With the existance of abortion though, it removes from line of sight the consequences of having sex. And with the removed from sight, it also removes understanding of the probability of the effect. If more people were to have "unwanted" children and actually show that sex does have a dangerous and probable consequence, than it is possible for teenagers to begin taking safer measures. Whether this be using a large(r) amount of contraceptives, or not having sex is undeterminable.

Neither does it validate abortion. That is a double-edged sword. Forcing it to cut both sides.

But you yourself could become anything with the right manipulation. Under such a premise it is possible to invalidate all beings as what they are under their classification. And this is also including manipulation that doesn't exist as a technology yet. We haven't even created a new organism yet, while there is work into that currently I believe. So you are basing a belief that it is not human, from possible manipulation of technology that hasn't been invented?

That I do agree with. But in truth from the beginning the line is already fuzzy. I mean we are asked questions of whether it is human or not. We are asked questions of whether it is living or not. So why simple choose the point of which the brain functions? And what determination of function is being used. Fully functioning, or partially. Is it sentient when the brain is partially functioning? Are we to allow possible "human" beings to be "murdered" because we haven't split the hairs correctly?

I just wanna say sorry if the quotes are fucked up, but I generally don't use them.

Yes, I'm afraid I'll have to go with "NOT AGAIN!" too.

If anyone's counting oppinions, however, I'm pro-choice. I do not consider anything to be human if it's not self-aware, on more than an instinctual level.

i agree with anybody that says its a womans right to chose up till three months. after that there needs to be another circumstance like the life of the mother is threatened.

the law as it stands is fine with me..

those that want to make abortion completely illegal make me want to propose free abortions..

and the fundamentalists that carry the fetus signs make me think of worse propositions.. how bout mandatory sterilization!?
i think we should have at least free vasectomys, why should only the well to do afford sterilization.. $300 for a vasectomy? thats one program i'd like to see recieve federal funds =)

how bout we have a test that people take before they can have kids.. ie a test(yea i know it is problematic to come up with such a test) to show that the person would be a decent parent before they can walk around with fertile sperm.. i'm suggesting this for men only at the moment, for i feel that men are more of a problem when it comes to baby makin, heeh.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human

And...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetus.

Just from combining the two definitions, I think a reasonable argument can be made to show that a human fetus is indeed a human.

Yeah, but having many unwanted children would just cause tonnes of problems for those kids. Why should we have a glut of unappreciated, unwanted children in society just to prove that you should consider the consequences of rolling in the hay? Better education in schools is one solution, I think, and making contraceptives cheaper and more available.

Yeah, neither side will ever be happy, so that's why I believe in the three month compromise. Being in the middle is the best place to be. "ABORTIONS FOR SOME!" ;)

There's no question of whether or not it's alive, perse, because the cells are functioning like cells and reproducing, etc. You use plants as an example (I think it was you), and no one questions whether or not plants are alive.

I think I read somewhere that something is sentient when it becomes self-aware, so it's hard to define and more research would have to be done. I think that fetuses can be considered brain dead, except in reverse (going from nothing to something over time, rather than degrading).

Using specific functions of the brain is also hard to define. Motor ability is hardly a good judge of sentience, because animals can all move and we consider very few of them to be sentient beings. Random nerve impulses aren't a good measure, either, because at that stage, it could just as easily be the system jump-starting itself.

That is a personal belief. It doesn't work for the mass populace. As what is given to the mass populace by the government, in terms of laws and such, should be based around logic and need.

Or perhaps we could cook up the unadopted children and feed them to the homeless?

So we have obviously determined that it is living. But we haven't found a determination for it being human yet correct? Now you have stated several ways to possible determine when it becomes human, but all of these ways are rather fishy at best. So the question lies how do we determine if it is human? The only way that seems apparent to me would be to utilize what every human has. DNA. But it is currently improbable to test the DNA of a fetus. Thus we must utilize the next best thing. The chromosome pair set. All normal humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes, thus it is logical to assume that if a defect hasn't been detected in the child during pregnancy the fetus has a 46 chromosome pair set. This would in essence make it human. And give it the rights of all humans.

Of course education would be a better solution. But even with education you still maintain a sense of arrogance. And without something shattering that illusion of control, you are likely to only gain better educated pregnant teens.

good idea raven.. but id prefer you use fetuses, oh and just make sure you give the homeless a choice!

The more "enlightened" we get, the less respect we have for the weakest among us. Funny how the liberals talk about how much of a champion they are for the defenseless.......

I appreciate you for going for any other angle than the "WHAT? YOU WILL BURN IN HELL HEATHEN!!111" Raven, but still, what you just posted is a bit silly. Of course it's personal belief. Why cant a belief be based on quantifiable reasoning, however, I do not see. You have no point.

Like you and the poor, huh, Vinth?

It's very probable to test DNA, so I'm going to assume you meant impractical. Sure, it's impractical: why bother checking each person before performing an abortion?

"Yep, that's a couple a human cells in there, alright." :blah

So someone with 47 chromosomes or other defect isn't essentially human and therefore can be aborted no matter what?

By using genetics as a basis, you can only define physically what is human and what is not. And, the end result is dependant on the conditions that the cell has to grow in.

Again, look at my cells from here and there example. They've got human DNA chromosomes in them, so do they count as human too? We can keep organs alive in machines, so because they have chromosomes and DNA, should they be granted rights? "In essence" they are human, too.

I think you might have misunderstood me; I meant better education about the risks involved in unprotected sex, not better education overall, although that couldn't hurt.

Regardless, though, I didn't meet a single person in high school with an average above 80% that got pregnant themselves or got someone pregnant. Better educated people tend to evaluate the consequences more.

Just a point, not an argument ... so far.

The existence of the abortion is here ... duh, right? What I mean is that now that the idea of an "out" is out there, people with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason) will seek them whether they're illegal or not. This is NOT a statement for against the government paying for abortions. I'll set that aside. What I'm saying is that if an abortion is illegal, then people will find some nasty, back alley, unsterile, unqualified place to get them anyway. I'd rather it be legal, sterile, and out in the open. It's not something I'd prefer for myself should I be in the situation but I'd at least like to leave the decision open to anyone who has to face this dilemma.

The public can be conditioned to do or not do all sorts of things. Just because an option exists doesn't mean people will select it. It's a matter of social programming, education all sorts of things.

Increasing the availability of morning-after pills, and sufficiently educating the populace about them, will hopefully render this intractable issue moot.

More later.

Personally, I hate the terms pro-choice and pro-life. Stop sugar coating it. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion. There is nothing else involved.

Anyway, I am anti-abortion. ITs more than a lump of cells. ITs a human being. It won't become anything else without interference.

In the case of rape: We execute the child (a victim of this crime) and let the animal off on a plea bargain? What kind of justice is that?

And that part about Catholic hospitals not aorting to save the mother: thats bullshit. My sister-in-law is a maternity nurse and she says its the only time catholic hospitals do abort.


As for the legal issue: The Supreme Court should have never touched it. Abortion is a state issue. The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it.

I have stood on both sides of this issue, it has been argued ad nauseum here, and frankly the topic bores me now. I will throw my two cents in the bucket though, because I said I would.

I agree with Kellychaos, who said pretty much the same thing I was going to say. Personally, I am against abortion as far as an after-the-fact method of birth control. But there are plenty of other situations where abortion is not only a viable option (in cases of rape or incest, or if the child will be so deformed that they will never have much chance of a real life), but sometimes even necessary (life of the mother threatened by the pregnancy). Because of these exceptions to the rule, you cannot outright make abortion illegal. I'd rather see a normal child adopted than aborted, but it's not my place to make someone else's moral decisions for them.

That said, limits certainly do need to be maintained as far as a cut-off date where abortion is no longer allowed in the pregnancy, when the fetus is developed past a certain point. Agreeing on when exactly life begins is a difficult matter however, since both sides seem to differ in their definition and criteria somewhat.

I would rather see abortions performed in a safe, clean, clinical environment than in a back alley with a clothes hanger. Keep it legal, there's no other way. This is America, we should have the freedom to make our own choices.

i dont like sugar coating it either.

you can consider me pro-abortion through choice :)

though i don't usually tell people that.. ill stick with pissing people off with my anti-corporate anti-war politics.

despite my pro-abortion feelings i still wouldnt vote/campaign/support anything that is pro-abortion without giving people the choice to abort.

Oh, for fuck's sake, don't get your panties in a bunch over a little bit of centralization; abortion should be everyone's issue.

What's to stop one state from legalizing abortions and not others? Everyone who wanted one would just go there, then go back home.

The heart of the matter. It's pretty damn obvious that one law will never make every American happy. True, there are some die-hards in both camps that will only be happy when everyone has to live by their rules, but those folks are assholes and we don't need to cater to them.

Either side has a moral stance. The act of imposing morality of any kind upon your society is an effort made to make it better for all. If states were given back the authority to devise their own regional moralities on this issue, then, either the Pro- or Anti-Abortion states would flourish for their choices. Those states that chose the incorrect moral path, whichever that may be, would suffer for it.

You could still live in your state and get an abortion in the next state, were it to be illegal at home. That protection would fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is Federal. Interested parties would surely form supply services for those in need who live in anti-abortion states, just as those people provide abortions now at no cost to those that cannot afford them.

Blah.

I agree with ProtoClown. I'm glad abortion got you guys warmed up a bit, but there is no more tired a topic of discussion.

Its called seperation of powers and was the biggest sticking point when we started out writing our Constitution.

Our states do have their own identities. Its important to us.

And if everyone is so big about choice (by the way, the guy who came up with that term has admitted its bullshit), why not give the victim a choice?

Okay, I think a summary is needed:

So far, the main arguments that has anything behind it for abortion is that some people were raped, some cannot financially afford it, kids will still have sex anyway, and some will die if it isn't done.

Rape Issue: Proper education on morning after pills in health classes should reduce the issue. As the last straw, adoption is the answer for an unwanted child.

Financial Problems: Same as rape, except adoption will be much more frequent than the use of pills.

Still Have Sex: Some will, but that falls only on them. There are many alternatives to intercourse that do not induce pregnancy: oral sex, hand jobs, leg jobs, toys, etc. Even if one does get pregnant, it is all too possible to give the baby up for adoption.

Harm to the Mother: The exception to the rule. If it is believed that the mother has a probable chance of dying, she may decide whether or not she wants an abortion.

The arguments on whether or not fetuses are human are not are irrelevant to the posters point. The point is that if adoption practices were banned or limited, fewer minor offences would occur. That is something I agree with.

Wrong, El Blanco. There is a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I am pro choice, but I myself would not particip[ate in an abortion, therefor I am NOT pro abortion.

But you support someone else's right to do so? That makes you pro-abortion.

There is no other issue discussed by either camp. Its all about abortion.

And, you can look at it this way:

Many "pro-lifers" support the death penalty, so how are they pro-life?

Many "pro-choicers" support strict gun control (and the outright banning) and cigarette laws etc so how are they pro-choice?

I AGREE WITH EVERYONE :picklehat

re: Blanco: Stupid semantic quibbling.