Abortion & tomorrow's election

[snoopy]

I'm going to bring this up again, because it's really been bothering me lately.

While there are a lot of issues being thrown around, there's really one that's deciding my vote- abortion.

I think each day I'm more saddened by the way that we, as a society, find a way to justify murder. I don't understand how we can say that 5 minute's worth of time and a change in location can change a lump of flesh into a human being, and a \"medical procedure\" into murder.

I don't understand how we can trick ourselves into believing that the initiation of certain bodily functions somehow suddenly transform a person into a person, especially when it's obvious that said functions clearly have no impact upon awareness.

I understand that pregnancies can happen as a result of women being victimized, yet abortion creates a second victim.

I just don't get it.

I know all of the answers I'll get. I just hate to see the way that we define human life out of convenience, not out of a genuine attempt to find a rigorous starting point by which to define things such as murder, bigotry, and racial hate. what happened to all of mankind being created equal with unalienable rights? If we conveniently define children somehow as not being human, we're right there with Hitler who conveniently defined Jews as not being human.

Abortion is the epitome of our societies selfishness & escapism, at the cost of the innocent.

Let the flames begin.

[ccb056]

I'm going to bring this up again, because it's really been bothering me lately.

While there are a lot of issues being thrown around, there's really one that's deciding my vote- abortion.

I think each day I'm more saddened by the way that we, as a society, find a way to justify murder. I don't understand how we can say that 5 minute's worth of time and a change in location can change a lump of flesh into a human being, and a "medical procedure" into murder.

I don't understand how we can trick ourselves into believing that the initiation of certain bodily functions somehow suddenly transform a person into a person, especially when it's obvious that said functions clearly have no impact upon awareness.

I understand that pregnancies can happen as a result of women being victimized, yet abortion creates a second victim.

I just don't get it.

I know all of the answers I'll get. I just hate to see the way that we define human life out of convenience, not out of a genuine attempt to find a rigorous starting point by which to define things such as murder, bigotry, and racial hate. what happened to all of mankind being created equal with unalienable rights? If we conveniently define children somehow as not being human, we're right there with Hitler who conveniently defined Jews as not being human.

Abortion is the epitome of our societies selfishness & escapism, at the cost of the innocent.

Let the flames begin.

QFT

[Tunnelcat]

Guys. Abortion comes down to who controls a woman's body and reproductive rights, herself, the church or the government. That's where things get iffy for a lot of women. We want to have control over our bodies and lives. Yes, it is a moral dilemma, especially when it's being called murder, but even that argument is still under debate. But I really believe that this is something best left as a personal and private decision between a woman and either her conscience or God, not an outside Church edict or government law.

Most women, in reality, do not want to get a abortion. It's invasive and has a horrible, devastating and fatal outcome to a potential new life. Instead of trying to outlaw abortions, we should be trying to prevent pregnancies in the first place. As we are finding out, 'abstinence only education' is not working. In fact, I've heard that pregnancies and abortions are on the rise because of this program. Abortion numbers went way down under Clinton's term when there was better sex ed in our schools. If we really want to keep life sacred, don't accidentally create a life that you didn't intend, can't care for or don't want. And the best way to do that is good sex education and teaching prevention. Remember, if you outlaw something, it only goes underground, not away. Look how well outlawing drugs has gone. If you really value life at all costs, a better way is knowledge and information, something the Democrats are pushing for.

[Grendel]

Abortion comes down to who controls a woman's body and reproductive rights, herself, the church or the government.

I'm all for having the woman control over their body. If you are against abortion use contraceptives !.

[Pandora]

great post, tunnelcat!

[Will Robinson]

Want to get democrats to outlaw abortion?
Tell them that 75% of babies born today will vote democrat so we have all decided they can register and cast the vote for 75% of all the infants born for the next ten years until they reach the age of 18.

You'll have abortion outlawed within a year....

[Jeff250]

There is no compelling non-religious argument to think that life begins at conception and that abortions are unethical for any trimester. If you are for criminalizing something just because it is against your religion, then you are setting the precedent for the next majority religion (e.g. Islam) to criminalize something that is important to you.

(Actually, from my albeit limited understanding of the Bible, it's not exactly clear to me why people think that the Bible states that life begins at conception either, but that may be another topic...)

[Spidey]

They don’t need babies to vote for them, they already have my dead grandmother to vote for them. Also from what I can gather it’s the more affluent people who get most (disproportionate) of the abortions in this country, while the lower classes keep right on reproducing.

The problem for the people who want to control abortion is real simple…they (the unborn) have no rights under the constitution. Check it out…you have to be “born” in the US or become naturalized…or some such. So you don’t have a leg to stand on, till you work on that. (yes, you have the right to life…etc but you still have to be born to get those rights)

It’s too bad both extremes control this issues, because I for one believe that there are workable compromises.

Btw, life began long ago, and is only a new individual that begins at conception.

[Bet51987]

Sorry Snoopy, but refusing a young rape victim emergency contraception is heinous to say the least and is one of my main reasons for picking a president. No way will I let the government dictate what doctors are allowed to do because of religious extremism, and to me that's exactly what it is.

By not allowing emergency contraception for this girl, you force her parents to do it illegally in some barn somewhere.

Don't vote Palin

Bee

[Ferno]

With all this talk of anti-abortion, has anyone sat down and thought through what happens if the mother goes through with all trimesters and doesn't want the kid?

It would go sort of like this: the mother who doesn't want the kid has it. she more often than not half-asses raises the kid through infancy, toddler hood, to kindergarten age. she then tries to hand off the responsibility of raising the child onto the school, television and whatever else lets her get back to 'her' life.

fast forward ten years and now you have a kid who's now in a gang doing BnE's, shootings and other gang related activities. And before they're twenty first bithday, they've landed in jail.

yes it's a grim situation and one of many.. but it's reality. and you'd have your anti-abortion supporters and mother who was convinced into having the kid to thank for this mess.

[woodchip]

Obama has admitted he does not have a high enough pay grade to make a decision on partial birth abortion ( you know, where as soon as the head appears you stab it with those Hotel California steely knives. I wonder how much pain is involved in that butchery?). Too bad the baby has no rights eh, even tho those on the left want dogs and cats to have rights.

Don't vote Barack \"Butcher Boy\" Obama

[Spidey]

Ferno, that’s a tired argument, because young babies are in high demand for adoption. (yes, we need to get rid of the barriers for people to adopt...etc)

On a side note, and a macabre one at that, does anybody else see the humor (if you can call it that) in an abortion pill named RU 486 (ing your child)

[Ferno]

well it may be tired but it does happen dude.

[Spidey]

Of course it does, I see what you are describing everyday. Doesn’t mean there are no alternatives to abortion to combat the problem. (and I’m not implying that you advocate abortion as the only solution)

[snoopy]

Guys. Abortion comes down to who controls a woman's body and reproductive rights, herself, the church or the government. That's where things get iffy for a lot of women. We want to have control over our bodies and lives. Yes, it is a moral dilemma, especially when it's being called murder, but even that argument is still under debate. But I really believe that this is something best left as a personal and private decision between a woman and either her conscience or God, not an outside Church edict or government law.

It's a decision that would be made easy with a rigorous definition of a human life. Allow me to point back to my original post. Where does a human life begin? If you can define that in a non-arbitrary fashion, then most of the moral dilemmas become clear legal issues. If a human life at the onset of brain wave (or conception, or some other minimally arbitrary point), then abortions after that point are clearly, legally, murder. This is only seen as a moral, religious issue because we, as a society, are happy with our convenient, arbitrary definition that say that human life begins after childbirth. Scientifically, it's a terrible definition, but we don't want to give it up out of convenience.

Talking about the woman's rights to her body and reproductive rights skirts the issue at hand. Once the baby is a human life, it becomes a competition between the life of the baby and the convenience of the woman. Unfortunately both cannot be preserved, and I think that the preservation of a human life should end up trumping the woman's rights to her body. I guess if you want to be really literal, the woman might have the right to take her baby to court in some sort of suit for violating her rights to her body. It doesn't, however, give her the right to murder to child.

Most women, in reality, do not want to get a abortion. It's invasive and has a horrible, devastating and fatal outcome to a potential new life. Instead of trying to outlaw abortions, we should be trying to prevent pregnancies in the first place. As we are finding out, 'abstinence only education' is not working. In fact, I've heard that pregnancies and abortions are on the rise because of this program. Abortion numbers went way down under Clinton's term when there was better sex ed in our schools. If we really want to keep life sacred, don't accidentally create a life that you didn't intend, can't care for or don't want. And the best way to do that is good sex education and teaching prevention. Remember, if you outlaw something, it only goes underground, not away. Look how well outlawing drugs has gone. If you really value life at all costs, a better way is knowledge and information, something the Democrats are pushing for.

Sex eduction is a different issue. If we had a rigorous definition, your justification based on the drugs example (and, by the way, one of the arguments used back in Roe v. Wade days) would either show itself to be unnecessary, or just silly. (Legalize murder because it's going to happen anyways? Really?)

Sorry Snoopy, but refusing a young rape victim emergency contraception is heinous to say the least and is one of my main reasons for picking a president. No way will I let the government dictate what doctors are allowed to do because of religious extremism, and to me that's exactly what it is.

By not allowing emergency contraception for this girl, you force her parents to do it illegally in some barn somewhere.

I addressed this. One wrong does not justify another. One person being terribly violated does not give them license to ultimately violate an innocent. I'm not weighing in on your example- but the point at which the baby becomes a human being is the point at which killing he or she becomes a worse wrong than was ever done to the woman.

For the barn part- see the end of my response to tunnelcat. If it's murder, and you do it in a barn somewhere, it's still murder. If it's murder, and you feel like you have to do it, you're wrong. If it's murder, and you're going to defend it by saying it's going to happen anyways, you're asking for anarchy.

There is no compelling non-religious argument to think that life begins at conception and that abortions are unethical for any trimester. If you are for criminalizing something just because it is against your religion, then you are setting the precedent for the next majority religion (e.g. Islam) to criminalize something that is important to you.

(Actually, from my albeit limited understanding of the Bible, it's not exactly clear to me why people think that the Bible states that life begins at conception either, but that may be another topic...)

This is why I'm lamenting our laziness when it comes to defining the beginning of human life. Can you honestly tell me that you believe that a partially born baby is any less of a human being than a fully born baby? If so, what's your scientific justification for that- demonstrate to me how the baby undergoes a developmental stride in that passage of five minutes that makes the difference? I challenge you to really, honestly, justify that definition.

If you say you can, you probably won't convince me, and we'll be at an impass.

If you're honest with yourself, you really can't. Then comes the question: when does it happen? Is it an hour before birth? A day? A month? A trimester? When a brainwave appears? Upon conception? In a sense I don't know- and that's what I'm really asking for- a good, scientifically-backed, justifiable, non-arbitrary definition to when life begins. Maybe I'm asking for the impossible, but we have a lot of obvious room to improve, with what medicine has taught us in the last few decades. I think the current definition is crap, because it has extremely weak (if any) scientific justification, and screams of the arbitrary-ness that we condemn when we see it in racial form. Why should time, age, or location be any better of criterion than race?

[Jeff250]

The problem is that, as you suspect, the question of when life begins is *not* a scientific question. It is essentially an ethical question, because what defines life in this context will ultimately be determined by what our ethical obligations are. Good science is then required to understand the application of our ethical obligations to the facts of the matter.

I suspect our ethical obligation here works something like this: at conception up until something like first brain activity, we have no obligation to keep the fetus. After this time, we are under increasing obligation to keep the fetus as the fetus continues to develop, but this obligation may be trumped by other ethical concerns such as ruining the mother's life. Then at some point, the fetus becomes so developed that there is virtually no other ethical obligation that can trump the obligation to keep the fetus except for perhaps preventing the loss of the mother's life.

Making laws around this is not so simple though. Good laws must satisfy many qualities. They have to be general enough to be appropriate to as many cases as possible but not too specific as to be too complicated to follow all without being ambiguous. These qualities are typically at odds with each other.

With our current abortion law, this problem is apparent in how we describe discrete time periods with different rules about the criteria for aborting fetuses. This isn't to say that we think that it really has anything to do with time itself, but it's just the best way we can summarize our ethical obligations without making the law too difficult to follow. Of course, corner cases tend to develop around our time divisions--if someone has an abortion one second before one division, there may be no crime, but if it is done one second later, there may be jail time!

But this is a problem of law in general. If I take $199, it's larceny. If I take $200, it's grand larceny, even though it's only a dollar's difference!

A part of law-making is making divisions like these, and good laws will make these as appropriately as possible. However, the fix is *not* to make all larceny grand larceny. While you remove the border case, you completely defeat why we needed two cases to begin with!

(I realize that there is also some technical argument here in the history of abortion law in the U.S. about the supreme court vs. congress's role in interpreting vs. creating laws, but I am purposefully ignoring this issue!)

[Duper]

you guys have never seen partial birth abortions have you. If after looking at that and still saying abortion is about the woman, you aren't much of a human.

it's really that simple.

[Spidey]

You are asking for the impossible.

As long as people try to figure out this issue with the end all being when does life begin, the side trying to stop abortion on demand will lose.

Life began a long time ago, and only continues itself thru reproduction, the miracle of life occurred once a long time ago, it does not occur each time a child is born, God is not that much of a grandstander, and as long as religious people continue to consider each life a miracle, the issue is lost.

The egg is alive, and the sperm is alive, when they combine life cannot begin, or any time afterward, because it was already alive.

You must put on your muck ray vision glasses, and get a look past the crap that obscures this issue. At the time of conception a new individual is created, not new life. It’s no longer a question of whether a life exists, that’s now a givin, it now becomes a question of whether you have the right to take an individuals life.

There is no longer any question of brain activity, or of a soul, or any such thing to obscure the issue, a new person is developing, plain and simple.

You can then move on to the more important question of, how long during a pregnancy should society allow an abortion to occur. My personal opinion is, that every effort should be made to terminate in the first trimester, In the second trimester it should only be done if absolutely needed, and the third trimester, it should be avoided altogether.

Don’t get me wrong, what I propose is a compromise to consider the needs of society, and not a justification of abortion. I don’t use the term murder because it is defined as malice of forethought, and I don’t think that is the case in abortion. Although it is killing a person, it’s not murder.

So in summary: It is impossible to determine when life begins, so stop trying. No one will ever be able to answer this question, and the issue will be lost forever.

[Jeff250]

When people are asking here when life begins, they are implicitly asking when *human* life begins. This seems perfectly fair--at one point we have one human life, and then some time later, we will have two human lives, so since something is being created here, it is fair to ask when it will begin.

I share your skepticism in that we will never have a definitive answer as to when life (human life) begins. Still, while it's a tough question, I think it's still the right question to pursue.

While your question of when a new person begins developing may be easier to answer, I don't think it's relevant. You seem to make the jump that killing a developing person is the same as killing a person. I think your intuition is half right here--we should be concerned about killing a person. But a fetus, even if it is a developing person, does not have the qualities commonly associated with personhood, such as consciousness, language, emotion, and so on. These sorts of qualities give rise to ethical obligation, and the degree to which a fetus is capable of them can be gauged by measuring things like brain activity, which you argue obfuscates the issue.

[Spidey]

It is relevant, because whenever someone determines a fetus to be a person, someone else will simply move the time line back farther, and you end up in the same boat. And who is qualified to make that call anyway?

So when you have determined just when a fetus becomes a person, will you say that is the time for no more abortions? Wait Wait, let me check my watch, in just two more minutes this fetus will be a person…that’s the silliness of this.

Can you sit in a hospital room and monitor brain waves and compare it to a chart, and then say…ah hah, this fetus in now a human being?

I think it’s far more practical to make abortion calls based on the needs of society, than on some technicality.

It’s persisting on being able to make an impossible determination, that leads to allowing stuff like late term abortions, and makes it difficult for opposition to make their case. So I would never expect a pro choice person to ever concede my argument. (not necessarily you)

You also must realize the can of worms your last statement opens. (outside the abortion argument)

[Sergeant Thorne]

My Dad makes a good argument against the idea that it's a matter of a woman's choice concerning what to do with her body: the baby, at whatever stage, is the result of a combination of part of the father and part of the mother. By definition it's not merely part of the woman's body. That's not the issue, that's a smoke-screen developed by organized proponents of abortion (whom Obama claims don't exist, by the way).

I try to be an optimistic person, Snoopy, but you're really not going to do any good here. These folks can't see past their rape victim scenarios. With all of the talk you would almost think that that was the intended purpose of abortion.

You made a good statement

Abortion is the epitome of our societies selfishness & escapism, at the cost of the innocent.

[Sedwick]

I think it’s far more practical to make abortion calls based on the needs of society, than on some technicality.

So, let me get this straight:

Our society needs to regard sex as a fun, casual indulgence instead of something sacred that should only be shared between marriage partners. Therefore, it needs to be able to disregard the risks involved, and to free the woman from the responsibilities of pregnancy, lest her selfish lifestyle be disrupted. And it needs to allow the woman more than 6 months to choose pregnancy's termination.

Man, we're screwed...

[Spidey]

You really know how to put a lot of fackin words is someones mouth, don’t you. Did you even bother to read my posts before making those ridiculous statements?

You’re a total buttwad, ya know that, and I’m not going to try to explain to you, what I meant by that quote, because it’s obvious to me that you can’t read English.

[Jeff250]

It is relevant, because whenever someone determines a fetus to be a person, someone else will simply move the time line back farther, and you end up in the same boat. And who is qualified to make that call anyway?

So when you have determined just when a fetus becomes a person, will you say that is the time for no more abortions? Wait Wait, let me check my watch, in just two more minutes this fetus will be a person…that’s the silliness of this.

Can you sit in a hospital room and monitor brain waves and compare it to a chart, and then say…ah hah, this fetus in now a human being?

Nope. In fact, this is largely what I was saying in my first post. This is why our current laws divide the rules into trimesters instead of appealing to actual developmental events like that. As Snoopy points out, this can seem pretty arbitrary, since nothing magical happens in the instance between trimesters, but it is our best attempt to try to capture important developmental events into laws that can actually be followed in practice. However, the laws should still be made with such developments like brain activity in mind!

Border cases like you say where in "two more minutes" a fetus will have rights are silly, but there's no easy way of getting out of it. Border cases like this are all over the law. If you drive with 0.079 BAC, you get off scott free. If you drive with 0.08 BAC, you get a DWI conviction. Nothing magical happens at 0.08 BAC, but we had to choose *somewhere* to make it illegal, and 0.08 was chosen with respect to the effects that having that BAC generally has on a person. Note that none of these effects actually made it into the law as criteria. The real criterion in the end is just having a 0.08 BAC.

I think it’s far more practical to make abortion calls based on the needs of society, than on some technicality.

I believe that that certainly weighs in, but only so far. Like I say in my first post, there's probably a good deal of time in the fetal development where aborting it is doing no bad. Then as it becomes more developed, it becomes somewhat bad to abort the fetus, but other concerns, such as social ones, can trump this bad by doing more good. However, at some point, you must legally say that the fetus is a person with rights that cannot be violated. (Or I suppose you could wait until after birth to do so too, but that does not seem appropriate to me...) But we must be willing to say that this happens at some point in between conception and whatever age we are, unless we want to deny ourselves as having these rights! And the most effective way to do this with laws is to choose a time that seems to be most appropriate in the largest number of cases.

[Grendel]

My Dad makes a good argument against the idea that it's a matter of a woman's choice concerning what to do with her body: the baby, at whatever stage, is the result of a combination of part of the father and part of the mother. By definition it's not merely part of the woman's body.

Oh really ? Why not weight the fathers voice by the amount of involvement he has in growing the child in her body ? Let's see, 5min fun vs. 9month of hard work. It's nice of her if she takes the fathers opinion into account, by no means has he any rights to decide abount an abortion. Claiming those is abusing her human rights in my eyes.

You know, abortions mostly happen out of social circumstances. Instead of beating a herd of horses to death over the results the problem should be addressed at its root. Like I said earlier, if you are against abortion, use contraceptives unless you really know you and your partner want a child. This implies to pass this education on to your kids..

[Spidey]

Jeff...

You can then move on to the more important question of, how long during a pregnancy should society allow an abortion to occur. My personal opinion is, that every effort should be made to terminate in the first trimester, In the second trimester it should only be done if absolutely needed, and the third trimester, it should be avoided altogether.

Did you read this, or does everyone here just skim…I’m done here.

[Jeff250]

Did you read when I said, \"In fact, this is largely what I was saying in my first post\"? You don't have to take that we are agreeing so poorly.

[Ferno]

Of course it does, I see what you are describing everyday. Doesn’t mean there are no alternatives to abortion to combat the problem. (and I’m not implying that you advocate abortion as the only solution)

yea, i get ya. that would be pretty cold of me to do so. brr.

I just wish more parents would plan for their future that includes kids.

if a woman gets raped and she can't abort even though she doesn't want the kid no matter what.. what would your suggestion be other than foster and adoption?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Oh really ? Why not weight the fathers voice by the amount of involvement he has in growing the child in her body ? Let's see, 5min fun vs. 9month of hard work. It's nice of her if she takes the fathers opinion into account, by no means has he any rights to decide about an abortion. Claiming those is abusing her human rights in my eyes.

That's not what I was saying at all. The point is that it is a new being, so the argument that it's about a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body is totally wrong. If someone were to argue that a majority vote by the responsible parties could override that new being's existence, then that's a whole other can of worms.

The abortion argument can get very complicated, in my experience, but to me it seems as simple as if your mother aborted you, you wouldn't be here. It's inescapable. It's a life. Claiming that it isn't until a certain stage of development is ridiculous.

[CUDA]

if its strictly about a woman's choice then you must outlaw child support. obviously the Woman chose to have the Baby, the woman can choose to support it.

[Spidey]

Sorry, Jeff…

Sedwick pissed me off and I took it out on you.

[Sedwick]

Well, I suppose taking a stand against casual sex and the ills it brings about is bound to piss people off, especially those who enjoy it. I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouth, I merely seized the opportunity to point out society's need to keep sex unsacred, and implied that most abortions are the result of this.

Perhaps we should steer a little more back on topic--abortion and the election. It may surprise some to know that, despite my stance against abortion, I'll be voting for Obama, even though he intends to sign FOCA into law. The fact is, I have other issues to consider in regard for the health of this great nation (and the world), and I believe he'll do the better job of running the country. It's just the unfortunate nature of our two-party system: each issue is divided up into its two sides and distributed into a separate combination for each party, and then you get to choose. I for one do not fit neatly into either box, and am sick of having to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the unborn, between gay rights and gun rights, between corporate accountability and personal responsibility, and so on. I do consider abortion to be an important political issue, but the fact is we've had two terms under a far-right president who appointed two new supreme court justices. I'm convinced if he couldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade, no one will. Until we can find a way to legally classify a fetus as a full human being worthy of protection from all forms of execution, we will never see true progress on repealing abortion.

And yes, the problem is in drawing that line. So far the strongest way seems to be invoking Psalm 139, which says, \"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb\", and Psalm 51: \"Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.\" But this would be imposing religious beliefs on the governance of society, something the Constitution cannot tolerate. This is the back-facing edge of the freedom-of-religion/separation-of-church-and-state sword, and it's left some tidy scars.

And Spidey--truce? I will give you credit for at least standing against late-term abortions, and I'm perfectly willing to hear out what you meant by the needs of society, assuming I haven't touched on them here. And your RU 486 reference was quite funny.

[Jeff250]

The abortion argument can get very complicated, in my experience, but to me it seems as simple as if your mother aborted you, you wouldn't be here. It's inescapable. It's a life.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that because a fetus develops into a human life then it must have been a human life all along? If so, I don't see any reason to think this. Or are you saying that aborting a fetus, simply by *preventing* a human life from developing, is tantamount to murder? Perhaps you can flesh out your argument.

[Foil]

Just now saw this thread - my first reaction is appreciation that it hasn't devolved into a flame-war, as most do. Thank you, guys.

...Honestly, this topic is ethically the most important one for me in this election, and it's the primary reason I'm disappointed by both Presidential candidates. Despite the messages in their campaigns, they have both voted in support of late-term partial-birth abortions.

--------

I don't agree with all Jeff250's conclusions, but I think he's very on-point regarding the way our beliefs about abortion follow directly from our beliefs about the point where we believe the embryo/fetus/child should be given the same ethical consideration as others.

Whether it's time/development-related (conception, first neuron firing, first heartbeat, first trimester, second trimester, birth), socially/economically-related (parental desire, circumstances of conception, economic security), or health-related (health of mother, physical development of fetus)... we all draw the line somewhere.

In my case, although there are exceptions, that line is most strongly defined by my view that the value we give a life should never be dependent on its developmental stage (that not only includes the unborn, but the disabled and elderly as well).

...I would say more, but as strong as my feelings are right now, I really don't want to end up as I have before, getting so caught up in defending my position that my posts turn harsh and angry and I hurt someone. I may post more later.

[Bet51987]

Hi Foil, without opening old wounds, and if I recall, you gave zero time which is pretty much the end of any discussion of where lines are drawn.

Bee

[Ferno]

It was nice while it lasted...

[Foil]

I wish I could, Bet. Honestly.

It would feel so much easier for me to tell someone, \"Go ahead, if it will ease your pain, it's okay.\" Those who know me well know that the last thing I ever want is to see someone suffer, especially someone I know and love.

...The truth is that as much as I might want to, as much as it might hurt me and someone I love... I simply cannot say it's okay to take a human life... not with a clear conscience.

I wish I could express my perspective on this more clearly, but I don't want to do so at the expense of a friendship again, so I'll leave it at that.

-----------

Just to clarify, there are exceptions in my book, most notably cases where the life of the mother or child are at stake. If a life can be saved, it should be an option.

Also, despite what some might assume, my view on this is not religious. I make the distinction where I do because it doesn't make ethical sense to me to draw the line at some other arbitrary point: \"On day 'x' abortion is okay, but on day 'x+1' it's not\" just doesn't morally fly in my book.

[Edit: I'm also well aware that as much as I try to stay balanced in my views (especially political, as I no longer subscribe to a number of \"conservative\" views I grew up with), this is an area where I lean very heavily toward one end of the spectrum. I understand that, and it's given me pause at times, enough to go back and re-evaluate my stance. So if my posts evoke some flames, as they have before, I'll take the responsibility for it. That said, I hope the discussion in here can remain amicable.]

[Jeff250]

Also, despite what some might assume, my view on this is not religious. I make the distinction where I do because it doesn't make ethical sense to me to draw the line at some other arbitrary point: "On day 'a' abortion is okay, but on day 'a+1' it's not" just doesn't morally fly in my book.

I don't see an inconsistency in thinking that, ethically, getting an abortion is increasingly bad along a smooth curve function and then saying that, legally, it is increasingly criminal along a jagged staircase sort of function.