The doctor doesn't have the right to forcefully acquire this information so if we say abortion is acceptable in the case of rape we must say its always legal to protect the rights of the mother.

A seond trimester fetus is very clearly a human being. And to argue against a third trimester being human is absurd. The idea that it doesn't classify as a human being until it pops out through the magic vagina is totally ridiculous.

Late term abortions should be illegal entirely.

You're right and if you noticed I already said that. I'm just talking about instances in which I think it is morally justified, but I should clarify that I only think first trimester should be legal.

What defines a human?

I'm not pushing the argument that a fetus is not a human. It has a human genome, it's alive, why wouldn't it be? However, does it have the capability of feeling pain or sadness to that of a born baby or a person?

If not, should it enjoy the same kind of moral consideration that a baby or person does? I don't think so. I think in the pregnancy, the mother gets higher moral consideration and by forcing her to have a child she doesn't want to have and causing her and potentially others suffering, I think you're more morally wrong than by aborting the fetus.

If it's situation where f.ex the mother is a total vegetable (braindead) then the choice should be with someone else like the father. The best thing would of course be to involve everyone who are affected by the decision although that is hard in practice.

man it feels like i'm always defending myself against you and booboo... when we're on the same side... :p: i just wrote my post last night at the end of my day and used the same level of crass vernacular as the people who would post funny pics of dead baby bumper stickers.

although, i DO side with the 'tough luck kiddo' angle on things that's really for those who want to use the practice for selfish reasons. if there are health risks, or the pregnancy is due to rape, then that's a different situation. on the other hand if it's just some irresponsible teen who wants to be able to continue acting like an irresponsible teen... then no, i very much disagree with the practice.

while some will learn from their mistake there are plenty of others who simply want to use it to be able to continue enjoying the irresponsible lifestyle they had prior to potentially being forced to step up to the responsibility they created for themselves. i'm thinking it might be a geographical difference, i see a very immature and irresponsible sense of entitlement developing quite a bit throughout north america, it just might not be as prevalent in scandanavian countries (you guys don't seem nearly as dumb/childish).

as for the morals behind my views. personally i don't believe in full on intercourse with someone unless i'm comfortable with the idea of living another lifetime through their eyes. that's what i see a baby as, it's an extension of my existence through another body, the ONLY way to continue living beyond my own lifetime. it's like creating a backup of myself and my partner to be housed in either hemisphere of the brain of the new individual she'll carry in her womb. as such i just can't bring myself to randomly do it without protection with various women just because i can. i guess i respect myself too much to risk trapping / wasting my real future.

like booboo said, the fundamentalists are making this argument really challenging. killing doctors who perform the practice does not help the cause, bloody posters on the side of the highway neither. forcing the idea of abstinence to a bunch of teenagers is the dumbest crap ever. education is the key. real, honest, education that is.

i'm not religious, i don't see the need to believe in god to be a responsible adult. if i can choose to be responsible so can anyone else. it's just a matter of shoving your ego off to the side long enough to do what you need instead of what you want.

Why shouldn't we have sex for selfish reasons? Getting off is just as good as any reason to do anything that I can think of. Wanting to have fun and not have a child seems totally acceptable to me. You wouldn't tell someone "tough luck" if they blew their fingers off with a firecracker, you'd get an ambulence.

There has been very little discussion of morals from the pro-choice side, the argument is completely about whether or not a fetus is living, then comparing it to animals, then posting a lame picture. What drives the pro-choice compass? Im completely for the 'tough luck kiddo' mentality. The term 'accidental pregnancy' should not be involved with the term 'abortion' what-so-ever. The fact that I have seen my daughter as a past fetus and heard her heart beat as well as ultrasounds drives my moral compass. Unfan, the firecracker thing is more than less irrelevant in the fact that there is no alternative means after the action. There is no decision to be made and there is no safe alternative. If you want it to be relevant, I'd say you shouldn't have played with fire kiddo, or you'll bet burned.

i never said people shouldn't have sex. no one did. what i said was people shouldn't have unprotected intercourse unless they feel comfortable with the possibility of creating new life with the person they are doing it with. the concept is simpler to grasp than that sentence was to type.

condoms aren't hard to find, birth control pills aren't hard to find either. there's virtually no reason for accidental pregnancies aside from simple personal irresponsibility. if you're not willing to face the real consequences of your actions you shouldn't be acting.

There are exceptions though, even when using condoms and birth control pills women can still get pregnant. But that is what the morning after pill is for. There is such a thing as girls being allergic to condoms, and they can break. You might have a condom break in a place where you can't get to a chemist easily, so there is always ways to slip through.

yes, but those odds are ridiculously small. plus there's the whole 2nd part to my statement, that, while you don't need to believe or follow when you're just doing it for kicks, is still something that should be recognized.

i guess i just see myself as more than our highest basic instinct.

im with you bro, excuses are pretty lame when it comes to having children.

I've already posted my moral argument - in my last post and earlier on page 6 when I posted :

(edit : I agree, though, there's not enough moralistic points from either side .. which makes me wonder if people think about their morals or if they just follow the compass blindly.)

The last sentence was just for fun, but the point and my morals say that fetuses require much less moralistic consideration than the mother does. Another moral dilemma that illustrates my thinking could be this : if you had to kill one of two people, one being a total braindead with no relatives and the other being a working huband with children and a wife who loves him, you would probably choose to kill off the braindead one. Almost all people would because they think it's the moral choice in the matter - it hurts less people - and it's basically this utilitaristic thinking which is the basis for my moral argument. Both of these are humans, people, yet your moral compass tells you one is less worth in a moral sense than the other.

When you are a pro-lifer and you want to have a pro-life policy in society, then you have to vote for someone who's willing to push it. The "tough luck kiddo" argument would not get taken seriously here. The "fetuses are humans just like you and I and killing people (including fetuses) is wrong" argument might, although it's been losing ground overall.

If you really are a pro-lifer, then of course I think you have to consider what pro-life means, what such a law would do to society and then if the moral argument is good enough to make it a law. If you agree that there should be abortions, even if it's just in rape cases, then I'm not sure you are a pro-lifer. Boo Boo made a good point about pro-life being sexist which I agree with. I'd like to add to it with the point that while a mother might be stuck with an unwanted child, it's so much easier for a father who has an unwanted child to just run off and not get involved. The pro-life argument is really quite unfair towards women.

I'm still a bit drunk from yesterday's fun, but I hope all this makes sense still when I look back at it in a few hours time. ;)

No, I said being pro life DOESN'T make you sexist.

I only said that a good majority of pro-lifers are hardcore Christians who just happen to be very sexist. That dosen't apply to everyone that's against abortion.

i really think this is a reflection of the differences between our societies. the 'tough luck kid' argument doesn't get taken that seriously here either BUT... i'm willing to bet the reasons are different. your society seems to be more willing to take personal responsibility for their actions, it's not as self-centered. north america has developed a wicked sense of entitlement over the last few decades, the attitude wouldn't be taken seriously because people want to do what they want, when they want, without being held responsible for their actions because it's anyone but their own fault.

how often do you hear people defending their destructive behavior with 'it's just how i am, i can't help it' or 'it's not my fault, it's the way our society is'. it's BS and i'd like to think most of us can agree on that.

if you're capable of recognizing yourself as more than a biological function you should be able to control yourself as more than one as well. of course the urge to have sex would be our strongest, it does stand to reason that the only method of survival for the species would be its most intense and advanced basic instinct.

education not abstinence is the key

glad to see i'm not alone with the view hehe. i'm not religious either, my views on the matter have nothing to do with god or the bible.

Well then, since it seems being 'Pro-Life' is more political than moral, I'll resign my statement of being 'Pro-Life' and just say I am against abortion. Abortion does not sway my vote what so ever in elections. Also, on the sexist issue, I feel thats why women should be even more responsible because they do not only have to worry about the child and pregnancy, but also the father or lack there of.

I think I agree with you and I do think that taking reponsibility of your life and the situation you're in and then owning up to that is admirable and something people should strive for. Another popular example of people who don't that I see on the TV are fat people who blame their genes. They turn the problem from being caused by behaviour which they can control to being caused by genes which they can't so that they can feel happily helpless about it. However, no matter how you twist and turn it, genes don't make you fat .. It's eating 6 pounds of junk food every day that does it.

Abortion is a moral dilemma so politicians go about it with moral arguments. Of course we have morale in politics. The pro-life way would be by passing a law that forbids abortions .. I just don't think the "tough luck kiddo" is a good enough moral basis for such a law.

To me, thinking practically, I think of unwanted pregnancy as a problem in society. Abortion provides a means to help society deal with that problem. Then you have people who want to keep the problem and remove the solution. Why? It just seems counter-productive. I'm all for people taking responsibility of themselves and their actions and as you probably know, I've been in a sticky situation already and I owned up to it. That doesn't mean I would prefer to have no choice in the matter.

exactly :beer:

Basically all I've gotten out of this thread is each side stating their personal opinions and the other side taking that and either twisting the words or saying that the argument is moot for whatever reason so that the point cannot be used against them. I realize this is a form of argument but it doesn't get a whole lot accomplished. A better argument would be to take all your opposition's points, refute them, then continue with your own points (non-opinion) and support them with facts or research.

Sorry, I'm kind of an English nerd but that's why these kind of threads really never get anything accomplished other than endless repetition and, usually, swearing.

Also, if you try to tell me this is not an "argument", it is a "discussion", please check out Everything's An Argument. (I don't know if there is an online version...)

I'll just step down now...:soapbox:

If abortion was to be banned again, imagine the reprocussions for the human population? We can't feed 2/3 of the world as it is, so how the hell is not allowing people to have the choice going to be beneficial?

Wear a condom and be smarter sexually?

If abortions are banned people will just hop the border to Canada...if they want one they will have it.

Thats the problem, we have too many people barring Birth Control. The Bush Administration, the Catholic Church...

Pro-Choice. Even if you were to outlaw abortions you'd just create a black market of backstreet abortions that would be alot more dangerous and unsanitized.

Excellent thread as it turns out; a lot of really unique perspectives and thoughtful responses.

Here's some of the Highlights for me and my commentary on them.

This really is the core of the problem. Where I live you must be licensed to drive a car, get married, cut hair and fish but anyone regardless of finical, mental or psychological qualification can be given full responsibility for a human life from birth.

This really is the core of problem with the anti-baby murder side. I believe the choice should be up to each person and each doctor individually. It most certainly is a moral issue and a persons moral beliefs should not e deterred or enforced by the government.

Calling ourselves slaves devalues a very good point about the limitations of democratic freedom. I pretty much can do whatever I want aside from harming someone else (which is how it should be) but I always have to worry about "the man" looking over my shoulder ready to rape (poor choice of word?) me because I forgot to dot and i or cross a t.

Very logical but way to subjective to a definition to hold as any sort of a standard. I think this sentiment combined with some fo what Toretordon was saying to the effect of a fetus not feeling as much pain as an adult really makes sense.

This probably sums it up best for me.

It's none of my business. I don't like abortion personally, I do suspect it's a little too convenient and that personal responsibility has a place in life that is being driven out way too casually. But regardless I have no right making that choice for anyone else and that is the foundation of my position.

I probably could not explain my own personal opinion on the issue as well as you have, so I will let your words stand for my own.

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-No Choice

Which sounds more constitutional?

This issue is really personal to me because I've seen it in my life first hand. I am pro-choice. This is probably really unfair of me, but I find it hard to listen to opinions of people who don't have a uterus. Because they have no idea what it's like to be a woman faced with pregnancy.

Well at the same time, you have no idea what its like to be a man faced with the possobility of supporting a child or paying child support for the rest of your life. It's kind of a big deal.

True, but most of the time it is the mother that is the primary carer of the child and who pays most of the way (unless the relationship continues into a situation where both parents contribute, but even then research shows that the mother is still the primary carer). It's also the mother that has to sacrifice her entire body. When I was pregnant the father didn't support me in any productive way whatsoever, even though he wanted to, he couldn't, and any financial help was frivolous compared to the rest of the stuff I had to go through. My view is biased, but it makes me angry that these laws are primarily determined and discussed by men.

Good Point.

It doesn't matter what the laws men write, women should stick up for the rights of the unborn child.

During the pregnancy the mother is the sole "carer" of the baby, and if that experience of being pregnant for nine month does not impress upon her the humble beginnings of life, and believe in her heart the unborn should be protected, then who will stand up for the unborn?

I just can't see any mother who would want to advance the cause of the pro-choice agenda. Though, I sympathize for the mom, who made a wrong choice had a change of heart became advocates for the unborn child.

You speak of the rights of the unborn child, but what about the rights of the pregnant woman? Surely if the unborn child has rights, the already born mother should have a right to defend her own body, own health, and own life? It's not uncommon for complications to occur during pregnancy which risk the life and health of the mother. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. I think the woman should have rights as well.

That's a bad argument. You're giving babies and women equal rights, you can't say that the possibilities of complications is the same thing as guaranteed killing.
I'm all for baby killing and all, just sayin'.

Yeah but the bodily (and emotional) sacrifices the woman has to make are guaranteed.

As are the risks she has to take.

I get what you're saying about them not being the same thing, though. I was just trying to emphasize the fact that the woman's rights shouldn't be forgotten in the debate.

As I've posted a couple of times earlier in this thread, I lean towards the utilitarian view that the mother is likely much more capable of suffering (and happiness, rational thought etc.) than the unborn fetus is, so of course her rights have to come first. If you put the fetus first, what sort of logic is that based on?

Exactly, I agree completely and couldn't have said it better.

While I agree, playing devils advocate the opposition who say the child can not decide for itself so it's not fair to let the mother. Flawed logic, but that's the common retort to your sentiment.

It's not the ablity of the mother versus the ablity of the unborn. The unborn child has life and the mother has life, life = life, there is no taking sides. With Pro-life both the mother and the unborn child are equally important, because both have life.

Most people with medical backgrounds laugh at this argument. You genocidal freak, how dare you shed your entire mass of body cells within seven years? Those cells ALL HAD LIFE! It's almost as silly as the religious Christians who argue that you are wasting potential life by masturbating or having sex with birth control. Your body produces millions of "possible lives" in the form of sperm or eggs that are never fertilized or will even have a remote possibility of becoming human. The question in this debate is, when does a fetus become human, and considering that spinal tissue and brain material don't develop until relatively late in a pregnancy (when very few abortions occur), it's really silly imo. In most cases an abortion as a medical procedure has more in common metaphorically and technically with excising a tumour than delivering a baby.

Fetuses (note, I didn't say babies) are not human and therefore do not have rights. The science doesn't support the "pro-life" argument, and religious belief should not affect lawmaking.

As Hesher writes, to many this statement will seem utterly ridiculous. Not only is it idealistic to the point of naitivity, it's also rather unable to help us when we need to make important decisions about life. By this logic, stepping on an ant makes you a murderer. You have life - the ant has life. If only you or the ant could live, which one of you should? The rule says to revere all life equally. The ant might as well live.

See? It makes no sense at all.