• skald said on Nov 07, 2007....

  There was an Irish girl years ago who was raped by the father of her friend. She was 14 and pregnant. She could not get an abortion in her country. I think you know that case. There are even younger children who get pregnant. I think they should get abortion. I don't think anyone should use it as an after preclusion.This is a very serious matter and should be allowed in some cases.
  
  I have heard that most mothers who have abortions suffer much afterwards. So I don't think people usually get an abortion without thinking,.
  

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 07, 2007....

  You are inaccurately portraying the two sides, IMO.
  
  I am pro-choice from a legal standpoint only. I believe that life starts at conception - or at the very least, when the heart starts beating, which is around 6-8 weeks IIRC. Abortion is murder in my eyes, and I know there are probably situations in which I'm a horrible person for still seeing it as wrong - but that's the only view I can hold and live with myself.
  
  However, no way in hell do I want the government to be able to take away my right to decide what to do or not do with my own body on something like that. I suppose that makes me pro-choice, but it does not mean I am not anti-abortion. With an administration like we have, it would set a very dangerous precedent to allow the government to fully dictate a woman's reproductive options.
  
  By not wanting the government to ban abortions, do I think I am willingly allowing murder? No, since many - I believe most - abortions would still happen, legal or not. At least some young, scared girls might be able to avoid a back room coat-hanger do-it-yourself (which risks their lives as well) sort.
  
  It's such a messy issue. Ugh.
  
  ~Infernal
  

• queenparanoia said on Nov 07, 2007....

  i hate this issue because the mother would still suffer inn the end.. but it has to be talk right?

  i'm prolife. i believe there's always an alternative solution than abortion. like giving it up for adoption or something. sometimes people abuse this... they cannot control themselves and not be responsible when it comes to sex. 

  and beside it's not the baby's fault so why would you do it?

• MissMimi said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Infernal, you said that quite well.  I agree with you.  It's just not as simple as pro-life or pro-choice. 
   
  Tha last group of people who should be making those decisions for any woman is Congress.  This is gonna piss off a lot of men, but I'm very tempted to say that it is arrogant in the extreme for a predominantly male institution to be making laws restricting what should be a decison made between a woman, her physician and her God.  Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
   
  Whatsamatter, Ed?  You need a little fireworks in your life or what?  ;)

• fearing said on Nov 07, 2007....

  I hate this subject.  Infernal makes a good point about the government being able to make choices for us and I agree.  One of those give an inch/take a mile situation IMO.  BUT, I am 100% pro-life.  (Did you think I would be anything other?)  I also believe it is a person beginning with conception because of my religious beliefs.  If it has a soul, it is a person.  I know what it is like to be young, pregnant, unmarried, and scared.  I also know what it is like to hug that son each and every day.   As for people who make the decision to abort, it isn't my job to judge them.
  

• bloc said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Is it possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life? I believe so and here is why. I simply can not believe that 4 microscopic cells are a human being deserving of full human rights. However, at some point the fetus should be protected, but not right after conception. Please read this for a far better explanation of this view.

• beyondtheveil said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Ed- I'm going to word this differently than I have before. Many years ago I was pro-life. This came from my upbringing which said you take blame and responsibility for your own actions. I felt it was immoral and unbelievably stupid to trade a few moments of pleasure (sometimes) for the creation of life and elimination of same. I still feel that way in a large part. I will never lose this general attitude concerning not only abortion, but all things.
  
  Since the so called sexual revolution to today, I feel there is an almost total loss of sexual morals which in days past meant so much more than a religious precept. It also had to do with the treatment and respect for women which was in a large part lost after the sixties. 
  
  I was always for abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of mother and a few other situations, but convenience was out.
  
  Life begins at conception because it is biologically impossible for it to begin at any other time. Every second after conception is absolutely essential for the life of a baby, so choosing a "time" one becomes human is as ludicrous as viability which changes regularly with technology.
  
  However, I have changed my opinion somewhat. With few sexual morals in place for some time now, the thoughts of creating life and that life itself has taken a back seat to convenience and the free choice of the woman's body. It is a justification to abort at will. At the same time, it infuriates me that fundamentalist Christians and ignoble politicians take the personal and pseudo-noble high ground and attempt to dictate serious social issues as if they had the wisdom to do so.
  
  The entire debacle comes down to what Molly Ivins once said, "The only thing that will ever be decided about abortion is who decides".
  
  Because of today's world, I would now give the choice to the woman.
  
  But regardless of how you cut it, abortion stinks- a life is lost that will never experience what we have enjoyed.
  
  Somehow, I just don't much give a shit anymore.
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Pat Robertson Endorses Giuliani for President
   
  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/politics/07cnd-robertson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
   
  Now there is a couple. Both pro and anti.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 07, 2007....

  skald: i don't think most women get them lightly, either.
  
  infernal: see, i don't think that i am misportraying the sides. not to put too fine a point on it, but i do not understand how you reconcile the idea of life beginning at/near conception w/ legal status of abortion, to be honest. there are few good statistics re: illegal abortions so it's hard to say how many lives would be lost, so comparing that figure to that of that many murders is to me exceedingly difficult.
  
  queen: are there any instances in which abortion would be OK in your opinion?
  
  mimi: ah yes, i was waiting for an appeal to feminism. :> and you know, i respect that view. "more fireworks"? nah, i'm just a very curious kinda guy. :>
  
  fearing: that was well articulated, i thought. thank you.
  
  bloc: i lack the time now to read that in detail but will shortly.
  
  beyond: as has been said by others, it's an ugly topic--i know. i agree re: that quotation by molly ivins.
  
  sheltercrow: he did? is he completely insane? giuliani is both pro-choice as well as pro-gay marriage--did someone not brief robertson about giuliani's history?!
  
  ed

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 07, 2007....

  What is there to reconcile? When life begins is largely irrelevant (and perhaps I should have left that out of my original response) to the legal question for me. It's not even essentially about the lives lost, when you get down to it - it's about whether the gov't should have the authority to say who can/can't do what with their physical person...although now that I think about it, perhaps the crux of the matter is whether the government has the right to interfere in matters of life and death (which has scads of other implications, re: murder, assisted suicide and all kinds of stuff). In that case, the point at which life begins would be much more central to the argument one way or the other.
  
  My stance on that question is that everyone has the right to choose to live. (Hence why we punish murderers - they took that right, not to mention the person's life, away.)
  
  ~Infernal
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Pat Robertson has been seen by some as the anti-Christ. Giuliani is merely an evil politico. As for abortion I have no views that I know of. I do think that people should not be allowed to have children unless they have been certified beforehand as being human beings.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Heh, you know my stance on this ed. Especially since LadyGamer just had a similar topic recently, where I responded.
  
  Basically, I'm probably very close to your and bloc's opinions. However, I think that Roe v. Wade is bad law and that the matter should be up to the states and communities on what point abortion should be allowed or disallowed.
  
  As much as I hate to say it, though, I would be similarly dissatisfied if all abortions were banned or if there was no way to make an exception for the health concerns of the mother or the child, even at a later date.
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 07, 2007....

  infernal: see, when life begins to me is fundamental WRT the law, b/c if it's life then the pro-lifers are absolutely correct that abortion is murder and the government should not permit murde of its citizens. it's why murder's a crime, after all.
  
  sheltercrow: heh...i see you're familiar with various "child protective services" horror stories.
  
  TS: i'd completely forgotten about that one. so you'd prefer the matter be determined at the state level rather than the federal, i gather?.
  
  ed

• Brunettebmshell said on Nov 07, 2007....

  
  
  I overheard this girl talking to what seemed to be her best friend. I was at the Junior College I attend and was in the cafeteria. 
  
  
  This girl couldn't have been older than me, probably 20-21. Anyway, she was having a private conversation and trying to talk quietly, but I have amazing hearing and was interested in listening to her talk. Anyway, she went on and on about how she hopes she isn't pregant again, how she is afraid about getting ANOTHER abortion if she is, and then asked her friend if she will go with her to take a pregnancy test. Her friend of course said she would, and began reassuring her that going through with yet another abortion isn't a big deal. I thought maybe the girl felt bad for killing her unborn baby, but responded instead that she is just worried that she'll have a hard time coming up with the money to get the procedure done. 
  
  
  I was utterly disgusted with these two girls. They obviously have no regard for human life, and listening to these girls was pretty disturbing. I am definitely pro-life; I am an open minded person and do respect others' opinion and beliefs, but this is one thing that I will never budge on. I believe that there is no good reason to abort a baby, (I believe it is a human life with conception, with a soul, etc). I even believe if, God forbid, I was raped and became pregnant that I would absolutely keep that child. Yes it would be a constant reminder of the tragedy that happened, but in no way would I take a life because of someone else's horrific act. 
  
  
  That's just my two cents.
  
  
  BB

• TinSoldier said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Yes, it fits in with my federalist views, does it not? True democracy works best at a more local level.

• ninjapirate said on Nov 07, 2007....

  I'm somewhere with Infernal and Beyond I think.  I like how Beyond described how life begins and that picking a time of being a human doesn't make much sense, I agree.  Infernal is covering the legal stand point of not letting the government decide what to do with your body, I agree there too.  To sum it up I think each should have their own choice, but they would have to deal with the consequences.  If I ever personally had to decide because of something stupid that I did, I wouldn't.  I'm curious though where women and men tend to lean on this issue, or is it more on a persons morals?     

• sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Organize, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

  Women’s reproductive rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the governments try to nullify every concession they had made to Women as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the Women s' organizations, so governments are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. . . . Women’s rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace.

  The Revolutionary Women’s  Collective bases itself on the class-war, aims at the union of all reproductive Women into fighting organizations struggling for their emancipation from the yoke of reproductive slavery and from the oppression of the State. Its goal consists in the re-organization of social life on the basis of free reproduction, by means of the revolutionary action of the reproductive class itself. It considers that the organizations of the reproductive class is alone capable of realizing this aim, and, in consequence, its appeal is addressed to Women in their capacity as producers and creators of social riches, in opposition to the modern political parties which can never be considered at all from the points of view of Women’s reproductive rights.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Huh? In layman's terms please?
  
  Why do governments make concessions in the first place? What about the child's right to be? That is the question.
  

• tbs230 said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Well I'm pro-life. Any life. I also believe that life starts at conception. The minute the egg is fertilized, life beginnings. Not at 1 month, 6 weeks, second trimester. It starts at the beginning.
  
  I feel that to ask the government to make a decision on what a person can do with they're body is wrong.
  
  In that regard, I feel that the government should NOT be the last say in who dies and who lives.
  
  I am pro-life. And whatever saves the life of an individual is fine with me. But that's a choice that I should be allowed to make and no one should take away from me.
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 07, 2007....

  brunette: most pro-lifers would permit abortion in the cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life. where do you stand on those instances?
  
  TS: yes, it certainly does. thank heavens, a republican who really does believe in small government! :D
  
  np: i'm confused b/c i don't think i actually understand what your stand is WRT to the legality of abortion. perhaps i'm simply obtuse tonight. ?
  
  sheltercrow: that's a very nice soapbox you've climbed up onto. i'm afraid i do not at all understand the thrust of this drive-by cutting & pasting, though. ?
  
  tbs: i find myself just as confused here as i was w/ infernal's response.
  
  ed

• sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Except for the "The Revolutionary Women’s Collective" label it looks pretty good to me. 

  Maybe it could be called “The Woman’s Revolutionary Reproductive Committee”

• LayaMaria said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Hey Ed ;)
  
  I should think it boils down to what a person should do if the question applied to him/herself. Abortion's illegal in my country, btw, but a lot of women go ahead and get  (illegal) abortions anyway.
  
  If I were pregnant at the wrong time, I wouldn't get that abortion. You hold another life in your hands. It may be your choice what to do with your body, but the baby doesn't have a choice. And since the mother is the one who has a choice, does she choose to gratify herself by not having the baby because it's inconvenient, or disgraceful, or will interfere with her social life or her career, or does she take responsibility for her own actions by choosing to have that baby?
  
  Hey, if you don't want a child, then practice safe sex or don't do it at all. Don't make the child pay for your momentary pleasure.
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 07, 2007....

  sheltercrow: well, it seemed just a tad heavy handed to me on the polemics but it certainly does communicate your feelings about the matter, no question about it!
  
  layamaria: the why of someone getting one isn't always that simple, though. in the US, the crime statistics dictate that 20% of all women are raped, IIRC. there are also girls who are raped by family members. that's hardly "momentary pleasure", layamaria.
  
  ed

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 07, 2007....

  ed: So then, it would seem that you agree that everyone has the right to live/choose to live, but unlike me, you aren't unclear on whether the gov't should enforce that in every case, for every life including the unborn. I'm not sure how to balance those things, tbh - protecting the right of one human to live vs. taking away the reproductive rights of another, which could spiral into all sorts of other nasty things.
  
  WRT personal morallity, I would put the life of an unborn child above the woman's reproductive preferences every time, but I'm not sure I want to hand the government more power it could (and eventually probably would) abuse...it's the devil you know vs. the one you don't, in a sick way.
  
  It makes me sad to have to choose between advocating for saving some unborn lives and advocating for the protection of the reproductive rights (and maybe more) of all citizens of a country, including those people who have yet to be born.
  
  Does that make any more sense at all? (I told you I wasn't good at this. :-p)
  
  ~Infernal
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Now that we’ve put the lid on that subject how about this.

  CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT TO GLOBALISATION? As the world prepares for talks on a post-Kyoto plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it's not exactly encouraging to hear that rich countries pumped out 18.2 billion tonnes in 2005 - up from 18.1 billion in 2004 and just below a record 18.7 billion in 1990. And for exponents of globalisation, there's some bad news too: A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that climate change could scotch globalisation by 2040. "Some of the consequences could essentially involve the end of globalisation as we have known it ... as different parts of the Earth contract upon themselves in order to try to conserve what they need to survive," says Leon Fuerth of George Washington University, one of the report's authors. It predicts massive food and water shortages, devastating disasters and disease outbreaks - even if the United States does cave into pressure to cap its emissions. And peacebuilding group International Alert has published a new list of 46 countries it classifies as at risk of violent conflict and a further 56 that face a high risk of instability as a result of climate change.

  CHOLERA AND MEASLES SPREAD IN EASTERN CONGO: While the last three warlords from Congo's eastern Ituri district have joined the national army this week, drawing a line under a bloody ethnic conflict there, the humanitarian situation in North Kivu remains critical. Fighting between government soldiers, Tutsi insurgents, Rwandan Hutu rebels and local Mai Mai militia has forced more than 370,000 to flee their homes in the province this year. A cholera outbreak in Congo's eastern city of Goma is raising fears of an epidemic among tens of thousands of refugees in camps. Jaya Murthy, an emergency specialist for the U.N. Children's Fund, writes about his visit to Kitchanga where children are dying from measles at ramshackle health posts with few medicines. A child was killed this week, and 11 civilians were wounded, when police opened fire to calm an attack by several hundred displaced villagers on U.N. peacekeepers in Kiwanja. They complained they'd been waiting for humanitarian aid, including food, for three weeks.

  MYSTERIOUS DISEASE SPREADS IN ANGOLA: International health officials are investigating the emergence of a mysterious disease in Angola that has killed at least four people and sickened more than 200. The illness, which leads to weakness, muscular spasms, mental confusion and speech impairment, surfaced in Cacuaco, near Luanda, in early October, according to the World Health Organisation. It has since spread to seven neighbourhoods in the municipality, about 20 km (12.5 miles) north of the Angolan capital and home to some 200,000 people. Experts from the WHO, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Angolan government are investigating the outbreak.

  KOSOVO MILITIAS RESURFACE: Dec. 10 could trigger a declaration of independence from the U.N.-controlled province of Kosovo unless the international community comes to a decision on its future status by this deadline. Marko Jaksic, one of Serbia's negotiators in the status talks and a close ally of the Serbian prime minister, has warned that Belgrade won't stand by peacefully should this happen. Kosovo’s interior minister says a delay in the decision on Kosovo's status would lead to violence on the streets - and the Times reports that shady militia groups like the Albanian National Army are rearming themselves in anticipation. Former leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army also say they'll abandon the ceasefire if provoked by Serbia. Meanwhile, International Crisis Group warned in an October report that if formal partition or large-scale independence violence accompanies independence in Kosovo, peace in the neighbouring Presevo Valley could unravel, even leading to ethnic cleansing in southern Serbia.

  BIOFUELS STOP COLOMBIANS GOING HOME: As well as posing a threat to world food supplies, there's evidence that biofuels are contributing to displacement. A report from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre says companies cultivating palm oil for use as fuel are stopping displaced Colombians from going back to the land they were forced to leave during a major military campaign in 1996. It says the companies began establishing plantations on the land soon after the evictions, with the backing of the government, which has encouraged palm cultivation as part of an effort to eradicate illicit coca crops and promote regional development. In the northwestern department of Chocó, displaced people have established "Humanitarian Zones" in a desperate bid to hang on to their land and livelihoods.

  TYPHOON HEADS FOR FLOOD-HIT VIETNAM: Dozens of people have died in central Vietnam trying to cross streams or salvage wood in floodwaters. The region, which includes the Central Highlands coffee belt, has been hit hard by storms and floods since early October, which have killed nearly 200 people, caused property and crop damage of $300 million, and delayed the coffee harvest by two weeks. To make matters worse, Typhoon Peipah (a Chinese word for a popular pet fish in Macau), which has already killed five people in the northern Philippines, is forecast to slam into Vietnam this weekend, with the government warning of fresh flooding. Officials are also concerned that floods in Quang Tri province could help spread bird flu from its Gio Linh district, where the virus was confirmed in ducks last month.

• bloc said on Nov 07, 2007....

  "Life begins at conception because it is biologically impossible for it to begin at any other time. Every second after conception is absolutely essential for the life of a baby, so choosing a "time" one becomes human is as ludicrous as viability which changes regularly with technology. "
  
  I don't understand this reasoning. Frankly, the first sentence makes no sense to me. Every second before conception is absolutely essetial for the life of a baby as well. Sperm and egg are absolutely essential, etc, etc, etc. Beyond said, "so choosing a "time" one becomes human is as ludicrous". It isn't any more ludicrous than choosing conception. 
  
  
  @beyond
  Please read this link if you have time.

• CreativeWoman said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Abortion is such a personal decision.  Isn't it?  It is legal and I don't see it going away anytime soon.
  
  Personally, I could never have one.  I believe that life begins at conception no matter the circumstances.  I think that life is sacred.  I've never had to face such a decision.  I understand all the reasons why women do decide to have one.  I've known women who felt they had no other choice.
  
  CW
  

• one_wired_kitty said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Infernal - I do agree with you.

• queenparanoia said on Nov 07, 2007....

  ed: well if it's based on life or death... you know what if the mther cannot be pregnant or she'll die... there are so many instances like this.. although for me it would be still difficult...

• Fallyn said on Nov 07, 2007....

  I'm pro-choice......
  
  This question has affected me pretty drastically in the past.
  When i got pregnant with my third, my Clara, I was not in a spot to be having children.
  My body hadn't recovered from the last two....and from the depression, from the abuse, from everything i was going through.
  
  I planned to have an abortion.
   My ex...who was normally vehemently pro life, agreed. It was one of the few times i was EVER able to change his mind on ANYTHING.
  
   I knew i had a VERY short window of time...possibly as short as two weeks, before i got attached to the baby growing inside me.  Because i knew that would happen. But i also felt i could deal with it before I got attached.
  
  Well....one thing led to another....and it didn't happen. For one thing an abortion is not free. They are VERY expensive. You can sometimes find a facility that will do it on a sliding scale. But other than that....
  
  As the days went by I knew I couldn't do it. I'd gotten completely attached and I felt the baby inside me begging me to let it live. I just didn't know how I was going to break the news to my ex...or his parents. All of them were VERY supportive of the abortion.
  I ended up lying to all of them telling them that the doctor wouldn't do it for health reasons. I have a blood disorder.
  
  I cannot imagine life without my Clara. And even when i was planning the abortion i knew i would feel that way if it went on too long.
  
  I still feel VERY strongly that it is a choice each woman needs to be ABLE to choose for herself. There are still a lot of reasons I should not have had that third baby.....My health has suffered drastically for it. There were six specialists at her delivery. My doctor told me in no uncertain terms that if i got pregnant again i would likely die. I don't know what affect not having her would have had on my mental health but after her birth i went into an extreme post partum depression not helped of course by what my ex was putting me through. I became suicidal and at risk of hurting myself. Not all of this of course was because of her birth.....most of it i'm sure was brought on by my ex.
  
  but this is my story.....This probably should have been put in it's own post......but i don't think i could handle the responses right now, supportive or otherwise. I doubt i will check back on this thread, so please don't spam it by wishing me well or flaying me alive......it's not my post. thankyou.
  

• crybabylu said on Nov 07, 2007....

  My, you are a brave one, Silver, but you aren't "wearing" any labels you have to live up to, huh?

  My husband is pro-life and I am pro-choice  I stand alone in all my family.  They are all pro-life.

  The thing that gets me whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, should the government take a stand on it?  In this case I think they had to, although, I think it is a moral choice and I don't like it when the government tries to legislate morality, as such as the case with homosexuality and "gay Marriage" etc. (how do they have the right or anyone for that matter to forbid two people who love each other and want to be bonded together in marriage) is beyond me.

  However, I think the reason they should be invoved in this issue is because,  what would keep some from "linching" others (more than they already do) if there wasn't a law that dealt directly with it.  The law, in my opinion, keeps radicals from being able to go after people who perform abortions, and those having them.

• Brunettebmshell said on Nov 07, 2007....

   
  I still say absolutely not. God has a plan, and I truly believe it will work itself out. If I became pregant and having the baby meant it could possibly cost my life, then I would still have it. I stand by pro-life under any and all circumstances, even if the situation were rape or incest.
   
  BB

• starchini said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Im Pro Choice.  Murder is Murder no matter how u slice it but in everyday life people have the choice to murder or not.  Wether u decide to kill or not kill your baby is up to you.  I think that rape victims and women with life threatening complications should definitly be allowed to abort.  I think people who use it as a form of birth control should be in prison.  I also think that there are too many children growing up in orphanages already so if it were me and i didnt want my baby id sooner abort than put it in an orphanage.  I would be pissed if i grew up in an prphanage bc my mother was pro life and couldnt keep me.  I would rather id been aborted than shopped for by prospective parents.  Bleh.  Pro Choice definitly.

• rightwingwizard said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Many years ago someone very close to me had an abortion.  It was something which stood against all that she believed, but her circumstances were such that she couldn't bear to have the child.
   
  I was unaware of her pregnancy until after it was done.  She went into a deep depression afterward and her mother asked me to talk to her about it.  The problem was that I wasn't even supposed to know.  I couldn't comfort her without revealing to her that I knew which in turn would have caused her more pain.
   
  The question isn't as much whether abortion should be legal, available and easy to obtain.  The question is much more what can we do about the damage done to those who make the choice to abort under extreme pressure and suffer for years over the choice.  There have been many suicides due to the emotional pain caused.
   
  We don't talk much about that aspect, do we?
   
  rww

• blastfromthepast said on Nov 07, 2007....

  I am pro-choice because I've been there.

• ninjapirate said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Sorry to confuse you, I do that a lot.  I'll try to do better.  What I mean is that for myself I am pro life, for the most part since there might be an exception here and there, yet I can't judge others choices so I am pro choice for everyone else.  At the end of my statement I was just curious over the demographics of who leans where.  Hope that makes sense! 

• polarheart said on Nov 07, 2007....

  Phew, I never thought I get to the end of the comments - just scrolling! LOL - I didn't read all of them.  I am not going to comment, but rather ask, Ed:
   
  You know when you say: "i do not believe that you can call it a person until somewhere in the second trimester or so, and accordingly do not view abortion as murder."?
   
  Well, where exactly where is that "somewhere in the second trimester"? 
   
  It seems from that statement it could be really easy to make a "mistake" and go from being innocent to being a murderer.
   
  If you had to say "when" i.e. if the deciding line was up to you. . .where would you draw the line?  This is what I was trying to say in that post someone else wrote. . .I wanted to find out where each person felt where to draw the line.  Ok, yes that's why we have laws etc, but we surely all still have a PERSONAL opinion - yes?

• desertsienna2 said on Nov 08, 2007....

  I wouldn't define pro-choice that way.  I favour the government paying for ONE abortion and then after, unless it is for very good reason, it should be paid for by the patient.  No more after that.  Birth control and condoms are the way to prevent unwanted pregnancy.  No partial birth abortion.

• lfbno7 said on Nov 08, 2007....

  You wrote in your opinion that "i do not believe that you can call it a person until somewhere in the second trimester or so, and accordingly do not view abortion as murder." That is exactly my own belief, even to the ambiguity of "somewhere in the second trimester or so". I didn't read all the comments and I just noticed, after I wrote this, that polarheart also pointed to this phrase. I don't have an answer. Maybe there is a scientific answer that makes some kind of sense, a test that could be done to determine something or other, and that would determine whether it is legal or illegal to end this growing life. There is a point at which we can't think of an embryo as cells that can be vacuumed away, and we must start thinking of it as a baby that needs to be protected. Somewhere between the time a sperm cell pushes its way into an egg, and the time when the umbilical cord is cut, we need to change our view, from pro choice to pro life. The most extreme pro choice society I heard of was the Chinese of not so long ago, when the father could choose to have the baby left outside to die after it was born. It was a society that did not have the concept of individual human rights. It left all choices to the ruling male. Now aren't they legislating how many children a family can have, in the name of population control? At least it's in the name of something other than male dominance.

• minniemouse said on Nov 08, 2007....

  I am definitely pro-choice....abortion is a hard decision to make and should not be taken lightly, but it is a decision for the woman....NOT the government, be it federal or state.  I agree with you Ed, that I believe its a life somewhere in the second trimester....in  my opinion, the baby needs to be able to survive outside the mother's body in order for me to consider it a "life".....that may seem drastic to some, but that's my opinion.  Minnie

• RollingC said on Nov 08, 2007....

  Marking for later commenting....off to work I go!
  Rc
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 08, 2007....

  infernal: in essence, a person's rights to [x] at some point run up against someone else's rights to [y]: my right to free expression for example is trumped in some cases in US law by public safety (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre). i feel comfortable w/ my stance b/c i don't believe it's life at conception, so for me, there's no conflict, see?
  
  sheltercrow: er, the subject's hardly done. please refrain from posting completely unrelated copy & pastings in a subject that engenders a great deal of passion on all sides, though.
  
  bloc: still trying to find the time to read that link--will respond to it when i have done so.
  
  CW: i respect that you've made that determination for yourself. :>
  
  queen: i doubt most women have abortions lightly. indeed, i don't personally know anyone who has had one and did.
  
  fallyn: thank you for sharing what must've been a very difficult thing to say.
  
  dee: i don't understand what you mean by not wearing any labels. ? no, i imagined that your husband has a pretty well-articulated pro-choice position, to be honest. i'm not at all sure i agree that it's necessarily a matter of morality, though. ?
  
  brunette: so what about in the case of someone else that was raped? i didn't mean by my question that you would be: i meant in the case of others.
  
  starchini: good to see you again, it's been a few days! :> so you think that abortion is murder? hm.
  
  rww: no, we don't, but then again, this is very much a matter of someone having elective surgery. as i mentioned in passing in my comment to queen, i know of no one who's had an abortion who did so lightly, and similarly, i don't know of anyone who wasn't incredibly torn up by it.
  
  blast: jeez, haven't seen you in a bit. i'm sorry that you have been there.
  
  np: ah, that i understand--thank you for clarifying. :>
  
  polar: i'm not sure where i draw the line, to be honest. i've had this discussion countless times in the past and i recall the fetal development being distinct from the fetus of another mammal somewhere in the second trimester--that's where i put that line. an excellent question, btw: if you cannot draw the line at conception, you do need some guidelines re: where it lies, you're absolutely right.
  
  desertsienna: i'm curious why you favor the government paying for an abortion. can you explain your thinking on that, please? i'm not a fan of partial-birth abortions, myself, although i think that in the traditional areas of rape, incest or life of the mother i would support that.
  
  lbf: you're correct, the chinese government has decreed a one child/family limit, has had such a policy in place for some time. there's a concern among some, given the vast preference among most chinese parents-to-be, that daughters will be left to die in favor of having sons. indeed, there's something of a crisis apparently in china due to a shortage of brides and bridenapping is reportedly a serious issue there.
  
  mm: not much for me to say other than to say that obviously we agree. :>
  
  rollingc: dude! where've you been?! i will wait to see what you have to say. :>
  
  ed

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 08, 2007....

  ed: I do agree with you re: rights and where the overlap means compromise. It seems that the main difference in our two opinions on the matter really does hinge on where life begins. I see how it's not in conflict for you if we're not talking about mother's rights vs. baby's rights there. In my view, we are, thus the moral conflict as well as the legal one.
  
  minnie: So...the baby is alive when it can live without biological life support from its mother? What about technical life support? I ask because someone on another site once argued that the baby was alive only when it could sustain its life (food, etc. notwithstanding) without medical or biological life support of any sort. Under that definition, would people with pacemakers, those people who would die without them because their heart would not beat, alive?
  
  ~Infernal
  

• bloc said on Nov 08, 2007....

  we keep talking about "when life begins" or if the baby is "alive". I'm very picky about language, and the truth is that sperm and eggs are alive. LIfe is a continuous chain from the begining of the first life form and there is never a gap between our state as living beings and our childrens state as living beings. 
  
  
  Again, I would suggest a reading of the link I provided above. It gives the most thorough and scientific look at this issue I have read, and the author (carl sagan) comes to an interesting conclusion.
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 08, 2007....

  Sorry. I am ambivalent about the subject of abortion ant tried to misdirect the path of the discussion. I personally think that I haven’t the right to speak on it unless I feel certain. On abortion I know next to nothing. I leave it to the gods.

  I believe in a woman’s individual rights.

  I don’t know about when a fetus is considered a human apart from its mother.

  All life is sacred.

  I think I’m glad I wasn’t aborted.

  I think children should have a better chance at being adults.

• crybabylu said on Nov 08, 2007....

  silver: , if you are wearing the label "Christian" you are autimatically stero
  typed to believe a certain way.
  You wouldn't believe the flack I get for helping girls who don't know
  what to do when they find out theyre pregnant.  I never give advice.
  I let them talk, p
   
  other christians tell me i need to be telling them it is murder, and what the
  consequences are.  I have a group of gay friends. "seven males,
   and two females" (we have started a small group that  meet on Saturday
  afternoon to discuss issues that affect them)
  we hang out all the time, and I run them places if they need it, and
  don't have transportation.  I loan them money, they would do anything
  for me, and I for them.  We go to concerts togethr, etc.
  My "Christian" friends tell me, i need to be sharing the scriptures with
  them.....I shrug my shoulders and say.  What scriptures?  You mean
  God is Love?.......To me people shouldn't be labeled, so it isn't a label
  I pinned on myself.........we as human beings are very complex, and we have
  have different facets to our thinking and our personality......anyhow, that is
  what I meant by "labels".

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 08, 2007....

  bloc: I found that very interesting reading, and I think I agree with most of what was said. That doesn't mean that the questions aren't worth asking anyway, to hopefully get people to refine their stated views and to help people who don't necessarily agree better understand where they're coming from.
  
  You raise a good point about sperm and eggs being alive - I hadn't thought about it that way. I don't think it will change my stance, but it's definitely something that bears further thought.
  
  ~Infernal
  

• bloc said on Nov 08, 2007....

  "if you are wearing the label "Christian" you are autimatically stero typed to believe a certain way."
  
  This is so true, and hysterically funny. It's funny because the Christian view of abortion has changed drastically over time but most Christians aren't familiar with their own history. Many Christians in the past, including those in positions of power, believed that abortion was only murder if done after "quickening" which is when the woman first feels the fetus move. This is obviously well after conception.

• Brunettebmshell said on Nov 08, 2007....

   Ah I see. Well, everyone has their own beliefs, and it is obviously their own personal choice. But I still believe it to be unfair and wrong to abort a baby, even if it was produced from something as awful as rape. The mother could keep it or choose to give it up for adoption. But why go to the extreme of killing an innocent child?
  
  
  BB

• bloc said on Nov 08, 2007....

  because 4 cells is not a child? 4 cells do not have self awareness, do not feel pain, and do not have emotions. I find it far worse to kill a living animal that feels pain than 4 cells which do not. 4 cells which are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. 

• crybabylu said on Nov 08, 2007....

  bloc:  Yeah, well they seem to forget all of that, conveniently so.  huh?

  It is hard talking to some christians.  When I tell them I am pro-choice, and I believe gays should be allowed to marry,   I could swear, they are looking for "stones" to throw at me.

  I just think we all have different things, and experiences,  that make up our thinking, and just because we believe in the same god, doesn't mean we all have conformed in to the same thought process.

• crybabylu said on Nov 08, 2007....

  I just can't see telling someone else what they can do with their own bodies.  To me that is so personal.

• starchini said on Nov 08, 2007....

  Yea i think abortion is murder but i think people should be able to choose to murder or not : )  kinda a fucked up point of view huh?  I dont think its murder in the sense of stabbing someone in the head till they are dead but murder in the way of stoping a beating heart.  Like euphinasia or however you spell it.  I consider abortion to be the same as stoping life suport.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 09, 2007....

  infernal: exactly. :>
  
  bloc: finally have read that article. folks, it's long, but well-worth the effort.
  
  sheltercrow: fair enough. :>
  
  dee: ah...now i understand. yeah, i can see how some folks would make assumptions along those lines and i can understand your seeming frustration.
  
  brunette: so to you, life begins at conception then. that's what i thought you might say. :>
  
  starchini: er, if you view it as murder, why is that OK but murder of a fully grown person isn't? i really don't think i'm following you here. ?
  
  ed

• bloc said on Nov 09, 2007....

  "I dont think its murder in the sense of stabbing someone in the head till they are dead but murder in the way of stoping a beating heart. "
  
  4 cells don't have a beating heart.
  
  
  @ed
  carl sagan was a very smart man.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 09, 2007....

  bloc: neither come to think of it do either a sperm or an egg have a heart. and yes, yes he was.
  
  ed

• starchini said on Nov 10, 2007....

  lol ok let me go at this from another angle.  Euphinasia-  Stoping life suport.  People murder people bc they are suffering or are doomed or may never wake up or the hospital bills are too high or the inheritence is getting dusty.  This form of murder is considered ok to some people.  This form of murder is similar to the abortion type of murder.  the mother is too young or she was raped or the baby has some sort of deadly disease or the mother has other plans or it was incest or she was a slut. This type of murder is also considered ok to some people.  I believe that stopping a beating heart in any form is murder.  People have free will and i am all for that.  The controversy i feel is people are tagging certain types of murders with morals and such.  I think its ok to kill a baby when the mother was raped.  I think its ok to kill ganny if she has had a good run.  I dont think its ok to walk up to someone bc u dont like them and stab them in  the head till they are dead.  Now did i make sense?  Is this a weird opinion? 

• starchini said on Nov 10, 2007....

  So im pro choice bc i believe if u want to kill someone you should be able to. is it morbid that im giggling as i type this?

• starchini said on Nov 10, 2007....

  Bloc- but some people get abortion later in the pregnancy when the heart is beating, dont they?

• TinSoldier said on Nov 10, 2007....

  Remind me to never become your grandfather, starchini.

• polarheart said on Nov 10, 2007....

  I think a lot of our opinions are ultimately based on whether we think we will have to face consequences / judgement for our beliefs / non-beliefs.  I for one believe in a Heavenly Father (God to most). . .there is a Psalm David wrote about being knit together in his mother's womb. . .it is a very precious Scripture to me for various reasons. 

  I have said before in another post that I believe that until the fertilised egg attaches to the womb its life span is limited.  Yes, an egg and a sperm on its own is alive. . .but it has a "shelf life" of "x". . .even a fertilised egg has a certain "shelf life"; unless it attaches to the lining of the womb it will pass out of the body and die.

  Since I believe that cutting off the potential of a fully formed human being is wrong as this is where the "knitting" process starts I would not want to kill, destroy, hinder or endanger a new life even in its beginning stages. 

  For those who do not believe in God and only go according the law of the country I suppose it is really important to know EXACTLY up till what point they can cut off a life. . .a fine line in the difference for them between innocence and murder.  For those who dont care when a life is cut off. . .lets hope you're not the victim one day.

  Polar

• starchini said on Nov 10, 2007....

  Why tinsoldier are you old and rich? hehehhe

• lfbno7 said on Nov 10, 2007....

  To take this discussion in another direction, which isn't all bad, I don't think we can get the definitive answer on abortion until we know more about life and death. Where do we come from? Where are we going? What happens to the soul of the child who was aborted? Does it simply wait for another opportunity? Is anything really destroyed? Perhaps not. Is an abortion nothing more than the cancellation of an appointment, one that can be rescheduled? Is a miscarriage also nothing more than the cancellation of an appointment, by the child?
  
  I think that we get so intense and cemented in our opinion on abortion, so sure that we have all the facts we need, and yet I don't think we do.

• polarheart said on Nov 10, 2007....

  Ifbno7, I get what you are saying and tend to agree to an extent.  Because we cannot know for definite I would rather say we should not interfere. . .I am no expert, but I would not want to tamper with God's plans.

• bloc said on Nov 10, 2007....

  @starchini
  
  "Bloc- but some people get abortion later in the pregnancy when the heart is beating, dont they?"
  
  I'm not completely sure what you're asking me. I thought I as clear that I wouldn't allow it past a certain point with a few possible exceptions.
  
  
  @lfb
  
  
  good points, but what should we do in the meantime. I think it will be a very long time before we answer all those questions.

• lfbno7 said on Nov 10, 2007....

  In the meantime I agree exactly with what Silver said. "You wrote in your opinion that "i do not believe that you can call it a person until somewhere in the second trimester or so, and accordingly do not view abortion as murder." That is exactly my own belief, even to the ambiguity of "somewhere in the second trimester or so".

• TinSoldier said on Nov 10, 2007....

  starchini -- no, but I do have this time machine...
  
  ;-)
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 11, 2007....

  starchini: um...again, why do you believe that abortion is murder? that's what i'm trying to understand. ?
  
  polar:
  
  polar: thank you for the considered response. :>
  
  lbf: "the cancellation of an appointment"...that's a fascinating way of contextualizing the matter. i want to think about that a bit. btw, i'm pleasantly surprised that we appear to be in agreement.
  
  ed

• RollingC said on Nov 11, 2007....

  Abortion….what can I say about abortion that hasn’t been said already? I remember the time when I was for pro-choice and the woman should have a say in the matter as long as it didn’t violate the parameters of the law.  I think (if I’m not mistaken) it was 3 months before it was considered a human being but even then I thought there was something missing in that way of thinking….even though it brought about an easy excuse to do it and not have the responsibility of carrying a child, giving birth and then taking care of it for the next 20 years…if not longer or indeed forever.

  I partook in this way of thinking and even enticed my then lover to have an abortion quickly as I wasn’t about to marry her (which I would of if she had denied it) but getting a simple country girl who was in love with me to follow my advice wasn’t that hard to do or difficult thing to accomplish.

  This was years ago and after many a moon to think about it…let alone the religious experience that I had…led me to realize the awful decision that I made that day so long ago.  It was a mistake as today I would’ve had a son in his middle twenties or there about.

  I am now a firm believer of God and the fact that human beings have souls that will one day…God willing…rise up and join Him with the other multitude of souls up there in heaven somewhere.

  This leads to another avenue of explanation that I won’t go into right now as I like to keep my beliefs on God as simple as possible for the question….why are we here? And where are we going after we die? Are not to be answered lightly for the truth of the matter is that it takes faith to believe in the afterlife and how to explain that without proof physical to someone that doesn’t believe is kind of hard to say the least…let alone frustrating.

  I believe that in the moment of conception the soul is formed and even when I didn’t believe I realized that human beings (although flesh and bone just like the beasts of the field) are above the animals in spite of the fact that we do animalistic things to each other and history is full of that shameful fact.

   

  The woman should have the right (even though the Church is against it) to use contraceptives so not to get pregnant until ready for it….but once pregnant her body belongs to the child that she’s carrying it and abortion is murder…plain and simple….and yes…to my undying shame I am guilty of murder…even though at the time I didn’t think of it.  Yes I’ve confessed it already and been granted forgiveness but I cannot condone abortion under any circumstances unless the life of the woman is in peril…and even then my own grandmother was advised to abort her child but she refused…I wouldn’t be here if my grandmother (mom’s mother) had not been so religious.

   

  Well sorry for this rant but I needed to explain my point of view…especially after being away from Soulcast for so long…my new job and other issues with the family have been keeping me extremely busy and when I get home I don’t surf the net like before but I’m back and I’m here to stay.

  This is a good post Ed and I’m writing this before reading all the comments before me….so who knows if I’ll come back and opinion some more.

   

  Rc

• silverwhisper said on Nov 12, 2007....

  rollingc: always a pleasure to see you, esp of late as it seems you don't have much time to spend on SC.
  
  i recognize that this is a subject for which many of us have deeply-held and often fervently-held positions. someone i once knew in another online community was a hard-line liberal and fervently pro-choice, but wrote the harrowing story of how he came to change his stance on the matter. it was intensely personal, as all such stories are, and as you might well imagine.
  
  thank you for sharing yours, rolling c.
  
  ed

• pookiedookie said on Nov 13, 2007....

  pro-choice all the way.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 13, 2007....

  been wondering if you were gonna show up, duke. :>
  
  ed

• blastfromthepast said on Nov 13, 2007....

  Silver:  I'm schooling on-line, moving in 3 days, and working 4 days a week.  That's why I haven't been around much lately.  I manage to find time to pop in from time to time, but only to comment or read other's posts.  I'll be back in a few months, though.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....

  i hope all goes well w/ the move, blast--be well and i look forward to seeing you regularly again in the next calendar year. :>
  
  ed

• crybabylu said on Nov 14, 2007....

  I'm gaining.  Now I am only 1 minute behind you.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....

  :D

• sheltercrow said on Nov 14, 2007....

  This is, well...

   

  ...Darn funny.

• crybabylu said on Nov 21, 2007....

  My brother-n-law asked me to post his personal opinion, it is as follows:

  If the mother's life is at risk, (personal choice of course) he would favor abortion.  If the baby is a product of incest, he favors (strongly) abortion   If there is a determinable fact that the baby has an abnormality, he favors abortion.

    But, of course, he believes it is a mother's choice to do what she wants with her own body.  He is not religious but considers himself to be Spiritual.  He doesn't think God would want to make a woman do anything that would cause her irrevicable  (is there such a word?) stress or harm.         

• lfbno7 said on Nov 21, 2007....

  just change the second i to an o and you have a word.

• crybabylu said on Nov 22, 2007....

  thanks, lfbno7.....lol, dee

Comment on "pushing the hot button: abortion"

Currently tagged	abortion pushing the hot button Pro-life pro-choice politics issues (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment