[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.

[Izzy]

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.

No, he shouldn't. If the mother can choose to get an abortion at any time, it's only fair that the father gets to choose whether he wants to be with the child or not. If the mother chooses to go full term for the father's sake but wants nothing to do with the kid, the father should respect that.

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.

It's not taking it out of context, it's comparing it. It's not my opinion, but I challenge you to prove how it is different from claiming that abortion is murder.

[unreality]

*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?

oh haha that's NOT my view, don't worry. I was just talking about what pro-lifers / extreme catholics / etc believe and why they believe it. I definitely do not have the same views. You're right that masturbation isn't murder, neither is using a condom, even though a potential human maybe won't exist now. I agree with octopuppy to a certain extent, but I differ when he starts comparing who would be better to kill based on age/awareness/etc. The idea is to NOT to kill. It shouldn't be a sliding subjective scale at all of when killing a "pseudohuman" is a crime. It should be a firm divider somewhere, and after that point it's murder.

But what is that point? I don't agree that the point is based on the person's self-awareness. Is it okay to kill a sleeping person? You might say that 6 hours they were aware - well what about someone in a coma that was also aware a few years ago? Then you're forced to acknowledged that it now depends on the future - a sleeping person will wake up, a comatose person on average will not. So you have to admit, octopuppy, that potentiality is a big part of it. What does the person have the potential to be? You're saying that the exact present moment is what matters but I don't think that's how it works. Most of our unconscious moral decisions involve not only what is but what we judge will be soon. It's impossible to ignore potentiality when taking an ethical situation into perspective.

That being said, does every spermozoa have the potential to be a unique human being? NO. Each sperm is exactly the same as the others, so is each egg. That's why masturbation and periods aren't "murder" and shouldn't be even to Catholics... it's the conditions (mostly random) under which they combine that produce the unique set of genetics (right? If I'm wrong that each sperm is the same, please correct me).

So yes when an egg and sperm combine, a unique potential human has been conceived in my eyes. That's why in general I'm against abortion (but I am also pro-freedom and pro-choice and for more reasons stated below, I would have to side near the middle but more on the choice side).

BUT my view on this doesn't end there. Potential to what exactly? Potential to just be alive (in this case, as soon as the egg and sperm combine, aborting it should be murder) or alive and enjoy life (as izzy hints at, but this is hard to judge. Most babies born even into great poverty will enjoy life) OR alive and be a functioning member of society (as izzy strongly hints at it and gives as a reason for abortion in cases where the family can't care for the child).

So yes for me it comes down to potential but first we have to decide what kind of potential we're talking about. And not just potential for the baby but for the mother. That's why cases like rape may come into special consideration, or other conditions that may put the mother's actual physical health on line. But for less unusual cases we're talking here about the potential of having a good life for the baby... the definition of that is where some discord lies I think

[onetruth]

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.

It's true, there are extremists on every side of every issue. I've also known pro-lifers who have stood outside abortion clinics, but weren't bashing anyone. In fact, they stand silent, and they don't harrass anyone or wish anyone harm. But they are there for anyone that wants to speak to them for some last minute counseling and to offer alternatives.

I'm pro-life because I fully believe that we were created for a purpose and that that purpose begins at conception. That being said:

- I've known plenty of people who've had abortions (some multiple), some of whom I'm very close to

- I've known plenty of people who've been adopted

- I've known plenty of people who've adopted, and several that are in the process

- I've known a good handful of people who've given up their children for adoption

None of the people I've known who have sought to give their children up for adoption have ever failed to find couples they trust to raise their babies. And it's much more likely for a baby to be adopted than an older child. Also, most people I've known who are adopted are not from the US. Why? The US for some reason makes it so expensive and has so many hoops to jump through that it's less costly and less time-consuming to go out of the country to adopt.

No one I know has ever regretted *NOT* having an abortion. All the people I've known that have had one have regretted it, except for the most selfish ones - maybe 2 or 3 girls. (I am not saying that they are selfish because they had abortions-just that they are selfish people in general.)

I sure as hell don't regret that I didn't have an abortion. When I found out that I was pregnant, it became obvious very quickly that my boyfriend wasn't going to be everything he had promised he'd be. In fact, from the first week, I realized that I was going to be a single mom. A few months later, when I found out I was having twins, I was absolutely terrifed. My ex-boyfriend wasn't even from the US...I knew I would never receive even a penny from him, or any other form of help. I am pretty sure I cried every single day of my pregnancy. I had doubts every second that I was awake, so that I pretty much never slept. It was the worst period of my life, and I've had some bad ones. It didn't help that most of my family and church family was completely disappointed in me. It was the lonliest time of my life. And now I have the joy of my life in the form of two little boys.

I honestly could never have even considered an abortion, but it was mentioned to me. My ex even told me to have one in the middle of a nasty argument. (Adoption crossed my mind, but I knew I couldn't do it.) Instead, I did what my ex wouldn't do - I manned up and took care of the consequences of my actions. It's hard, yes, and it destroyed me temporarily and ultimately transformed me. But having an abortion is easy. It's a coward's way out.

[onetruth]

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.

My only point in that comment was that you used a faulty argument, that the mother makes the best decision. That couldn't be further from the truth in many situations.

[Guest]

I agree with octopuppy to a certain extent, but I differ when he starts comparing who would be better to kill based on age/awareness/etc. The idea is to NOT to kill. It shouldn't be a sliding subjective scale at all of when killing a "pseudohuman" is a crime. It should be a firm divider somewhere, and after that point it's murder.

In the interests of keeping things simple, that's maybe workable in some cases, but as a moral point of view it makes no sense. It means that there is a single moment in time before which terminating a pregnancy was acceptable and after which it became an act of murder. What if you thought you terminated a pregnancy in an acceptable manner and later found out your watch was slow? Is it still murder?

I don't think there's any sensible way to view the matter which isn't a sliding scale, though opinions of where to place the scale may vary. Even catholics probably don't think the use of a condom is quite as bad as cold blooded murder.

Also I think it must be acknowledged that offences against animals also have a moral implication, though not on the same level as those against humans. Killing a fly isn't as bad as killing a dog. I'm proposing a model which offers some consideration for all of this, though I'm not claiming the "platinum rule" takes all relevant considerations into account.

But what is that point? I don't agree that the point is based on the person's self-awareness. Is it okay to kill a sleeping person? You might say that 6 hours they were aware - well what about someone in a coma that was also aware a few years ago? Then you're forced to acknowledged that it now depends on the future - a sleeping person will wake up, a comatose person on average will not. So you have to admit, octopuppy, that potentiality is a big part of it. What does the person have the potential to be? You're saying that the exact present moment is what matters but I don't think that's how it works. Most of our unconscious moral decisions involve not only what is but what we judge will be soon. It's impossible to ignore potentiality when taking an ethical situation into perspective.

A sleeping person has in them the capacity to understand life and death. They could be said to value life even if that's not what they are thinking about right now. Raping an unconscious woman is still rape. Potentiality may enter into it to some degree, you might consider it acceptable to burgle a sleeping person's home if you knew the world would end before they woke up, but normally a person's will has to be seen as a continuous thing for moral purposes. The comatose person is a grey area. As time goes on, you have less reason to consider their will as an extension of what it was when they went into the coma. You might ask "what would this person want if they could express an opinion?" but if their mental faculties are now deteriorated to a point where such a question is meaningless, it's reasonable to discount their "will to live" accordingly. Potentiality does come into it, their will is a potential will in the sense that it isn't currently functioning, but if it may regain function it is worthy of consideration since the capacity is there. The important difference is that the comatose person is at that moment a complete person, albeit unaware. You are judging them on the basis of what they are, including their capacity for will, even if you have to guess at what their will would be.

So yes when an egg and sperm combine, a unique potential human has been conceived in my eyes. That's why in general I'm against abortion (but I am also pro-freedom and pro-choice and for more reasons stated below, I would have to side near the middle but more on the choice side).

BUT my view on this doesn't end there. Potential to what exactly? Potential to just be alive (in this case, as soon as the egg and sperm combine, aborting it should be murder) or alive and enjoy life (as izzy hints at, but this is hard to judge. Most babies born even into great poverty will enjoy life) OR alive and be a functioning member of society (as izzy strongly hints at it and gives as a reason for abortion in cases where the family can't care for the child).

What you're saying is all very relevant but I don't think you can use it to form a moral basis for valuing a foetus. Fertilisation is a big step, from that point you have a self-contained (but very far from self-sufficient) unit which now contains a unique genetic code. But it's still just a single cell. A fertilised egg can become a human being given the right circumstances, but then so can an unfertilised egg plus a bunch of sperm heading its way. In both cases, a lot more needs to happen in order to make a human. I'm reminded somewhat of the Dragon's Den in which people often value their company in terms of what they think it might become, counting their chickens before they are hatched. Potentiality is part of the value but too often overvalued. The value of the foetus is correspondingly less the more its life is potential and not actual. More to the point though, value requires a valuer. In order for something to be worth something, it must be worth something to someone. If a fertilised egg is not wanted, who values it? My point is that its own wishes do not enter into the equation since it doesn't have any.

Oh, I'll be retiring from this discussion for crimbo. Happy debating to you all!

[Guest]

No, he shouldn't. If the mother can choose to get an abortion at any time, it's only fair that the father gets to choose whether he wants to be with the child or not. If the mother chooses to go full term for the father's sake but wants nothing to do with the kid, the father should respect that.

It's not taking it out of context, it's comparing it. It's not my opinion, but I challenge you to prove how it is different from claiming that abortion is murder.

First of all, you have repeatedly claimed that no person should ever have to take responsibility for their actions. You just said it again here. I hope for your sake that your viewpoint changes before you are old enough to enter the workforce, or you may end up either homeless or working a dead end job with no potential to rise up high enough to even pay your own bills. Responsibility and accountability are the two most important values a person might ever learn.

Secondly, you were taking our arguments well out of context. Nobody here said that abortion is murder except you. I said that there are people who claim that it's murder, and will try to punish you for it. Unreality said that not all people are like that. Neither one of us claimed murder, and in fact, neither one of us even had differing viewpoints. I still have yet to see any logic or even truth to what you're saying here. You're challenging me to prove something that you are saying is true? I should not have to prove that, you should. If you want the proof on your statement, you prove it.

[Izzy]

First of all, you have repeatedly claimed that no person should ever have to take responsibility for their actions. You just said it again here. I hope for your sake that your viewpoint changes before you are old enough to enter the workforce, or you may end up either homeless or working a dead end job with no potential to rise up high enough to even pay your own bills. Responsibility and accountability are the two most important values a person might ever learn.

Woah, back up. I never said that no one should ever have to take responsibility for their actions. Of course you should, under certain conditions. I don't think pregnancy is one of these conditions because the option to just get rid of it is there. The mother has the option to terminate whenever she wants, but the father doesn't. So in all fairness, he should get the same option, which is not having to provide for the child that he doesn't want. This really isn't even that different from adoption, other than that the father doesn't have the child's best interest at heart. ..And any argument that might arise from this about it messing up the child is bull, and I can personally testify for that.

Secondly, you were taking our arguments well out of context. Nobody here said that abortion is murder except you. I said that there are people who claim that it's murder, and will try to punish you for it. Unreality said that not all people are like that. Neither one of us claimed murder, and in fact, neither one of us even had differing viewpoints. I still have yet to see any logic or even truth to what you're saying here. You're challenging me to prove something that you are saying is true? I should not have to prove that, you should. If you want the proof on your statement, you prove it.

Unreality clearly made the connection I was looking for, have a look at his post. Maybe murder was the wrong term, because "killing" fits the situation for accurately. And that pretty much sums up your entire argument anyway. "It's unfair to the baby ...... because you are killing it/it's potential."

[Guest]

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?

As is so usual in arguments... I think we just hit the point where we're arguing semantics. You kinda stated half of what I intended to state better than I did, and the other half is basically me just wanting to lean away from your opinion, but... ugh. Sorry. Kinda not coherent again. We can just ignore what I said earlier (except for the part that was actually on topic)

No, he shouldn't. If the mother can choose to get an abortion at any time, it's only fair that the father gets to choose whether he wants to be with the child or not. If the mother chooses to go full term for the father's sake but wants nothing to do with the kid, the father should respect that.

Isn't that giving the father an easy way out of responsibility?

It's true, there are extremists on every side of every issue. I've also known pro-lifers who have stood outside abortion clinics, but weren't bashing anyone. In fact, they stand silent, and they don't harrass anyone or wish anyone harm. But they are there for anyone that wants to speak to them for some last minute counseling and to offer alternatives.

I'm pro-life because I fully believe that we were created for a purpose and that that purpose begins at conception. That being said:

- I've known plenty of people who've had abortions (some multiple), some of whom I'm very close to

- I've known plenty of people who've been adopted

- I've known plenty of people who've adopted, and several that are in the process

- I've known a good handful of people who've given up their children for adoption

None of the people I've known who have sought to give their children up for adoption have ever failed to find couples they trust to raise their babies. And it's much more likely for a baby to be adopted than an older child. Also, most people I've known who are adopted are not from the US. Why? The US for some reason makes it so expensive and has so many hoops to jump through that it's less costly and less time-consuming to go out of the country to adopt.

No one I know has ever regretted *NOT* having an abortion. All the people I've known that have had one have regretted it, except for the most selfish ones - maybe 2 or 3 girls. (I am not saying that they are selfish because they had abortions-just that they are selfish people in general.)

I sure as hell don't regret that I didn't have an abortion. When I found out that I was pregnant, it became obvious very quickly that my boyfriend wasn't going to be everything he had promised he'd be. In fact, from the first week, I realized that I was going to be a single mom. A few months later, when I found out I was having twins, I was absolutely terrifed. My ex-boyfriend wasn't even from the US...I knew I would never receive even a penny from him, or any other form of help. I am pretty sure I cried every single day of my pregnancy. I had doubts every second that I was awake, so that I pretty much never slept. It was the worst period of my life, and I've had some bad ones. It didn't help that most of my family and church family was completely disappointed in me. It was the lonliest time of my life. And now I have the joy of my life in the form of two little boys.

I honestly could never have even considered an abortion, but it was mentioned to me. My ex even told me to have one in the middle of a nasty argument. (Adoption crossed my mind, but I knew I couldn't do it.) Instead, I did what my ex wouldn't do - I manned up and took care of the consequences of my actions. It's hard, yes, and it destroyed me temporarily and ultimately transformed me. But having an abortion is easy. It's a coward's way out.

I don't mean to lessen the value of your story and your experiences - if I ever have a friend going through a similar situation and who has to decide whether or not to abort, I might remember this and try to remind her that she's more likely to regret abortion - but I just wanted to say that this makes me feel that having a choice is more important, simply because it shows that the right choice can be made.

But yes, even though I think the mother is the person who should make the decision, I don't think that means they'll always make the right one.

GL, HF, and GG (as I always say in my nerdy gamer ways) for your two little boys

--

Not done reading/replying, but I'd like to throw this out there:

Anyone read Freakonomics? What you think about the negative correlation between abortion and crime?

[Izzy]

Isn't that giving the father an easy way out of responsibility?

*shrug* Isn't abortion the same thing?

[Guest]

I notice people that support abortions have already been born.

[Izzy]

I notice people that support abortions have already been born.

You can't really deduce the opinions of the unborn..

[Guest]

You can't really deduce the opinions of the unborn..

im saying that we have already been born, and i'm guessing most of us like it that way. I'm also saying many of the aborted would like to be born.

[Guest]

im saying that we have already been born, and i'm guessing most of us like it that way. I'm also saying many of the aborted would like to be born.

And what Izzy is saying is that it's not possible yet to definitively deduce the preferences of those who are not able to communicate with us. i.e. unborn children.

[Izzy]

im saying that we have already been born, and i'm guessing most of us like it that way. I'm also saying many of the aborted would like to be born.

Exactly what Medji said. There are also the suicidals and those that live in debt to their parents. So meh.

[Guest]

I'd have been perfectly content had I not been born.

O.O

[Izzy]

^ I'm going to echo that feeling. I mean life, woo, great and whatevs, but I don't really feel inclined one way or the another. *shrug*

[unreality]

wow. I would be pissed if I had never been born Then again I wouldn't have been born so I wouldn't be pissed haha

[onetruth]

I don't mean to lessen the value of your story and your experiences - if I ever have a friend going through a similar situation and who has to decide whether or not to abort, I might remember this and try to remind her that she's more likely to regret abortion - but I just wanted to say that this makes me feel that having a choice is more important, simply because it shows that the right choice can be made.

But yes, even though I think the mother is the person who should make the decision, I don't think that means they'll always make the right one.

GL, HF, and GG (as I always say in my nerdy gamer ways) for your two little boys

Don't have time for much of a response, but just wanted to say...You didn't lessen anything for me I never take the abortion debate personally. But I do believe very strongly that abortion is wrong, and I faced a situation where I had to make a life-changing decision, and even if I hadn't been living up to my own standards when I got pregnant, I at least had integrity to act out on my beliefs when it came to keeping my babies. My experience is only an extension of my belief that life is precious and begins at conception. After all, the heartbeat can be detected at as early as 4 weeks...how is that not life? And how long does it exist before it can be detected? But anyway...just wanted to say that no one can hurt my feelings or make me angry in this issue. I'd never take it personally.

[Guest]

^ I'm going to echo that feeling. I mean life, woo, great and whatevs, but I don't really feel inclined one way or the another. *shrug*

By this logic, why don't you kill yourself? You won't miss the enjoyment of your life because you won't have experienced it.

[Izzy]

By this logic, why don't you kill yourself? You won't miss the enjoyment of your life because you won't have experienced it.

You want the good answer or the real answer?

My life, an ultimately random chance of event, is interesting and pleasurable enough for me to wish to continue it. As it is of no inconvenience to myself, I see no reason to end it. I live, I laugh, I have fun. If my personal life weren't fun, then the situation would be entirely different, and perhaps suicide would be a foreseeable route. Without dwelling too much on my personal life, I'll let out that I am a nihilist, in the sense that life is meaningless, but mixed with my hedonistic feelings, I live my life of no point for personal pleasure. Entirely selfish, perhaps, but I have one hell of a time. (Er, just because this is in the abortion thread, one disclaimer: I promise to not have a stupid sex life?)

On the less me more everyone else level: I'm an only child to a mom who has just gone through a divorce. Killing myself runs the risk of killing her, and I don't want my selfish actions doing that to my mom. That's what I meant with my earlier post of living in debt to your parents. I'm pretty much guilted into living when it comes down to it, woohoo.

So, not having been born wouldn't really devastate me. Again, I'm indifferent towards it. Life is cool, death is peaceful. *shrug*

[Izzy]

That being said, does every spermozoa have the potential to be a unique human being? NO. Each sperm is exactly the same as the others, so is each egg. That's why masturbation and periods aren't "murder" and shouldn't be even to Catholics... it's the conditions (mostly random) under which they combine that produce the unique set of genetics (right? If I'm wrong that each sperm is the same, please correct me).

..Not to resurrect a pretty dead thread, but I was just thinking about something and remembered this statement. I don't know why I didn't respond earlier.

Gametes (sperms and eggs) are formed through meiosis, so instead of ending up with a diploid like in mitosis, you end up with four haploids, which is the sperm/egg. So during (I think) Prophase 1, the genetic information of the male/female is entirely recombined, "crossing over", and it separates. Then you go through the other phases, repeat, and you end up with four entirely different haploid cells (the gametes). So, unless I'm wrong and misunderstood biology, each sperm/egg is unique.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Izzy

[peace*out]

From the homosexuality thread (funny how these things just show up randomly again):

If by just as bad, you mean completely harmless, YOU'RE RIGHT. WELL REALIZED.

Let me put it this way. Fetuses aren't children, they are potential children. Gametes aren't children, again, they are potential children. By not engaging in sex every moment of the day, you, are preventing the conception of potential children. This, by your argument, is just as bad.

Now, here's why abortion is.. justifiable. Your fetus isn't human, it's a parasite. By definition, a parasite is an organism that lives in or on another, and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. This is precisely what a fetus is. The mother has to give up HER body the same way she does with the presence of a tapeworm, for instance. Now, I mean, for the most part, fetuses and mothers enjoy a positive mutual relationship, so I'm not trying to impose some sort of negative connotation on it as is usually normal with the word "parasite". However, the parasitic partnership of a fetus to a woman means that its survival requires her consent. If she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. More info. here.

Homosexual relationships? Still all about consent. By consent, in instance of the mother or the gay partners, the humans rights of no one are being transgressed. The unborn have no right to life. That sounds harsh, but.. it's true.

Peace brought up a good point with population control. I read Beyond the Betrayed in.. second or third grade, I think. Scary stuff. However, statistics show that societies that have a same death rate as birth rate are the most successful, and this is definitely true with planned parenthood and responsible breeding (limiting yourself to a few kids and not having 982394850). For gawd's sake, stop treating every bundle of cells like it's special!

My veiws on this:

1) abortion's ok until the heart starts to beat. thats after about 4-5 weeks. then its not exactly abortion anymore.

2) abortion is definate option to concider if person X was raped...after all, it's not like they had the option.

[akaslickster]

I never replied to this thread b/c I never had the perfect answer. I was brought up to be pro-life and still prefer no abortions. On the other hand, if it would prevent a child from suffering to death, then I would not deny the action. There ought to be more foster homes and adoption availability in the world. I mainly prefer no killing, whether inside the womb or outside. If the life has not begun yet, then it's not a killing and can be deleted beforehand, and it won't bother me. People discard their bodily fluids every day.

@ Izzy- That's a tough call if the fetus is threatening the mother, maybe her call on that issue.

Edited May 16, 2010 by akaslickster

[Izzy]

From the homosexuality thread (funny how these things just show up randomly again):

My veiws on this:

1) abortion's ok until the heart starts to beat. thats after about 4-5 weeks. then its not exactly abortion anymore.

2) abortion is definate option to concider if person X was raped...after all, it's not like they had the option.

Haha, oh man, what have I spawned. >_> Okay, here we go.

1. Why would you base it off of something as arbitrary as the beating of the heart (the brain is much cooler, lol)? All this phase really shows is that the fetus is capable of pumping blood by itself, but it is still in no way independent from the mother. The fetus's existence depends entirely on the health of the mother, so if she doesn't eat enough or whatever, it will steal her nutrients in a parasitic away. To ask her to involuntarily give up her body is inhumane. A lot of people will agree that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, an abortion is alright. ..What if it threatens her happiness, financial security, etc.? I define life by happiness, and.. I think it should be fully up to the woman to decide whether or not she wants to give up her body and time for the next ~18 years. Don't steal the rights of someone already alive to protect the rights of someone who isn't even born that you'll ignore once s/he is born. Anti-abortionists, it's not a problem you'll have to deal with, it's one the mother will.

2. ...Because the rape will make a person unhappy, right? Well, what if someone had consensual sex but was under the influence of mind-altering drugs? Or just young/stupid? Or the bro just didn't feel like using a condom? Rape is bad, but the abortion resulting from a rape is due to the nature of an unwanted child. The above situations can lead to unwanted children as well. Don't draw the line at rape just because the woman had a little less of a say in her actions that the above.

[peace*out]

1. Why would you base it off of something as arbitrary as the beating of the heart (the brain is much cooler, lol)?

I was taught that when the heart has started beating, it's alive. Then it's not abortion. many concider it murder then. I'm at a 50/50 opinion at that point.

2. ...Because the rape will make a person unhappy, right? Well, what if someone had consensual sex but was under the influence of mind-altering drugs? Or just young/stupid? Or the bro just didn't feel like using a condom? Rape is bad, but the abortion resulting from a rape is due to the nature of an unwanted child. The above situations can lead to unwanted children as well. Don't draw the line at rape just because the woman had a little less of a say in her actions that the above.

1. do u mean meth and crack and stuff? they shouldn't have been doing it. If it's prescription drugs, then...well either way, if they gave their consent, but were under the influence, i think it's defined as rape. 95% sure, but not completely.

2. Then they were young or stupid. Get an abortion, but i still think that if it's after it's "alive", then that was their choice.

3. doesn't that go with the above?

4. That's my point. she had no choice. they had a choice.