Abortion Laws, Pro Life or Pro Chice?

Vaderize, we have boiled this issue down to two fundamentally different and irreconciable world-views. I fear you and I will never agree.

True, but we can still be friends .

Does that mean that two lives were created at conception?

In a biological sense, yes.

Peace,

V-03

 

Does that mean that two lives were created at conception?

In a biological sense, yes.

? Explain. I mean, the question I meant to ask was, is that single fertilized egg two individual lives at conception?

 

So babies are parasites, Rebecca? If you object to my referring to them as babies, then where is your proof that the "fetus" is not a human being? Do not "fetuses" who come to term emerge as human beings? Yes, in all cases; there have never been frogs popping out of the womb.

In the womb, a fetus lives as a parasite. It takes nutrients and resources from the mother, but contributes nothing to her survival in return. That is basically what a parasite is. Dictionary: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. That is what a parasite is. And that is basically how a fetus lives in the womb.

Where is the proof that "fetuses" are "incapable" of feeling? Or is that something you want to believe but have no evidence for?

Simple. Before there is brain activity, a fetus cannot feel anything. There is no brain activity at conception, because there is not even a brain yet!

So what do you think men are? Are they just walking sacks of fertilizer conspiring to oppress women? Family courts seem to have adopted that very viewpoint.

If you don't understand that forcing a RAPE VICTIM, who DID NOT WANT TO HAVE, to carry to terma pregnancy caused by a CRIME THAT SHE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING TO PREVENT lowers her to the level of an incubator on legs then I don't know how to explain it to you any better, but maybe someone else in this thread can.

I think you need to learn some respect for human life, Rebecca. What is going to stop people, if they follow your own logic, from concluding that the elderly must be killed? Would they not conclude that the elderly are "parasites" which they did not choose to have?

The elderly are not sucking the nutrients out of anyone. They are not taking away anyone's right to keep their body only for themself.

And you are dehumanizing the rape victim, by saying she should be force to be an incubator for the results of actions she did not consent to.

 

womberty:
You can't base a definition of human life on appearance alone. After all, a human with physical deformities is still human. However, your previous paragraph indicates that you would emphasize the brain patterns over mere appearance. Is that correct?

Yes. And when I said "look like" I was talking not only superficial appearance but in a physiological respect.

It's no more unfair than a losing hand of blackjack is to the gambler. They knew the risk when they decided to play.

Yes, but the difference is in the odds. Forgive me if I'm wrong (since I've never played blackjack) but the risk of losing in blackjack is much higher than that of having a faulty contraceptive. In fact, the possibility of something breaking is so slim that it's not considered - but it still happens anyway.

The question is whether the protection of the fetus can and should be extended even beyond that, and if so, where the line can be drawn.

IMO, it shouldn't be extended, for the reason that before the third trimester, a human fetus just isn't worth protecting when it's so...unhuman. I know it sounds inane, but should a woman be forced to carry a fetus that's next to nothing when she doesn't even want it, just because some "pro-life" people get squeamish over a life that they will never see, that they will never touch?

I understand the loud cries of "It's murder!" but to "murder" a fetus before the beginning of the third trimester, or even the second trimester, is like murdering what it is - a simple blob of cells.

Btw, when does the human start creating brain patterns and brain waves, and when do nerve activity and the senses kick in?

Rebecca191:
And yes, I know that I support abortion under any circumstances if done early in pregnancy, but I am ESPECIALLY adament that the right to abortion NEVER be taken away from rape victims.

Well, if a woman gets raped, surely she can get an abortion before the three months are up?

Jediflyer:
It does not matter if the baby can not feel it. It is the fact that you are committing murder when you fail to support a life that needs supporting.

I don't know if abortion is really "murder". Let's just call it "killing" - because that's what it is, it's the deprivation of the fetus of its life.

Now, do you agree that at times, killing is justified, or the best option?

Esp. the murder of a simple blob of cells. Esp. when the couple was just looking for a fun night, but now thanks to a defective condom have a baby on their hands (or rather, in her womb).

If contraceptives worked 100% and were somehow failproof, I would support a ban on all abortions except for rape and threat to the mother's life. Until then, I would advocate for that 3 to 6 months (preferably 3 months, or the first trimester) as a "grace period" so the woman can get that fetus out. After that, the woman has had her chance, and she shouldn't be able to do it anymore.

 

Well, if a woman gets raped, surely she can get an abortion before the three months are up?

That was directed at the people in this thread who do not believe rape victims should be allowed abortions.

 

Yes, but the difference is in the odds. Forgive me if I'm wrong (since I've never played blackjack) but the risk of losing in blackjack is much higher than that of having a faulty contraceptive.

So? There's still a risk, and it's one that both parties should be willing to accept if they choose to participate in the "risky" activity.


In fact, the possibility of something breaking is so slim that it's not considered - but it still happens anyway.

And whose fault is it that it isn't considered? The people who are engaging in sex, for not considering the possibility? The contraceptive manufacturers, for not emphsizing the risk? The point is that they should consider the risks and be prepared to accept them. If you want 100% risk-free sex, you have to develop a 100% effective contraceptive. Until then, you're taking a risk, and you should be aware of the risk when making the decision to engage in sex.


IMO, it shouldn't be extended, for the reason that before the third trimester, a human fetus just isn't worth protecting when it's so...unhuman.

And if, before the third trimester, the fetus has developed a beating heart, a brain that demonstrates activity, facial features, and even individual fingers and toes - how much more human does it have to get before you will recognize it as a living human being?


Now, do you agree that at times, killing is justified, or the best option?

Sure - if it's self-defense. If the fetus poses a threat to the mother's life, she is completely justified in removing it from her womb.


Esp. when the couple was just looking for a fun night, but now thanks to a defective condom have a baby on their hands (or rather, in her womb).

Tsk, tsk. How dare a fetus pose a threat to someone's ability to have fun!

I realize that not everyone engaging in sex intends to become pregnant, but that's not my fault, and it's not the fetus' fault either. You want to protect people from accidental pregnancy? Teach them not to take risks if they're not willing to accept the consequences. Like I said, until there's 100% effective prevention, you can't have 100% risk-free sex.

 

So? There's still a risk, and it's one that both parties should be willing to accept if they choose to participate in the "risky" activity.

The fact that a risk exists doesn't mean that it can't be circumvented. Centuries ago, living on this planet was much riskier, due to disease, lack of sanitation, vaccination, etc. Nowadays, we have reduced some of the risks associated with our environment and continue to learn how to modify others. The fact that a pregnancy risk exists with sex doesn't mean that it should be illegal to reduce that risk with contraception or eliminate it with sterilization or abortion. A person who uses a contraceptive is specifically stating that they do not accept the risk of pregnancy.

Now, you will probably answer somewhere along the lines of "the fact that they do not accept it doesn't mean it isn't there".
To that I would answer "the risk is meaningless, since the woman can get an abortion."

Let's try this another way. If I need major surgery, the anesthesiologist can give me an antibiotic injection before the procedure in order to prevent infection. The risk is still there, but reduced. However, if I do acquire a post-op infection, I can receive more or other antibiotics for treatment. The fact that I got a shot before being cut doesn't mean I can't get further treatment if I get sick.

Same goes for abortion. If a couple is careful, abortion is still available for unintended pregnancies.

Since you have been bringing up risk of late, Womberty, I would like to remind you that several pages back in this thread I consistently mentioned that women bear the sole risks of pregnancy, including death. Would you continue to argue that that risk is instantly negated when a woman decides to have sex?


In answer to your other question regarding genetic twins, when they become individuals is a matter open to debate. Some would argue not until they are several years old and have developed distinct personalities as a result of their environmental interactions. Others feel that "personality molds" are developed in utero and that two identical newborns already have distinct personalities. I support the latter view. So I guess that they become separate, individual lives at some point in the second or third trimester when the central nervous system develops to the point of rudimentary self-awareness, or perhaps a little later.

Who knows.

And if, before the third trimester, the fetus has developed a beating heart, a brain that demonstrates activity, facial features, and even individual fingers and toes - how much more human does it have to get before you will recognize it as a living human being?

When it has ego awareness. For centuries, it was birth or even beyond. I don't see this as much of a reach here.




Peace,

V-03

 

The fact that a pregnancy risk exists with sex doesn't mean that it should be illegal to reduce that risk with contraception or eliminate it with sterilization

Agreed...

or abortion.

...and there's the sticking point. Contraception and sterilization don't terminate a human life. That's the difference.


A person who uses a contraceptive is specifically stating that they do not accept the risk of pregnancy.

Saying you don't accept it doesn't negate the risk. Nor does anyone have to guarantee you risk-free sex.

Back to the blackjack example: If I sit down at a blackjack table, and say that I want to play but I don't accept the risk of losing any money, what do you suppose will happen? Does the dealer have to give me a winning hand? Can I keep him from taking my money if I lose? Of course not; there was an understanding that I accepted the risk of losing money if I chose to play the game. The only way I can be sure not to lose money is not to risk any - in which case I would be asked to leave the table.


Now, you will probably answer somewhere along the lines of "the fact that they do not accept it doesn't mean it isn't there".
To that I would answer "the risk is meaningless, since the woman can get an abortion."

And perhaps that is one reason why people choose to take that risk - they know they have a way out. However, there is nothing that says the government has to provide you a way out of the consequences of sex. The government doesn't have to guarantee me 100% risk-free sex any more than it has to guarantee me a 100% risk-free game of blackjack. The government does, however, have an obligation to protect the rights of those within its jurisdiction - which is why I would say a fetus' right to life far outweighs any "right" to have risk-free sex.


Let's try this another way. If I need major surgery, the anesthesiologist can give me an antibiotic injection before the procedure in order to prevent infection. The risk is still there, but reduced. However, if I do acquire a post-op infection, I can receive more or other antibiotics for treatment. The fact that I got a shot before being cut doesn't mean I can't get further treatment if I get sick.

Of course, but that's because bacteria are not protected under the Constitution. The difference between a fetus and a disease is that one is a human life.


I would like to remind you that several pages back in this thread I consistently mentioned that women bear the sole risks of pregnancy, including death. Would you continue to argue that that risk is instantly negated when a woman decides to have sex?

Accepted, not negated. The risks are still there, and if at any point the pregnancy becomes a clear threat to the mother's life, she has a right to defend herself. However, she does not have a right to abort simply because there is some risk that the pregnancy could become dangerous any more than I have a right to go killing the people around me to prevent them from killing me first.


In answer to your other question regarding genetic twins, when they become individuals is a matter open to debate.

The question wasn't so much about individual personalities as it was quantity of lives. As far as I know, there is no way you can observe a fertilized egg and determine that it actually holds two lives. I wanted to know what Jediflyer thought of that in relation to his belief that life begins at conception.

 

So I am now the one dehumanizing rape victims? Where do you come up with this rubbish? I suppose I am a real monster for not giving people the green light to mete out their vengeance on an innocent child.

So you want to talk about dehumanizing, eh? How about your dehumanizing of unborn children, the silent victims? How can you sit there and lecture me when you advocate taking the life of another human being due to someone else's sin? Babies are helpless, totally helpless; who cries for them when they are slaughtered? Hardly anyone since they are looked upon as an "inconvenience" by so many...as disposable as a paper plate. That just sickens me when you think of human life in those terms, no matter the circumstances surrounding the conception.

Apparently, my parallel has not quite sunk in. Your excuse as to why it does not apply is woefully inadequate. How many women die of the "fetal tapeworm" each year? Give me some facts rather than venom. How many people die due to the siphoning of cash by the elderly each year? Not many, I would imagine, if any at all. You justify the killing of the child due to the fact that the mother did not choose to have a child. I never had a choice concerning which parents I was to have, but I will undoubtedly take care of them in their old age...yes, even in the unlikely event they contribute nothing to my livelihood. There is something I (and many others) call love; I detect only bitterness in your writing.

Am I condoning the acts of rapists? NO, and I never did; however, you need to realize that there are other victims out there than the ones who can raise their voices to denounce the oppression they have experienced.

 

You are dehumanizing the woman by advocating forcing her to be an incubator for the fetus, when she did not consent to the actions that led to the pregnancy. And plenty of innocent people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Is it ok to violate people's bodies to take their extra organs? Or how about all the embryoes from fertility clinics that never get to be born? Are the pro-lifers next going to advocate forcing unwilling women to become surrogate mothers for those embryos? There are no circumstances where people are allowed to violate others' bodies to save their lives, so why should embryos and fetuses be so special? A few years down the line, if the child is dying and needs an organ transplant, neither the mother nor the father can be forced to give it, no matter how morally repugnant their refusals might seem. What makes embryos and fetuses so much more special than born human beings?

And you know why I am bitter? Because I am a female, and if I am raped and become pregnant, you would want to force me to be an incubator for an embryo created by a crime against me I would rather die than have suffered. Sure, the odds of me getting pregnant if I were raped will soon be very low - I will probably be going on the pill because I have very severe cramping and heavy bleeding every month, and even though I have no plans to become sexually active until marriage - at least not willingly - I justcannot bear the pain every month - but I tell you this NOW - if I was raped and denied an abortion, I WOULD RATHER COMMIT SUICIDE THAN GO THROUGH WITH THAT PREGNANCY. You know what, I don't care what womberty says, and I don't care if she yells and calls me sexist - MEN HAVE NO PLACE MAKING LAWS AGAINST ABORTIONS IN CASES OF RAPE, BECAUSE THEY CAN NEVER, EVER BECOME PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT. And while I CANNOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE, if I were raped, the reason for my abortion would NOT be vengeance - it would be that THE MENTAL ANGUISH OF CARRYING THAT PREGNANCY TO TERM WOULD SIMPLY TO GREAT FOR ME TO HANDLE, and I HONESTLY BELIEVE IT COULD LEAD ME TO SUICIDE.

Edit: And you want a fact? Fine. For every 200,000 births, three women die of eclampsia. So take the number of births a year (Anyone know what it was last year?), and do the math. I don't have statistics for other pregnancy complications. I took this from an article in People magazine about a girl who had to be born by C-section at 23 weeks or her mother would have died. 23 weeks is the earliest a premature baby can survive - a week or two earlier and the mother would have had to have an abortion or died.

 

You are bitter about something that has never happened to you...and probably never will?

Do you realize that rapists, rather than pro-lifers, are the problem? You seem to be denouncing pro-lifers who are of like mind with myself as much as you denounce the actual rapists; this is definitely the impression I have received. How much influence do you think I wield in society? If you answered "very little", then you would be correct. Whether I advocate something or another thing, it will make precious little difference. How are my beliefs responsible in any way for these heinous acts?

I am a man and there are plenty of things I could be exceedingly bitter about...things that have actually transpired; however, I will not be bitter about them no matter how much it hurts because there is nothing constructive in bitterness. There are probably many more reasons aside from the very general one you gave for your bitterness. What would you, the child, your family, or anyone else for that matter gain by your suicide? Nothing. Why would that even be an option? Why not let the child live? Or give the child to someone else who would care?

There is really little point for me to continue this discussion; you know what I believe, so what more is there for me to clarify? If this matter has not been exhausted in seventy pages, then it shows that no one is going to change their minds.

 

Even though I probably will never be raped, it is still a great fear of mine, and it probably always will be. I'd be basically powerless to resist. I'm pretty small and not physically strong at all. If someone tries to rape me, unless someone else is around to stop them, they'd have a very high chance of succeeding. The best I can do is try to avoid dangerous situations.

As for the whole suicide thing.... I don't believe any life is neccesarily better than no life at all. If I was truly suffering, I would rather be dead.

To answer your questio:

Why not let the child live? Or give the child to someone else who would care?

Why should I put myself through something that would have an extremely high chance of leading to my suicide? Why should I let my body be violated AGAIN? Why should this "precious child" have the right to suck the nutrients out of me like a parasite?

Do you realize that rapists, rather than pro-lifers, are the problem? You seem to be denouncing pro-lifers who are of like mind with myself as much as you denounce the actual rapists; this is definitely the impression I have received.

Anyone who actually forces a rape victim to continue a pregnancy that resulted from that crime is just as bad as a rapist. They are violating her body just as much - just in a different way.

 

The point is that they should consider the risks and be prepared to accept them. If you want 100% risk-free sex, you have to develop a 100% effective contraceptive. Until then, you're taking a risk, and you should be aware of the risk when making the decision to engage in sex.


They are aware of the risk, that is why they are using a contraceptive in the first place! I would see abortion as a more responsible solution than having a child you cannot support or a child that would burdon society (if adopted). Maybe it is not the moral desision, but abortion still may be the best solution.

How about your dehumanizing of unborn children, the silent victims?

Actually, I think you are over humanizing them (if that is even a phrase, but it should make sense).

Am I condoning the acts of rapists? NO, and I never did; however, you need to realize that there are other victims out there than the ones who can raise their voices to denounce the oppression they have experienced.

Prove it. Prove that there are other victems who feel that they are being punished in the situation in question?

 

...and there's the sticking point. Contraception and sterilization don't terminate a human life. That's the difference.

According to you. I don't think it terminates a human life in the way you or I are a human life. The law agrees with me at the moment; whether or not you think this is moral is a decision left to you in regards to your own actions.

Saying you don't accept it doesn't negate the risk. Nor does anyone have to guarantee you risk-free sex.

It doesn't have to do with "anyone" "guaranteeing" anything. You are actually reiterating my point rather than negating it: the risk in this instance is meaningless, because it can be circumvented. Your answer to this would be "if you don't want the risk, then don't have sex". This is neither a practical or feasible solution to the problem. All children should be wanted. An unwanted pregnancy leads to an unwanted child, which is far more unacceptable to me than having an abortion. Don't quote the word "adoption" at me, either; we both know that the majority of unwanted children come from poor minorities, and most poor minority children never get adopted. Sad, but a fact of life.

Back to the blackjack example: If I sit down at a blackjack table, and say that I want to play but I don't accept the risk of losing any money, what do you suppose will happen? Does the dealer have to give me a winning hand? Can I keep him from taking my money if I lose? Of course not; there was an understanding that I accepted the risk of losing money if I chose to play the game. The only way I can be sure not to lose money is not to risk any - in which case I would be asked to leave the table.

So people shouldn't have sex? Good luck with that one . I'm discussing abortion here, not blackjack .

And perhaps that is one reason why people choose to take that risk - they know they have a way out.

Womberty, I seriously doubt that most couples use contraception and say beforehand, "if this doesn't work, it's off to the abortion clinic we go!". The fact is, most people who use protection probably aren't thinking about something going wrong (especially women on the pill), because it so rarely happens. Failure of contraception is terrifying enough-adding the specter of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, especially in the face of possible criminal prosecution, will only lead to desperation. Desperate people do desperate things-like stab themselves in the abdomen with coathangers.

However, there is nothing that says the government has to provide you a way out of the consequences of sex.

Good. It's not the government's problem or business when, where or with whom I have sex. It's also not their responsibility to provide me with risk free sex.


The government doesn't have to guarantee me 100% risk-free sex any more than it has to guarantee me a 100% risk-free game of blackjack.

The government has nothing to do with this. Sex is private, despite all the efforts of religious conservative groups to change that.



The government does, however, have an obligation to protect the rights of those within its jurisdiction - which is why I would say a fetus' right to life far outweighs any "right" to have risk-free sex.

Here is where you delve into opinion. "You" would say that the fetus's right to life is more important, but the government-which you hold in such high esteem when it comes to protecting the right to life-disagrees with you. It even says you're wrong. While I have always maintained that elective termination later in pregnancy is atrocious, I have no such qualms about the first-trimester or even pre-viability. Balancing this against risk-free sex is one way of looking at it, but I balance it against the mother's right to not have an unwanted life form in her body, no matter what species it is.

Now, insofar as government protection goes, that is open to debate. The constitution only states we are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-it doesn't say

 

Vaderize, I can't believe that this issue of sex keeps coming up. I don't have the energy to keep arguing it anymore, but your points are right on.

Womberty, nobody is saying sex has to be risk free or consequence free. The consequence, can be pregnancy. So what? That doesn't mean that they can't get the problem corrected.

To me, your rationale for denying abortions would be like the government outlawing any sort of aids treatment. They'd be saying, "well, you know the risks involved in sex and now you have aids, too bad, you can't do anything about it." And since none of us pro-choicers believe that in the first trimester a fetus isn't a human life, it's not a good enough sticking point to convince any of us.

 

the risk in this instance is meaningless, because it can be circumvented.

But it's being circumvented in a manner which should be illegal.

For example: If I exceed the spped limit, there's a risk I can be pulled over and ticketed. I don't get to say the risk is meaningless, because I can circumvent it by killing the cop, do I?


All children should be wanted.

So should we go ahead and kill all the abused children? After all, it's pretty obvious they're not wanted.

All children should be protected under the law.


An unwanted pregnancy leads to an unwanted child, which is far more unacceptable to me than having an abortion.

And what leads to unwanted pregnancy? Shouldn't we be addressing the source of the problem, rather than its effects?


The fact is, most people who use protection probably aren't thinking about something going wrong (especially women on the pill), because it so rarely happens.

It would be interesting to compare the rate of unwanted pregnancy to the failure rate of contraception... How many abortions, do you suppose, are for cases where the pill failed to work?


Balancing this against risk-free sex is one way of looking at it, but I balance it against the mother's right to not have an unwanted life form in her body, no matter what species it is.

Show me how the Constitution protects a woman's body any more than it protects a person's home. You can get away with killing an unwanted life form in your house as long as it's not human. You can't get away with killing your children in the privacy of your home. Now explain to me why a child within the body should be treated any differently.


See, we really should work towards creating an artificial womb. That would get us around all these sticky moral and legal dilemmas.

What was that you were saying about unwanted children?

Start working on the 100% effective contraception instead.


The people around you aren't on the inside of your body threatening you harm.

Your argument was that the statistical risk to the mother's life justifies abortion. If that's the case, then if I look at the statistics for rapes and murders, and decide that the people around me (or a subset of the people around me) pose about the same level of risk, would I be justified in preemptively killing them?


I can't believe that this issue of sex keeps coming up.

Yeah, what does sex have to do with pregnancy?


To me, your rationale for denying abortions would be like the government outlawing any sort of aids treatment. They'd be saying, "well, you know the risks involved in sex and now you have aids, too bad, you can't do anything about it."

Nope. As I said, the thing that makes abortion different is you're ending a human life, not terminating a virus or treating a disease. The government could deny you an AIDS treatment that required you to terminate another human life, but it's not because it wants to force you to have AIDS - it's because it is obligated to protect human life.

 

For all of the screaming and browbeating, I notice that this question remains unanswered:

If pregancy is the consequence of sex, WHY should a woman risk life & health for a sex act that was against her will?

 

POLUNIS - being able to feel emotions about acts that haven't happened to you but constantly happen to others is called empathy.

Babies are helpless, totally helpless; who cries for them when they are slaughtered

If this wholesale slaughter of unborn children bothers you so much, POLUNIS, then why don't you adopt a child? Take an unwanted child, whom you believe could not have been aborted, and adopt it and give it a loving upbringing. Let's see how commmitted to this you really are.

E_S

 

But it's being circumvented in a manner which should be illegal.

Your opinion. The government and slightly greater than half the public which usually responds to polls on the subject agrees with me. So incidentally does most of western europe and a large portion of the non-western world.

For example: If I exceed the spped limit, there's a risk I can be pulled over and ticketed. I don't get to say the risk is meaningless, because I can circumvent it by killing the cop, do I?

Again, you are splitting hairs. That type of comparison, as the one you stated earlier about killing people around you because they "may" be a threat, is IRRELEVANT. It is the woman's body. She has the right to be free of invaders of any DNA makeup from any planet in this universe based on legal and societal precedent. The majority of the human race was pro-choice long before there was pro-life. Taking away that freedom is a line you don't want to cross.

Trust me here. I know it is difficult, given how strongly you feel on your viewpoint (as I feel on mine). But think about this for a minute. When has either camp in this debate ever tried to reach logical compromise? I offer viability, many insist conception. If abortion were to become illegal in this country (unlikely across the board for reasons already stated), it will not stop there. Do you really want to be subject to a possible indictment for reckless endangerment after sitting in the smoking section of a restaurant because of the harmful effects of tobacco to your unborn child? Similar laws have already been defeated by the Supreme Court; please, understand where this will lead. It's about a lot more than the "right to life". It's about power, control, and how our society views and treats women.

Forgive me for saying this, but you are glaringly naive if you believe otherwise.


So should we go ahead and kill all the abused children? After all, it's pretty obvious they're not wanted.

They should have been aborted. Your statement is an ivory-tower moral-platitude that does not apply to the real world. You can force a mother to bring an unwanted child into the world with a societal/legal burden, but you can't force her to love that child. The failure of social services across the board is a screaming tribute to the fact that the mantra "life at all costs" is one which the american public is not ready to support.

If you want to outlaw abortion, Womberty, then how about a law which would mandate all couples of childbearing age who don't have their own children be forced to adopt an unwanted child? Or even better, adopt one anyway. Or two. Or ten. Or whatever it takes to makes sure all children are "wanted".

Don't you see? You can't force this. It just won't work. Some abused children find good homes and recover. Others die, or grow up to be abusers and criminals themselves. Mandating pregnancy will only result in a flood of unwanted children being brought into this world by mothers who knowingly would have terminated their pregnancies had it been legal. That is a far greater crime than removing a first-trimester embryo. Those kids are being condemned pre-determinatedly to a lifetime of potential abuse. We simply as a society do not have the resources to, well, love them all. Very, very sad, but a fact of life. There just isn't enough love to go around.

All children should be protected under the law.

Agreed. Once they hit viability. Before that, they're not children.

And what leads to unwanted pregnancy? Shouldn't we be addressing the source of the problem, rather than its effects?

I will say this for the last time: give up on trying to regulate sex. Never gonna happen. Ever. Any US government that attempts this, in the name of the "Right to Life", "morals", "God" or religion in any manner will find itself no longer in power. I find the above statement rather strange coming from you, Womberty, since haven't you been arguing all along that wo

 

Thank you for the sermon, Ender_Sai, but I think there are a few things about my current situation you have not taken into account. For one thing, I do not have a job yet; I am running out of money, so I could hardly afford to adopt and care for a child. And another thing...I am only 21 years old, so I think I can wait a little while before I undertake such a responsibility; there are probably many more homes more suitable for child rearing than my own. If I am to have a child, then I would like the child to have the best possible upbringing, and right now would be less than ideal.

To be brief, it is not a question of desire; there are other things I need to concentrate on right now.

[sarcasm]Do I have your permission to wait?[/sarcasm]

 

Your opinion. The government and slightly greater than half the public which usually responds to polls on the subject agrees with me. So incidentally does most of western europe and a large portion of the non-western world.

How many times do we have to go over this? I know abortion is currently legal in the U.S. and most of Europe. I know a large percentage of the U.S. population believes it should be legal. But sometimes, if there is evidence that an activity violates a person's rights, that activity must be illegal regardless of popular opinion.


That type of comparison, as the one you stated earlier about killing people around you because they "may" be a threat, is IRRELEVANT. I

How am I supposed to demonstrate my point if you deem any analogy irrelevant?


Do you really want to be subject to a possible indictment for reckless endangerment after sitting in the smoking section of a restaurant because of the harmful effects of tobacco to your unborn child?

You mean the same way people are currently prosecuted for exposing their newborns, infants, and toddlers to second-hand smoke?


It's about a lot more than the "right to life". It's about power, control, and how our society views and treats women.

If you really want to empower women, maybe you should give them more control over their sexuality (you think women are never pressured into sex?) and their ability to prevent pregnancy.


They should have been aborted.

I'd like to see you say that to an abused child.


If you want to outlaw abortion, Womberty, then how about a law which would mandate all couples of childbearing age who don't have their own children be forced to adopt an unwanted child?

Because that would be denying them reproductive choice. I've always said that people had that choice - by choosing whether or not to become pregnant.


Those kids are being condemned pre-determinatedly to a lifetime of potential abuse.

Oooh, potential abuse! Quick, let me into the maternity ward... I want to get rid of all the potentially abused children before it's too late.


We simply as a society do not have the resources to, well, love them all. Very, very sad, but a fact of life. There just isn't enough love to go around.

So the solution is to destroy the extra lives we can't love? As long as you stick to your argument that a fetus is not a human life you might still have a leg to stand on. Any other reasoning just isn't enough to justify terminating a life.


I will say this for the last time: give up on trying to regulate sex.

Who said I wanted to regulate sex? We're talking about regulating things that happen after pregnancy.

People should regulate their own sex lives. The government only gets involved when there's another life that needs its protection.


haven't you been arguing all along that women should be forced to bear the effects of their actions because they knew the risks? Now of a sudden it's "let's address the source of the problem?".

I think it would help if they better understood the risks. Ignorance isn't an excuse for terminating a life, but if you fight the ignorance you might not need to worry about the rest.


Show me where the constitution protects a fetus's right to be born any more than it protects a woman's body.

The constitution protects the right to life, and I think most if not all states place that right above the right to privacy (i.e. you can't take a life and claim it's protected by your right to privacy).


Do you really want to use this argument, Womberty? Do you really want to decry a woman's right to protection of her body because it isn't in the constitution? Going by that logic, rape isn't a crime.

Sure it is, just as much as home invasion is a crime. Like I said, you can claim the right, but only as far as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights.


If the right to bodily privacy does not exist, then the fourth

 

There's always some excuse, isn't there...

E_S

 

That is not an excuse; it is a simple fact. If you have a problem with it, go adopt your own child...since you already have your degree. I have no time really to be lectured by you on this matter.

 

Check this out

This is the kind of thing I am talking about. No drastic changes need to be made to the Constitution or whatnot. All that has to be done is to reclassify the fetus's/embryo's status to what it should already be.

 

I find this quote from that article rather interesting:

That could wreak havoc at some fertility clinics. ?We do not think that an entity that is designed to protect human subjects of research is the appropriate place to deal with the regulation of reproductive tissues, be they sperm, eggs or embryos,? said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Funny... I can understand labeling sperm and eggs as "reproductive tissues," but once you have an embryo, I'm not sure it's your reproductive tissue any more.

And why would it wreak havoc? Because they would have to do something with all those frozen embryos instead of destroying them?