What's your stance on abortion? Why?

Personally, I'm against it in the supreme majority of cases.

Why? I'm against killing human beings.

Does a human fetus (Latin for baby, by the way. Everyone loves twisting words.) satisfy scientific criterea for life?

MOTION -- does it seem to move under its own power? Does it move
with some discernible purpose? (Toward food, away from heat, etc)
There exist documented cases of babies moving away from instruments of abortion doctors, and also trying to move away from saltwater method.
REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself,
either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in
some way?
Humans develop sexual organs while in the womb.
CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients
in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually
multiply?
Umbilical cord.
GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in
complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?
This one is pretty obvious.
STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external
stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect
external conditions?
See motion, above.

I've heard the human in it's developmental stages in the womb 0referred to as a parasite. People who claim that it becomes human at birth are committing a logical fallacy. Humans require the care of another for months afterwards. There are cases of infants having all of their medical and nutritional needs met but dying because of a lack of attention. This aside, it's a given that an infant will die if no kind of care is given. Not to be confused with emo kids.

So, it's alive. And it's human. Well, this is just enough cause to call it a human being.

Does this infringe on a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body? No. One's rights should never interfere with those of another human being, in this case, the fetus.

Should it be allowed in special cases? I believe that abortion is only justifiable if the mother's life is put in danger, and only then.

But what are your stances?

I'm going to go with Bill on this one. He summed everything up well.

To say the least, yes abortion is murder. Do I necessarily think that a woman should be able to go willy nilly and kill off a fetus when she wants to? No. It's called birth control people.

Unless there is a special case where the woman's life was in danger, or another experience which could be traumatizing(prior to the impregnation), then it could be possibly acceptable.

If a woman has an abortion just because of cosmetic reasons(i.e. they don't want a C-Section done) then, if you'll pardon this language, to Hell with them. There was a case a few years back where a woman refused a C-Section because of cosmetic reasons and 1 of her twins died during the childbirthing.

Should a woman have a right to choose to have an abortion without governmental dictation? Depends on the intensity of the situation.

If it's an 11 year old girl who got pregneant perchance, then by all means she should be allowed to get one, as her body isn't mature enough to support the child(both physically and mentally). But if it's a woman in her early twenties who wanted one just because she was too lethargic and inconsiderate for the feelings of both her spouse(or mate, whichever you prefer) and her immediate family, then she does not need one. Maybe having the child can teach her a lesson in humility.

Well...yeah, i'm out.

I too am against it for most cases. However, it's quite a sticky pickle to make proper legislation for. You see, it's going to be hard to find a way that works in the 'most' sense. We could probably make some papers that have a long list of the exceptions, but the problem is that at some point, it's going to just be discrection.

While I would love to see harsh enforcement against abortion, we must be wary of creating an Agamben State of Exception. (At least with reproduction.)

We may just have to make this issue black and white, which would really be a shame.

If I remember correctly, there was legeslation signed into law against partial-birth abortion. That still isn't enough, though.

Personally I follow Pro-Choice. Why? Because the fetus is still part of the Woman thus the woman's body, the woman's choice.

The Fetus started as a cell in the woman’s body, and grew into the fetus; it is not its own human yet. It is still largely the woman; it is supplied with what it needs through the woman, umbilical cord. Until the baby is actually born, or at a very late stage of pregnancy, the baby is the woman's body. Yes things are developing, but what part of your body isn’t? The heart develops and re-pairs itself, like other tissues and muscles.

Also, think of the bad parts of Anti-Abortion laws.

Rape, traumatizes woman, kid has no father and mentally insecure mother, may not turn out the best.

Teen Pregnancies, 16 year old has a kid. The parents can't pay for there grandkids if there in the middle of raising there own kids, a whole lot of issues for the kid there, once again could have a really messed up life.

Accidental Pregnancies, always this here, if a couple did not want to have a kid, say for financial difficulties, weren’t ready yet, or whatever and it happens, kid may end up with a poorer raising or something else.

So the question comes down to this, do you want a kid to be alive, and have a life where he could very possible be miserable and think himself cursed almost, or just not let the life happen at all?

Until Late pregnancy or birth, a fetus is, in reality another organ in a woman. Partial Birth abortions are already to hard to get, so if the couple finds out early, which they most likely will in honest cases, then there’s no reason not to let the woman decide what to do with her body.

My opinion on abortion is that it's a very, very disqusting thing to do.

For one, abortion is something incredibly horrible. You kill a human being, before it even has the chance to take a single breath of earthy air. For all we know, that child could of changed the entire world in some way. I find abortion in the same moral tier as murder, probably even higher because we'll never know how they act as I have already said. If you kill a baby before it's even seen the light of day, your pretty much destroying it's right to live. I'd understand considering abortion if it's caused by rape or an unlawful way, but you don't need to kill the kid. When you give birth to him, send him to an orphanage, or try to make the best of it with what you got.

That's my opinion though, don't know what you think. -_-;;

Haru FTW. You've got to think to the future for the child rather than yourself/yourselves. THis is a human being you're dealing with, not a piece of furniture. If you can't take care of him/her, some one else may be able to. YOU may be able to.

Adoption, lol

Ahem.

From answers.com

Having establish both that a fetus is human regardless of being attached to the mother as the fetus does not meet organ criterea and in realizing that one's rights should never interfere with another human's rights, especially and above all the right to live.

Adoption can still give a child issues, you are aware of that. Alot of things can, yes, but Adoption could still lead to other less "Happily Ever After" Possibilities.

And how is Adoption a solution for a Rape victim?

Anyway, Abortion is entirly a battle of Whoes rights are whose. The woman's rights vs. the unborn babies rights. The baby that is not yet alive. Yes some major organs start functioning while fetus is being developed, but the baby itself is not its own life yet.

What I'm saying is that I don't think its murder or an invasion of the unborn's rights. The baby could grow up to do great things? Alot of people could. Saying that because a child who was aborted would've changed humanity... its not a reasonable argument.

Thats my veiw though, its what I think, Im not a good debater so I probably ain;t gonna change anyones mind, but all the reasons for Abortion just seem either hypothetical, without a good base or unreasonable to me.

I've always been against from the day I heard about it....but seriously, if you dumb women don't want children or are not ready to commit to raising a child, then for goodness sake, get on the birth pills or something. I know it's not a grandtee against getting pregant, but those odds are better than if it's not used.
The worlds already getting too overcrowded as it is ladies...

But prehaps the main reason I'm against abortion is because it results in the loss of a child that can never have a say in this. To make such a choice, are we not murders? We may not have held the knife or gun, but we gave the order, and that's no better than if the execution was done in person...

It's difficult to see this subject in eiether black and white or shades of grey. Reasonable excuses such as if the women is raped or if it incrouches on the women's health are valid, but I still think it's wrong...why produce a child and than kill it before it even enters the world? I guess this is the price we pay for being sexually overactive mammals...

Killing a child because they might have a bad life is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

And adoption is a solution for a rape victim because if they are unable to raise the child themselves they can give it into the hands of someone who IS capable of doing so.

Kid, are you incapable of reading?

Motion/Stimulus Response(Moving to and away from abortion tools, saltwater method, etc.)- The child's movement in the womb is controlled by the mother's body, not the childs, it would be the mothers Stimulus Response retracting the baby, unless it was at the point close to partial birth, the muscels would not have nessisarily have developed enough to move on its own, and still be considered the fetus itself avoiding it.

For this? I dunno, maybe make it so once the fetus is close to fully formed, like a point in pregnancy where all these things start to happen; maybe cut off Abortion then, but completly banning it is unreasonable and a violation of a woman's rights.

Reproduction: Its part of the development, does not really prove weather or not its alive or not, abortion could happen before or after these organs are developed. It would need them when alive. With abortion, it never becomes really alive.

Growth and Consumption are both very iffy. Consumption is nutrients being transfered to give life to the child, the Consumption leads to the growth. This is the closes thing to proving if its alive, it eats and grows.


I'm not saying partial-Birth abortion is wrong, I'm against the total outlaw of it, its a woman's right. If it was an accident, ex. Rape- She would get a pregnancy test right away and be able to stop it, with either Birth Control Pills or Abortion.

Though I am confused about thoese who were against abortion but for Birth Control. Both prevent the "Life." Only diffrence is when it is 1/12th finsished or 3/12th finished.

Simple on the answer to birth control. Birth Control typically renders an egg incapable of growing. This was before any signs of life could be found.

If you were against Birth Control for the reason that it's 'murder' than it's almost an obligation for the woman to have every possible egg fertilized which would be ridiculous. You're confusing two things here, I believe. You are placing abortion under 'prevention' the problem is, it's ending.

You can't just disregard Bill's statements for the signs of life just by 'that's not what's needed.' What he used was the necessary traits for life that the scientific community has come to a general consensus on.

You do bring a decent argument, however, against the stimulus, I don't have the knowledge to debate that particular aspect, the only thing I could think of is that if movement were completely dependant on an outside source, than we'd have to declare plants nonliving because their movement comes from the location of the sun.

(If I misunderstood any parts your arguments, you may correct me on them.)

Edit: Plus, I believe that most of the situations you have listed are completely bogus to allow for an abortion in. (Rape, Teen-Pregnancy, and instable mother.) There are programs out there that will support a mother completely through the aspects of a pregnancy if she has the intent of giving the child for adoption.

Yeah, I misunderstood the Birthcontrol Bit, as for my Reproduction Argument, it is indeed a life trait, but as far as the fetus having it, weeks 17-20 out of 35-39, so just about hald-way untill the baby itself is born and so just about, a little before or after the partial birth abortion law kicks into effect. So thats why I had the problem with the reproduction bit.

Most of this thread's ideas on why a fetus shouldn't be aborted assume that human life is sacred and shouldn't be touched. It doesn't say why it's sacred, or offer anything to support that idea, if just takes it for granted as true.

Proove it before you attempt to use it as a basis for your arguements, please. Religious belief doesn't count as proof, either.

I am very much against Abortion I mean if you don't think you can raise the child yourselve at least give it a loving family no need to kill it. But also women get abortions because of the pain of birthgiving. But if you do have a child you cannot raise give it to a member of your family if the want to adopt then you can still see your child grow up and when your ready to take care of it you might be able to. But abortion is completly wrong and selfish.

Oh great, another repeated hot topic thread...

Right, to put it bluntly: If I got pregnant accidentally, I'd get an abortion.

Why?

Because I'm too young to have a baby, meaning I've got other responsibilities at the moment that don't include buying diapers, and I'm not financially able to take care of one.
Also, there's no way in hell I'm carrying it for seven to ten months to give up for adoption. I find relieving my problems on someone else is a lot more cruel than to jus' have an abortion and keep an unwanted life from happening.

Okay. You don't have the right to take another human's life by law.

That, and how do we find out? It's not like we can ask the fetus what he/she thinks...

If that law applied to fetus's (Fetuses, feti, whatever), Roe v. Wade wouldn't have turned out the way it did.

Assuming you're talking US law, anyway.

While Bill does make some very interesting points, I'm going to have to disagree. I'd have to say that any woman that is in the 3rd Trimester shouldn't have any real say about abortion, as it is too late for that. But if you are still in the 1st or 2nd Trimesters, and you don't wish to continue the pregnancy, for whatever reason, then that woman should be allowed to do so. Yes the fetus is not a part of the mother's body; it is still her choice to make.

The whole "Life is sacred" bit is rather biased. Why? Cause we're alive! And because of that, we get to decide who/what falls into our live or die categories. When was the last time you heard somebody getting all worked up about killing termites? Or Mosquitoes? Oh, what about Germs and Viruses? See, that is just it, because of our standpoint we think we can make these choices ourselves! If people really want to get worked up about this, concentrate on the people who are killing people who have already been born!

Abortion is a very complicated thing (Mr. Obvious).

While I think it's wrong, it won't ever be banned.

Abortion is killing something, I ain't saying any "maybe this" or "fetus that", when you abort a baby, you kill a baby. And it would beillegal if it weren't for one reason. If abortion were illegal, many women would have one anyway. If a woman doesn't want a baby that much, then most will get an illegal abortion, in a back-alley office with tools that haven't been sterilized and procedures that aren't safe. Many women would die by getting such an abortion, due to the terrible nature of such illegal procedures.

I wish to high-heaven that it would be banned, despite such risks. You know why? Someone that is SO irresponsible to get themselves pregger'd-up at the age of 15 and decide to get an illegal opreation, they can go get themselves hurt. I honestly would be happy that the world would be rid of another stupid person, and maybe set an example to all those "confused" 15 year olds who don't know what the hell they're doing with their lives. You may be thinking that I don't have a soul, and have a special place waiting in hell along with rapists and those people who talk on their cellphones in the theater. Well, I don't. And here's why.

RESPONSIBILITY. If you are still in your teens and having unprotected sex, let me say this clear enough, YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT. Birth control. Condoms. Pants. All ways to prove you have an IQ over that of half a kangaroo's ass. Yet there are idiots walking around, striving for pity because they're complete morons and chose stupidity over responsibility. Hell, even if you're 50 and getting an abortion, you're still an idiot. Our society is trying to promote irresponsible actions by letting people out of their problems. Having a baby because you're stupid? Hey! Let's just take away the consequences of their idiotic actions! If you do something stupid, you should have to deal with the results.

If I were to get pregnant (and weren't a guy), I wouldn't have an abortion. And don't tell me that I can't comprehend the pain of birth. I've had about 6 kidney stones because I made stupid choices in my diet. I couldn't just get a kidney stone-abortion. I had to deal with the results of my stupid decisions. I'm having my wisdom teeth out on monday because I decided not to get them out in my teens, and now I'm going into debt to have these stupid face-bones out because I mad the idiotic choice of taking them out later. So I've changed. Guess what, if you get pregnant because you're dumb, I have 3 words. DEAL. WITH. IT.


EDIT: And no, I'm not envious that there's an easy way out for something. There shouldn't be an easy way out to anything, especially not at the cost if someone's life.

Lan : You forget about cases of rape/incest/failed contraception. Are they idiots then?

Even though abortion is done before the fetus is of a viable nature(able to live out of the womb) or if it was conceived during rape or other demeaning circumstances, then I can find it allowable.

Aborting the fetus really isn't the basis of killing something. Even though the fetus may SHOW symptoms of being an actual living creature, it doesn't display any real sentient thought.

Is aborting a fetus killing something? Not in my opinion no.

Abortion is something that's wrong, but life itself isn't sacred. If all the hypocrites actually believed that, then the human race would probably evolve beyond wars, as that's killing multitudes of people.

There are many reasons for and against abortion, which everyone else is probably going to go into. But my stance is that women should have the right to choose.

One thing that annoyed me about the more radical pro-life people is that they take these pictures of a fetus and then SAY it's a human child by pointing out every little bit of it. If it's a human you should be able to tell for yourself. Then they also neglect to tell you that this photo your looking at has been magnififed a few hundred times, and the thing you're looking at is barely the size of a pea.

Yes it does actually. The fetus/human is part of the human body and is until it can manage to exist outside of it, even if that means going on a ressucitator(sp?), havuing operations or whatever, with sentience, this is where my line begins to show. I'm not a doctor or biologist so this is where I'd need serious thought and whatever.

And let us remeber that while fetus's show biological signs of survival (hell a single celled amoeba will react if threatened) it does not show sentience.

However, if we're talking about something that is the size and shape of a human baby, well then if the woman wanted an abortion she should have had one by then. If they leave it till THAT late, tough shit. Basically, if the woman wants an abortion, but it's past the point where one could have been done safely and the thing is definatly "human", well thats too late.

What about if someone is raped? If the woman does NOT want to give birth to the child of the person who raped her, would you tell her "tough shit, it''s in you now so you have to give birth to it."?

Sure she could put it up for adoption, but then she's being constantly reminded for 9 months, and years after, of what some evil @#$% did to her.

Abortion is about choice, and it should be available to those who may want it. Don't even bother trying to bloody convince me otherwise. I'm not changing my mind no matter what arguement you put forward, including twisting science/religion/morality/whatever to your own ends.

If you don't want a bloody abortion for whatever reason, THEN DON'T GET ONE. Don't force people who are not you into your way of thinking. Debate with them, give them ALL the choices and let them make up their own bloody minds.

Abortion and murder are not the same thing, if you think so please take your damn wooden club and go beat the rest of your neanderthal friends over the head.

I'm saying Roe. vs. Wade was wrong.

Midgets are smaller than normal people. Doesn't make them any less human.

I'm sorry, but sentience doesn't equal life.

Basically, yes, because what's in the woman is by science's definition ALIVE and because it is a HUMAN fetus and not a PIG or DOG fetus. Ergo, LIVING HUMAN.

Rape is horrible, but why kill more over it?

I won't beat my neanderthal friends over the head, but I might give you a warning for the constant assholery you've displayed to forum members during the duration of your membership.

Last warning. Watch it.

You're an intelligent fellow and I respect you, but your constant disrespect of others' ideas and opinions in this forum ends here.

Those are things aren't human. That hardly applies to the debate at hand.

On what grounds?

You first based your arguement on human life being sacred, which you can't prove. When this was pointed out, you shifted to it being illegal to kill, but the law protects abortions. Supreme Court says so, and the Constitution kinda gave them the job of interpreting laws.

You can't defend it morally because morality is subjective. Even under the best conditions people won't agree on morals. So you can't use that as an arguement.

You can't use law, because the courts already decided on that too. They not only said abortions were allowed, but they declared state laws that made them illegal were unConstitutional and had them all struck down. Hell, they reopened the case some 20 years later and still came to the same conclusion.

What grounds CAN you argue from? You've got nothing better than "It's wrong 'cause I said so."

To be fair Bill, the only way you'd getme to stop being an arsehole is if you banned by completely.

However, I will tone it down a notch. But I will not just shut up.

Edit: Bill, after our AIM chat, I looked up some info on Post Abortion-Syndrome.. A 1995 study showed that around 80% of the women studied felt who took an abortion were"relieved" after an abortion, even years after it. (Figure here http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_post.htm).

To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more people who suffered from PAS. But then again this was only a select group. But again, I thougt there would have been more.

And there's also car accidents, murders, and robberies that happen each and every day. There ain't an easy button for those either. If you don't want to keep the baby, that's what adoption is for. But just because one person is an asshole and another doesn't want the asshole's baby doesn't mean you kill it.

Say the same thing when it's your mother, sister, girlfriend or wife, then.

Really, I'd like to see how a man deals with this sort of situation when the woman already feels completely and utterly like SHIT for getting raped in the first place, and then he says something along those lines.

"Sorry, honey, that he kinda ravaged your body, forced sex on you, gave you a case of insecurity, and impregnated you, but it would be killing if you aborted that baby!"

In this day and age, a man should really have no right to say or not say what a woman can or cannot do to things that are involved with HER body. It's okay if he's the father of the baby or something of that nature, but if he tells her that just because subliminally he wants her to suffer for her little "heresy", then he must be touched in the head.

Yes. Because men can't feel any pain at all.

Guess what: Men deal with pain in different ways than women, but that doesn't mean men don't have the same pain. And men can feel just as much shitty. Like when a man walks in on his wife cheating on him. Then he gets hanged in court, having his children, money, and a vast ammount of his life taken from him. But no worries, because he's a man!

Men can get raped, I know its hard to believe but its true!

How many times do I have to say this? Adoption adoption adoption adoption adoption adoption adoption and, of course, the classic adoption. If a man has no right to tell a woman what to do, a woman has no right to decide the life of a living thing. And yes, it's alive!

And as Bill stated: the solution to rape isn't killing another living thing.

And, trust me, I would say the EXACT same thing to anyone. I don't give a damn what "emotional state" they're in, that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have the right to kill a living thing.

Alright, how about this:

Is someone allowed to be forced to pay for something they don't want? Didn't ask for? Weren't even browsing for? No?

That's what pregnancy after a rape is. It's paying for something you didn't want, didn't ask for, and left you with hideous emotional scars after it was forced on you. And don't give me shit about not having to pay for the child; pregnacy costs MONEY, both in expenses and lost productivity. And it'll result in far more therapy costs.

It's a PARASITE.

And you have given us no more reason as to why we can't kill a fetus than Bill. "It's human and thusly sacred" isn't a valid arguement, it's an opinion.

Everything costs money. It can't be avoided. That's the way society is. I got into a car accident this year, along with my MASSIVE debt that going to college got me. Car accidents leave scars too, emotional and physical. For example: I'm never riding a bike again, I still have troube with the arm and leg that I broke, and I narrowly avoided being sued by the asshole yacking away on his phone who rear-ended me. But I'm not able to take any of that away. I never will be able to, especially at the cost of something's life. Lots of things can happen, but that's life. Plus, abortion ain't free either.

And the parasite thing: We're all parasites. Every single living thing on this grand green earth is a parasite by that logic, despite the fact that "parasite" is usually considered to refer to a foreign being sucking away at the life of something, sometimes to the point of death. We all chop trees down for shelter and harvest crops for food. There is a difference, though. If we go by the logic that we should destroy parasites, then we might as well start burning everything down right now.

Here's a reason not to kill a fetus: it's a living human. It isn't as smart, it isn't as big, but do we go kill midgets and retarded people? Nope. It's a being other than yourself, that's reason alone. But I guess it's not selfish at all to kill this thing because you don't feel like having it. Life IS sacred. I couldn't give a damn what anyone says, it is and always will be. It's a grand stroke of luck that we can even be alive, on a planet that is one of the biggest universal phenomena to support such life. I hate paying for welfare, but I don't go killing all the "disadvantaged" people, along with the assholes who just don't want to work. I don't have that right. And no one else has the right to take the life of an innocent being, hadn't done anything, because it'd be the easy way out. Again, it's alive. It's not just a stain on someone's shirt that should be wiped away, it's the start of a human. Another reason: If you were a fetus in the womb of a raped woman, or irresponsible teen, would you want to be chopped up because that woman would rather spend the birth money on something else? Yes, a fetus can't comprehend such a thing, but are you glad now that your mother didn't abort you? Think of the baby as a full person, since it is supposed to be one.

And one last thing: You can't decide the fate of all the non-rape babies because 1% of the babies were concieved from rape.

I could go on, but I'm hungry, I'm sleepy, and my hands are tired.


EDIT: And just because you don't want to pay for something doesn't mean you won't have to. i.e. child support, welfare, taxes, etc.

Not free, but it's far less. And nobody REQUIRES them to do it. And you know, if you were rear ended and it was the other party's fault, you didn't have to pay for it. You have the police come out, find the at-fault party, and they pay for it. Nothing gets 'round that, unless they prove that it's your fault instead. I was in an accident too; I know the laws well (I'm in a no-fault state, so the laws are more complex than most, but the victims STILL don't pay for accidents). The fact that you paid for it yourself was YOUR choice. Legally? You didn't owe a damn thing.

First: I never said "KILL ALL PARASITES RRARRRARA!" as you seem to suggest. And it's a MEDICAL parasite; it literally leeches off the health of the mother/host. It provides no benefit if she doesn't want it. And like an unwanted leech, it should be her right to have it removed, IF THAT'S HER CHOICE.

You completely ignored the entire arguement thus far.

You can't PROVE it's mankind is sacred thing. You THINK it is. Good for you. However, you have no right to force that opinion on others.

"...are you glad now that your mother didn't abort you?" What the hell is that? My mother wasn't raped. My parents had known each other for years before my mom got knocked up. She had no reason to WANT to abort.

You demonstrate an underlying assumption that all these pro-lifers seem to make about pro-choice folk; you all act like we plan large-scale slaughter or something. Like we're going to go out to innocent young people's homes, take their young mothers and assault them with a rusty coathanger to the vagina. Like it's us somehow going out and making decisions for these people on what they're going to do.

Opposite is true: We want to protect their right to make their own informed decision! We're not the ones that have fringe members that firebomb clinics and kill people. Do you ever wonder why this is? It's because we're not taking away anything! We want to protect the option to have an abortion. It those that take the "HOLIER THAN ALL ELSE" road that want to take away that right. The reason? Because something that innumberable theologians, philosphers, docters, and such can't even decide is definably ALIVE is somehow holy beyond all reproach to you. You can't proove that it is, and refuse to try, but by gods you'll demand that we accept it as fact! And you brook no argument on it!

You can't prove it's sacred. It's your opinion. Opinion without fact is worthless in an arguement. That's the long and short of if.

I don't care. What I care is that those women had the right to decide if they wanted to be rid of it beforehand or not. Did they decide to keep it? More power to them. Were they FORCED to by some malignant toad with your mindset? That's what I want to know.

I agree with The Anime Freak and Lothar. Why? Because after debating this topic in lots of different places with lots of different people, I've come to the conclusion that the only sane way to look at this is by using three basic catagories; Unliving, Living, and Sentient. I'll give a quick example of each, my keyboard is Unliving, Spiders are living, most people are Sentient, I have doubts about some people, but we'll allow a little generalizing here.

Moving right along. A fetus, baby, embryo, whatever the hell you wanna call the potential murderer or life-saving doctor, is Living, but not Sentient. So my question is this? Where do you draw the line of what diserves to exists? Because if you draw the line right at Living, then you should consider all life precious, not just human life. So then you're a Vegan, right? But what about insects, or even plants? Aren't they alive? Don't they diserve to live?

If, however you draw the line at Sentience, then the fact is that potential Homo Sapiens are not Sentient starting at conseption. Therefore there is no agrument, because we all agree that the death of any non-Sentient creature is equal, and accept the death of potential humans as you accept the extermination of those Termites eating your house.

But what if you think that humans, regardless of Sentience, are above other animals, or not even in the same classification of animals in the first place? Then you're ignorant, or more hard-headed than a sledgehammer, maybe even both. Scietifically humans are indeed animals, all-be-it highly evolved ones. Religiously, well, Humility is a virtue and Pride is a sin, you figure it out.


PS: I aknowlage that I may have inadvertently stepped on some peoples toes or been a little overly aggressive in my post. Hence I appologise in advance, it happens to the best of us sometimes, especially durring a debate. :) If anyone feels a part of this post really needs to be removed or edited, I'll be glad to comply.

Not that you can understand what a rape victim goes through mentally.

There are many reasons for and against abortion. I'd rather the choice was there than to have someone say that people can't have it for debatable moral reasons that the majority of people don't agree with.

i believe that abortion is wrong as it is the taking of a life however a person may choose abortion for the reasons of them being raped and the featu becoming an accident however i hope that a featus ever becomes an accident at all.

whats even worse ill add is the use of abortion to extract the eggs which can fully develop in 20 weeks of the featus being in the womb although it is illegal in many countries it is still legal in some which i find horrible