In light of recent events, I will open an old wound...

[geezer]

Oh wait, we didn't, because we didn't live in a culture where it even occurred to a young mother that she had the option to murder her child as opposed to having it.

Do you think women had abortions in the U.S. prior to 1973?

Almost certainly not. Never happened. No way. Never. Nope. How dare you.

[Exodor]

Oh wait, we didn't, because we didn't live in a culture where it even occurred to a young mother that she had the option to murder her child as opposed to having it.

Do you think women had abortions in the U.S. prior to 1973?

Almost certainly not. Never happened. No way. Never. Nope. How dare you.

Yeah, what was I thinking?


EDIT - freaking URL tags

[Gwar21]

Even if.

Did you read the link? Do you know what I'm talking about here? I'm saying that re criminalizing abortion would probably cause a ten percent increase in the homicide rate and an overall crime rate increase of fifteen to twenty five percent, not to mention the associated costs of such an increase which would probably be on the order of thirty billion dollars annually.

Do social conservatives have a plan to deal with this that they have not talked about publicly? Assuming they don't, isn't that a bit irresponsible?

I read the article. I understood its implications. And, while interesting, it had no effect whatsoever on my opinion. I could write some more about why that is, but honestly, I don't feel like discussing a topic that will have the majority of this forum taking potshots at me because they disagree with my opinion. You're just going to have to accept the fact that your argument isn't as mind-blowingly persuasive as you seem to think it is.

[Al]

And, while interesting, it had no effect whatsoever on my opinion.

You're not getting it. I'm not arguing that you should change your position on abortion. I'm arguing that if you're going to take your position on abortion then you should understand what you want to bring about will cause besides the main objective. Advocating changing the legal status of abortion without being prepared to deal with the fallout is irresponsible.

What happens fifteen years after abortion is banned and there's a crime rate on par with 80's? Do you really think that people wouldn't seriously consider re-decriminalizing abortion then?

[Zarathud]

It's hard for me as a father of a 3 yr old and an 18 mo old to comprehend anyone that thinks their convenience or life is more important than the life of that child.

Come back after you have a womb and go through pregnancy, Rowdy.

Just read the newspapers about many fathers who leave their wife/girlfriend upon learning that she's pregnant. It happens, even if you can't think of doing it yourself. What choice does the woman have at that point? None, under your narrow view of the world.

Imagine a child growing up without sufficient love, attention or economic support because they were unwanted and/or the family was unable to provide a good home. Watch as that child grows up to have serious emotional and psychological issues, which may lead to a life of crime and addiction. Is that really a life you want to wish on anyone? That slow, cruel suffering and death of the soul? It might not happen all the time, but it happens all the same. Your kids may be lucky they are wanted, but not every child has that advantage.

[brettmcd]

It's hard for me as a father of a 3 yr old and an 18 mo old to comprehend anyone that thinks their convenience or life is more important than the life of that child.

Come back after you have a womb and go through pregnancy, Rowdy.

Just read the newspapers about many fathers who leave their wife/girlfriend upon learning that she's pregnant. It happens, even if you can't think of doing it yourself. What choice does the woman have at that point? None, under your narrow view of the world.

Imagine a child growing up without sufficient love, attention or economic support because they were unwanted and/or the family was unable to provide a good home. Watch as that child grows up to have serious emotional and psychological issues, which may lead to a life of crime and addiction. Is that really a life you want to wish on anyone? That slow, cruel suffering and death of the soul? It might not happen all the time, but it happens all the same. Your kids may be lucky they are wanted, but not every child has that advantage.

So i guess because some bad choices are made, or someone leaves someone murder becomes the right and only thing to do, give me a break. You could justify pretty much any crime by those standards.

As for all the other crap being spewed about how to pay for things if abortion is illegal, or how it will raise the crime rate, its all a bunch of nonsense, abortion should NEVER have been legal as a form of birth control, which is what it is right now. And hopefully bush will have the guts to nominate an actual conservative who understands the constitution and doesnt invent things that never existed in it. Then maybe something will change for the better in things such as this.

[SuperHiro]

As long as it decreases the amount of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou a-holes I'm all for it.

[Effidian]

I found the following an interesting read. Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?

For those against abortion, are you also against war and against the death penalty? If not how do you explain the apparent discrepancy? Both the death penalty and war can (and do) kill innocent people. War even kills pregnant women.

For me it isn't an issue of if abortion is murder or not. I don't know when a bunch of cells becomes a human. But the fact is that abortions will happen regardless of if it were legal or not. It is too bad we can't try decreasing abortions through sex education that works. I'd be curious if all the pro-life and pro-choice groups got together and pooled their resources to spend on sex education programs, what kind of reduction in abortions they could accomplish.

Nah, it is better if we can call each other names and put grotesque pictures on plaques...

[brettmcd]

I found the following an interesting read. Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?

For those against abortion, are you also against war and against the death penalty? If not how do you explain the apparent discrepancy? Both the death penalty and war can (and do) kill innocent people. War even kills pregnant women.

For me it isn't an issue of if abortion is murder or not. I don't know when a bunch of cells becomes a human. But the fact is that abortions will happen regardless of if it were legal or not. It is too bad we can't try decreasing abortions through sex education that works. I'd be curious if all the pro-life and pro-choice groups got together and pooled their resources to spend on sex education programs, what kind of reduction in abortions they could accomplish.

Nah, it is better if we can call each other names and put grotesque pictures on plaques...

Abortion as it stands in america now is murder, as it is still legal when the child is viable. And the arguement, well it will happen anyway so why bother making it illegal' is total bs, unless you think we should have absolutely no laws at all, because people still do everything that there are laws against, like murder, rape, and other such things.
As for the death penalty, personally i am also against the death penalty, but to compare that to deaths from abortion is not a valid arguement.

[Grimwar]

This is a subject I avoid typically, because I am completely torn between the woman's rights and the child's rights. I sort of lean towards the child's life, but there are compelling arguments from both sides.

The one thing that does concern me though is the fight to legalize abortion, but in the case of a murder of a woman who is pregnant, the accused is tried for TWO murders, regardless of what term the mother was in. I remember a case of this happening recently, and wish I could find the story. How is abortion not murder, but if someone else kills the woman, it is all of the sudden two murders?

What I want is consistency. Either the baby is a self aware life, or it is not. Don't change the rules in each situation.

Maybe someone can give me a legitimate argument for this?

[Effidian]

Abortion as it stands in america now is murder, as it is still legal when the child is viable. And the arguement, well it will happen anyway so why bother making it illegal' is total bs, unless you think we should have absolutely no laws at all, because people still do everything that there are laws against, like murder, rape, and other such things.

My argument is not that it should be legal because it will be done, but that we need to find another way to reduce abortions, because making it illegal will not do so.

As for the death penalty, personally i am also against the death penalty, but to compare that to deaths from abortion is not a valid arguement.

How is it not valid? And what about war?

[noxiousdog]

And hopefully bush will have the guts to nominate an actual conservative who understands the constitution and doesnt invent things that never existed in it. Then maybe something will change for the better in things such as this.

There's certainly nothing in the constitution that protects you from murder.

What are you planning on doing with the yearly 800,000+ unwanted children if you make abortion illegal?

[Defiant]

There's certainly nothing in the constitution that protects you from murder.

I disagree. I line my clothes with a copy of the constitution for use as body armor and I haven't been murdered once, yet.

[Grundbegriff]

For those against abortion, are you also against war and against the death penalty? If not how do you explain the apparent discrepancy? Both the death penalty and war can (and do) kill innocent people. War even kills pregnant women.

I think you'll find most ethicists drawing a distinction between intended and unintended, and between essential and incidental, as well as between innocent and guilty.

War can kill innocents but (in principle, and increasingly in practice) it need not. The application of the death penalty can kill innocents, but (in principle) it need not. If the preborn human be taken as an innocent, can we say that "abortion can kill innocents, but it need not" when by definition, the act has as its essential and intended effect the killing of that innocent?

The analogy you attempt to draw works only at a coarse granularity.

For me it isn't an issue of if abortion is murder or not. I don't know when a bunch of cells becomes a human. But the fact is that abortions will happen regardless of if it were legal or not.

So will murders and rapes; shall we legalize them?

Nah, it is better if we can call each other names and put grotesque pictures on plaques...

What's grotesque about pictures of preborn humans? Or do you mean specifically the pictures that show the results of their having been ripped apart and shredded by suction wands?

[brettmcd]

And hopefully bush will have the guts to nominate an actual conservative who understands the constitution and doesnt invent things that never existed in it. Then maybe something will change for the better in things such as this.

There's certainly nothing in the constitution that protects you from murder.

What are you planning on doing with the yearly 800,000+ unwanted children if you make abortion illegal?

What i am talking about is the invented right to privacy that the court used to say abortion has to be legal. That is something that is NOT in the constitution. As for your other point, i guess because a child is unwanted we should just kill all of them? The same woman could either have a live child that would survive, or she could legally kill that child before it is allowed to be born. If all you care about is what should we do with unwanted children, why stop just with them being born, there are lots of unwanted children everywhere, should those be allowed to be killed also for reasons of convienience?

[Captain Caveman]

The one thing that does concern me though is the fight to legalize abortion, but in the case of a murder of a woman who is pregnant, the accused is tried for TWO murders, regardless of what term the mother was in. I remember a case of this happening recently, and wish I could find the story. How is abortion not murder, but if someone else kills the woman, it is all of the sudden two murders?

This law was enacted recently. I'm too lazy right now to search for a link, but I'm almost postive it became law within the last 2 years. Many saw it as an attempt to redefine the unborn child as "life" in order to make headway in the pro-life movement. In other words, the law may have been in part instituted as a means for intentionally promoting the inconsistency you pointed out in your post (i.e., to attack the legality of current abortion laws).

[noxiousdog]

As for your other point, i guess because a child is unwanted we should just kill all of them?

Is that what I said? I asked you what you wanted to do with them. You have a choice. You can have abortion or you can have at least 800,000 unwanted children per year. You can dodge the question if you like, but if that's your stance, you're just hoping the problem will go away rather than addressing it.

I had this discussion with grifman. Note: I am strictly talking about 1st trimester children. My stance is that in one case you have a theoretical problem. A human that doesn't hear, doesn't think, doesn't feel (emotion or pain), doesn't dream, and doesn't respond to external stimulus. How can you be causing harm to someone that isn't aware of the harm?

We can even explore the religious aspect. Assume the child has a soul. Where does it go? Heaven? Of course! Assume the child doesn't have a soul. Then, who cares? The kid never really existed. At least not in a form that was aware, and I don't know what side of Schiavo you're on, but I have a much higher respect for quality of life than quantity of life.

The same woman could either have a live child that would survive, or she could legally kill that child before it is allowed to be born. If all you care about is what should we do with unwanted children, why stop just with them being born, there are lots of unwanted children everywhere, should those be allowed to be killed also for reasons of convienience?

Not once they are responsive and/or aware.

[Effidian]

I think you'll find most ethicists drawing a distinction between intended and unintended, and between essential and incidental, as well as between innocent and guilty.

That makes sense. However war *will* kill innocents. We aren't even close to the weapon that will just kill *bad* guys. Also people in the military should be considered as innocent as well shouldn't they? Really who are the bad guys in a war? The leaders who started it right? Those soldiers that commit illegal acts right? What about the soldier that is just protecting their country, is it okay to kill them?

For me it isn't an issue of if abortion is murder or not. I don't know when a bunch of cells becomes a human. But the fact is that abortions will happen regardless of if it were legal or not.

So will murders and rapes; shall we legalize them?

The problem here is that you cannot convince everyone that a fetus at certain stages requires equal protection. As I said earlier, I don't know when that is. It is somewhere between conception and delivery. I do not believe a week after conception it reqiures equal protection, so where do you draw that line? If you draw the line at conception then you and I will never agree.

What's grotesque about pictures of preborn humans? Or do you mean specifically the pictures that show the results of their having been ripped apart and shredded by suction wands?

If you had pictures in the middle of an open heart surgery I'd call them grotesque as well. Call me queazy...

[The Mad Hatter]

Not to mention if people start crossing the border into "abortions are and will remain completely legal" Canada.

Yes, but with luck the momentum carry forward here and maybe we can stop slaughtering 'unwanted' babies here too. We often see trends in Canada catch on several years after they become mainstream in the US.

It'll never happen here. Henry Morgentaler can get honorary degrees with only a few token protesters on hand. The Conservative party had to drop any pro-life stance from its platform because they knew it was a vote loser everywhere. Abortion is established here regardless of what the Americans do.

[The Mad Hatter]

Nah, it is better if we can call each other names and put grotesque pictures on plaques...

What's grotesque about pictures of preborn humans? Or do you mean specifically the pictures that show the results of their having been ripped apart and shredded by suction wands?

I'm a little surprised to see our champion of rational debate draw on the tactics of the most crude and repugnant pro-life campaigns. What's next, spraying pig's blood on women going into abortion clinics?

[Rowdy]

As long as it decreases the amount of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou a-holes I'm all for it.

Hiro, I could give two shits about what you think of me. The bottom line is that you're damn straight I'm going to call a spade a spade and call someone who'd rather kill their child than go through the inconvenience of having it, or someone who thinks death is a preferable option to giving a child a CHANCE to live their life, a murderous bastard. If that makes me an asshole to you or others here, I could care less. I assume if I broke into your house and threatened to kill your kids, you'd do whatever it takes to stop me, right? How about if you saw me threatening to kill a random kid on the street, would you try to stop me? Why is it 'holier-than-thou' to try and stop someone else from killing their fucking baby?

Did abortions happen prior to 73? Of course. Did they happen by the MILLIONS each year that happened after the government sanctioned killing children as a form of birth control? No, they didn't. If we just moved the timeline up of these childrens death by a year, we'd be the perpetrators of one of the greatest mass murders in the history of the world - millions of children dead every year. We went to World War 2 to stop the holocaust - which is a drop in the bucket compared to how many innocent children have died in the last 25 years.

Not once they are responsive and/or aware.

This is such utter bs. There's a million studies showing how early children in the womb are responsive to their surroundings. They feel pain, they cry, they smile, they move in response to stimuli. There are horrific pictures on the web showing their responses via sonogram AS THEY'RE BEING 'aborted'.

People like to dismiss things like this as an 'appeal to emotion', or squirm around because it makes them uncomfortable and try to reduce it to an intellectual exercise, but this is an issue that CANNOT be reduced to an abstract concept. How can killing a living, feeling, human being NOT be an emotional concept? There are so many supposedly compassionate liberals on this forum, talking about the horrors of the war, the evils of capitalism and how it affects people - who then turn around and like to pretend that the millions of children who are dying before they've had a chance to draw their first breath are less important than a woman's 'right to choose'.

[SuperHiro]

Edited again for a more substantial answer.

Hiro, I could give two shits about what you think of me. The bottom line is that you're damn straight I'm going to call a spade a spade and call someone who'd rather kill their child than go through the inconvenience of having it, or someone who thinks death is a preferable option to giving a child a CHANCE to live their life, a murderous bastard. If that makes me an asshole to you or others here, I could care less. I assume if I broke into your house and threatened to kill your kids, you'd do whatever it takes to stop me, right? How about if you saw me threatening to kill a random kid on the street, would you try to stop me? Why is it 'holier-than-thou' to try and stop someone else from killing their fucking baby?

The use of my unofficial nickname just makes it sting more. But I've highlighted the question I'm answering in italics and the problem in bold.

It's not 'holier-than-thou' to try and stop someone else from killing their baby, whether the baby is fucking or not. I'm not attacking content here, I'm attacking tone. You're using blanket statements to paint stuff in black and white. I'm pro-choice, if we're in a labeling mood. Up to the end of the first trimester. I'm also a parent, as are nearly 60% of the posters here. But apparantly this still makes me a murderer. Do you see the problem here? Don't tell anybody this, but I have a reputation as a bit of a cut-up around these parts. So it distresses me when someone who I've defeated hordes of Hellions with starts it up in a thread starts calling people murderers, immoral, etc. etc.

I'm interested in seeing more conservative voices here, but not like that. I realize you're trying to "tell it like it is"... but IIRC, there were a few other posters who tried to do the same thing who aren't here anymore. I mean, damn, what is your post supposed to accomplish? Nothing good that's for sure. The post immediately puts people on the defensive, and they aren't going to read it. Convince them to your point of view? Not going to happen. Shame them into your point of view? Doubtful. So really, I can only conclude two things from the quoted post.

1) You feel very very strongly about this (which is so obvious I make to make up a new word for it... Obvilicious).

2) The sole purpose of the post was more or less to stir things up, piss people off.

Right when this thread veered into abortion territory (it was on the line before), I had a WCIII metaphor all lined up, ready to go. But I didn't post it. Because I realized that the issue is a sensitive one and I didn't want to step on any toes.

[noxiousdog]

Did abortions happen prior to 73? Of course. Did they happen by the MILLIONS each year that happened after the government sanctioned killing children as a form of birth control? No, they didn't

They don't happen by millions now. 1.4M-2M is the current estimation.

This is such utter bs. There's a million studies showing how early children in the womb are responsive to their surroundings. They feel pain, they cry, they smile, they move in response to stimuli. There are horrific pictures on the web showing their responses via sonogram AS THEY'RE BEING 'aborted'.

NOT 1st trimester.

How can killing a living, feeling, human being NOT be an emotional concept?

So far, no one has advocated killing a feeling human being, though, I'm sure there are some here that would prefer all abortion remain legal under all circumstances. That however, is going to be a small minority.

There are so many supposedly compassionate liberals on this forum, talking about the horrors of the war, the evils of capitalism and how it affects people - who then turn around and like to pretend that the millions of children who are dying before they've had a chance to draw their first breath are less important than a woman's 'right to choose'.

You would do a lot better with your argument if you listened to what people are saying rather than argue what you heard someone say once in a place far far away.

[The Preacher]

You are being a very mean person.

[Effidian]

Did abortions happen prior to 73? Of course. Did they happen by the MILLIONS each year that happened after the government sanctioned killing children as a form of birth control? No, they didn't

They don't happen by millions now. 1.4M-2M is the current estimation.

The article that I posted earlier states:

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

Now, I'm no statistics expert but it seems to me that if you include population growth, there doesn't seem to be a signifcant increase in abortions since Row v.s. Wade. I'm not sure if there are any better numbers out there from before 1973. Rowdy, if you have some statistics that state there was a huge increase, I think we'd all be interested in seeing them.

[Al]

People like to dismiss things like this as an 'appeal to emotion', or squirm around because it makes them uncomfortable and try to reduce it to an intellectual exercise, but this is an issue that CANNOT be reduced to an abstract concept.

What's interesting is that I see you as the one reducing this issue to an abstract concept. A child born is a happy healthy child and that's the end of it. As things stand right now, at least a third of all children that are not born as a result of abortion would have been 60 percent more likely to live in a single parent household, 50 percent more likely to live in poverty, 45 percent more likely to be in a household collecting welfare, and 40 percent more likely to die during their first year of life.

Again, do you care what happens after the cord is cut? If not, then what is the point, really?

[Eightball]

Should we even bring up the topic of incest/rape pregnancies, or medically necessary abortions (say the child in the womb is diagnosed with anencephaly, which is fatal, should the mother have to carry the child to term?) and very many other real world situations?

[noxiousdog]

Should we even bring up the topic of incest/rape pregnancies, or medically necessary abortions (say the child in the womb is diagnosed with anencephaly, which is fatal, should the mother have to carry the child to term?) and very many other real world situations?

What is the point of this? No law is or should be absolute. Except maybe one keeping Canadiens where they belong: with the igl00s and m00se.

[Eightball]

Should we even bring up the topic of incest/rape pregnancies, or medically necessary abortions (say the child in the womb is diagnosed with anencephaly, which is fatal, should the mother have to carry the child to term?) and very many other real world situations?

What is the point of this? No law is or should be absolute.

Exactly my point, ND. Rowdy is seeing this issue as abortion = murder/ethically abhorrent. And rarely is one issue ever completely one-sided.

Except maybe one keeping Canadiens where they belong: with the igl00s and m00se.

Hell yeah. Keep them in their igloos and with their pet Moose, exporting lumber to us.

[Little Raven]

What is the point of this? No law is or should be absolute. Except maybe one keeping Canadiens where they belong: with the igl00s and m00se.

Because if we're not going to make the law absolute, then we need a process for determining who is allowed through the cracks and who isn't.

Does a judge decide? A doctor? A jury? What level of evidence is required? What is a person who violates the law charged with? Having an illegal abortion, or murder? Would there be a difference between the two?

[noxiousdog]

Because if we're not going to make the law absolute, then we need a process for determining who is allowed through the cracks and who isn't.

Does a judge decide? A doctor? A jury? What level of evidence is required? What is a person who violates the law charged with? Having an illegal abortion, or murder? Would there be a difference between the two?

Partial birth abortion is still legal in the US, even with a Republican majority. We're a LONG way away from needing a encyphalatus provision.

[Little Raven]

Partial birth abortion is still legal in the US, even with a Republican majority. We're a LONG way away from needing a encyphalatus provision.

I wasn't referring to the nation as it exists now. I was referring to the nation as Rowdy and others would apparently like to see it. Somehow I doubt they're big fans of PBA.

[noxiousdog]

Partial birth abortion is still legal in the US, even with a Republican majority. We're a LONG way away from needing a encyphalatus provision.

I wasn't referring to the nation as it exists now. I was referring to the nation as Rowdy and others would apparently like to see it. Somehow I doubt they're big fans of PBA.

That's not being any more fair to Rowdy than he is being to you.

This is one of the debate that get me riled up from both sides. If there was anything that needed a compromise position, this is it, and yet due to the extremism on both sides, we are at an abhorrent impasse.

Both you and Eightball are implying, whether you intended to or not, that even in extreme cases, Rowdy and other pro-lifers will not allow abortions. Yet, I would be shocked if Rowdy would trade a 5 week old fetus for his wife if it was clear a baby would kill her, or force his wife to carry a baby to term that had no brain. And even if he would, most pro-lifers would not.

By the same token, Rowdy is lumping all abortions into the dreaming, responsive baby category. The great majority of abortions occur far previous to that stage of development.

Maybe it's ok with you guys, but I'd for damn sure like to see a country where don't condone the termination of viable (able to live outside the womb) babies. And bringing extremist rhetoric into this debate is only going to entrench people that were previously willing to compromise.

[GuidoTKP]

People like to dismiss things like this as an 'appeal to emotion', or squirm around because it makes them uncomfortable and try to reduce it to an intellectual exercise, but this is an issue that CANNOT be reduced to an abstract concept. How can killing a living, feeling, human being NOT be an emotional concept? There are so many supposedly compassionate liberals on this forum, talking about the horrors of the war, the evils of capitalism and how it affects people - who then turn around and like to pretend that the millions of children who are dying before they've had a chance to draw their first breath are less important than a woman's 'right to choose'.

Heh. This looks like a good time to bust out with my screed on abortion. Thank bob Run archived this thing so I don't have to retype it:

Here is my thesis:

Unborn life is valued less by our society than born life.

Here is my proof:

Throughout history abortion has been practiced to protect the health of the mother and to save mothers from the consequences of rape and incest. This tells me that an unborn baby is "worth" less to us than a born baby.

Here is a question for the abortion is murder crowd (in this forum they are all men as far as I can tell, so my question will assume your male-ness): If you had to choose between your unborn baby's life and your wife's life in the delivery room (i.e., doctor says your wife will die if x is not done, performing x will save your wife's life, but x will kill the baby), what would you do? Assume that the question is as absolute as it sounds (if you do nothing, 100% chance baby lives, 100% chance wife dies; if you do x 100% wife lives, 100% chance baby dies). My guess is most of you would be helping your wife deal with the loss of your child and planning your next step and that you wouldn't be making funeral arrangements for
your wife.

Similarly, imagine your wife has been raped. She tells you she can't bear the thought of giving birth to the rapists child. She says she wants an abortion. Would you tell her no? That it is murder? (Actually, I'm assuming the response to this will be a little mixed, because I wouldn't be surprised if some of you believe that your wife would be against an abortion in that circumstance (and I'm not suggesting your are wrong), which would likely color your conclusion). I suspect most of you would not object to your wife performing an abortion in that instance. Also, I suspect that even those who wouldn't choose to take the abortion course of action in this context would say that it would not be immoral for someone to make this decision.
Why do I raise these examples? Because I think they utterly debunk the we shouldn't kill innocents arguments. In each case the child has done NOTHING wrong, nothing to deserve death. So why is society as a whole comfortable allowing abortion in these circumstances? Going back to my thesis, its because we value unborn life LESS than born life. Here the mother's physical and emotional health are considered paramount over the innocent unborn child's life.

So, in some circumstances we as a society are comfortable with giving parents the power of life and death over their unborn children. Here's the rub: Who gets to decide what circumstances? I think there can only be one sane answer, and that is it should be up to the mother to decide. Nobody on planet earth is more capable, more worthy, more righteous in making that decision than the woman who has conceived the child and will be responsible for carrying it to term. Here's where my blood starts to run absolutely ice cold. Some of you seem to think this is a decision the government should make. That the collective should make this decision for the individual. Why? Why on earth would you take this decision from the mother and hand it to the masses? Carrying or not carrying the child is such an utterly personal decision, I cannot imagine any moral society forcing a woman to do one or the other against her will.

People talk about responsibility, but I think that is an utterly bullshit argument. Last I checked we still performed bypass surgery on fat people, we still offer medical care to drunk drivers, and we still allow people to declare bankruptcy in the face of crushing debt that would likely ruin their lives forever and turn them into nothing more than indentured servants if you actually forced them to fully repay their debts. Each of these things have consequences (bypass surgery and car accident recovery hurt; bankruptcy screws your credit), but just because we mitigate the full weight of the consequences doesn't somehow sanction irresponsibility; rather it reflects a certain level of compassion in our society and an understanding that it is sometimes better to allow people to step out from
under the full weight of their mistakes.

I think in many instances abortion is an incredibly selfish decision. My pro-choice standpoint is not born out of any ignorance about whether a fetus is capable of suffering or not, I know that it is. But if as a society we know that unborn life is worth less than born life, and that in some instances it is okay to terminate unborn life in favor of the life of the mother (and by life I mean physical and emotional well-being). At that point the only responsible way for the society to conduct itself is to vest this awesome responsibility in the hands of the person most impacted by the decision: the mother.

[noxiousdog]

If you had to choose between your unborn baby's life and your wife's life in the delivery room (i.e., doctor says your wife will die if x is not done, performing x will save your wife's life, but x will kill the baby), what would you do?

I would choose to save my wife's life (prior to say age 50 and then it might get into a gray area) no matter what age the kid was.

Similarly, imagine your wife has been raped. She tells you she can't bear the thought of giving birth to the rapists child. She says she wants an abortion. Would you tell her no? That it is murder?

I wouldn't tell her no because I do not rule over her. I would tell her it is murder. It is the killing of an innocent life.

[Little Raven]

Both you and Eightball are implying, whether you intended to or not, that even in extreme cases, Rowdy and other pro-lifers will not allow abortions. Yet, I would be shocked if Rowdy would trade a 5 week old fetus for his wife if it was clear a baby would kill her, or force his wife to carry a baby to term that had no brain. And even if he would, most pro-lifers would not.

Drop me into the unintentional crowd, then.

My point is not that most pro-lifers would not allow some abortions, but that most pro-lifers have not given much thought to the mechanism that would be needed to sort out the good from the bad.

The two people in the world that are best able to determine the medical necessity of aborting a baby are the mother and the doctor. Obviously, no abortion happens without the consent of both of these parties already. So how exactly are we supposed to regulate this?

Very, very few people want to see viable fetuses aborted. That includes doctors. If you manage to find a doctor willing to perform such an abominable act, then you've probably found a doctor willing to fraudulently label the fetus terminal.

[Eightball]

Eightball are implying, whether you intended to or not, that even in extreme cases, Rowdy and other pro-lifers will not allow abortions. Yet, I would be shocked if Rowdy would trade a 5 week old fetus for his wife if it was clear a baby would kill her, or force his wife to carry a baby to term that had no brain. And even if he would, most pro-lifers would not.

First, stop reading intent into my posts. Your reading of my intent is far off from what it truly is. I am not talking about "pro-lifers" in general, I am just talking in response to Rowdy and brettmcd. Period.

Considering Rowdy's posts in this thread, including:

Ah I see, so someone who views the dismemberment of a completely helpless, aware human being murder ...Oh wait, we didn't, because we didn't live in a culture where it even occurred to a young mother that she had the option to murder her child as opposed to having it.

Brettmcd:

Abortion as it stands in america now is murder, as it is still legal when the child is viable

I mentioned medically necessary abortions as a subset of general abortions, including Rape and Incest conception. Since rape/incest conceived children fit within this viable sense of brettmcd and Rowdy, therefore abortion of them would be murder, according to their definitions.

Both Brettmcd and Rowdy talk in absolute language. On a subject that's far from black/white.

[noxiousdog]

First, stop reading intent into my posts. Your reading of my intent is far off from what it truly is. I am not talking about "pro-lifers" in general, I am just talking in response to Rowdy and brettmcd. Period.

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm telling you what I'm getting out of it. And I'm telling you that as a previous pro-lifer. You can ignore me if you wish, but you're sending the message whether you want to or not. Continue for explantion[/quote]

Considering Rowdy's posts in this thread, including:

Ah I see, so someone who views the dismemberment of a completely helpless, aware human being murder ...Oh wait, we didn't, because we didn't live in a culture where it even occurred to a young mother that she had the option to murder her child as opposed to having it.

Note: He said 'aware.' A child with encyphalytus is not aware. It doesn't meet the qualifications of Rowdy's post. You're adding a stipulation that Rowdy hasn't outlawed.

Brettmcd:

Abortion as it stands in america now is murder, as it is still legal when the child is viable

I mentioned medically necessary abortions as a subset of general abortions, including Rape and Incest conception. Since rape/incest conceived children fit within this viable sense of brettmcd and Rowdy, therefore abortion of them would be murder, according to their definitions.

Brettmcd said 'viable.' Encyphalytus children are not viable. Rape/incest is a different story. And they should be separated.

A first trimester baby isn't viable. Hence, he isn't nearly as absolutist as you say, certainly leaving room for rape/incent situations. (note: why is single generation incest such a big deal.... assuming it's not rape or statutory rape related?)

Both Brettmcd and Rowdy talk in absolute language. On a subject that's far from black/white.

Rowdy certainly does, but he also clearly is talkign a different language than the rest of us. Brettmcd isn't saying what you think he's saying.

[brettmcd]

Eightball are implying, whether you intended to or not, that even in extreme cases, Rowdy and other pro-lifers will not allow abortions. Yet, I would be shocked if Rowdy would trade a 5 week old fetus for his wife if it was clear a baby would kill her, or force his wife to carry a baby to term that had no brain. And even if he would, most pro-lifers would not.

First, stop reading intent into my posts. Your reading of my intent is far off from what it truly is. I am not talking about "pro-lifers" in general, I am just talking in response to Rowdy and brettmcd. Period.

Considering Rowdy's posts in this thread, including:

Ah I see, so someone who views the dismemberment of a completely helpless, aware human being murder ...Oh wait, we didn't, because we didn't live in a culture where it even occurred to a young mother that she had the option to murder her child as opposed to having it.

Brettmcd:

Abortion as it stands in america now is murder, as it is still legal when the child is viable

I mentioned medically necessary abortions as a subset of general abortions, including Rape and Incest conception. Since rape/incest conceived children fit within this viable sense of brettmcd and Rowdy, therefore abortion of them would be murder, according to their definitions.

Both Brettmcd and Rowdy talk in absolute language. On a subject that's far from black/white.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth i never said, I do so appreciate that, i never ONCE spoke on my feelings on abortion when the mothers life is at risk. In those cases morally and legally one can make the case that is covered under self defense, as we do not legally force someone to trade their life so another can live. As for rape and incest cases, I will honestly say that while I would hope that a person would carry the child who did nothing wrong to term, but I dont know if i can force a person to do that, yes it makes me a bit inconsistant on my arguements, but I really dont care. Where i am completly, firmly and totally against abortion and consider it 1st degree murder is when it is used as a form of birth control, which is what it is used for 95+ percent of the time.

[Rowdy]

It's not 'holier-than-thou' to try and stop someone else from killing their baby, whether the baby is fucking or not. I'm not attacking content here, I'm attacking tone. You're using blanket statements to paint stuff in black and white. I'm pro-choice, if we're in a labeling mood. Up to the end of the first trimester. I'm also a parent, as are nearly 60% of the posters here. But apparantly this still makes me a murderer. Do you see the problem here? Don't tell anybody this, but I have a reputation as a bit of a cut-up around these parts. So it distresses me when someone who I've defeated hordes of Hellions with starts it up in a thread starts calling people murderers, immoral, etc. etc.

Well, you did infer that I was a sanctimonious, holier than thou asshole, so I didn't realize we were still so tight. For the record, I didn't call anyone who's pro-choice a murderer - I called the young mother who'd rather kill her baby than be inconvenienced (and I'll graciously note that incovenience is a dramatic understatement), or someone who'd rather kill a child than take a chance on it living a good life, a murderer. No you're not a murderer, SuperHiro - but if we stand by while completely helpless, innocent children are killed, children who in the natural order DEPEND on us to protect them, what does that make us? If we support it even, what then? You said you find abortions abhorrent, as do I... how can you not stand up against it then? How is it ok to watch a stranger kill her baby and say, well, it's your baby, do what you want with it? It's the betrayal of our own basic biological design, it's infanticide, and it's beyond abhorrent.

I'm ignoring all the first trimester bs. Fine. A baby at x weeks doesn't experience the 'abortion' the way that his older brother or sister does. So friggin what - that makes the child less eligible for the right to LIVE? My 18 mo old can't talk yet... I guess that makes him less human than the rest of us, right?

I didn't write this to 'stir things up' or piss anyone off, although it seems like my posts often offend the intellectual liberal elitists around here. I try to avoid posting in R&P - my views of the world, and values are not particularly compatible with the majority of you here, and I have better things to do than defend my beliefs to anonymous strangers. But children's lives are a lot more important to me than my rep on some internet geek message board, and if I can get ONE person to just stop rationalizing and THINK about what's really happening, it's worth the time and energy. Nor do I care about being a 'conservative voice', at least not in this thread. Obviliciously, I care very strongly about the issue, and I want to see it stop. Abortion is the single worst thing in existence in our world today. To me it is like living in Nazi Germany during the holocaust. Nothing to me is more innocent, more beautiful than a baby, a new person that has decades of potential to come. A human being lives, what, maybe 40, 50 years even in the worst possible part of the world? (I post from work, so I don't typically bother to go get stats). The number doesn't matter - it's enough time to experience life.

Al and others, are you REALLY trying to say that that child would be better off being dismembered in the womb rather than having a damn chance to be something or someone? From a pessimistic standpoint, is the possibility that maybe half that childs life is lived in poverty, and struggle WORSE than not having a life at all? Do you think poor, starving people, or unwanted orphans living terrible sad lives never laugh, never build relationships, never dream, never hug or any of the other things that make this broken world survivable? They're not abstract concepts - they're people like you and me. Every single baby aborted started with the potential to change other people's lives for the better, to make a difference in the world. WE ALL HAVE PROBLEMS - be they physical pain, not knowing where your next meal is coming from, dealing with sexual abuse, or worse. Some of our problems are trivial, some aren't. Would you rather never have lived? Would you trade all the good experiences to not have the bad? I wouldn't. I think most people wouldn't. Maybe those children would like to have the chance to voice their opinion. It's almost ironic we call abortion supporters pro-choice - the children are the only ones not being given a choice. Of course we don't stop caring after the child is born. But it's pretty hard to form a plan to feed the children, or provide them with loving homes if we don't first come up with a plan to STOP THEM FROM BEING KILLED.

I'm painting in black and white because it is black and white. We're not really discussing cases where the mothers life is in danger, we're not discussing rapes. Those are such a tiny insignificant % of the epidemic of abortions that occur in N. America that it's s flimsy smokescreen to even bring them up. It's another cheap way to rationalize the killing of unwanted children. We're talking the needless death of a child caused by some stupid couple having unprotected sex and not wanting a baby to disrupt their lives, and deciding that they can fix the problem by getting rid of the baby. What do I want to do with all the newborn 'unwanted children'? I don't know, but we can sure as hell come up with a better plan than killing them. We could start by not giving the aforementioned stupid couple the easy way out - maybe we as a society could pull our heads out of our asses and take unprotected sex more seriously.

We hear a lot of talk about 'chickenhawks' these days, Repubs that supported the war but don't want to fight it. Maybe those that want abortions should be putting guns to the heads of the unwanted children in our society. Instead of hiding behind womens rights, and overpopulation statistics, and 'we're doing these kids a favour' rationalizations, they should take a good look at a newborn baby and then have to put it out of it's misery themselves, preferably by disecting it while it's alive or perhaps bludgeoning it or crushing it. After all, that's only a few months later than when the doctor does it.

And spare me the 'crude and repugnant pro-life tactics' speech - it's the only thing that matters in this issue. Economics, population, woman's rights - they're all important, but pale in comparision to saving a human beings life. If it's uncomfortable to be faced with the brutality of what's going on RIGHT NOW, good. Stop hiding behind meaningless intellectual ideas and face it.