflicting beliefs that on the one hand society's interest in preventing murder is a compelling one and on the other that an individual has an inalienable, natural right to control her own body. There is no common ground between those positions, and so there is no possibility of a social consensus on the matter . Not all questions have answers. This is one of them.
   
   Your other questions do, though. Both are issues of opinion, not incompatible fact.
   
   First, my personal view is that in general I oppose abortion within my own family as a matter of conscience but have no right to dictate decisions to others. The law cannot be used as a tool to impose one faction's belief onto a wide swath of society who disagree with it without destroying respect for the rule of law, which is a price too high to pay for any point of view. The law should stay out of this intractable conflict, neither supporting nor opposing abortion. That means it must not be criminalized, and government must not provide financial or other forms of support for it. In the eyes of the law, a person should be recognized as a subject for protection only at birth, not before. The law, after all, is not a code of morality, it is a set of principles and rules the purpose of which is to permit us all to live and work together more or less in harmony.
   
   Last, men most certainly do have rights here, in ethics. If you are the father of an unborn child, the mother and other intimately interested parties should consult you and take your views on any question of abortion into full consideration. There can be circumstances that make this principle inapplicable, but in most, should a woman by whom you have fathered a child abort in defiance of your wishes to the contrary, then you have made a mistake in becoming involved with her. Cut her loose and get yourself a better one before your life and rights are further trampled upon. Bear in mind that, again, this is an ethical point, not one the law is capable effectively of addressing.
   
   The bottom line is that people should be free to do as they choose in their own lives. The law should not interfere with that beyond the point necessary to enable them to do it. Abortion is not a fit subject for the remedies it has available.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      are you saying then, if youre still inside the mother, your not a subject or a human? how does the location make a difference? why do you oppose it for your family? why is the child not given the opportunity to make choices? would they choose to die?

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No, I am not saying they are not human, and the belief a fetus is answers your third question. It is not for me to say what others must do, nor can the law effectively do so. Those ideas are in the third paragraph of my post.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      do you think people should be stopped from murdering others? if not, why not? if so, how is abortion not murder? murder = willfully taking a life without just cause.

      replyreport
   4. 75

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with Ur comments. I may not believe in unnecessary aborts, but i will always defend the woman's rights 2 decide her needs without Gov, or religious interferences.

      replyreport
   5. 79

      Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Reply to christiananrkist: To emphasize one point, the law is not a moral code. It cannot be. The state assumed prosecution of murder as the common law formed because private handling of it was too disruptive. It is a matter of order and economics.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      ok. understood. however I didn't ask about the law. I asked if YOU think people should be stopped from murdering? if not why not? if so, how is abortion not murder.
      murder = willfully taking a life without just cause.

      replyreport
   7. 79

      Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think it benefits us all when the law handles grievances arising from killing. I also think murder in a moral rather than legal sense is wrong. Abortion may be moral murder; I consider it so. It should not be legally treated as murder, though.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i dont understand the difference between moral murder and regular. do you disagree then when a person who kills a mother and unborn child is charged with 2 counts of murder?

      replyreport
   9. 79

      Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The ancient rule was that the unborn is protected by law at the time of quickening, roughly the start of the third trimester. I could compromise on that. Remember, though, that the law is not a moral code and thus cannot deal with moral murder.

      replyreport
   10. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       im still confused on the moral murder detail. isnt all murder immoral? should our laws be influenced by our morals, or should our morals be influenced by our laws?

       replyreport
   11. 79

       Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Neither. They are different realms. The law is a system of rules the function of which is to allow us to live and work together more or less in harmony. A code of morality is not its province. The concept of murder is in both, but it differs.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       i feel like i keep missing the answers to my main question. how is murdering an infant outside the woman's body different than murdering one inside the woman's body? why is one moral, and the other immoral?

       replyreport
   13. 79

       Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Whether or not abortion is a moral act is not the right question. In the public realm, i.e. in the law, it doesn't matter because the law's function is not to establish a moral code.

       replyreport
   14. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Laws against murder, stealing, and littering legislate the moral point of view that murder, stealing, and littering are wrong and should be prohibited and penalized by law. and im also certain now you're avoiding my question. you know which one

       replyreport
   15. 79

       Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       No. This is dealt with in my post. I'm repeating myself, but the law is not a code of morality, it is a body of code developed over a long period of time and experience to allow us all to live and work together. It is not capable of forcing morals.

       replyreport
10. 73

    tsadjatkoposted 10 years ago

    
    
    Don't be fooled by those on the left who say it is about choice. Like every controversial position they take they have a ruse for it. The ruse about abortion is that it is about a woman's right to choose - they could care less about the woman's right to choose or they would be out there defending the woman's right to choose life for her baby and they never do that. You will never see a rally or demonstration by "pro choice groups" solely promoting a woman's right to choose life for her baby. They may give lip service to the idea but their actions define them, not their words. You will always find them demonstrating to promote a woman's right to choose abortion. They don't favor "choice", they favor only one choice.
    Actually what they really advocate is the woman's right to murder their own baby in their womb and that is what this country has made legal to do. But they can never be honest about anything they advocate. There is no "pro-choice" (the ruse) movement per say, "pro choice" advocates (no matter what they give lip service to) are really only pro abortion advocates and there is no way to deny that pro-abortion is synonymous with pro-murder, scientifically, emotionally, spiritually and politically.
    There is no difference between the Holocaust and the millions upon millions of babies that have been aborted. In both cases those who are gone existed on earth and now no longer exist because there lives were stolen from them by torture and murder.
    Murderers always rationalize, deny and disassociate themselves from the act of murder and those who choose to murder their fetus, their own baby in their womb are no different whether it is legal or not.
    The good news is that even a murderer can find peace, the peace that passes all understanding, if they admit their sin, truly repent and are forgiven by accepting the price Jesus paid for their transgressions and sins no more. A tough thing to do however for someone who doesn't believe God, in Jesus, his teachings and salvation - salvation from a destiny far worse than that of an aborted fetus.

    replyreport
    1. 75

       d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       spoken like a true conservative religious control advocate. (It's either MY way or the highway) Neither P.O.V. is totally correct, & differences must B respected, not derided. Quoting Ur scripture is a waste of time, and superfluous 2 logical deb

       replyreport
    2. 0

       christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       what do you mean by differences should be respected? are you respecting my view that abortion is murder and should be stopped? are you respecting tsadjatko's view by saying his scripture is a waste of time. you cant answer the ?'s as to why your view

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Don't listen to d.william.  Unlike him, you actually make arguments, and yours are constructed well, contrary to simply saying "not uh" with no rationale.  Also, good job on spelling and grammar.

       replyreport
    4. 65

       ThompsonPenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I don't understand how people so opposed to "murdering" an unborn kid can be ok w/ bringing a kid into a world where their quality of life may not even be an option. QUALITY OF LIFE. If it can't be provided, then you're sentencing a child to suffer

       replyreport
    5. 73

       tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Well what I don't understand is how people like you can justify murder. By your reasoning you'd murder anyone who does not have a quality of life. There is no reason for any healthy unborn not to have a chance at a quality of life through adoption.

       replyreport
11. 0

    Nancy's Nicheposted 10 years ago

    This is a very sensitive issue to discuss for many reasons. I personally do not believe in abortion; there are alternatives more suitable then abortion. That said a woman has the right to choose what is best for her situation and body, not some stranger or male congressional representative. She is the one who will endure this decision throughout her life.
    
    It always amazes and sickens me when I hear someone say they are a Christian yet go out and shoot or blow up doctors, nurses and other medical staff at abortion clinics. These same people will tell you they believe in the death sentence too. So tell me, does this sound like pro-life individuals to you --- it sure doesn’t to me.
    
    Live and let that higher power take care of the rest. The right thing to do is help a person considering this step to seek counseling before making such a decision. Perhaps no one has bothered to tell her there are other options…Here's a piece of helpful information:  http://www.lifetimeadoption.com/for_bir … 3493234555

    replyreport
12. 60

    fpherj48posted 10 years ago

    JRS.......ask 100 different people...get 100 different (in one way or another) answers....because this is an answer based on personal opinion.
    I could start out by making a simple comment that I feel is not mentioned often enough:
    In terms of "choice,"  May I be bold enough to suggest that men & women have choices PRIOR to pregnancy.  1. abstinence, which goes over like a lead balloon, I KNOW.......2.  BIRTH CONTROL.  Have people forgotten this concept/protection exists?  There are numerous products...find and USE the one best for you.  3. "Other" forms of having sex, that don't include intercourse. 
    Perhaps you can think of another, but these 3 seem to be easy to understand.
    Choice aside....I'd have to agree that there is no doubt about the right of every woman to have control over her own body/health/reproduction.  I don't believe there's a feasible nor legal way around that. 
    Depending on the age of the expectant parents, and about 100 other variables...physical, mental, emotional, financial, family situation....I feel strongly that a decision should not be made #1. alone or #2. without some serious counseling, to include education on the topic and explanations for "other" options, aside from abortion.
    Without bringing religion or the Bible into this, in any way.....moral issues still exist.  To each their own conscience. 
    My heart and mind speak loudly and clearly to me, that abortion, if all avenues have been thoroughly investigated and considered, should be the very LAST resort.  As for "late term abortion?"  It is clearly murder, in every sense of the word.  I don't apologize for this latter opinion.
    Of course, men (the father) have rights.  Ideally, he is involved in the situation.  However, one can't deny that the ultimate decision belongs to the mother.
    The adoption issue is a realistic, rational & beneficial alternative, that more people should opt for in times of a problematic pregnancy. 
    This is as much as I can offer on this subject.  Very good Question.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       JRScarbroughposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Very good answer. Very rational.

       replyreport
    2. 83

       gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Paula's  responses are always intelligent and rational. I love reading them.

       replyreport
    3. 60

       fpherj48posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Wow....I am "feelin the love"......Thank you.  I'm humbled.!

       replyreport
13. 0

    Jimmy Winkelmanposted 10 years ago

    A quote from Henry Rollins describes exactly how I feel about abortion.
    
    "No woman wants to have an abortion, but they got to have the right to have one, safely. Without any, your opinion does not matter." -Henry Rollins

    replyreport
    1. 64

       deecoleworldposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Perfect quote

       replyreport
14. 60

    ReneeDC1979posted 10 years ago

    It is about both - the right to choose and it's about life-you're taking a life, in a sense, but it's a woman's body and we don't know the situation surrounding her CHOICE to have an abortion.  Would I have one?  No!  I think once the baby is there, no matter what stage or trimester, that is a life and God gave someone that gift for a reason.  Your last queston - I think men should have a choice also, but it is ultimately up to the woman to carry the baby. But, they should make the decision before making babies as to whether or not they are truly ready or want to have children.

    replyreport
15. 60

    careerlandmarkposted 10 years ago

    Its actually not right. If it is right thing to fo, in fcat any thinh right you do, you do spontaneously, the question it self does not arise in your subconscious, you just do it, but whenever there is a question arises then there is something not usual

    replyreport
16. 69

    BuffaloGal1960posted 10 years ago

    Generally speaking, I am usually against the government's involvement. However, if a person is declared dead when their heart stops beating, why then, is a baby (fetus) not a human when it has a heartbeat?   
    
    When two people decide they are mature enough to have sex and most of them know pregnancy is a possibility, then they should be prepared to handle the consequences of their actions - knowing full well even birth control is not 100%. 
    
    It seems people want to play but they don't want to pay.  If you don't want and/or not ready for a child, then do not have sex. 
    
    I think if they showed films of what it's like to live with a disabled child, a child with health issues from STDs about the 6th grade, we may not have as much of a problem.
    
    Is age a factor?  Let's explore.
    
    I will tell you this.  In 7th grade, where I lived before, my daughter had classmates with STDs, some pregnant and one whose parents forced her to have an abortion.  She may have been 7th grade, but she was tiny like a 7 year old (not exaggerating).  What is the answer then? 
    The answer is educating your children - both girls and boys - before they have sex (which is happening much younger now).  The answer is know where your children are and what they are doing. 
    
    Don't put your head in the sand.  The internet is both good and bad.  It's very bad in the sense that it raises the exposure level of teens to sex, porn and other unwanted exposures. If you wouldn't turn your kids out in the world at say..12...to a world of strangers, why are they online talking to people they don't know?
    
    And lets not forget the double standard.  If a son goes out and "gets laid", the dad high fives him.  If a daughter does it, he's disappointed.  The first one is a "typical" male and the latter is a "slut" although girls have been demanding equal rights to promiscuity now. 
    
    Even though, I am pretty opinionated against abortion, I still say family values are to be taught at home and even schools. Schools because some parents just can't talk to their children about sensitive issues.  I am not usually for government involvement but at the same time, child is abuse is everyone's business (to save a child), so why not abortion?  Our government looked to pass abortion to control the population.  Rape should be a case by case basis. I'm no one's judge.  But on the other hand, that baby who is a product of a rape could very well be the President born to save us all from the mess we're in.

    replyreport
17. 61

    NiaLeeposted 10 years ago

    Being in such a difficult situation, or facing somebody in this situation allows people to realize that caution is necessary in this case. Women's body have been used against themselves for time indefinite.
    I believe that we should leave to privacy some matters, set limits and a lot of education and real prevention. Then, we can not make choices for others. In a perfect world, women would be able to control everything, men too and this situation would not happen... the world is not perfect, neither are people.
    Love and peace to all

    replyreport
18. 0

    Ben Blackwellposted 10 years ago

    It is about the right to life.  Science has proven that the fetus is alive, conscious, and sentient.  Therefore, it has the right to life.  Whenever someone says that the women has the right to choose what she does with her body, she needs to realize that the baby is not a part of 'her' body, it is it's own body living inside of her.
    
    Ignoring that basic truth, I believe that men should have at least a bit of say in the choice because it is his child as much as hers.
    
    Some people say that a women should be able to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother.  She can, by not having unprotected sex - or by accepting the very small but still existent risks of having protected sex.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Why is everybody ignoring the simple fact that abortion = murder?

       replyreport
    2. 79

       Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It is not simple, nor is it a fact. A fact is a generally accepted statement about reality. So many people disagree with your assessment of abortion that it cannot be called one. It instead falls into the category of opinion.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It does not matter what people think.  I suppose that "fact" is technically incorrect, but there is too much scientific evidence to ignore.  Do you send a man to death in court if science provides evidence to the contrary?

       replyreport
    4. 79

       Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       What people think does matter. We live in a pluralistic society, not an authoritarian one (yes, I know, that's changing, but not favorably for your position, so far). The law is not a moral code. It must reflect public POV.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       No, absolutely not.  The law should reflect morality.  We don't need to live in an authoritative society for that to happen, although in general, it does matter what they think.  I didn't mean it like that.

       replyreport
19. 83

    WiccanSageposted 10 years ago

    I don't think an unborn, unviable fetus has rights; certainly not rights that trump what's happening in the body of a person who is born and here. I don't believe terminating a pregnancy on a non-viable fetus is murder.
    
    I don't believe you get the right to life until you are actually able to live... once a fetus is viable I believe it deserves a shot. And if the woman took that long to make a decision she should just wait it out. But the early stages of pregnancy when most elective abortions are performed, the fetus is not developed enough to have rights of its own.
    
    If we really believed these underdeveloped humans were equivalent to born babies, they would get social security numbers, names, we'd hold funerals when women abort or miscarry in the early stages before the fetus was viable. Deep down we know there is a difference between a baby who has been born, and a peanut-sized fetus.
    
    As a parent, I would rather have 1000 miscarriages or abortions than lose a single born child. And I did miscarry once, so I know how that feels. But I would give up 1000 underdeveloped fetuses and embryos for the life of one of my born, living babies.
    
    I don't believe you get to decide what happens to someone's body; so I don't believe a man's feelings about it should trump the woman's feelings since it is her body. When men can get pregnant, they are entitled to make the decision for themselves.

    replyreport
20. 58

    Angela Kaneposted 10 years ago

    Abortion will always be the women's right. Women are the ones that have to go through the pregnancy and are usually the ones that have to raise and feed the baby. No one should have a say in what a women can or cannot do with their bodies.

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Attikosposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The father should have no say, eh?

       replyreport
    2. 73

       tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Yep Attikos, why should the father have a say when the baby doesn't even have a say?Of course Angela's argument kinda falls apart if the baby is a female doesn't it? "No one should have a say in what a women can or cannot do with their bodies"???

       replyreport
    3. 72

       aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It's one thing to talk it over if the man and woman are in a committed relationship, and the woman is unsure. But consultation is ALL. Until men are the ones that endure pregnancy and childbirth -and social stigma, they don't get to make that choice.

       replyreport
    4. 0

       JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The solution would be to be "RESPONSIBLE" the the first place. And don't give me the rape excuse as a very small percentage of children are conceived during rape. STOP THE MURDERS!!

       replyreport
    5. 72

       aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Says... a man. I don't consider a couple of cells to be the equivalent of a human being, therefore, not murder. I do consider men trying to control women's bodies and forcing them to endure unwanted pregnancies to be sexism, however.

       replyreport
    6. 0

       Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Contrary to your uneducated opinion (in this matter), science does declare that it is a human with consciousness and sentience.  Also, "says... a man" sounds pretty sexist to me.  If JThomp42 were a woman, would you give his opinion more weight?

       replyreport
    7. 72

       aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       There is no "science", except the one that you've made up. Fetuses can't think or feel pain. The cells are alive, but human? Opinion. And absolutely, his opinion would have more weight if he were a woman - abortion is a women's issue.

       replyreport
    8. 0

       Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Sexism again?  Abortion is a human issue.  If you care to actually do some research, you will find that fetuses indeed to think and feel pain.  They go through great pain during the abortion procedure.  Do you claim that once, you were not human?

       replyreport
    9. 72

       aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You need better sources than ProLife pamphlets. A couple of cells don't have a nervous system, therefore unable to feel pain. Yes, abortion is a sexism issue. Men never have to worry about unwanted pregnancy, dying from childbirth, etc. Women do.

       replyreport
    10. 0

        Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        If you question my sources, I wrote a hub on it a while ago.  My sources are listed there, and they are all credible.  You must never assume.  They do have nervous systems as well, or at least primitive versions (that can still feel pain).

        replyreport
    11. 0

        JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Fetuses certainly are alive and do feel pain. WHAT ARE YOU THINK AIASS? Look at how many premies live! You are a sexist and are VERY confused about life and death in general. Many are pro-choice to try and ease their conscience. Do you fall into that

        replyreport
    12. 72

        aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        JThomp -  your gut reaction does not equal science. It's kind of hilarious, but mostly sad, how some men take an issue that's blatantly about controlling women's bodies and sexuality ( clear sexism) and call women "sexist" for pointing that out.

        replyreport
    13. 0

        Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        It is not about her body.  It is about the body and life of the unborn child.  Face it: you've been beaten on all fronts.

        replyreport
    14. 0

        JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Aliass.. I find your whole argument about murder very sad. There is nothing "hilarious" about taking another's life. It is not in a woman's control but Gods! God does not make mistakes; in your instance they just grow up to be idiots!!

        replyreport
    15. 72

        aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Ben - I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Beaten? Rehashing the same religious, slut-shaming and sexist nonsense that I've heard a thousand times. JThomp, personal attacks, awesome, definitely makes your argument more sympathetic. lol

        replyreport
    16. 0

        JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        ANYONE who would even consider putting a harmless, innocent child through this hell is far worse than an idiot. As Ben has said, you have been beaten, stop spewing your evil nonsense.by the way, those who allow these murders to be committed will pay

        replyreport
    17. 0

        Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Religious?  I use science.  Sexist?  You say men should have no say.

        replyreport
    18. 72

        aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Haha we must be reading different conversations, because you've brought up no points besides "EVIL" and "fetus = human child", both of which I disagree with. Your rhetoric is sure attacking (and sexist, and ridiculous) but otherwise unsubstantiated.

        replyreport
    19. 0

        Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        You're right: we are reading different conversations.  I have stated multiple times that my facts are supported by scientific research.  Everything I say advocates equality between men and women.

        replyreport
    20. 72

        aliasisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Oh yes, I forgot, your "a couple of cells really can feel pain because they do have a nervous system, despite not actually having one." Prime scientific research. So, if studies prove that fetuses can't feel pain, are you okay with abortion then?

        replyreport
    21. 0

        Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        No, because they are still conscious and sentient.  But what if's are non sequiturs, because we are dealing with what IS.

        replyreport
    22. 83

        gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Thank YOU, Angela!  Only the woman herself has the decision as to whether or not she wishes to undergo a pregnancy.  No woman should have to endure an unwanted pregnancy nor have an unwanted child.

        replyreport
    23. 73

        tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        What about taking steps to avoid a pregnancy if they know they don't want to undergo a pregnancy? Using birth control, get their tubes tied, (which I never hear you advocate for) adoption is nothing compared to their "right" to murder their own baby.

        replyreport
21. 0

    JThomp42posted 10 years ago

    Women have free choice to use any type of birth control method out there. Including "abstinence." When people make mistakes, it is not the child's fault by any means. We are all afforded the right to "Life," liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes a "conceived" child.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Ben Blackwellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I totally agree.

       replyreport
22. 69

    Dave Wrightposted 10 years ago

    It depends on who you asked.  But let me pose it another way...
    
    Is Murder about the death of the victim or the killing by the perpetrator?  It is all about perspective.  To the murder victim, life has ceased to exist.  For his or her family, they have suffered a great loss at the hands of the perpetrator, and will have to deal with the emotional consequences..  To the perpetrator, they have eliminated a person he/she considered to a problem, permanently.
    
    Abortion is no different.  It is also all about perspective.  To the abortion victim, life has ceased to exist.  For his or her family, they have suffered a great loss at the hands of the perpetrator who also happens to be the mother, and will have to deal with the emotional consequences.  To the perpetrator (the mother), they have eliminated a person he/she considered to a problem, permanently.
    
    In both cases, a life ceases to exist.  In both cases, the entire ordeal can be very traumatic for all parties involved...  even the perpetrator.  And in both cases, the perpetrator is a cold and calculating killer, often without remorse... often justifying their own actions as righteous because they are doing what is necessary for what they believe is a greater good.
    
    Conclusion:  Abortion is about women's rights and it is also about right to life, and they are in conflict with each other.
    
    In my opinion, a woman's right of choice does not make it OK to terminate the life of her child.  If a woman chose to kill her baby after it was born, it would be murder.  If a woman chose to sell her baby after it was born, that would be slavery.  If a woman chose to molest her baby after it was born, that would be rape.  If a woman chose to abuse or neglect her baby after it was born, that would be child abuse.
    
    A woman's right to choose is limited after the baby is born.  Why does she get free reign to choose the fate of that child prior to expelling it's body from her own when her choices are much more limited after it has breathed its first breath of fresh air?
    
    If you are a woman, and you think your right to choice is higher than your baby's right to life, you are a cold and calculated murderer.  You will have to live with your crimes, and cope the emotional trauma you inflict on yourself.

    replyreport
23. 59

    meletakeryposted 10 years ago

    When considering the law - it is about both women’s right and right to life?
    When considering the word "abortion" by itself, it is about women’s right because it is fully controlled by a single mind making a decision.
    Legally speaking everyone has a voice when supported by a legal professional in matters concerning abortion under the law.
    However, the debate on this is muddied by many external factions such as groups that represent a single factor depending on their personal bias.  This includes those that appear to represent the government as "knowledge brokers" in groups such as planned parenthood, option line, or women's med.
    Therefore, regardless of intervention:
    1. abortion when considered as the word means "personal choice".
    2. abortion when considered as law means "government failure".
    The morality of abortion is not a simple matter.  That is why you appear to be mixed up in the debate.  Moral society is also very mixed up in the overcast debate as well.  But, if one turns to a spirit of life celebration, some confusion is eliminated.  Brilliant minds continue to turn the life celebration into a choice of life rather than an acceptance of responsibility for the life to be shared as it is spared. 
    For those of society who live under the Ten Commandments - Thou shall not murder - is the most important factor to be considered.

    replyreport
24. 0

    Robert Hughesposted 10 years ago

    Sometimes an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Sometimes a baby will be carried to term; and prior to that tests are run, and the mother knows that the baby will be born dead.
    In this second category are diseases like tay-sachs which are incurable, and the baby will be dead with in a couple of years.
    
    Also, it is a fetus before it is born; and there is the question of when a baby is no longer a fetus.  Anytime before it is born seems to extreme to me, as does the opposite end of the spectrum - that is when a sperm and egg have met but not yet embedded themselves into the uterus.
    
    There are many hundreds of reasons a woman might want to get an abortion at this less extreme end of things (during the first trimester - after the egg implants, but before the the first third of the pregnancy is over) and in this regard arises the matter of choice.  That is circumstance and the individuals response to it.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Erin Trefzposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I have also heard of mothers being asked if they wanted an abortion (of course the doctor made it sound nicer than that) due to a birth defect they thought the baby had.  When the mother chose to have the baby, there was no defect.

       replyreport
    2. 73

       tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/13/pare … h-defects/

       replyreport
25. 65

    ThompsonPenposted 10 years ago

    Neither, and both. It's about responsibility. Accidents happen, no matter how careful anyone is, whether it's a matter of a failed birth control method or a case of rape, it's about how responsible the mother feels she can be for her child. If she doesn't feel like she is going to provide a beneficial life for her kid, then she should be trusted to make that judgement call that it's not the right time.
    It's not just a personal responsibility either. We no longer live in a world where our survival depends on how many people we have in our group, village, clan, family, whatever. We have an abundance of people, and a lot of failed systems due to archaic laws which dictate that we MUST procreate. It is no longer an issue. I don't care what any one says, we ARE over populated, and if a person does not feel they are capable of providing a healthy and loving environment, then no one should force them to.
    I go by the idea that if abortion offends you, then don't have one. Just trust people to make the right decision for this life they may or may not be creating. If you can't trust some one to make a good judgement call, then how can you trust them to make the right judgement calls while raising that kid

    replyreport
    1. 83

       gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       In TOTAL agreement!

       replyreport
26. 60

    CarolAnnHeadrickposted 10 years ago

    I've been taught that my rights end when someone else's begins.
    http://americantopicsonline.com/?p=321
    Dr. Seuss said it best in Horton Hears a Who.
    A person is a person no matter how small.
    
    As far as equal rights and fairness in abortion, men have no say.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Erin Trefzposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I agree 100%.  I think people who call it "pro-chioce" are sugar coating what it should really be called, killing a baby.

       replyreport
27. 51

    Lorena Gilposted 10 years ago

    The women is the one involved, its her choice, because is her body

    replyreport
    1. 83

       gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       THANK YOU!

       replyreport
28. 66

    The Mosephposted 10 years ago

    It has nothing to do with women's rights. Unless you consider them to have the right to kill an innocent. It isn't about their bodies since it's an unborn child's body we're talking about. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with health either, again unless you consider murder "healthy". Consider this...approximately two and a half weeks after conception, the child's heart starts beating. The argument that the fetus requires the mother's body & therefore isn't (somehow) a living human being (allowing some, in their minds, to justify the act of killing the child) is irrelevant since that child, even after they're born will require the mother and/or father to survive for a number of years.
    
    If the child was not wanted, there were plenty of steps that could've been taken to prevent it, the 100% certain one being abstinence. A little self control never hurt anyone. For some reason in this day & age, some seem to believe they should be able to act irresponsibly & not have to suffer the consequences.
    
    When it comes to rights, what about that child's right to live, grow & fulfill their destiny? If a woman still doesn't want the child (sad, but I'm sure it happens), then they could give them up for adoption. There are thousands who cannot have children of their own who would LOVE to take care of those kids.
    
    There are plenty of options, all of which are infinitely better than the unnecessary death of the innocent.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Bravo Moseph - keep telling the truth, few here do but we are in the majority. As Ronald Reagan put it, 'I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.'.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       CarolAnnHeadrickposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       A beating heart has stopped and although it is not the mother's, she has become heartless in protecting her own.  How pop culture has ingrained in many that a growing baby is worthless!

       replyreport
29. 43

    DDEposted 10 years ago

    Interesting debate and opinions. A woman chooses what to do with the fetus  also she was not intelligent enough from the start to allow such thing to happen. I don't agree with an abortion taking the life of something from inside of you  is murder.  Both partners have a right of decision but it  all comes down to the actual problem of them getting themselves into that position.

    replyreport
30. 51

    sdeymanposted 10 years ago

    I was the husband decades ago when my wife aborted our baby. We were young and selfish. As I got older, wiser and matured I began to realize what we did, which was kill a human being. I deeply regret it to this day and I will never know my son or daughter nor will he or she ever know life because of our "right to abortion." If your thinking about being involved in one whether man or woman you better think Very hard how it may ruin the rest of your life.

    replyreport
31. 61

    lucrativedomposted 10 years ago

    Abortion is an anti life.  So therefore its all about right to life. Zip up if you are not ready for babies or rather use preventives when you are not ready or on family planning.

    replyreport
32. 57

    LeisasOpininosposted 9 years ago

    Abortion is wrong. The rights that we have says we are all endowed by our creator the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Isn't it ironic life is mentioned first. It does not say the pursuit of happiness or liberty are first. Peoples lives are to mean something. We cannot have liberty or happiness if life is not there. Those who have abortions are taking a life, they are taking living cells and killing them. You might think cells are not human. Are we all formed in the same way?.. I have never seen where some are created out of dirt, some rock or another form. We have all been made by living cells.
    
    The only thing that supersedes man is GOD. His laws are certainly higher than our earthly laws. He will be the one whom we all answer to. We can try and convince those while we are alive here but in the end it won't matter if you are for abortion here. it will matter though when judgement takes place. I have always been taught there are some things that are just plain wrong. There are some things that are understood to be black or white with no gray area. I thourghly believe this subject is one of those.

    replyreport