What's your take on abortions?

[Dedman]

My take is this: They should remain legal, but shouldn't be used as birth control.

Wait...
Abortions are birth control methods!

I guess technically yes. That's not what I meant however. I am sure there are women who have abortion after abortion. They don't worry about getting pregnant because they figure they will just have another abortion. I knew a woman like this. That is what I meant by they shouldn't be used as birth control. Maybe I should have said, they shouldn't be used in place of better methods of birth control. In cases of rape incest I see no problem with abortion. Even in cases where every precaution was taken and an unwanted pregnancy occurs I don't have any heartburn with it.

[Kilarin]

they shouldn't be used in place of better methods of birth control.

Even in cases where every precaution was taken and an unwanted pregnancy occurs I don't have any heartburn with it.

IF the fetus is not a person with rights, then why should the law forbid people from having abortions if they don't have a "good reason".
IF the fetus IS a person with full protection under the constitution, then why should they lose those rights because a condom broke? Would you still approve of killing the inconvenient kid 3 months after birth, if he was the result of failed birth control not carelessness?

This isn't an attack, I simply don't understand why people want it both ways.
Either it's a person, in which case the circumstances of it's birth do NOT remove it's rights to life.
OR, it's just a clump of cells, in which case the law has no business getting involved in the decision.

[Jeff250]

Or it might be at a stage of development in between having no rights and human rights, where it might have something analogous to animal \"rights.\" We recognize good reasons for inflicting pain and death on animals, such as for food. However, we also recognize bad ones, the ones that motivate animal cruelty laws. And it should be noted that animal cruelty laws are chiefly for the animal's sake, not for any human's sake. I don't see why we might not want to extend a similar treatment to fetuses during a certain period of development, simply for the fetus's sake, without recognizing it as having human rights yet.

[Dedman]

I simply don't understand why people want it both ways.

Either do I. I'll admit it doesn't seem rational. However, the question posed is what is my take on abortion. I answered the question. I am not about to get sucked in to a debate about the morality of it. I've been down that road before and no one wins. I have better uses for my time.

[TIGERassault]

I guess technically yes. That's not what I meant however. I am sure there are women who have abortion after abortion. They don't worry about getting pregnant because they figure they will just have another abortion. I knew a woman like this. That is what I meant by they shouldn't be used as birth control. Maybe I should have said, they shouldn't be used in place of better methods of birth control. In cases of rape incest I see no problem with abortion. Even in cases where every precaution was taken and an unwanted pregnancy occurs I don't have any heartburn with it.

Ah yes. Abortions shouldn't be used like that, but there's no way to enforce it. Otherwise, I would have agreeed with you!

This isn't an attack, I simply don't understand why people want it both ways.

Well, in my case anyway, it's more of a practical reason than a moral reason. Allowing people to think that it doesn't matter if they get pregnant just teaches them that they can do what they want without reprocussion.

[Bet51987]

.

[Kilarin]

Or it might be at a stage of development in between having no rights and human rights, where it might have something analogous to animal "rights."

Hmmm, a valid, or at least a consistent point of view. An approach I haven't seen taken before. Interesting. But I don't think it eliminates the quandary about where the mothers choice overrides the rights of the fetus. It almost makes it worse.

I answered the question. I am not about to get sucked in to a debate about the morality of it.

Then thank you for answering!

Allowing people to think that it doesn't matter if they get pregnant just teaches them that they can do what they want without reprocussion.

I agree that its a bad thing, but using this principle to enforce law would go WAY beyond the abortion debate. There are SO many areas in life where people slide by attempting to eliminate the results of their actions. I think attempting to enforce them would be a terrible broach of liberty. Best to simply let nature take it's course, UNLESS your actions are going to interfere with the rights of someone else, which is where it comes back to the abortion debate.

and speaking as the girl in the photo, pro-life extremists have no right to tell me what I can do with my body. Doing so would be immoral.

Given your assumption, that the fetus is not a child, this point is granted. Given Foils (and my) assumption, that the fetus IS a person, then it would be immoral to allow it to be murdered.
I think the primary point of disagreement is on when a fetus becomes a person. Everything after that is just the result of that decision.

[Testiculese]

How about the pain and agony of labor?

Surely you're not saying that labor pains are enough reason to take a life...

Apparently, you are male. My friend's wife almost killed him 5 times!

If a fetus is a person, why doesn't the census count them? Why do people say 'We have two children and one on the way' instead of saying they have three children? How come if there is a miscarriage, there isn't a funeral?

I have an idea. Why don't all these anti-abortion women have the fetuses transferred to their uterus? Let's see how serious they are.

I want to see some of these anti-abortion (which are mostly male, btw) people turn 16, experience their first pregnancy, weight-gain, bloating and hormone ravages, labor pains, deal with their post-pregnancy body, and raise a few kids on minimum wage for 20 years. I'd like to see how well that stance holds up. Anyone here have that experience because a group of total strangers forced you to carry a child to term when you weren't prepared for it? Couldn't afford it? Needed an education first, or at least not still living at home with mom?

[Top Gun]

If a fetus is a person, why doesn't the census count them? Why do people say 'We have two children and one on the way' instead of saying they have three children? How come if there is a miscarriage, there isn't a funeral?

Depending on how far along a pregnancy is, a lot of people do have some sort of service in the case of a miscarriage; it really isn't any different than having a funeral for a stillborn baby. If a woman has a miscarriage before she even realizes that she's pregnant, I would think that it would be hard for her to even decide what sort of emotional reaction she "should" have, but if it's a late-term pregnancy that a couple has been anticipating from the start, then I'm sure that having some sort of memorial would seem completely appropriate to them. Your other two questions are really just a matter of semantics; I'm sure there are many pregnant women who would consider their unborn child as "one of the number," but phrasing the response as "one on the way" doesn't reduce what the fetus is in any real sense. As for the census, for record-keeping purposes, it would be rather difficult to assign statistical data to an individual without a name, and possibly without a known sex.

I have an idea. Why don't all these anti-abortion women have the fetuses transferred to their uterus? Let's see how serious they are.

Have you ever heard of "snowflake babies"? They're children who were originally frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures. A woman can have one of these embryos implanted in their uterus, and if everything goes right, it will develop, grow, and be born the same way that any naturally-conceived child is. There are thousands of children in this country who were born by this method, and their mothers chose to do exactly what you proposed.

I want to see some of these anti-abortion (which are mostly male, btw) people turn 16, experience their first pregnancy, weight-gain, bloating and hormone ravages, labor pains, deal with their post-pregnancy body, and raise a few kids on minimum wage for 20 years. I'd like to see how well that stance holds up. Anyone here have that experience because a group of total strangers forced you to carry a child to term when you weren't prepared for it? Couldn't afford it? Needed an education first, or at least not still living at home with mom?

I don't know exactly where you're getting the "mostly male" idea from. I can tell you that the majority of the members in the pro-life group on my campus are female, as is most of the leadership, and there are any number of organizations such as Feminists for Life that are primarily run by women. But that's really beside the point. I've already stated at least twice that I think that all of the questions you proposed really shouldn't be an issue at all in today's society, and there are a lot of dedicated people out there trying to ensure that they aren't an issue. Pregnant women shouldn't have to worry about their finances, their education, their doctor's care, or their emotional support; the people around them should step up and get them the help that they need. That may not be the current situation, but it's one that sorely needs changing. And again, while it doesn't alleviate the act of carrying a baby to term, the adoption option is always on the table; there are certainly many more couples in this country looking to adopt than there are babies up for adoption.

[Foil]

and speaking as the girl in the photo, pro-life extremists have no right to tell me what I can do with my body. Doing so would be immoral.

Given your assumption, that the fetus is not a child, this point is granted. Given Foils (and my) assumption, that the fetus IS a person, then it would be immoral to allow it to be murdered.I think the primary point of disagreement is on when a fetus becomes a person. Everything after that is just the result of that decision.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say.

Bet, using your phrasing (to hopefully make my point): speaking as the child of the girl in the photo, pro-choice extremists have no right to tell my mother what she can do with my body. Doing so would be immoral.

I hope that's clear - basically, that situation boils down to the question, "who should be protected?"

As Kilarin said, the answer to that question depends almost completely on whether one views the fetus as a human life (and thus worthy of protection) or not (in which case aborting it becomes acceptable).

Apparently, you are male.
...I want to see some of these anti-abortion (which are mostly male, btw) people turn 16, experience their first pregnancy...

I am male, yes. I know I'll never experience anything like childbirth.

However, as Top Gun alluded to, the abortion debate is not as divided along gender lines as you may think. In fact, the vast majority of pro-life activists that I've known, especially those who are active in counseling and so forth, are women. My impression has always been that this is because women, especially those who have had children, are typically the closest to newborns and infants, and they know from experience how early life can be felt in the womb.

[Bet51987]

.

[Foil]

...the answer to my question is being skirted by how one views life. The "child" in your scenario does not exist while the 13 year old girl in my scenario does.

From my perspective, it's not "skirting the question" at all. It's pretty simple:

I believe the child exists, so I believe it must be protected. You don't believe it's a child, so you don't agree.

It kind of reminds me of the story of Job but thats another issue.

I'm curious; how so?

So, like I said before, knowing that fertilization (thus the beginning of life) can happen in as little as an hour, would you allow emergency contraception for the forced rape ofher even if tests (if its even possible) indicate fertilization is taking place?

If it's contraception (no life has been conceived), yes, I'd be okay with it.

If it's abortion (ending a conceived life), no.

I have become very uncomfortable with this because although I still respect you as a person, I also see someone who is trying to take absolute control over my life choices and I don't like it. I don't do that to anyone else and as a girl it makes me feel inferior... A potential victim without rights.

I'm sorry; I wouldn't ever intend to "take absolute control" of anyone's life. No one should have their life taken over, or taken away.

...that's exactly why I want to protect the child, not out of some power trip.

[Honestly, as I said, I want to protect the mother, too. There's no reason for the horrific thing she's going through; rape is a sick, sick thing. However, murder (and I consider abortion to be murder) is a sick, sick thing, too.]

-------------

Now, I understand that you don't agree, because you don't see a child's life being taken; so my stance is unthinkable to you.

I'm in the opposite situation; I do see an innocent child, so the stance that says "kill it" is unthinkable to me, especially when adoption is an option.

As Kilarin said, it all boils down to when you believe a fetus is life, so we're at odds ("agree to disagree"?) on this one.

[Kilarin]

No, its not clear at all because the answer to my question is being skirted by how one views life

Uhm, yes, that IS the point. How one views life changes how one answers the question.

For example, do you consider a, say, 7 month old fetus to be a person? It's viable, but premature enough that you wouldn't want to rush it on purpose. Let's say the poor girl who was victim of the rape did not have the option of abortion until 7 months later (LOTS of scenarios could make that possible). Would you approve of a partial birth abortion at that stage just because the mother was (undeniably) an innocent victim. Remember, the child is undeniably VIABLE at this stage.

If your answer is no, then it's because you believe the fetus to be a PERSON at that stage, worthy of protection in it's own right.

And THAT'S why the answer to your question is being skirted by how one views life. INEVITABLY that is how the question will be answered. There are some that argue (from some obscure Jewish tradition) that a child is not a person until 12 days AFTER birth. They would, presumably, not see killing a 10 day old child as murder. The answer to the question is always tied to how one views life.

ME, I prefer the conception definition of life. BUT, I find it harder to defend legaly, so I'm willing to go with the compromise position of 40 days (when the fetus develops a brain wave).

So, in my case, I would consider the rape victim who had an abortion a few hours after conception to be doing something wrong, but not something illegal. But I would like the law to actually step in and recognize the rights of the child once it has a brain wave and protect it from that point on.

Our children need to be protected, even when they are the children of children.

As Foil just said, thats not an attempt to skirt the issue. It's the inevitable necessity of answering based on when you believe a fetus should have legal rights as a person.

To put it into perspective, lets turn the question around. At what point would you decide that the rights of the baby required it to be protected, even if it was the result of a rape of the pictured young girl? Three months? Six Months? Birth? Once you've answered the question, you will have found the exact spot where YOUR answer is based on your own views of life.

[Foil]

ME, I prefer the conception definition of life. BUT, I find it harder to defend legaly, so I'm willing to go with the compromise position of 40 days (when the fetus develops a brain wave).

So, ethically, you think life begins at conception, but legally/practically you would be okay with a compromise "line" of 40 days...

I'm a bit baffled by that. If the law was changed tomorrow, and the "line" was legally placed at 40 days, would you then argue for moving it back further, or not?

[Edit: I would personally love to see the legal definition moved to something like 40 days. But I would see it as a step toward my ideal, not a perfectly-acceptable solution.]

[Bet51987]

.

[Kilarin]

I'm a bit baffled by that. If the law was changed tomorrow, and the "line" was legally placed at 40 days, would you then argue for moving it back further, or not?

Somehow, we have to come up with a LEGAL definition of human life. I find the conception argument easy to defend on a spiritual level, but very difficult to defend on a legal one. It leads to all kinds of strange legal possibilities.

For example, what about twins? When the Embryo has just undergone it's first division and is at the two cell stage, if you tease the two cells apart, the single "person" now becomes TWO people. Which of the two persons developing now is the original person, and which is the new person? Or did we just destroy the original person and create two new ones? If we do NOT divide the cells, are we responsible for killing a unique individual? And which one did we kill?

Now this problem seems sort of ridiculous to consider "in the womb", but it becomes very real when we are dealing with frozen embryos. Say you have a four cell frozen embryo. Is this one person, or four? Or two, or three even? Those four cells really DO have the potential to be four individuals (or even more). Are we legally bound to implant them that way?

So, no, I would not consider the 40 day rule to be a "stepping stone". If we got such a rational law passed, then I would be willing to see the LEGAL definition STAY there. If we want a law that can last, we need a law that makes intuitive sense, and a law that doesn't require Biblical support.

If the conservatives got enough power to pass a "conception" law, I feel certain it would be overturned the first time the liberals got back into power. Without Biblical support or a soul meter, it's just too hard to convince many people that a fertilized egg is a person. But the brain wave argument has a long precedent in law (at least in defining when life ends), and it makes SENSE to a large number of people on both sides of the debate. So if we could reach that compromise, afterwards I would NOT argue for changing the law, but I WOULD continue to try and convince people that, legal or not, abortion is wrong from conception on.

with all due respect, how far away have my posts been to a 7 month old baby.

That was the point. Thats why I picked such an advanced date, because I thought it was far enough along that it was very likely to be past your "personhood" point.

What I'm trying to get across is that EVERYONE will make a decision on when abortion is wrong based on when they think the fetus becomes a person. Even you. Obviously you feel that a fertilized egg is not a person, BUT, at seven months, you feel it is a person. Where do YOU draw the line? At what point between conception and seven months would you begin to feel that it was just as important to protect the baby as it was to protect the mother? Wherever that point is, that is where you believe the fetus becomes a person.

[Foil]

Foil.... "fertilization in one hour" Do you consider that life?

I think I understand where you're coming from. Let's say I had a 13-year-old daughter in that situation. You'd like to know whether I would want her to take some kind of "emergency" pill, correct?


...I don't know.

In an ideal world, we would have a test to determine whether conception has already occurred or not, so we could base our decision on that. But (as far as I know) that's not possible.

In an ideal world, there would be something available which prevents conception, and wouldn't harm an already-conceived life. But that's not what a "morning-after" pill (which actually causes rejection of a conceived life) does.

It's a very tough situation, and there's usually not much information available. Truthfully, I'm not sure what I would want my daughter to do; I hope that situation never happens.

...I'm sorry I can't give a solid answer; there are just too many unknowns. All I can do is point to my belief about the value of life, even at the earliest stages.

Somehow, we have to come up with a LEGAL definition of human life. I find the conception argument easy to defend on a spiritual level, but very difficult to defend on a legal one.

Ah, so you're essentially making a distinction between your ethical/spiritual feelings on the matter, and what you see as valid from a legal/non-spiritual sense?

I understand, although I don't necessarily agree. I know I'm far from unbiased about this particular subject, but I think there are a number of valid legal arguments to protect life starting at conception. The problems you mentioned would have to be worked out, but I don't think they make it legally indefensible.

[Testiculese]

Wait a second...you can't answer about your own 13yo, yet you seem awfully sure about everyone else? What happened to all the \"every life must be preserved at all costs\"? I find it disturbing you are so sure about the subject..until it were to happen in your own backyard.

[Foil]

I should clarify:

I said \"I'm not sure\", specifically referring to the hypothetical situation Bet referred to, where it's \"the first hour\", implying that it's unclear/unknown whether a life had been conceived or not.

If I had that information, my decision would be firm (i.e. if I knew she was pregnant, I would fight to protect the child).

[Bet51987]

.

[Kilarin]

you're essentially making a distinction between your ethical/spiritual feelings on the matter, and what you see as valid from a legal/non-spiritual sense?

Yes.

Would your decision still be firm?

The problem is that the question comes down to, "would you hold firm to your ideals when it hurts someone you love". And the only HONEST answer to that from someone who hasn't been through the trial is, "I hope so".

I have a son, not a daughter. BUT, yes, I would HOPE that if somehow I were in that situation I would take as much care for my grandchild as for my child.

Thank goodness I have not personally been through such a nightmare. And until I have been, I can not honestly claim that I have the fortitude to make such a difficult decision.

[Testiculese]

OK, gotcha, sorry for jumping too quick. I hate finding blatant hipocrisy (with so much of it in government and all). It steams me like little else.

[Kilarin]

you're essentially making a distinction between your ethical/spiritual feelings on the matter, and what you see as valid from a legal/non-spiritual sense?

I wanted to elaborate a bit on this but didn't have time earlier.

There are two primary reasons I think the brianwave compromise is the best legal one.

1: I think it's a law that could LAST. I'm afraid that any law declaring personhood to begin at conception will have a very short lifetime.

2: Bio-engineering is ALREADY producing creatures that are part human/part something else. I see no evidence that they aren't going to go a lot further in this direction. However the abortion issue is settled (or not settled) is going to have big effect on how the products of bio-engineering are treated. Having set a precedent that having a MIND makes you a person could be VERY important in the near future.

[Foil]

...Would your decision still be firm?

Yes, as difficult as it is, I would have to be firm.

Not that I'd be callous about it; it would tear me up to see my child hurt, and she would have my full support and love. But knowing the child's life was ended before it ever had a chance would be even worse.

--------

Bet, I'm curious, what do you think about the following?

A 13-year-old girl becomes pregnant, her parents want her to get an abortion, but she pleads with them over and over, "Let it live... please don't end my child's life". Since she is a minor, should they still "force" their personal ideals on her?

In many cases, the girl in this situation is not hypothetical, either.

[Capm]

Abortion is wrong. No matter what. The human body was designed to procreate in the manner it does, so, as soon as the egg is fertilized, it is a life. There is no built-in natural method of termination, so, without artificial intervention, that fertilized egg will always develop into a baby, therefore, it is a baby, and terminating it, is murder. Even in a case of rape, even if the mothers life is in danger, but as said before here, advances in the medical field make it a rarity anymore.

Life is precious, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a coldhearted jackass. Adoption is always an option if the mother is unable or unwilling, but things will unfold as they were meant to, and each life experience is important. What we choose to do at each turning point is what will show our strength of character, or lack thereof.

Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for the rapist in such cases. My stance is that rapists should be castrated, but thats just my view.

[Testiculese]

There are a dozen natural methods of termination, and if you check some stats, roughly 60% of a woman's fertilized eggs DON'T develop into a baby.

Logic and reason, not irrational over-emotionalism, please. You just called any woman who's had more than one period a serial killer.

[Kilarin]

There is no built-in natural method of termination, so, without artificial intervention, that fertilized egg will always develop into a baby,

I'm on your side, but I DO think you need to re-evaluate that statement. I don't think you meant it the way it came out. I've had too many friends lose children to miscarriages, and, as Testiculese points out, many fertilized eggs fail to implant or are lost so early that the miscarriage is never even noticed.

Probably would be better stated as "A fertilized egg IS a baby".

[Testiculese]

Life is precious?? Where do you get that idea? How were those eggs this morning? How was that steak last night? I don't see you holding a funeral for the squirrel you ran over last night.

OH...I get it, only human life is precious. How convenient! How inconsistent.

Bet, I'm curious, what do you think about the following?

A 13-year-old girl becomes pregnant, her parents want her to get an abortion, but she pleads with them over and over, \"Let it live... please don't end my child's life\". Since she is a minor, should they still \"force\" their personal ideals on her?

I would say that the parent should take her views into consideration, but ultimately, the parents own her until she's 18.

What about this? A 21yo girl is pregnant. The government wants her to have the baby, she begs and begs to not have it. It will destroy her life. Should the government still \"force\" their personal ideals on her?

[Kilarin]

OH! I get it, only human life is precious. How convenient. How naive.

This is the second time this has been brought up in this thread. TigerAssault tried it several posts back.

Is anyone here REALLY going to defend the position that Sentient life forms should not be considered more valuable than non-sentient life forms? Or to be very specific, I value all life, but I value human life above animal life. Do you seriously disagree?

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't believe eating meat is WRONG. I don't think hunting is necessarily immoral, but I don't participate because I don't like killing when I don't have to. I even live trap mice when its practical (but will also use kill traps when necessary). I believe in animal rights in the OLD sense of the term, in that I feel we should treat animals as ethically as we can and that the law should protect animals from unnecessary abuse. So this probably puts me pretty far left in this crowd as far as animal right go. But I would still, unquestioningly insist that human life takes precedence over non-sentient animal life.

Is there anyone here who is seriously advocating that human life is NOT more valuable than animal life?

[Testiculese]

Why should it be? We're just one species of animal among millions. Just because we're (arguably) at the top of the intelligence ladder, we're better? Hey wait, we're the only animal on this planet that's born in sin!! The 50 million other species are all born innocent. Hmm... We're the only species actively participating in the destruction of the entire planet's ecosystem. The 50 million others have gained a sort of balance in nature.

Besides, if life is so precious, then why is it that everything that is ever born, dies? Usually badly.

[Bet51987]

.

[TIGERassault]

Is anyone here REALLY going to defend the position that Sentient life forms should not be considered more valuable than non-sentient life forms? Or to be very specific, I value all life, but I value human life above animal life. Do you seriously disagree?

If anything, a human foetus is less sentinent than an animal!
Moreso, you don't even know if wild animals are sentinent or not!

Now I know where you stand and that position is nothing short of extremism.

Oh, the irony is killing me!

[Testiculese]

The only distinction is an irrational prejudice on the basis of species alone, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.

\"A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old.\"

[Jeff250]

Abortion is wrong. No matter what. The human body was designed to procreate in the manner it does, so, as soon as the egg is fertilized, it is a life.

It has yet to be demonstrated that the human body has been designed to do anything or been designed at all. Perhaps you are one who sees final causes in nature?

There is no built-in natural method of termination, so, without artificial intervention, that fertilized egg will always develop into a baby, therefore, it is a baby, and terminating it, is murder.

Let's ignore the glaring factual errors that have already been pointed out for now and just look at the form of your argument. If X will always develop into a Y, then X is a Y? Do you have any reason to think that this is the case? You are naturally always going to develop into a corpse. When should we hold your funeral?

[Kilarin]

If anything, a human foetus is less sentinent than an animal!

"A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old."
...
if life is so precious, then why is it that everything that is ever born, dies?

Well, well..

If you see no value in life, or no difference between a human kid and a goat kid, then there isn't really a whole lot further we can go with this discussion. It appears that our basic assumptions are too far apart.

This must have religious overtones because no sensible person would do that to a young girl.

I understand why you feel so emotional about this, I do as well. But I'm going to ask a question again and would really like to get an answer.

Assume that the young girl is your daughter, but she was not found immediately. She was kidnapped and only rescued much later in the pregnancy. Now you've already indicated that if she were 7 months pregnant you would object to an abortion, even though it is still possible.

The doctors can pull the baby partially out, feet first, insert a needle into the baby's skull and draw out its brains, thereby collapsing the skull and making for an easy delivery. Then the poor girl will not have to go through the stigma and trauma of being a young unwed mother. BUT, at 7 months, you feel its wrong to murder your grandchild like this, no matter what his father did. (Or did I misunderstand you earlier?)

Your daughter is pleading with you now. She tells you over and over again.... "Mommy, please don't do this to me, please don't ruin my life"... Since she is a minor, would you still "force" your personal ideals on her? Would your decision still be firm?

Now, in your imagination, move the date back. Where do you find the dividing line? At what point do you tell your daughter she can't have an abortion? Wherever that point is, AT THAT POINT, your decision is identical to Foil's (and mine). You would protect your grandchild just as much as you want to protect your child.

The point of argument here is NOT about protecting the victim of rape. We agree that once the fetus is a person, it should be protected. We only disagree on where that point is.

[Lothar]

Moderator Note: First of all, I'd like to thank you all for keeping this thread running smoothly for over 150 posts. This is the first time in all my years on the 'net that I've seen a discussion on abortion go this long without turning into an outright flamewar. To make sure it keeps running smoothly, keep the following in mind:

1) it's not acceptable to tell someone to stop posting or tell them that they're not smart enough or otherwise discourage them from being involved in this thread. If you don't think someone's posts are worthwhile, ask them to explain themselves more clearly rather than telling them to leave.

2) \"Only extremists believe X\" or \"no sane person would believe Y\" or \"only a heartless jerk would believe Z\" are personal attacks, even if you phrase them indirectly. A few people on both sides have taken cheap shots of this variety, and it needs to stop. Everyone here is doing their best to be ethical and reasonable, and they deserve respect for that no matter how much you might disagree with their conclusions. Argue the topic, not the character of those on the other side.

[Bet51987]

.

[Testiculese]

I didn't say there is no value in life, I just don't think it deserves the pedestal on which some people place it. It's just simply not reality. We actually need less life on this planet.

The only difference between a goat kid and a human kid is that I'm human also. Your view is derived from self-interest. Mine is derived from looking at the world as a whole.

Come to think of it...the only reason there is a debate is because some people want to make other people adhere to their personal, private beliefs through government intervention. They have no business doing this. There should never be an abortion debate. Those that don't like it, shouldn't do it.

[Kilarin]

I've changed my mind on the limit issue so I would just kill the baby by inserting the needle and pulling its brains out. I want to be a Pro-choice advocate without limits so I can be on an even keel with the Pro-life advocates without limits. That makes it easier for both sides.

I wasn't angry with you Bettina, and if you'll note, I said you WOULDN'T approve of the partial birth abortion. At least I'm assuming your above post is sarcasm? I think you are much to sensitive about protecting the innocent to be serious.

I was not attacking or insulting you. I was just asking where you would put the limit. You wanted Foil and I to answer your question, and we did. I just wanted to get an answer to my question:

Where do you believe personhood begins? At what point would YOU consider your grandchild's life as important as your daughters?

the only reason there is a debate is because some people want to make other people adhere to their personal, private beliefs through government intervention. They have no business doing this. There should never be an abortion debate. Those that don't like it, shouldn't do it.

Should the government take the same attitude about the murder of adults?

Murder of it's citizens is one of the very few areas where government HAS a right to intervene in our lives. If murder isn't covered, then we might as well not have a government at all.

SO, the very legitimate question is, when does a fetus become a citizen of whatever country it is born in? with the supposed rights that come along with citizenship, which usually includes an attempt to protect the citizen from being killed.

If it's not a person, then yes, the government has no right being involved. If it is a person, then the government has not only a right, but a duty to be involved.

The problem is that no government on earth that I am aware of has had the guts to sit down and make the hard decision about when citizenship begins. It's a quesiton that must be addressed.

[Foil]

...I do not view the initial clumping of cells as a life, no more than I view a joining of a few drops of rain water as being a puddle.

That is the sole reason for our disagreement.

I apologize if I was too harsh with the 'opposing' scenarios I posed. I simply wanted you to understand why someone (like myself) who believes differently comes to the opposite conclusion. It's not that I hate young girls or have no compassion; it's simply because I believe murder is worse than hardship.

I understand your position as well; if I didn't believe taking the life of an early-stage fetus was murder, I would take the same position you do.

I don't mean this to be cruel, but I would not want to be your daughter and although I still view you as a friend, I see you as an obstacle to womens rights.

Lol, don't let this one stance of mine become the wrong impression of me. As a matter of fact, I consider myself a feminist (I've been flamed for that at a men's study group at church, and nearly flamed for it here on the DBB once). My wife's expertise is in sociology, so she knows much more than I do about issues of gender, and I've learned a lot from her.

Generally, my only major disagreement with the term "women's rights" is when it conflicts with the rights of the unborn.

I want to be a Pro-choice advocate without limits so I can be on an even keel with the Pro-life advocates without limits. That makes it easier for both sides.

Bet... don't let me, or anyone else for that matter, change your mind like this.

Your stance has always been based on your beliefs; I have always respected how you've always stood your ground. You should never let that change, or let anyone else's stance (even here in the venerable DBB E&C!) affect your own.

If you believe that life begins at "X weeks", then stick to that. If you believe something else, then stick to that.

Don't become something you see as "extreme", just because someone else is the opposite. Extremism doesn't balance, it just divides.