Abortion is one of the most complex issues of our time. Here are some reasons why. Many oppose abortion on the grounds that it is murder. If life begins at conception, murder is wrong, and abortion is murder, then abortion is wrong. It's tough to argue that murder is sometimes ok, so those holding this view are most often not open to discussing things. Many support a woman's right to have an abortion on the grounds that it is a public safety issue, that if medical abortions were not available, a woman who wanted to end a pregnancy might take it upon herself to make that happen, thereby putting herself in danger. Some women make use of abortions as a means of contraception. When the same woman ends up having a large number of abortions without any thought given to what she's doing, it gives many people pause. Doctors who perform abortions function within a rather murky legal arena in which they have one patient unless/until a live baby is taken from the mother, at which point that same doctor has two patients. So in theory, a doctor could be trying to end the life of an unborn child at one moment, and in the very next moment have an obligation to do all he/she can to save the life of that newborn child. Rather crazy if you stop to think about it. In theory, folks should be in agreement that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies would be a positive step in the right direction. But in reality, many who object to medical abortions being available at all are the same people who object to several methods of contraception that are available. Giving all women the right to have an abortion, no matter what their economic circumstance, is challenging. Those who hold strong views that abortion is wrong are understandably appalled that their tax dollars are used to fund abortions. Prevalent views regarding abortion vary widely in regions of the United States: people in MA or NH hold very different views than those in AL or LA. A "one size fits all" approach may not be the best idea. The decision rendered in Roe vs Wade, in having to delve into the intricacies of viability and the trimester stages of pregnancy, leaves the Court open to charges of legislating from the bench. As mentioned at the beginning, this is far from being a straight-forward issue. Suffice it to say that the complexities woven throughout the issue serve to indicate the need to handle it with a great deal of care and sensitivity.
Yeah, it really was becoming a mess. A. I agreed in my first post that abortion is not murder. B. You're right, my scenarios were overly contrived. C. I agree that pregnancy causes women harm. D & F. I'm just curious. I'm not looking for another debate, considering it's not a very debatable subject, but do you believe life begins at birth? E. After the Civil War, it became agreed upon that the "too widespread to outlaw" argument did not apply to extreme moral dilemmas. And for "do you like that!!??" my answer is yes, considering it means the preservation of human life. Do you mind explaining how to use the multi-quotes?
Hit "Reply with Quote " and remove the quotation marks then add your own where you want them. D and F, do you understand them? D. The woman does not have to consent to this harm whether it is intentional or not. NO ONE has to consent to harm based on intent. F. IF fetuses are ever deemed a "person" with the same rights as everyone else then they will have the same RESTRICTIONS...they will NOT be allowed to use another's body to sustain their life. You can't, I can't, it can't. E. Well since you don't pay taxes yet I can see where you'd not mind Abortion was first "outlawed" in the 19th century because women were dying from abortion "cures". ...not because they were getting abortions.
You were doing good with your quote tags, you just need to put a / on the end one. This way, but without the period in it [/quote.] The multi quote feature (not what you were doing, Fox had the wrong term) is where you quote multiple posts to reply to them all in one post. See the icon to the right of "reply with quote"? Click on it on each post you want to quote, then on the last one, click on reply with quote and it will put them all in one post. Just reply under each individual quote.
Well with D & F, I was trying to say I can't really argue them without just repeating myself from earlier, and we'd just start a loop. And I really am just curious about when you think life starts, at fetal viability or birth. E. That's sort of true. I had a job this summer in construction, but one summer of money I'm saving for college anyway hasn't really affected me enough yet to give me perspective on stuff like taxation and welfare form that standpoint. And that history fact is really interesting, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the debate, FoxHastings! You've really made me think and even re-examine some beliefs I held! Good game! And that makes sense, Zeffy, thanks for the help!
I am about to faint.......I made a dent! ....If I really made you think I'm sure you'll progress to a Pro-Choicer...that what thinking does Re-examining beliefs is essential to a good life......I've been doing that for almost 65 years and found it's a big help... Life started billions of years ago. A life starts at conception. That life, the fetus, becomes a person at birth. A "life" doesn't have rights. A person does. A fetus after 23 weeks has some protection but does not have rights. IF it had rights like born persons it would also have the same restrictions(cannot use another's body to sustain it's life).
You are very welcome. When I was your age, I was anti abortion. My (step)mom said to wait until I grew up and got out in the real world and see if I changed my mind. She was right, I did - after watching a very close friend almost die from an illegal abortion. That is when I became pro choice.
It's not a child before it has at least a minimal level of consciousness. Saving it would be a waste of money, and this process would be extremely expensive for a long time, but developing and encouraging the use of this technology would be a more productive use of the energy of pro-lifers.... as long as it doesn't replace more effective ways to reduce abortion like free contraception, i.e. planned parenthood money should go towards their usual services such as contraception, not growing embryos.
Couple of ways to accomplish your goal. At the top of the reply box there are multiple icons. The very last one is a quote button. You just highlight what you wish to quote and hit the button. Or you can type
On another thread, I posted that it was a LIE from "pro-lifers" when they said "We don't want to control women". Thanks for confirming my premise, Macc.
This is assuming the premise that abortion is actually murder, what is your evidence and rationale to state that abortion is murder if personhood is from conception? Why? Not really, the legal issue is that the fetus is not a person with full rights until it is born, should that change then it still wouldn't change the legality of abortion, in fact it would mean abortion being legal at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it. Not in the slightest. The only state/federal funding that is used for abortions is for specific situations .. such as life threats to the female, rape and incest. The decision in Roe did not in fact place any abortions restrictions on the states, it merely stated that states could place restrictions if they wanted to .. the SCOTUS decision in Roe created no new laws. My problem with your analysis is that you have approached the issue of abortion from the usual direction . .what needs to be done is for the debate to be moved away from what the fetus is to what it does, what it is-is irrelevant, what it does is far more important.
