[Guest]

I'll let someone else really start the discussion, but my view real quick: it should be entirely up to the mother - who else would be better to decide whether or not to do such a drastic thing? Leaving the choice up to others seems very wrong to me.

[onetruth]

it should be entirely up to the mother - who else would be better to decide whether or not to do such a drastic thing?

Just a thought on that argument...There are tons of really bad moms out there who decide to do really crappy things to their children. Some drink/smoke/do drugs when they're pregnant. Some party all night & leave their kids with anyone that'll take them in for the evening. Some beat the crap out of them. Some do much worse. Mothers don't always do the best thing. They are not always the best decision makers. So that argument doesn't work.

[Guest]

why does one person who possibly has no decision making abilities get to decide whether a person lives or dies?

[Guest]

it should be entirely up to the mother - who else would be better to decide whether or not to do such a drastic thing? Leaving the choice up to others seems very wrong to me.

I assume that you're male, right? So what happens if you're the father, you want the child, and she doesn't? Should you have to lose your child because someone else doesn't want it? The mother has the ability to give up any parental rights if she chooses, and you can take the child, fathers are completely capable of caring for a child on their own. It's harder, but it's possible. What about the child?

Here's my opinion:

In the case of an issue of safety to the mother, abortion should be a joint decision, for or against, by the parties concerned. i.e. mother, father, possibly grandparents.

In the case of an issue of safety to the child (poor or no care available, disinterested parents), it would be preferable to go full term and then allow adoption. However, the decision should be a joint decision between any persons that are genuinely interested in the welfare of the child.

In the case of a mother or father who intends to abort as a matter of convenience, the decision should be as above (disinterested parents).

[Guest]

It's harsh to force a woman to go to term or to prevent them terminating - case by case basis only. I do know there is not enough advice out there, or enough consideration for all parties. There should be no shame implied for either decision, Including adoption.

I am pretty much for an informed decision; by that I mean that all aspects have been checked, thus arriving at the best decision. Either way it's final!

[Guest]

It's harsh to force a woman to go to term or to prevent them terminating - case by case basis only. I do know there is not enough advice out there, or enough consideration for all parties. There should be no shame implied for either decision, Including adoption.

I am pretty much for an informed decision; by that I mean that all aspects have been checked, thus arriving at the best decision. Either way it's final!

From the post history, I'm inferring that you were referring to my post, wherein there is no reference to forcing a full term pregnancy. In every case, I indicated that the best way to decide was to have the decision made by persons that are genuinely interested. That does not mean necessarily that you are forcing someone to go full term.

[Guest]

I did not read any posts as I wanted to post my own view. I have seen some hasty decisions made; IOW for the wrong reasons. Even to the point where getting pregnant will help a woman keep her b/f or husband, as well as terminating for the same effect.

[Guest]

I did not read any posts as I wanted to post my own view. I have seen some hasty decisions made; IOW for the wrong reasons. Even to the point where getting pregnant will help a woman keep her b/f or husband, as well as terminating for the same effect.

Getting pregnant and/or terminating a pregnancy for the reason of keeping a boyfriend/husband is, in my opinion, a selfish act that will damage the relationship and the child in the end more than if the person followed through with their original intent for the other reasons, and will probably end with the boyfriend/husband leaving anyways. I fail to see the logic of doing such a thing, myself, but not being in the circumstance, I assume that I also fail to understand completely the situation.

I have already submitted my opinion on the matter, however I also am of the opinion that a responsible adult relationship would never bear children outside of marriage on purpose, for more reasons that just religious (to include custody, childcare, stability, taxes, discounts, homebuying, etc.), and any relationship that bears children on accident or for the above reason (to keep their man) is not a responsible relationship, and should not have been intimate with each other in the first place.

[Guest]

I did not read any posts as I wanted to post my own view. I have seen some hasty decisions made; IOW for the wrong reasons. Even to the point where getting pregnant will help a woman keep her b/f or husband, as well as terminating for the same effect.

Yep people can be real a**holes sometimes, but for all that I'd still give the mother 100% right to choose while the child is in her body, the only exception to that being to put in place measures to avoid decisions which are most likely to be regretted later. For example you could make the booking process last a couple of days to avoid rush decisions, and encourage a bit of counselling beforehand. I'm trying to think of cases where I might consider it just to deny a woman abortion, maybe in an extreme case where she is clinically diagnosed as suffering a mental illness which would cause her to regret the decision later. Frankly I'm not sure even those circumstances would justify it. Who are we to presume that somebody will want to bear a child when they say they don't?

Even if you find the reason for someone's decision appalling, taking away the right to exercise freedom over their own body should always be a last resort. Late abortion is a different matter, I think it's sensible to rule that if you're going to do it, you should do it early.

[Guest]

"a bit of councilling". I guess you are full on rushed for xmas too.

The decission is clearly a very emoitonal one to make, in either direction. It is this emotion that is reducing the opurtunity to 'rationalize' and make a choice in a future that is not absolutely certain for such a decision. Having seen the results first hand of the confused thinking of many young girls and mature woman who were doing there best to second guess another person - result, multidirectional misery! Mucked up relationships all round for quite some time due to the lack of resources/time/other. As I said this counts for all routes available, termination, adoption or continuing. I'm not saying that it is easy to 'process' a given situation, and circumstances plus variables that apply now and may change in the future too make it one of the hardest decissions for anyone to make. I would like to see adequate counselling where the options have been thouroughly exhausted (withiut it being lierally exhausting - mentally), and a more informed choice met.

With regards to Medji's remark about marriage and relationships, is that not a seerate topic! I'm not sure what to make of your statement, it's like I need to inform the government (the people) of my intentions to father children. Marriages often fail, so we can't rule that it is necessary in order to be a parent, in fact not being married at the time could be one of the difficult 'facors' that are obfuscating the choice. I am in favour of a child knowing there gentetic/mental makeup and general background/history.

[Framm 18]

Honestly, I think that people (both males and females) use abortion as an excuse to get away with sleeping around before and possibly after marriage without the consquence of having to raise a child.

I also think that if you are not willing to have a child then you should not be willing to sleep around.

[Guest]

It is this emotion that is reducing the opurtunity to 'rationalize' and make a choice in a future that is not absolutely certain for such a decision. Having seen the results first hand of the confused thinking of many young girls and mature woman who were doing there best to second guess another person - result, multidirectional misery! Mucked up relationships all round for quite some time due to the lack of resources/time/other. As I said this counts for all routes available, termination, adoption or continuing. I'm not saying that it is easy to 'process' a given situation, and circumstances plus variables that apply now and may change in the future too make it one of the hardest decissions for anyone to make. I would like to see adequate counselling where the options have been thouroughly exhausted (withiut it being lierally exhausting - mentally), and a more informed choice met.

Of course all possible steps should be taken to ensure that such a decision is an informed one, though I also think, practically speaking, people will still have abortions for stupid reasons. Like you say, it's an emotional decision and having a balanced perspective may well be virtually impossible under the circumstances. So what I'm saying is that abortion will often be a mistake, and it's a mistake that people should absolutely be allowed to make. In life, you make the best decisions you can and you live with the consequences. Taking away a person's right to do this, in the belief that others can make a better decision, is something I am strongly opposed to. Even when you know somebody is wrong, you have to let them make their mistakes. That's the price of freedom.

[Izzy]

A quick response to not sleeping around with people until you are both prepared to have a child: ...I mean, if that's what you want to, by all means go for it, but the truth is that people ARE going to have sex, and celibacy pledges are only so effective. I don't think you should have sex stupidly (with a lot of partners, unsafe, whilst intoxicated, with the pull-out method, etc.), but you can't really hold people responsible for doing something evolution has drilled into us to do. Sex is almost like eating. Put bluntly, it's pleasurable and key to species survival. So, abortion starts in the schools. Screw your abstinence only education in schools, have proper sex-ed and sell condoms (at least at the high school level).

Now, abortion. In cases where the child won't survive, terminate. Up to the parents. Where the mother's life is at risk, it's up to the mother. (Just like if something is directly threatening the father's life, it's up to him whether he wants to do something about it, not his wife.) When the baby is unwanted or unable to be provided for, and the choice is mutual by both parents: terminate. Don't clog orphanages or give a kid who may potentially not be adopted a crappy life. There are currently way TOO MANY unwanted children already alive, and adding more to the mess accomplishes nothing. When the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, it's entirely up to the mother. Those should be all the obvious ones. The reverse, however, is where most problems arise. Dad wants it, mom doesn't. Even if the mother can be proven to be someone who never makes a good decision, someone inherently selfish, it's still her body. You can have any number of children in your life, why does this one matter?

I think it's something that should be decided prior to getting with someone.

Abortion =/= murder, btw, just like cutting yourself and killing some skin cells isn't murder.

[Guest]

In cases where the child won't survive, terminate.

That would be all cases then, lol

(just kidding, I know what you mean)

[Guest]

With regards to Medji's remark about marriage and relationships, is that not a seerate topic! I'm not sure what to make of your statement, it's like I need to inform the government (the people) of my intentions to father children. Marriages often fail, so we can't rule that it is necessary in order to be a parent, in fact not being married at the time could be one of the difficult 'facors' that are obfuscating the choice. I am in favour of a child knowing there gentetic/mental makeup and general background/history.

I think you're missing the point, LIS, which is that you gain a massive amount of benefits, discounts and external aid from governments and programs that are in support of a married coupule raising children. Most of those benefits go right out the window for any person raising children that are not married. All other factors aside, that should be a major consideration. This is, in fact, not a separate issue, but one that is integral to the whole idea of abortion: If no person has a pregnancy that's not specifically wanted beforehand, then no person will even want an abortion, except in cases of medical necessity.

Changing agles here:

The most common paradigm that I see is from the viewpoint of the mother: What does the mother want? Why should the mother carry the child for nine months if she doesn't want it? This is, in and of itself, a very selfish way of looking at things. It's reminiscent of an age where people have stopped caring about others, and only think of themselves. The very fact that a person can ask these questions in public and not be looked at askance is a sign of the times that we live in, namely a 'Me' generation of people who are out for nothing more than to self-please. If you didn't want the child, then you should have:

1) Not done the deed.

2) Used protection.

Now, I know that protection doesn't always work, but the likelihood of any given type of protection working is well over 65%, if used correctly. Most, like condoms and preventative pills, are well over 90%. I know that you're looking at the one in ten. But why don't we shift the paradigm a little bit and look at the nine in ten that won't be forced into that situation. At the point where a pregnancy occurs, a pregnancy has occurred. Simply put, that is your child to care for, and if you choose not to care for the child, then there are lots and lots of options, aside from abortion, that can be considered. In the end, abortion should, in my opinion, be a last choice.

This is an issue that can be argued back and forth for years and years, with neither side giving way. In fact, it already has been. There are the hardcore pro-life advocates who stand in front of abortion clinics and (ironically) shout death to the murderers. Not all pro-life are like this, but there are some that do. And then there are the hardcore pro-choice advocates who keep saying that everyone should have the choice to abort or not and then (ironically) sneer down their noses at anybody who does actually abort. Not all pro-choice are like this, but again, there are some that do. I'm firmly in the middle. I think that there is a choice to be made, but that it should be carefully considered with the needs of the child first, and the needs of the mother second.

[Guest]

Just a thought on that argument...There are tons of really bad moms out there who decide to do really crappy things to their children. Some drink/smoke/do drugs when they're pregnant. Some party all night & leave their kids with anyone that'll take them in for the evening. Some beat the crap out of them. Some do much worse. Mothers don't always do the best thing. They are not always the best decision makers. So that argument doesn't work.

That assumes that drinking/smoking/doing drugs while pregnant is on the same level of, well, stupidity as having an abortion. An abortion has goods and bads to it, pros and cons. Directly harming a child (for drinking while pregnant would only be a problem if you're not planning to abort, I'm guessing) is another issue (and regulating drinking/smoking/drugs is another issue entirely). For clarification: many would say that abortion is a form of harming-a-child, but it's justifiable, and therefore different.

why does one person who possibly has no decision making abilities get to decide whether a person lives or dies?

Who else would you say gets to decide?

I assume that you're male, right? So what happens if you're the father, you want the child, and she doesn't? Should you have to lose your child because someone else doesn't want it? The mother has the ability to give up any parental rights if she chooses, and you can take the child, fathers are completely capable of caring for a child on their own. It's harder, but it's possible. What about the child?

Here's my opinion:

In the case of an issue of safety to the mother, abortion should be a joint decision, for or against, by the parties concerned. i.e. mother, father, possibly grandparents.

In the case of an issue of safety to the child (poor or no care available, disinterested parents), it would be preferable to go full term and then allow adoption. However, the decision should be a joint decision between any persons that are genuinely interested in the welfare of the child.

In the case of a mother or father who intends to abort as a matter of convenience, the decision should be as above (disinterested parents).

a) If I'm the father and I want the child to live, then I'll do my damndest to try to convince her to not abort.

b) In the case of danger to the mother, then imo the decision should be solely the mother's. Women should have a right to their own bodies, their own lives... and I think the life of the woman is more valuable than the potential, possible life of a fetus.

c) Adoption is an interesting alternative that kinda deals a serious blow to one of the biggest reasons why I support abortion. But that kind boils down to whether or not there are enough people willing to adopt?

From the post history, I'm inferring that you were referring to my post, wherein there is no reference to forcing a full term pregnancy. In every case, I indicated that the best way to decide was to have the decision made by persons that are genuinely interested. That does not mean necessarily that you are forcing someone to go full term.

Genuine interest is something I couldn't agree with more.

any relationship that bears children on accident or for the above reason (to keep their man) is not a responsible relationship, and should not have been intimate with each other in the first place.

Condoms break?

--

I'm not done reading or replying, just enough for now

[Guest]

Honestly, I think that people (both males and females) use abortion as an excuse to get away with sleeping around before and possibly after marriage without the consquence of having to raise a child.

I also think that if you are not willing to have a child then you should not be willing to sleep around.

People enjoy sex, have sex, and have sex often, and most of the time it does not result in pregnancy. Abortion is an issue that is very different.

I think you're missing the point, LIS, which is that you gain a massive amount of benefits, discounts and external aid from governments and programs that are in support of a married coupule raising children. Most of those benefits go right out the window for any person raising children that are not married. All other factors aside, that should be a major consideration. This is, in fact, not a separate issue, but one that is integral to the whole idea of abortion: If no person has a pregnancy that's not specifically wanted beforehand, then no person will even want an abortion, except in cases of medical necessity.

Changing agles here:

The most common paradigm that I see is from the viewpoint of the mother: What does the mother want? Why should the mother carry the child for nine months if she doesn't want it? This is, in and of itself, a very selfish way of looking at things. It's reminiscent of an age where people have stopped caring about others, and only think of themselves. The very fact that a person can ask these questions in public and not be looked at askance is a sign of the times that we live in, namely a 'Me' generation of people who are out for nothing more than to self-please. If you didn't want the child, then you should have:

1) Not done the deed.

2) Used protection.

Now, I know that protection doesn't always work, but the likelihood of any given type of protection working is well over 65%, if used correctly. Most, like condoms and preventative pills, are well over 90%. I know that you're looking at the one in ten. But why don't we shift the paradigm a little bit and look at the nine in ten that won't be forced into that situation. At the point where a pregnancy occurs, a pregnancy has occurred. Simply put, that is your child to care for, and if you choose not to care for the child, then there are lots and lots of options, aside from abortion, that can be considered. In the end, abortion should, in my opinion, be a last choice.

This is an issue that can be argued back and forth for years and years, with neither side giving way. In fact, it already has been. There are the hardcore pro-life advocates who stand in front of abortion clinics and (ironically) shout death to the murderers. Not all pro-life are like this, but there are some that do. And then there are the hardcore pro-choice advocates who keep saying that everyone should have the choice to abort or not and then (ironically) sneer down their noses at anybody who does actually abort. Not all pro-choice are like this, but again, there are some that do. I'm firmly in the middle. I think that there is a choice to be made, but that it should be carefully considered with the needs of the child first, and the needs of the mother second.

What are some of these "lots and lots of options, aside from abortion, that can be considered"? Adoption is certainly more. I don't mean this to sound sarcastically acrimonious; maybe I'm just ignorant.

I say mother first and child second. Or rather, child not at all - it's the mother that should be considering the child. I think it's already tough for most mothers to choose abortion - I imagine that choosing to destroy something that is so much a part of yourself has got to be one of the most difficult things in the world. Also, it's not like the child can think - so if the child comes first, who do you propose should be, as Bush would so eloquently put, the "decider"?

[unreality]

There are the hardcore pro-life advocates who stand in front of abortion clinics and (ironically) shout death to the murderers. Not all pro-life are like this, but there are some that do. And then there are the hardcore pro-choice advocates who keep saying that everyone should have the choice to abort or not and then (ironically) sneer down their noses at anybody who does actually abort. Not all pro-choice are like this, but again, there are some that do.

Let me defend both positions for a second... the hardcore pro-lifers see abortion as killing children. That's why they hate people they get abortions.

Now the pro-choicers can be against abortion but still be pro-choice, and this is like me. Personally I am against abortion in most cases, but like I said earlier, it's really a case-by-case basis for me and think firstly the choice should be that of the mother's and other immediate family. That doesn't mean I think the law should dictate the choice beforehand - I am pro choice. It's similar to soldiers fighting for freedom of speech, and someone starts an Anti-War campaign. Now let's say the soldier disagrees with this campaign - but he's not going to stop fighting for the right that allows the protesters to have the freedom of speech. If you're pro=choice, pro-freedom, etc, then inevitably there will be people who use that freedom to do things you disagree with. That's part of the definition of freedom

[Izzy]

I haven't read any posts since my last post (don't have time, will later) but just one quick thing. If the father doesn't want the child, and in spite of his feelings the mother chooses to keep it, don't expect him to pay child support. That isn't fair either. (But with this comes no visits/contact/etc., unless it's the kid that's trying.

[Izzy]

*shrug* From Medji' and unreality's argument, isn't masturbation murder? Or periods? Every sperm/egg is a potential child, so by essentially "wasting" your sperm/egg, you "kill" the potential children. Why does the second sperm and egg meet make a difference? All that's changed is that it's no longer two clumps of separate cells, just one clump of joined cells. Tbh, at this point, an abortion would be little difference from cutting your nails. The potential to have children is still there, and the only difference from conception and masturbation is where the dude happened to ejaculate.

I think it's sort of funny how the law views this.. A fetus is not counted for a census and miscarriages aren't considered manslaughter. However, killing a pregnant woman is double homicide. Where does the distinction come from?

[Guest]

The most common paradigm that I see is from the viewpoint of the mother: What does the mother want? Why should the mother carry the child for nine months if she doesn't want it? This is, in and of itself, a very selfish way of looking at things. It's reminiscent of an age where people have stopped caring about others, and only think of themselves. The very fact that a person can ask these questions in public and not be looked at askance is a sign of the times that we live in, namely a 'Me' generation of people who are out for nothing more than to self-please.

Rather it is the mother's duty to care for the potential child within her, and to make the best decision for both herself and the foetus. She may fail to do so responsibly, but it is her responsibility. If we do not allow people to make their own decisions and deal with their own responsibilities, this is arguably an even worse sign of the times.

At the point where a pregnancy occurs, a pregnancy has occurred. Simply put, that is your child to care for, and if you choose not to care for the child, then there are lots and lots of options, aside from abortion, that can be considered. In the end, abortion should, in my opinion, be a last choice...I think that there is a choice to be made, but that it should be carefully considered with the needs of the child first, and the needs of the mother second.

Unfortunately the child cannot be asked whether they would rather be unwanted or dead and if they could, they would have no means of determining the answer. Actually I think that this is at the heart of the matter, and I'll use it as the basis for a moral view of the subject. The moral cost of terminating a pregnancy would (by popular consensus) appear to be greater the longer the pregnancy goes on, the more the foetus resembles a baby, the larger and more complex it gets. Some people think that a baby has a right to life only when it is ready to live independently, others think that it is a sin even to use contraception to prevent a potential person from existing. Here's my perspective: The immorality of killing is related to the will to live possessed by the thing we are killing. The more it is aware of life and death, fears death and wants to live, and the more we sympathise with and recognise that, the more immoral we consider it. It's a negative example of the "platinum rule": "Do unto others as they would want you to do". The more somebody doesn't want you to kill them, the more wrong it is to do so. On that basis, the killing of animals is more morally acceptable the less intelligent they are, because they have less understanding of what you are doing and less will that you don't do it. This is only one perspective, but I'm offering it as an alternative to the notion of the sanctity of life, which functions poorly in these grey areas. On that basis, killing a foetus in the early stages of development is not very immoral since its awareness is minimal or non-existent.

Interestingly, this also implies that the killing of a newborn baby would not be as great a crime as the killing of an older child, as far as the immediate victim is concerned. However, we should also take into account the effect on others who will feel the loss. On this basis, murder of a newborn baby is a greater crime against its parents than it is against the baby itself. On the face of it that might be surprising, though I do feel there is some intuitive "truth" in that.

A contrasting approach would be to consider potentiality as a measure of moral right or wrong (so the killing of a newborn baby is a major wrong against that baby because it is robbed of its potential future). That offers more value to an early-stage foetus which also has that potentiality. However, I feel that it is more sensible to value things in terms of what they are rather than what they might become. The potentiality-based view tends to lead inevitability into catholic madness, whereby we shouldn't use contraception, or even masturbate, for fear of robbing a potential person of their potential existence. It demands that we populate the world with as many people as is physically possible, since any failure to do so is tantamount to murder.

[Guest]

*shrug* From Medji' and unreality's argument, isn't masturbation murder? Or periods? Every sperm/egg is a potential child, so by essentially "wasting" your sperm/egg, you "kill" the potential children. Why does the second sperm and egg meet make a difference? All that's changed is that it's no longer two clumps of separate cells, just one clump of joined cells. Tbh, at this point, an abortion would be little difference from cutting your nails. The potential to have children is still there, and the only difference from conception and masturbation is where the dude happened to ejaculate.

I think it's sort of funny how the law views this.. A fetus is not counted for a census and miscarriages aren't considered manslaughter. However, killing a pregnant woman is double homicide. Where does the distinction come from?

I guess it would be like the difference between not helping someone who is about to be run over by a car, and pushing them into the street. You have to go out of you way to try and kill the person, but if you just don't see him, its ok.

[Guest]

Rather it is the mother's duty to care for the potential child within her, and to make the best decision for both herself and the foetus. She may fail to do so responsibly, but it is her responsibility. If we do not allow people to make their own decisions and deal with their own responsibilities, this is arguably an even worse sign of the times.

Unfortunately the child cannot be asked whether they would rather be unwanted or dead and if they could, they would have no means of determining the answer. Actually I think that this is at the heart of the matter, and I'll use it as the basis for a moral view of the subject. The moral cost of terminating a pregnancy would (by popular consensus) appear to be greater the longer the pregnancy goes on, the more the foetus resembles a baby, the larger and more complex it gets. Some people think that a baby has a right to life only when it is ready to live independently, others think that it is a sin even to use contraception to prevent a potential person from existing. Here's my perspective: The immorality of killing is related to the will to live possessed by the thing we are killing. The more it is aware of life and death, fears death and wants to live, and the more we sympathise with and recognise that, the more immoral we consider it. It's a negative example of the "platinum rule": "Do unto others as they would want you to do". The more somebody doesn't want you to kill them, the more wrong it is to do so. On that basis, the killing of animals is more morally acceptable the less intelligent they are, because they have less understanding of what you are doing and less will that you don't do it. This is only one perspective, but I'm offering it as an alternative to the notion of the sanctity of life, which functions poorly in these grey areas. On that basis, killing a foetus in the early stages of development is not very immoral since its awareness is minimal or non-existent.

Interestingly, this also implies that the killing of a newborn baby would not be as great a crime as the killing of an older child, as far as the immediate victim is concerned. However, we should also take into account the effect on others who will feel the loss. On this basis, murder of a newborn baby is a greater crime against its parents than it is against the baby itself. On the face of it that might be surprising, though I do feel there is some intuitive "truth" in that.

A contrasting approach would be to consider potentiality as a measure of moral right or wrong (so the killing of a newborn baby is a major wrong against that baby because it is robbed of its potential future). That offers more value to an early-stage foetus which also has that potentiality. However, I feel that it is more sensible to value things in terms of what they are rather than what they might become. The potentiality-based view tends to lead inevitability into catholic madness, whereby we shouldn't use contraception, or even masturbate, for fear of robbing a potential person of their potential existence. It demands that we populate the world with as many people as is physically possible, since any failure to do so is tantamount to murder.

I agree with this notion of life as you described as somewhat relative, and the negative platinum rule, and all that. And I'd take it even farther: I think the life of a 6 year old child is more valuable than that of a newborn's, and I think my life is more valuable than the 6 year old's, and I think a 30 year old who is holding a steady job has a more valuable life than mine, and a doctor that's saving lives every day, like the fictional House, is more valuable than all the aforementioned. But I also think that this difference in value means nothing, and has no and should have no practical usage - so in a sense, the 6 year old's life has an equal "sanctity" as House's. But the difference between the foetus and the 6 year old is great enough that we can say there is a meaningful value difference. Same sorta thing can apply to animals... because we're humans, humans should matter most to us, and all other animals mean nothing in comparison. But if we needed to compare the value of different animals, then sentience would be a good rater.

Ugh... I'm losing coherence. Dang sickness. If I was thinking straight I could use a better word than "rater."

The idea that Medji mentioned of someone being pro-life but then looking down on a girl for choosing abortion immensely cruel, I think... meanies! *scowls*

Hrm. I didn't actually say much this post. Oh well

[Guest]

I have mixed views on this. If you're dumb enough to get pregnant you shouldn't just have an abortion then keep doing the same thing. However I am fully pro-choice. It wouldn't be practical to say you should weigh each circumstance separately to decide if you should allow it to each individual. But clinics aren't only about abortions, most offer adoption services and show that there are other options. Pro-choice isn't just saying abortions for everything, it's saying that the choice of having an abortion should be available. For victims of rape or molestation it should definitely be available. I don't see why they should have to bear the burden of something that was completely out of their control. They are victims after all and should have that option.

[Guest]

What are some of these "lots and lots of options, aside from abortion, that can be considered"? Adoption is certainly more. I don't mean this to sound sarcastically acrimonious; maybe I'm just ignorant.

I say mother first and child second. Or rather, child not at all - it's the mother that should be considering the child. I think it's already tough for most mothers to choose abortion - I imagine that choosing to destroy something that is so much a part of yourself has got to be one of the most difficult things in the world. Also, it's not like the child can think - so if the child comes first, who do you propose should be, as Bush would so eloquently put, the "decider"?

Adoption is one, a major one. Another one is letting the father care for the child, or in some cultures, a community care where the child is essentially looked after by the entire neighborhood, is not uncommon. Allow the grandparents to care for the child. Allow the state to care for the child. All of these are viable options once conception has occurred. Again, options before conception occurs are abstinence (not celibacy, necessarily) and adequate protection.

And the decider should, again, be people that have a genuine interest in the welfare of the child. If the mother does not have that interest, then let her server her "term" and give up the child.

Let me defend both positions for a second... the hardcore pro-lifers see abortion as killing children. That's why they hate people they get abortions.

Now the pro-choicers can be against abortion but still be pro-choice, and this is like me. Personally I am against abortion in most cases, but like I said earlier, it's really a case-by-case basis for me and think firstly the choice should be that of the mother's and other immediate family. That doesn't mean I think the law should dictate the choice beforehand - I am pro choice. It's similar to soldiers fighting for freedom of speech, and someone starts an Anti-War campaign. Now let's say the soldier disagrees with this campaign - but he's not going to stop fighting for the right that allows the protesters to have the freedom of speech. If you're pro=choice, pro-freedom, etc, then inevitably there will be people who use that freedom to do things you disagree with. That's part of the definition of freedom

@Pro-life: I understand that they view it as murder. That's why the irony comes in to play when they shout that the person having the abortion should be murdered themselves.

@Pro-choice: I understand also that the ability to choose will inevitably lead to both choices being made by different people individually. And with your example of the soldier. Do you think he's going to sit idly by and let an anti-war campaign run amok without making his dissenting voice heard? He has the same freedom of speech to disagree with those that are disagreeing with him. He doesn't necessarily have to go out and assault them - that would be wrong. But he has the right, just like anyone else, to disagree.

For both sides of the argument, again I'll restate this. There are those who are pro-life who are very moderate in their judging of people for their decisions. There are also those who are pro-choice that are very moderate in their judging of people. However, there are the hardcore minorities around that will actually go out of their way to make life difficult (or impossible!) for you if you disagree with their viewpoint.

I haven't read any posts since my last post (don't have time, will later) but just one quick thing. If the father doesn't want the child, and in spite of his feelings the mother chooses to keep it, don't expect him to pay child support. That isn't fair either. (But with this comes no visits/contact/etc., unless it's the kid that's trying.

The father did the deed, and if he's old enough to understand the responsibility of creating a child, he's old enough to bear the consequences. Just because a person doesn't have a ****** doesn't mean that they're free from any responsibility or accountability for their actions.

*shrug* From Medji' and unreality's argument, isn't masturbation murder? Or periods? Every sperm/egg is a potential child, so by essentially "wasting" your sperm/egg, you "kill" the potential children. Why does the second sperm and egg meet make a difference? All that's changed is that it's no longer two clumps of separate cells, just one clump of joined cells. Tbh, at this point, an abortion would be little difference from cutting your nails. The potential to have children is still there, and the only difference from conception and masturbation is where the dude happened to ejaculate.

This is taking almost everything we said completely out of context. I'm not even sure how you reached this conclusion. There's no logic to back it up, just a random statement. Don't put words in my mouth. If that's your opinion, claim it, but that's not in any way what I said, nor do I understand it to be what Unreality said.

[Guest]

I think the life of a 6 year old child is more valuable than that of a newborn's, and I think my life is more valuable than the 6 year old's, and I think a 30 year old who is holding a steady job has a more valuable life than mine, and a doctor that's saving lives every day, like the fictional House, is more valuable than all the aforementioned.

I disagree completely. I believe that all people are equal, that the value of their lives are equal to the same amount, no matter what their profession, age, gender, race, religion, political view, what have you. Essentially, my outlook on this can be summed up in two sentences:

There is no person in the world better than me.

There is no person in the world inferior to me.

The potential in a human being is limitless. You never know until someone does something that they're going to do it, only that they're capable of it. And human beings are capable of so much more than you might think. If you value any human life over any others, then you're discriminating either for or against somebody, and with what criteria I don't know, but it's there.

Now, I agree that a doctor's actions are probably more valuable than a six year old playing house, but what if the doctor only ever saves people's lives in an ER to a total of maybe six hundred people in his career, and that six year old grows up and discovers a way to cure the entire world of hunger?

The doctor's actions at the time were more valuable than the six year old, but whose actions turned out more valuable in the end? And how are we currently capable of judging which one's actions will be more a benefit to humankind?