We are all guilty

[Tunnelcat]

Sure, suffering is worse than not existing.

But, TC, abortions don't prevent existence. Abortions take lives that ALREADY EXIST.

If it was a choice between potential suffering and non-existence, sure. Easy choice, no real moral issue. That's called reproduction control, and I fully support it.

However, the choice to abort means taking a life which already exists. So your question becomes, "Isn't suffering far worse than having your life taken?"

The answer to that question should never be decided by either parent. [Edit: Unless it puts another life in danger, of course.

Sorry Foil, I think that torturing or taking the life of a born child that has already lived life and experienced love or hate is far different that the 'life' of a fetus that hasn't experienced much of anything outside the womb. I'm not saying there are no experiences, just very few related to sound and fuzzy light. In a perfect world, all children would have a loving home and parents, but it's NOT a perfect world is it? It can be cold and cruel. The termination of a fetus is NOT a perfect choice and it should not be done cavalierly, but to be born and live life for a short horrible time before death is far worse. What we really need is a society where abortion is legal, but so rare as to be almost nonexistent or when medically necessary. The woman should still be master over her body in any case. It's just a shame more women (and men) don't take that responsibility into account when having sex.

[flip]

It still doesn't compare to labor pains, NOT EVEN CLOSE. The ONLY thing worse would be getting burned.

I'm not sure you can accurately make that statement having no first hand experience yourself. That aside, if your contention for having an abortion is labor pains, they also have a multitude of ways to alleviate that. Also, if that pain was as unbearable as you contest, why do a great majority of women opt out and decide to go natural birth? No, I'm sure it's painful and burdensome, but nowhere near like you've described.

I could also take your \"it's her body\" (even though I agree with Foil here) argument and justify a lot of other injustices besides abortion, which makes it a weak argument that can be gainsayed easily.

No, unwilling pregnancy is a consequence of bad judgment. If we set the precedent, arguably murder, for abortion, then we can also apply that to all other areas of bad judgment. Also seeing that the pregnancy is entirely avoidable in the first place. No again I think, NO CONSTITUTION AT ALL. People should suffer for their lack of judgment, it's kinda why it's called \"bad judgment\".

[Grendel]

Solution to this "problem" is really easy -- if you are female and against abortion: don't have one and let others decide on their own. If you are male and against abortion: STFU, not your call to make.

Besides that I'm pretty much in line w/ TC, she's way better in voicing it than I am.

It's funny watching the anti-socialists ranting against abortion tho.

Also, if that pain was as unbearable as you contest, why do a great majority of women opt out and decide to go natural birth? No, I'm sure it's painful and burdensome, but nowhere near like you've described.

If you look into the details you will find that cesarian section is on the rise, currently 1/3 of all births in the US are CS'. Ever had a kidney stone ? It's described as the closest a male can come to the pain of giving birth. It was the only time in 44+ years I went to the ER on my own account. If you ever get one, come back and we can talk about your judment.

[Foil]

Sure, suffering is worse than not existing.

But, TC, abortions don't prevent existence. Abortions take lives that ALREADY EXIST.

Sorry Foil, I think that torturing or taking the life of a born child that has already lived life and experienced love or hate is far different that the 'life' of a fetus that hasn't experienced much of anything outside the womb.

Wait... so the determining factor for you is life experience? "If you've experienced things, it's wrong to take your life... but if you're just an inexperienced fetus with few memories, it might be okay."

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain to me how a person's life experience qualifies them or disqualifies them for termination.

If you are male and against abortion: STFU, not your call to make.

I'd put it this way:

If your life is not the one being taken, STFU, not your call to make.

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

Note: I'm a feminist (look it up, I've said it here many times), and I completely disagree with flip and Lothar. Childbirth pain is not 'whining'.

However, my stance on women's rights will never override my position on human rights.

[snoopy]

I'd like to add to my previous post.

I have a third, primary reason from opposing government funding of abortions:

I define those babies that are being aborted as individual human beings, and thus citizens. I see abortion as an act of a person to take that babies right to life. Thus, from my perspective, government-supported abortions fly directly in the face of the most fundamental reason for it to exist. Philosophically, I see government support of abortion as the epidomy of inconsistency, while war and law enforcement are philosophically consistent.

The government is using our tax dollars to support and encourage the stealing of the weakest and most innocent its own citizen's most fundamental rights!

[Heretic]

So what about the abortions we are paying for overseas?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/ ... index.html

[Tunnelcat]

It still doesn't compare to labor pains, NOT EVEN CLOSE. The ONLY thing worse would be getting burned.

I'm not sure you can accurately make that statement having no first hand experience yourself. That aside, if your contention for having an abortion is labor pains, they also have a multitude of ways to alleviate that. Also, if that pain was as unbearable as you contest, why do a great majority of women opt out and decide to go natural birth? No, I'm sure it's painful and burdensome, but nowhere near like you've described.

No, I've never given birth, but I had uterine hyperplasia that caused some pretty powerful contractions during perimenopause, that lasted for 3 DAYS! Think of your most painful bowel movement and multiply by 100. Although not anywhere near as bad as labor, it sure gave me a teensie weensie perspective on what real labor pain must be like. In fact, most women FEAR labor pain and will wimp out and get an epidural or be put under, which can complicate birth because the woman can't give any feedback during the birth process.

Foil, what is life but the sum of our experiences. And just because your wife never experienced bad labor pains doesn't mean that all women don't have the same lower level of pain.

snoopy, would you rather fund abortions for poor women, or pay to raise their children in a welfare state? Starvation alone is still a problem in the world, even in the poorest areas of the U.S. and following your philosophy, life is sacrosanct, so what would you do for those unfortunate children, pay to feed them, hope the parents get employment or just let them die?

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/h ... /stats.htm

[Foil]

Foil, what is life but the sum of our experiences.

I understand the philosophy. What I don't understand is how you use it to qualify or disqualify lives as "okay to terminate".

I'm really interested to hear your rationale for allowing termination of an individual based on their lack of life experience.

And just because your wife never experienced bad labor pains doesn't mean that all women don't have the same lower level of pain.

Whoa there, TC! Go back and reread my post, please.

I was not the one who said that. (In fact, I said quite the opposite.)

I would never belittle childbirth pain, after seeing my wife (who has the highest pain threshold of anyone I've ever met) go through it.

[flip]

Well let me put it this way Grendal. I did actually have a kidney stone just about 4 months ago. Yep put me down on my knees and almost made me puke. It was over in about 15 minutes. God awful pain. When I was 18 I picked up a 22' boozer beam on my right side and crushed my sciatic nerve. Has hurt ever since and a good deal of that time unbearably. I don't even try to compare the kidney stone to how my back hurts. That kidney stone was right up there with the pain but lasted just a second compared to my sciatic nerve, and then on top of that to have to work anyways. Actually work was the only thing that would make the pain ease.
You have no concept of real pain at all, but is this really your and TC's argument for having an abortion? Because it's painful. That's the most fickle thing I've ever heard in my life. Weakest argument yet. And consider this if that really is your argument, You nor TC have ever been pregnant, but seem to have a good handle on the pain, so much so that you would abort the child to avoid it. If that's the case, why wouldn't women avoid it at all costs and use widely available contraceptives to prevent it. WEAK WEAK WEAK.

[snoopy]

snoopy, would you rather fund abortions for poor women, or pay to raise their children in a welfare state? Starvation alone is still a problem in the world, even in the poorest areas of the U.S. and following your philosophy, life is sacrosanct, so what would you do for those unfortunate children, pay to feed them, hope the parents get employment or just let them die?

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/h ... /stats.htm

Feed them. Help their parents get employment. That's what welfare is supposed to be about, right? I'm certainly not against welfare... I might think it's miss-managed, and I might think that local citizens should be doing more to help the poor in their communities.

I see it as killing people, and I don't think that killing people is ever the right answer. I'm not saying that my answer is convenient, or that my answer won't require personal sacrifice from each citizen in the U.S., but it doesn't involve killing people.

I'm also not against birth control. I think birth control is generally a good thing. I don't like morning after pills, but there are lots of other options out there that prevent fertilization. I also think that part of the "sacrifice from each citizen in the U.S." thing means thinking about what you're doing and what the consequences might be before you have sex with someone. We all have public schools and sex-ed programs, so at least in the U.S. it's hard to plead ignorance. Lets leave rape/incest out of the conversation for now. I'd categorically support federal programs to give out birth control, including the pill.

I'd go as far as getting personally involved, and making personal sacrifices to give someone a better life. There are lines of people waiting to adopt infants. Mothers who know that they can't care for the baby within them get to choose from lists of great people waiting to adopt. It's silly, at least in the U.S., to pretend that the only options are abortion or some over-crowded orphanage.

[Spidey]

Foil, Snoopy…Good points.

tc, you are correct in the fact that women have more of the job to do when producing a child, my point is when someone body tries to take away a man’s reproductive rights, by using terms like “sperm doner” and making other arguments that degrade a man's role…well then I just have to stand up.

As far as your better or worse question…that’s way too far out of my league to make any call there. But Foil clarifies the question a little better.

....................

And just for the record Grendel…if that’s “my” child developing in that womb, I am sure as hell going to have something to say about it…and I don’t care if people who think like you, like it or not.

But I have to add, that I also accept the long term responsibility of any decisions made.

See, this is why Marriage is so important to reproduction, because without it…men can shirk their responsibility, and women can have total control.

[Grendel]

You have no concept of real pain at all, but is this really your and TC's argument for having an abortion? Because it's painful.

Nope, re-read what I wrote. I haven't even made an argument for having abortions or not, I'm saying that it's up to the individual woman to decide what to do and not society or you and me.

As for not having a concept of pain, JFI -- that stone I had 2 months ago tortured me for about 8hrs. Ever had lung surgery ? I had two. The pain after you wake up is actually worse than a stone and lasts for days. W/ the stone they went through 3 different types of pain killers (incl. morphin) that did not help at all. Before trying the 4th the stone moved. Morphin would help a bit w/ the pain after surgery, unfortunately they won't give it to you longer than a day or two. Don't assume just because you know pain others don't, esp. women giving birth.

my point is when someone body tries to take away a man’s reproductive rights, by using terms like “sperm doner” and making other arguments that degrade a man's role…well then I just have to stand up.

Can't figure that out -- what are your "reproductive rights" exactly in this context ?

And just for the record Grendel…if that’s “my” child developing in that womb, I am sure as hell going to have something to say about it…and I don’t care if people who think like you, like it or not.

At least I think. I also never said that you can't have a say. They final decision lays w/ the woman tho. Just know what your responsibilities are and there should not be any need for an abortion.

See, this is why Marriage is so important to reproduction, because without it…men can shirk their responsibility, and women can have total control.

And what's so bad about woman having total control ?

[Spidey]

Because it takes 2 people to reproduce…

Would you ask that if it were men?

Remember there was a time when men had total control of reproduction…wasn’t a good thing.

[Grendel]

Edited my last post.

Maybe I should have asked: what do you mean by \"total control\" in this context ? That a woman can decide not to have your kid ? Well, make sure that she wants your kid and everything is fine.

[Foil]

Grendel,

I agree with you that the mother should have more say when it comes to reproduction.

What I'm interested in is your rationale for why these rights extend to terminating another individual's life.

------

TC says that it can be acceptable because the fetus has not experienced love and hate like a born child.

(That's a very poor rationale for life-taking in my book, so I'd like a clarification from her.)

------

Gren, your rationale seems to be that the mother's life is the only one affected, so she should have final say.

I would agree, if we were talking about contraception. However, we're talking about an already-conceived individual. Why does the effect on that individual's life not count?

[Spidey]

Men have the same reproductive “rights” as women, based on mutual consent.

The choice to reproduce should be made before sex/conception, not afterward. I think that may answer all of your questions.

Any unilateral decision to reproduce or not should be avoided. (no, I’m not willing to debate a single female getting pregnant by design)

[flip]

Ok I'm willing to concede that down to the bottom line the female has all control. That's just the bare mechanics of it, and considering the drawbacks of a totalitarian government, I'd be hard pressed to consider force in this issue. But can anybody here really argue it's a \"good\" thing to do? It's just proof of degradation of society as a whole. Does anybody here actually know when the first abortion was performed and what the reasons for it were? That would be interesting to find out and I'll look into that further. I'd be willing to bet the governments issue for it is not so much women's rights but population control.

Also, why should I have to have any part of it? When they start taking my tax dollars and make it a \"societal welfare\" issue then I do have a say. At the very least it's becoming too damn easy to have one, but I'm with you and TC on this one. Let the woman bear full responsibility for it. I'm sure it would do great things for her self esteem or the flip side of that is she's already a cold hearted ★■◆●. Of all the women I've met that have had abortions, they all fall into one of those 2 categories. They feel guilty and regret it or just plain don't care at all.

[CUDA]

Guys your never going to convince them. they want free choice. free choice to be irresponsible and when their irresponsibility catches up with them they want the right to terminate life. its quite simple really. this is about the right to chose to be irresponsible.

[Grendel]

What I'm interested in is your rationale for why these rights extend to terminating another individual's life.

"Life" IMHO is a too broad definition of a human being applied here. Life is present at the point a sperm unloads into the egg -- this is true for any species BTW; Short of DNA analysis you will not be able to pick an early human embryo from a lineup of different species embryos. I probably would rather phrase it as "terminating another potential individual's life". I leave the discussion of where the potential ends and the existence starts open for debate (one could argue for that switchover happening at the end of puberty when the final rewiring of the brain finishes, the beginning of self-awareness around three, the 1st mayor brain wiring during the 1st three months, or somewhere during initial brain development in the womb.) From a "humane" POV an abortion should happen before the establishment of thalamocortical connections. To be safe you could lower that to 20 weeks.

Men have the same reproductive “rights” as women, based on mutual consent.

The way I see it: Men have a reproductive privilege granted by women based on mutual consent.

The choice to reproduce should be made before sex/conception, not afterward. I think that may answer all of your questions.

In an ideal world, yes. Too bad we're not living in one.

Any unilateral decision to reproduce or not should be avoided. (no, I’m not willing to debate a single female getting pregnant by design)

I bet most abortions happen because there is only one individual left w/ the decision. So, yes, you are right. Again, in an ideal world...

[Grendel]

Guys your never going to convince them. they want free choice. free choice to be irresponsible and when their irresponsibility catches up with them they want the right to terminate life. its quite simple really. this is about the right to chose to be irresponsible.

Isn't that called "freedom" ? It also means that you have to live w/ the consequences. May get some people starting to think finally.

Does anybody here actually know when the first abortion was performed and what the reasons for it were?

Wiki: "The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC."

[Heretic]

Do you think people would tend not to get abortions if they had to do what Missouri wants Abortion Doctors to do?

Missouri law already requires a woman to be told of the physical and psychological risks at least 24 hours before undergoing an abortion.

The passing of the new law will require consultation in person instead of over the phone and mandate that women receive a description of the \"anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child.\"

It also requires abortion providers to offer women the chance to view an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. And they will be supplied a state-produced brochure proclaiming: \"The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.\"

Planned Parenthood is already getting ready to comply with the new law.

Missouri governor lets abortion law take effect

[Spidey]

Ok, I will concede to “an ideal world” but if given a choice would say “civilized world”.

But your “privilege” I cannot agree with. If women have all the control, then they must also have all of the responsibility, and if men have no “rights” then they also have no responsibility.

So, if you want child care…hell no…not my child.

[flip]

A Planned Parenthood official said legal challenges to other states' laws offering ultrasounds generally have been unsuccessful, and its Missouri clinics are preparing to comply with the law when it takes effect Aug. 28.

But \"there are various aspects of this law that are troubling, difficult and are really just intended to make it harder for women to get safe legal abortions,\" said Paula Gianino, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

Doesn't this just sound like a crock of sinister BS? I mean it's already legal and fixing to be funded by the state. What kind of person tells another human being not to even think about the consequences, just do it. I question if these peoples real motives are \"safe legal abortions\" or something else. I believe they think basically the same way as the anti-abortionists on this board think. That people who are weak-willed and weak-minded shouldn't procreate so let's get rid of as many of their offspring as possible and create a cleaner gene pool.

I think if a woman is considering an abortion, and considering the graveness of what's happening, the only loving thing to do is to explain to her exactly what she is doing and the after effects. Then if she still wants to do it after dissuading her, so be it. It shouldn't be the other way around, they sound like drug pushers in that sentence. I've got no respect at all for \"Planned Parenthood\". It should be hard to get an abortion and not something just whimsically decided. Sheesh.

Again, I say nothing but man-eaters and elitists wanting to get rid of the weak.

[Heretic]

It's not sinister flip just look up Margaret Sanger. You will find out how right you are when you said

Again, I say nothing but man-eaters and elitists wanting to get rid of the weak.

Read this thread while you are at it.

http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=16898&highlight=

[flip]

You know the worst thing is after reading her quotes? I actually agree with the reasoning, if we were all a bunch of animals. I and my conscience though severely disagrees with that sentiment and had rather educate then mass kill. And you can also believe that anyone who feels that much superior to others, put in the right circumstances, would sacrifice you in a minute to spare themselves. If only because they think of themselves as animals.
Those kind of people are not to be trusted. Sure when every things going there way they put on these huge airs of sophistication and dignity, then when they lose their fortunes or status they kill themselves or go insane. I can look up a great many examples of the \"elite\" who have done this. Look who's calling who weak.

[Tunnelcat]

Foil, what is life but the sum of our experiences.

I understand the philosophy. What I don't understand is how you use it to qualify or disqualify lives as "okay to terminate".

I'm really interested to hear your rationale for allowing termination of an individual based on their lack of life experience.

Foil, I agree that all human life is sacred and all those who are born deserve the chance to live. I personally would not have the stomach to have an abortion because it would be the death of a little human being. However, there is just something slightly more wrong about the death of a child that has grown up a little and experienced life and become loved and attached to family and friends. On yet another level it's even MORE wrong if that child was born into misery and abuse and never had a chance to prosper and grow. That's the possibility if a child is born to a family or single mother that doesn't care or doesn't want it. That's just the saddest of all situations for a child to be placed in and I think that NOT being born in the first place would almost be a better condition if that's the ONLY life that a child will ever experience. I know that sounds callous, but there are a LOT of children in that situation and THOSE parents are the animals, not me (this response is for you too flip). They'll 'accidentally' have a child, decide they don't want it and resort to abuse, abandonment, murder or even throwing it out in a dumpster. Teen mothers have been the biggest violator of that one. I HATE to see children abused or murdered. They don't deserve it.

But I still believe in a woman's right to control their own bodies, but that doesn't mean that the male who helped conceive shouldn't also have a say as well. After all, half the genetics are his. When a couple, or especially a single woman (if the male goes splitsville), make the decision to abort, it should be between them/her and God, not the 'authorities', especially male authorities. As for the government paying for it, well, I would rather they paid for good birth control than 'fixing' the problem after the fact with an abortion. If you want to get rid of abortion, educate people on comprehensive birth control, not just abstinence, and abortion numbers will drop.

And just because your wife never experienced bad labor pains doesn't mean that all women don't have the same lower level of pain.

Whoa there, TC! Go back and reread my post, please.

I was not the one who said that. (In fact, I said quite the opposite.)

I would never belittle childbirth pain, after seeing my wife (who has the highest pain threshold of anyone I've ever met) go through it.

Whoops, sorry Foil, I meant flip, who was being a little flippant! I got my 'F' avatars mixed up!

[flip]

I don't feel like that is flippant at all. To even suggest that an abortion is justified on the basis of pain is ridiculous. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of it. After considering for awhile also I can't really justify thinking that a woman can have complete control over the birth of a child. I do believe the father has grounds to prevent his child from being aborted. It's all just an ugly situation that should never happen, but abortion just seems barbaric to me. I'll have to stick to my original stance and just say you should have to suffer the consequences of ALL your actions. Not just when you steal, kill, lie or anything else that is considered bad behavior. Why should women get a pass at getting knocked up, but then every other bad act has to suffer punishment? What if the woman decides to carry the baby to term and smokes crack and shoots heroin? It's her body after all. Why can't I smoke weed after a hard day of work? It's my body after all. No, that argument only seems to work when your talking about abortion. Otherwise it's business as usual which is what makes me wonder why our government is so easy to side with that argument on abortion, but are prohibitive concerning all other things that should be \"up to the individual\". I hate inconsistency because it smells of lies and manipulation.

[Foil]

Ah, looks like the taxpayer funding may not be an issue. The HHS has stated that they will comply with the presidential order, and their plans will NOT cover abortions (except in cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is endangered):
[url=motherhttp://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100714d.html]Link to statement[/url]

BTW, thank you Grendel and tunnelcat for the clarifications I asked for. I still believe you both give far too little value to the life of an embryo or fetus, but I understand your positions better.

[Lothar]

Lothar, your wife had it easy

No she didn't.

We had to induce labor a month early over concerns her pre-eclampsia might turn into full blown eclampsia and put her into a coma or worse. The process started at about 5 PM on Dec 23; our son was born at 2:45 AM on Dec 25. That's 34 hours of labor. During the most painful phase, the anesthesiologist wasn't available because there were five C-sections going on just beforehand. Once she finally got her epidural, it didn't catch the full muscle.

It wasn't easy compared to most labor; it was brutal. Just not as brutal as some of our hardest martial arts practices. (When she said the thing about "women are whiners", she specifically mentioned having been in more pain at certain kendo practices.) Uterine contractions can be remarkably painful, but women like to act like it's the worst pain ever, when the reality is a lot of people have experienced just as much pain from other sources.

-------

Males should not be allowed to have a word in it IMVHO

Men who don't have children shouldn't be allowed to have a say in what men who do have children have a say in.

Or, akin to your later post: if you are childless, STFU, not your call to tell me what's my call when it comes to my child.

[Grendel]

Men who don't have children shouldn't be allowed to have a say in what men who do have children have a say in.

Or, akin to your later post: if you are childless, STFU, not your call to tell me what's my call when it comes to my child.

Sorry, you have to elaborate. Can't figure out what you mean here. There's no difference for the woman if the male has kids or not.

Edit: or is it just that I have to have a child to tell others it's not their call to make ? Let me repeat: STFU, not your call. If you want that child you better make sure the woman wants it too.

[Lothar]

Your argument is that men's opinions should be disregarded because the woman's interest is more direct (it's her body), and therefore men should STFU.

My point is that, if you grant that we should disregard opinions based on whose interest is more direct, then your opinion (that others should STFU) counts the least of all. You have zero direct interest; the father has some direct interest; the mother has more.

We can go even further. Pregnancy and abortion effect the child's body/life significantly more than the mother's. So shouldn't women STFU and let their fetus decide if it wants to be aborted? If you don't accept this argument, on what basis do you expect anyone to accept yours?

[Foil]

Pregnancy and abortion effect the child's body/life significantly more than the mother's. So shouldn't women STFU and let their fetus decide if it wants to be aborted?

That's essentially what I was getting at when I responded to an earlier similar statement with:

If your life is not the one being taken, STFU, not your call to make.

Now, obviously, the fetus can't (yet) make any decisions about its future.

But the point remains: If one uses a rationale based on "whose life is most affected", why is the fetus' life disregarded?

------

Note: Although I am firmly against taking an already-conceived life, I still believe women should have the final say when it comes to reproductive control. As a husband, I have some input on having children, but it's ultimately up to my wife.

[Lothar]

Foil, I agree completely.

It should be 100% the woman's call what to do with her own body prior to pregnancy. Further, if the fetus' life doesn't matter, then it should be 100% the woman's call as to what to do during pregnancy. But if the fetus' life does matter, then it should be protected until it can make its own life decisions, and it's perfectly reasonable for the parents (mother and father) and society to be involved in that protection.

[Grendel]

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

As I elaborated earlier, I see a difference betw. an actual and a potential human being (PHB.) Eggs are PHBs, so is each sperm, and the fetus to a certain age. My morals allow me to leave the fate of a PHB in the hands of the person whose life will be most affected by it (esp. in case of a go-ahead decision.)

I don't have a problem w/ the termination of a PHB, happens every time an egg dies unfertilized or that excess semen gets wiped off. I would agree that a fetus is closer to an actual HB, nevertheless in my eyes it's still a PHB. If I were the sire of the that PHB ? Assuming I want the child -- yes, I would try everything I can to influence her decision. If I can't I will accept it.

It should be 100% the woman's call what to do with her own body prior to pregnancy. Further, if the fetus' life doesn't matter, then it should be 100% the woman's call as to what to do during pregnancy. But if the fetus' life does matter, then it should be protected until it can make its own life decisions, and it's perfectly reasonable for the parents (mother and father) and society to be involved in that protection.

I would agree to that to a certain extend. Is there a generally accepted definition if the fetus matters tho ? Right now it seems that the law is the deciding factor, how does it define it ? (going to look it up later)

[Spidey]

You talk like all abortions happen to zygotes.

[Bet51987]

.

[Foil]

Bet,

Please, let's not drag that morass up again. You and I have discussed it endlessly on the boards and even via PMs.

I'll let my statements above stand, as they are the best representation of the my stance on the subject of abortion.

If you feel that you absolutely have to press me about that unfathomably-painful hypothetical scenario again, please PM me.

[Will Robinson]

...
We can go even further. Pregnancy and abortion effect the child's body/life significantly more than the mother's. So shouldn't women STFU and let their fetus decide if it wants to be aborted? If you don't accept this argument, on what basis do you expect anyone to accept yours?

Just a devils advocate position to your tangent there...
Since we all recognize the parents have the right to teach the children their first 16 or more years of morality without hardly any room for outsiders to interfere unless their lessons advocate breaking the law couldn't we assume the mother who intends to abort would teach her child it is the right thing to do therefore the parents opinion both trumps and mirrors the potential opinion of the fetus....

Unless of course congress wants to declare when life begins and then it can be a legal issue.

[Bet51987]

.

[Lothar]

parents have the right to teach the children their first 16 or more years.... therefore the parents opinion both trumps and mirrors the potential opinion of the fetus....

You could make the same argument for why a mother should be able to kill her child at any time during those first 16 years of its life, or why a father should be able to have sex with his child at any time during those first 16 years -- the parents opinion both trumps and mirrors the potential opinion of their 3 year old.

But it turns out, neglect and abuse are situations where it's broadly considered appropriate for outsiders to interfere.