POL: Roe v. Wade

[larrymcg421]

This should be an interesting thread, but I'm actually looking for an honest discussion.

I'm probably one of the more liberal people on this board. I supported and worked for Howard Dean's candidacy. I opposed the Iraq war. I believe that outlawing same sex marriage is an equal protection violation. I believe that the Constitution does protect privacy. However, I also oppose Roe v. Wade. Why?

The debate on this issue often revolves around the right to privacy and whether or not it exists. Does it say it in the constitution? Nope. But it does say "liberty". I don't think you can possibly have liberty if your most intimate decisions can be controlled by the government. Therefore, I think privacy is guaranteed byt he liberty clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

However, I think the Roe court misapplied the privacy rights established in Griswold and other cases. The difference, of course, is that life is involved. With the other Amendments, we make exceptions when life is involved. (Example - Search warrant not required to stop someone from murdering another person inside their own house.) Abortion is another case where that exception should be made.

For the court to ignore that exception, it would have to say that a fetus is not a life that the state has an interest in saving. I think that is a stunning determination that a court cannot possibly make with any clarity. And yet, even the Roe and Casey courts do not recognize an unlimited right to an abortion. The court has set up points where the state does have an interest, whether it be based on trimesters or on viability. But that standard is extremely arbitrary and keeps changing all the time. How can we resonably say that the constitution allows the state to protect this fetus but not the other, eventhough they may only be a week apart in development? It seems to me that the Constitution should either allow the state to protect someone after conception or after birth, but not some random point in between.

Now the common misnomer is that people assume Roe being overturned will lead to the outlaw of abortion in this country. That's not true. It would simply return the issue to the states. I honestly think that this would actually help liberals. For instance, women would start voting in blocks much more than they do now. Plus, my guess is a full abortion ban would only happen in maybe 1/3rd of the states, if that.

Thoughts?

[st.cronin]

Now the common misnomer is that people assume Roe being overturned will lead to the outlaw of abortion in this country. That's not true. It would simply return the issue to the states. I honestly think that this would actually help liberals. For instance, women would start voting in blocks much more than they do now. Plus, my guess is a full abortion ban would only happen in maybe 1/3rd of the states, if that.

Thoughts?

I was called an idiot or something by a bunch of people for saying that exact thing a few months ago. But, of course, it's true. Pushing the abortion issue to the Supreme Court was a really stupid tactical decision. If it wasn't for Roe v Wade, I honestly believe that abortion would be legal and more available than it is now, and wouldn't be a political issue at all.

[ChiMatt]

I am pro-choice but your argument is one that I fully respect just disagree with. However, as a general rule I support states' rights and would not be outraged if the courts struck down roe v wade and let states decide their own abortion laws.

[larrymcg421]

I should also note that there is no reason the Roe/Casey decisions should still be standing. Republicans have had 12 of the last 14 judicial appointments and they still can't get a majority of anti-Roe justices on the court. Even if Alito and Roberts vote against Roe, that makes it a 7 Roe, 5 Anti-Roe tally for Republican presidents.

Also, with the Casey case, I think the pro-life movement shot themselves in the foot. I've read alot of stuff based ont he justice's notes, and I strongly get the feeling (although it's never explicitly stated) that the pro-lifers screwed up with spousal notification requirement. There was absolutely no way O'Connor was gonna let that stand, but the only way for her to strike it down was to uphold Roe in part. And I think that's why she met privately with Souter and Kennedy.

[Joe]

I was called an idiot or something by a bunch of people for saying that exact thing a few months ago. But, of course, it's true. Pushing the abortion issue to the Supreme Court was a really stupid tactical decision. If it wasn't for Roe v Wade, I honestly believe that abortion would be legal and more available than it is now, and wouldn't be a political issue at all.


idiot

[st.cronin]

idiot

jerk

[dawgfan]

If it wasn't for Roe v Wade, I honestly believe that abortion would be legal and more available than it is now, and wouldn't be a political issue at all.
I'm not following your logic here - if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, I'm certain that there would be some states that would move to outlaw abortion. Given that Roe vs. Wade currently prevents that from happening, I'm curious why you think overturning it would make abortion more available?

[st.cronin]

I'm not following your logic here - if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, I'm certain that there would be some states that would move to outlaw abortion. Given that Roe vs. Wade currently prevents that from happening, I'm curious why you think overturning it would make abortion more available?

Not if Roe v. Wade were overturned - if it had NEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Joe]

Not if Roe v. Wade were overturned - if it had NEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

uhh... it never did

[st.cronin]

I don't think you understand what I mean, Mr. Bush. I mean if there had never been a Supreme Court case in the first place.

[Joe]

I don't see what you're getting at. That case hasn't happened yet.

[Flasch186]

this is now funny on so many different layers, or maybe only to me. Could be

[Riggins44]

I am pro-choice but your argument is one that I fully respect just disagree with. However, as a general rule I support states' rights and would not be outraged if the courts struck down roe v wade and let states decide their own abortion laws.

I agree. Let the states decide for themselves. This is one of those emotional social issues (as is the homosexual issues) used to distract us from the bloated government's day-to-day activities.

[dawgfan]

Not if Roe v. Wade were overturned - if it had NEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that women have a legal right to abortions in this country, you feel that all states would eventually allow abortions? Remember that there were multiple states that outlawed abortions prior to Roe vs. Wade.

[DaddyTorgo]

so what if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Let's take a look at this example.

I'm a poor woman living in a state where abortion has been outlawed, without the money to support a kid or even to travel to a neighboring state for an abortion (let's say for example that I live in Alaska which has outlawed abortion. or somewhere in the middle of california or texas, some state where it's difficult to get to another and i dont have the $$ for a bus ticket and then to pay for the abortion). So then I'm forced to have the kid, which I can't support and cost the state even more $$ through being on welfare and having the kid on medicaid and having him likely grow up with very little prospects in life to become a criminal?

or say the same setup is true but i'm a single woman who's living at the edge of my means and was raped and can't afford the trip?

this is the issue with overturning roe v. wade in my mind

[Joe]

so what if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Let's take a look at this example.

I'm a poor woman living in a state where abortion has been outlawed, without the money to support a kid or even to travel to a neighboring state for an abortion (let's say for example that I live in Alaska which has outlawed abortion. or somewhere in the middle of california or texas, some state where it's difficult to get to another and i dont have the $$ for a bus ticket and then to pay for the abortion). So then I'm forced to have the kid, which I can't support and cost the state even more $$ through being on welfare and having the kid on medicaid and having him likely grow up with very little prospects in life to become a criminal?

or say the same setup is true but i'm a single woman who's living at the edge of my means and was raped and can't afford the trip?

this is the issue with overturning roe v. wade in my mind


if you're a poor woman and can't afford the child, the decision is obvious. they are plenty of people waiting to adopt who sometimes cannot get approved for a legal adoption. so you do an under the table/black market adoption and profit.

[st.cronin]

If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that women have a legal right to abortions in this country, you feel that all states would eventually allow abortions? Remember that there were multiple states that outlawed abortions prior to Roe vs. Wade.

Yes, I do. The trend at the time was towards more and more liberal abortion laws, in every part of the country. Roe v. Wade reversed that.

[Riggins44]

if you're a poor woman and can't afford the child, the decision is obvious. they are plenty of people waiting to adopt who sometimes cannot get approved for a legal adoption. so you do an under the table/black market adoption and profit.

Or, I know this sounds crazy... keep your pants on.

[BrianD]

If Roe v Wade was overturned, I'd fully expect the current administration to withhold some kind of federal funding to states that haven't outlawed abortions. Sort of similar to how all states had to change the drinking age to 21 or lose highway funding.

[Glengoyne]

Or, I know this sounds crazy... keep your pants on.
Hey let's not make this about personal responsibility now!

[Galaxy]

so what if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Let's take a look at this example.

I'm a poor woman living in a state where abortion has been outlawed, without the money to support a kid or even to travel to a neighboring state for an abortion (let's say for example that I live in Alaska which has outlawed abortion. or somewhere in the middle of california or texas, some state where it's difficult to get to another and i dont have the $$ for a bus ticket and then to pay for the abortion). So then I'm forced to have the kid, which I can't support and cost the state even more $$ through being on welfare and having the kid on medicaid and having him likely grow up with very little prospects in life to become a criminal?

or say the same setup is true but i'm a single woman who's living at the edge of my means and was raped and can't afford the trip?

this is the issue with overturning roe v. wade in my mind


A debate I heard that it would still foster abortion illegal, through more harmful ways. So, my question would, would Roe vs. Wade really "stop abortion", or just force those people who do not want the child to "do it illegally"?

[MrBigglesworth]

I was called an idiot or something by a bunch of people for saying that exact thing a few months ago. But, of course, it's true. Pushing the abortion issue to the Supreme Court was a really stupid tactical decision. If it wasn't for Roe v Wade, I honestly believe that abortion would be legal and more available than it is now, and wouldn't be a political issue at all.
I'm not really concerned about helping the liberals, I'm concerned about helping the poor girl in Oklahoma whose life would be ruined by having a child. I'm fairly big on states rights for a lot of things, but there are just some rights that I don't think any government can take away from you.

[dawgfan]

Hey let's not make this about personal responsibility now!
Right - because every unwanted pregnancy is the result of irresponsible activity.

[Glengoyne]

Right - because every unwanted pregnancy is the result of irresponsible activity.

Every is a pretty high bar, but I like my odds if we were to quantify these results.

[larrymcg421]

If Roe v Wade was overturned, I'd fully expect the current administration to withhold some kind of federal funding to states that haven't outlawed abortions. Sort of similar to how all states had to change the drinking age to 21 or lose highway funding.

Right, but they could only withhold funds that are somehow related, per the court decision in South Dakota v. Dole,, which was a constitutional challenge to the highway funding scheme. Furthermore, this would be an unpopular move on a national level and I doubt it would happen. If it did, the states would deal with the loss of funds and the President would have a very difficult working relationship with about 2/3rds of the states in the union, making his job very difficult.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I am pro-choice but your argument is one that I fully respect just disagree with.

there are just some rights that I don't think any government can take away from you.

That about sums it up.

[larrymcg421]

On the subject of a poor woman who wants a pregnancy...

You guys are forgetting that Planned Parenthood would become stronger than ever before. I am certain they would set up a fund to transport poor women to states where they could receive an abortion.

Now I disagree with many of you on the states rights argument. I am generally not a big proponent of states rights (at least not as it is usually argued). If something is a right, then the states cannot abridge it no matter what. That's what the 14th Amendment was all about. (Example - States have the power to regulate their own marriage laws, but said regulation has to conform with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process requirements.)

The difference is, I do not think abortion is a right. As I said, the difference between it and other privacy cases is that a life is involved. Think about it. We wouldn't even allow someone to kill their own household pet, completely int he privacy of a home. But it's constitutionally protected to terminate a fetus? How does that make any sense?

[Honolulu_Blue]

On the subject of a poor woman who wants a pregnancy...

You guys are forgetting that Planned Parenthood would become stronger than ever before. I am certain they would set up a fund to transport poor women to states where they could receive an abortion.

Now I disagree with many of you on the states rights argument. I am generally not a big proponent of states rights (at least not as it is usually argued). If something is a right, then the states cannot abridge it no matter what. That's what the 14th Amendment was all about. (Example - States have the power to regulate their own marriage laws, but said regulation has to conform with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process requirements.)

The difference is, I do not think abortion is a right. As I said, the difference between it and other privacy cases is that a life is involved. Think about it. We wouldn't even allow someone to kill their own household pet, completely int he privacy of a home. But it's constitutionally protected to terminate a fetus? How does that make any sense?

You're making the assumption in your argument: fetus = life. It's quite debateable as to when life begins.

You're also forgetting that there is another "life" involved: that of the woman. There's quite a difference between a fetus gestating inside a woman's body and a pet.

Do I think abortion is right? Is it wrong? I don't know. I can't answer that question in such general terms. I think, in some cases, it probably is for the best. It's a deeply personal choice for the people involved and one they, not the government, should make.

[larrymcg421]

You're making the assumption in your argument: fetus = life. It's quite debateable as to when life begins.

It sure is, but why is the court, a body of (one would hope) legal experts equipped to make this decision as to when life begins?

You're also forgetting that there is another "life" involved: that of the woman. There's quite a difference between a fetus gestating inside a woman's body and a pet.

I would suggest that the constitution does protect a woman's right to have life saving medical care, which would include an abortion if that was necessary. Also, being the liberal that I am, I would support social service programs that would assist women, particularly those that are poor, in carrying out their pregnancy and putting the child up for adoption.

Do I think abortion is right? Is it wrong? I don't know. I can't answer that question in such general terms. I think, in some cases, it probably is for the best. It's a deeply personal choice for the people involved and one they, not the government, should make.

But government is involved. No decision by our courts, and no state in the country, has opened the door for abortion on demand all the way up to pregnancy. The states have a right to regulate abortion quite a bit under both Roe and Casey. So it sounds like the fetus does become a "life" at some point. Where do we draw the line? Viability? So we've got a situation where a fetus can be protected at one point, but a week earlier the woman has a right to terminate it?

[larrymcg421]

or say the same setup is true but i'm a single woman who's living at the edge of my means and was raped and can't afford the trip?

this is the issue with overturning roe v. wade in my mind

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not necessarily mean overturning health/rape/incest protections.

[ice4277]

It sure is, but why is the court, a body of (one would hope) legal experts equipped to make this decision as to when life begins?



I would suggest that the constitution does protect a woman's right to have life saving medical care, which would include an abortion if that was necessary. Also, being the liberal that I am, I would support social service programs that would assist women, particularly those that are poor, in carrying out their pregnancy and putting the child up for adoption.



But government is involved. No decision by our courts, and no state in the country, has opened the door for abortion on demand all the way up to pregnancy. The states have a right to regulate abortion quite a bit under both Roe and Casey. So it sounds like the fetus does become a "life" at some point. Where do we draw the line? Viability? So we've got a situation where a fetus can be protected at one point, but a week earlier the woman has a right to terminate it?

I just wanted to say that you have almost precisely summed up my views on abortion.

[Glengoyne]

... So it sounds like the fetus does become a "life" at some point. Where do we draw the line? Viability? So we've got a situation where a fetus can be protected at one point, but a week earlier the woman has a right to terminate it?

That at some opint the fetus becomes a life at some point is an important consideration. I don't believe that either extreme position is reasonable. An unborn child doesn't suddenly become "alive" at moment of birth. Neither does a newly fertilized egg represent a human being. At conception, I think it would be truer to say that we have the potential for life, rather than life itself. The transformation to a state of "life" doesn't occur at either extreme. I do honestly believe that the pro-life crowd have a closer approximation than the pro-choice crowd(well the hard line pro-choicers at least).

I believe that the reasonable approach is to make abortions available up to a certain stage of pregnancy, and then after that it is simpy tough luck. If your life is in danger, and it has to be a serious danger, that can honestly be avoided by abortion then the law should provide for that as well. Your actions have led you to a position where you got pregnant, it is your responsibility to act on it in a reasonable period of time. Reasonable is the sticky point? Six months seems too long, three months doesn't seem like too bad a compromise.

[dawgfan]

That at some opint the fetus becomes a life at some point is an important consideration. I don't believe that either extreme position is reasonable. An unborn child doesn't suddenly become "alive" at moment of birth. Neither does a newly fertilized egg represent a human being. At conception, I think it would be truer to say that we have the potential for life, rather than life itself. The transformation to a state of "life" doesn't occur at either extreme. I do honestly believe that the pro-life crowd have a closer approximation than the pro-choice crowd(well the hard line pro-choicers at least).

I believe that the reasonable approach is to make abortions available up to a certain stage of pregnancy, and then after that it is simpy tough luck. If your life is in danger, and it has to be a serious danger, that can honestly be avoided by abortion then the law should provide for that as well. Your actions have led you to a position where you got pregnant, it is your responsibility to act on it in a reasonable period of time. Reasonable is the sticky point? Six months seems too long, three months doesn't seem like too bad a compromise.
This is roughly how I feel about the matter. Keep first trimester abortions legal, allow 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions only in cases where the health of the mother in danger or the fetus is nearly certain to die at or just after birth.

[dawgfan]

Every is a pretty high bar, but I like my odds if we were to quantify these results.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you like your odds", but if that means that more unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsible activity than not, then I suspect you might be right. That said, there are numerous instances of unwanted pregnancies when the involved parties took reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy from happening (condom, birth control pills, vasectomy, etc) yet that step failed.

It should also be noted that drives by social/religious conservatives to prevent widespread distribution of birth control contributes to the number of unwanted pregnancies resulting from "irresponsible" behavior.

[MrBigglesworth]

You guys are forgetting that Planned Parenthood would become stronger than ever before. I am certain they would set up a fund to transport poor women to states where they could receive an abortion.
Most states that outlaw abortions would most likely also make it a felony to go to another state for an abortion or make it a felony to assist someone in going to another state for an abortion.

[bronconick]

Most states that outlaw abortions would most likely also make it a felony to go to another state for an abortion or make it a felony to assist someone in going to another state for an abortion.

Would that be constitutional under the interstate commerce clause?

[Glengoyne]

Most states that outlaw abortions would most likely also make it a felony to go to another state for an abortion or make it a felony to assist someone in going to another state for an abortion.
Ahh the fear card. I thought you said only the Conservatives played that. Nice that you have your own, right there close at hand.

[st.cronin]

Most states that outlaw abortions would most likely also make it a felony to go to another state for an abortion or make it a felony to assist someone in going to another state for an abortion.

How in the blue blazes could that be enforced? Can you just imagine South Dakota's prosecutors asking New York for names of SD residents who sought abortions in their state? hahahaha

I love paranoia.

[Galaxy]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you like your odds", but if that means that more unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsible activity than not, then I suspect you might be right. That said, there are numerous instances of unwanted pregnancies when the involved parties took reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy from happening (condom, birth control pills, vasectomy, etc) yet that step failed.

It should also be noted that drives by social/religious conservatives to prevent widespread distribution of birth control contributes to the number of unwanted pregnancies resulting from "irresponsible" behavior.


The only way to stop an unwanted pregancy is to keep it in your pants. While those things are tools in assisting in preventing pregancy, they are never advertise as "full proof".

[Glengoyne]

The only way to stop an unwanted pregancy is to keep it in your pants. While those things are tools in assisting in preventing pregancy, they are never advertise as "full proof".
That "Ladies' man" had an alternative.

[st.cronin]

That "Ladie's man" had an alternative.

oh yeah

[dawgfan]

The only way to stop an unwanted pregancy is to keep it in your pants. While those things are tools in assisting in preventing pregancy, they are never advertise as "full proof".
I simply disagree with the social/religious conservatives that think sex should only occur between couples willing and able to become parents. If I'm taking reasonable precautions (i.e. some form of birth control) and that method fails, I think abortion should be a option. I may find that option unpleasant, but I don't think the rights of a fetus that could eventually become a human being outweigh the rights of a fully-formed adult human being.

Obviously many disagree with me on many or all of those points, and so be it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ahh the fear card. I thought you said only the Conservatives played that. Nice that you have your own, right there close at hand.
How in the blue blazes could that be enforced? Can you just imagine South Dakota's prosecutors asking New York for names of SD residents who sought abortions in their state? hahahaha

I love paranoia.
Paranoia is dangerous, but outright ignorance is much worse. Laws like this have already passed the House:
President Bush is urging the Senate to take up a bill passed by the House this week that makes it a federal crime -- complete with possible fines and jail sentences -- for doctors or other adults to help patients under 18 evade parental-notification requirements by crossing state lines for an abortion.

Opponents call it "the grandmother incarceration act" for the penalties that could be imposed on non-parents who travel with minors to end a pregnancy. But conservative groups say the measure is a way to ensure that the will of state legislatures is carried out, because it is now possible for a young woman to travel from one state to another with less restrictive laws to avoid having to tell a parent she plans to have an abortion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801943.html

This measure in 2005 was listed as one of the top 10 priorities of the Senate by the GOP leadership. Preposterous, but true. I wish I was making this stuff up.

And think about it from their POV: abortion is murder, being an accessory to murder is illegal, being an accessory to abortion should be illegal.

[revrew]

First, props to those that have contributed to making this volatile topic a civil discussion.

I'd just like to add a point very rarely mentioned, and not yet mentioned here:

Why are we so convinced that an "unplanned" or "unwanted" pregnancy is a bad thing? The logic is often to allow for something bad for both fetus and mother (an abortion) to avert something considered even worse (an unwanted pregnancy). I totally disagree with the notion that the latter is worse than the former. And why the assumption that unplanned pregnancies in unwed teenagers are so terrible? (Socially, I understand, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. But in individual lives that experience it, I disagree that it's such a tragedy).

To be fair to this discussion, my girlfriend (now wife) and I have had several "unplanned" pregnancies, including our first, when we were both teenagers. Today, these unplanned pregnancies are beautiful children, one of whom is the most highly esteemed young ladies in our fair town.

Did unplanned pregnancies make my life more challenging? You bet. Did they "destroy" it? By no means.

I'd like to see parenting in this country restored to its rightful place as a higher calling than frat parties, climbing the corporate ladder, buying pretty cars, and even...gasp...higher education. Becoming a parent is not a tragedy. Throwing away the life of my child and necessarily harming a woman's health for a shot at a shinier car...is.

[larrymcg421]

I simply disagree with the social/religious conservatives that think sex should only occur between couples willing and able to become parents. If I'm taking reasonable precautions (i.e. some form of birth control) and that method fails, I think abortion should be a option. I may find that option unpleasant, but I don't think the rights of a fetus that could eventually become a human being outweigh the rights of a fully-formed adult human being.

Obviously many disagree with me on many or all of those points, and so be it.
Well I'm far from a social/religious conservative. I'm not arguing that sex should only be between people that want to become parents. And no one says that you have to. You can put the kid up for adoption. I think it's reasonable to ask someone to carry a child to term and give them up for adoption in order to avoid destroying potential human life.

[Ryche]

I find it such a confusing line where a fetus' life starts. I have no problem with morning after pills and very early methods for terminating a pregnancy. But I also think if someone murders a woman who is pregnant, they should be charged with two murders. So it's hard for me to say that same woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy.

Ultimately, it's a choice I wouldn't want to have to deal with and I have no interest in interfering with. But politically, a political candidate's stance on the issue would have 0 impact on my vote.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'd like to see parenting in this country restored to its rightful place as a higher calling than frat parties, climbing the corporate ladder, buying pretty cars, and even...gasp...higher education. Becoming a parent is not a tragedy. Throwing away the life of my child and necessarily harming a woman's health for a shot at a shinier car...is.
You would rather be a parent than have a shiny car. You would rather be a parent than own a house, rather be a parent than go to college. But that's you. Those are your values. I have different values, someone else has different values than that. You only get one life, you should have the opportunity to live it the way you want to. You made the decision to have children, someone else may make the decision to not have children, or not have children right away. And just because they don't want children, that's not a reason to keep them from having sex. Sex is in important, natural, and enjoyable part of life. And that's what this is really about: sex. So you say, "just use contraception then." But the anti-choice crowd is also pushing to not teach about contraception, to teach abstinence instead, and to not allow life saving vaccines because they believe it might lead to sex. If the majority of anti-choice crowd were really serious about abortion and not just about sex, they would push for contraception that was taught in schools and was easily and cheaply available. That would lead to many fewer abortions, and everyone would be happy. But it's more about sex for a good portion of them, so they wouldn't be happy because people are having sex.

[larrymcg421]

You would rather be a parent than have a shiny car. You would rather be a parent than own a house, rather be a parent than go to college. But that's you. Those are your values. I have different values, someone else has different values than that. You only get one life, you should have the opportunity to live it the way you want to. You made the decision to have children, someone else may make the decision to not have children, or not have children right away. And just because they don't want children, that's not a reason to keep them from having sex. Sex is in important, natural, and enjoyable part of life. And that's what this is really about: sex. So you say, "just use contraception then." But the anti-choice crowd is also pushing to not teach about contraception, to teach abstinence instead, and to not allow life saving vaccines because they believe it might lead to sex. If the majority of anti-choice crowd were really serious about abortion and not just about sex, they would push for contraception that was taught in schools and was easily and cheaply available. That would lead to many fewer abortions, and everyone would be happy. But it's more about sex for a good portion of them, so they wouldn't be happy because people are having sex.

OK, but what would your response be to someone like me, who doesn't fit any of those anti-choice descriptions?

[MrBigglesworth]

I think it's reasonable to ask someone to carry a child to term and give them up for adoption in order to avoid destroying potential human life.
Like I said about living your life the way you want to, carrying a child to term is a big deal, it has a huge effect on your life. Living with that emotional attachment then is another huge burden. You may think it's not a big deal. That's cool, you can carry your pregnancy to term then. Someone else thinks it's a huge deal. It's dropping out of school, having to leave your job, whatever. It's their life, it should be their choice to make.

[RendeR]

Ok, I know this will obviously piss off every christian/believer/etc around here but this is my take on the topic:

Its not a viable life until its born. If its in the womb its no more than a parasite and it lives and dies on the mother's whim. its part of HER body, it is not its own entity it does not have any self control or ability to survive on its own.

Abortion is not murder, its a medical procedure to remove/correct a physical issue with the mother.

Makes this whole point pretty moot for me.

[duckman]

Its not a viable life until its born. If its in the womb its no more than a parasite and it lives and dies on the mother's whim. its part of HER body, it is not its own entity it does not have any self control or ability to survive on its own.

So you are saying that a woman should be able to have an abortion in the 38th week even though it could most likely live once it was removed from the womb?

[larrymcg421]

Like I said about living your life the way you want to, carrying a child to term is a big deal, it has a huge effect on your life. Living with that emotional attachment then is another huge burden. You may think it's not a big deal. That's cool, you can carry your pregnancy to term then. Someone else thinks it's a huge deal. It's dropping out of school, having to leave your job, whatever. It's their life, it should be their choice to make.

But there are consequences in life, and one of those consequences is the possibility of getting pregnant if you have sex. Now do I think that consequence means you should have to raise that child? No. But I do think it means you should carry that child to term. And all assistance should be offered to the mother to ease that burden as much as possible.

[MrBigglesworth]

But there are consequences in life, and one of those consequences is the possibility of getting pregnant if you have sex. Now do I think that consequence means you should have to raise that child? No. But I do think it means you should carry that child to term. And all assistance should be offered to the mother to ease that burden as much as possible.
Syphillis is a consequence of sex too, but that doesn't mean we don't give out penicillin to those who acquire it. So what's the difference? There is a potential human life. So how much you value the rights of the fetus determines where you stand. Does a month old fetus outweigh the rights of a mother? A week old? Do the rights of a one cell zygote outweigh the rights of the mother? I think it reaches a certain point where the the rights of the child do take over, but I don't think it's that early.

[RendeR]

So you are saying that a woman should be able to have an abortion in the 38th week even though it could most likely live once it was removed from the womb?

Read your own post "most likely live" is not self sustaining, or guarenteed. So my answer is yes.

Would I hope that she'd not make such a choice? absolutely. I understand that babies can be born early and survive and live fine lives, but thats NOT what this discussion is about. Until that child is born and breathing on its own it is NOT a person, it has no rights it has no status in society in any way. it is a fetus, not a child/baby/newborn/whatever label.

I understand you're showing the possible extremes of the situation and thats fine, my own thoughts are that in those extremes or once you pass a medicaly viable/survivable point in a pregnancy that a woman would find other options than abortion to deal with it, but its still up to her, not the rest of the nation to make that decision. its no-one's business but her own to deal with her body and medical status.

I know it sounds callous and cold, but that there is far too much grey area for people to bitch over if you take any stance other than "is it born and living on its own?" to start litigating control over a grown woman's life.

Until birth, its attached to her and is a PART of HER body, so its HER choice.

[clintl]

I have pretty well settled on the view that personhood starts when the brain has developed to the point where consciousness is possible. From what I've read, that's during about the 5th month. So I'm completely fine with first trimester and early second trimester abortions. After that, I think there needs to be a compelling health reason.

[AENeuman]

It seems to me that the Constitution should either allow the state to protect someone after conception or after birth, but not some random point in between.

All parents are selfish...;)

Seriously, there seems to be two discussions here. The first is: what is life. The second is: how or if the government should limit personal choice.

To start with the moral foundation of what is life, and then move to how the government should protect said life is too optimistic.

Why should we force the government to be morally hypocritical? By creating a point of what life is and then claiming from that moment on the baby is protected by the Cons't assumes the government does just that, protects its citizens with a moral servitude. Which it does generally, but not in every case and certainly not enough to say:the United States government is moral.

So, for me, the NRA can answer the abortion issue. "Sure having guns (kids) can be a bad thing, but it is not the government's function to prevent me from having (or not having) guns (kids). Besides, if the government can draft my kid, put a gun in his hand and tell him to kill, then they have not right to take the moral high ground on me."

[dawgfan]

I think it's reasonable to ask someone to carry a child to term and give them up for adoption in order to avoid destroying potential human life.
I don't. If you and your partner feel differently, you have the choice to act on your beliefs - give me the option to act on mine.

If it comes down to a definition of when "life" begins and your definition leads you to conclude that abortion = murder, then we will be unable to find a common ground.

[revrew]

Ok, I know this will obviously piss off every christian/believer/etc around here but this is my take on the topic:

Its not a viable life until its born. If its in the womb its no more than a parasite and it lives and dies on the mother's whim. its part of HER body, it is not its own entity it does not have any self control or ability to survive on its own.

No, RendeR, I'm not pissed, nor responding in flame, but I do think your point is logically inconsistent and/or dangerous. Here's why:

Once the baby is born, it still "does not have any self control or ability to survive on its own."

Without the strong willing to protect this "potential life," that baby is dead within 3 days. The same is true of someone's Alzheimer's grandfather or retarded brother. No, I'm not arguing "slippery slope," because this veiwpoint is already at the bottom of it. If life is determined by ability to be self-sustaining, then abortion should be legal up until roughly a child's third year of life.

[RendeR]

No, RendeR, I'm not pissed, nor responding in flame, but I do think your point is logically inconsistent and/or dangerous. Here's why:

Once the baby is born, it still "does not have any self control or ability to survive on its own."

Without the strong willing to protect this "potential life," that baby is dead within 3 days. The same is true of someone's Alzheimer's grandfather or retarded brother. No, I'm not arguing "slippery slope," because this veiwpoint is already at the bottom of it. If life is determined by ability to be self-sustaining, then abortion should be legal up until roughly a child's third year of life.

Your taking the wrong direction of my point. Once the child is born it is an INDIVIDUAL ENTITY which can then live or die on its own. While its still attached to that umbilicle cord it is PART of the mother.

This has nothing to do with its abitlity to truly fend for itself, if take care of it can and will live apart from the mother. Same with your other examples. The difference is a fetus is NOT a seperate entity its a pile of cells growing in the mother's body, its little more than a large tumor or cyst that will continue to grow as long as its atached.

once the child is BORN it is an individual with rights and privelages that our nation acedes to its citizens and all the protections that brings with it.

But NOT until its born.

My argument is just fine as long as you stop trying to change its direction and focus, thank you.


EDIT: And I do appreciate your civil and thoughtful response! ;)

[mgadfly]

Although I'm against abortion, I've come to the conclusion that my position is almost completely dependant on my faith.

I can't prove when human life begins--nor can I prove when a spirit enters a baby's body.

Because my view that abortions are wrong/bad/sinful (whatever) are almost completely founded on my faith, I believe my ideas shouldn't be forced on the rest of society (just as I refuse to accept the faith-based views of other religions, i.e. Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc...). Instead I'll try to spread the Good News and convince people of the truth of that message, thereby changing their hearts and their actions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Although I'm against abortion, I've come to the conclusion that my position is almost completely dependant on my faith.

I can't prove when human life begins--nor can I prove when a spirit enters a baby's body.

Because my view that abortions are wrong/bad/sinful (whatever) are almost completely founded on my faith, I believe my ideas shouldn't be forced on the rest of society (just as I refuse to accept the faith-based views of other religions, i.e. Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc...). Instead I'll try to spread the Good News and convince people of the truth of that message, thereby changing their hearts and their actions.
Not trying to attack you here, because I like your open minded outlook, but doesn't your faith say that abortion is sinful because your faith believes that life begins at conception? So isn't saying you are against abortion because of your faith implicity saying that you agree that life begins at conception?

[dawgfan]

Because my view that abortions are wrong/bad/sinful (whatever) are almost completely founded on my faith, I believe my ideas shouldn't be forced on the rest of society (just as I refuse to accept the faith-based views of other religions, i.e. Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc...). Instead I'll try to spread the Good News and convince people of the truth of that message, thereby changing their hearts and their actions.
I appreciated this approach, and wish more people of faith followed this path.

[Karlifornia]

Anyone who is anti-abortion just wants to avoid having to make the decision their parents kicked around for 8 months. ;)

[dawgfan]

Your taking the wrong direction of my point. Once the child is born it is an INDIVIDUAL ENTITY which can then live or die on its own. While its still attached to that umbilicle cord it is PART of the mother.

This has nothing to do with its abitlity to truly fend for itself, if take care of it can and will live apart from the mother. Same with your other examples. The difference is a fetus is NOT a seperate entity its a pile of cells growing in the mother's body, its little more than a large tumor or cyst that will continue to grow as long as its atached.

once the child is BORN it is an individual with rights and privelages that our nation acedes to its citizens and all the protections that brings with it.

But NOT until its born.
To play devil's advocate to your position, what about the example of premature babies? While 9 months is the standard gestation time, babies can be delivered prior to this length of time and survive. Yes, in most cases these infants need medical assitance, but we don't force premature babies to make it without assistance and we don't provide parents of premature babies the option to just say "Fuck it, I'd rather not have the baby now so let it die."

In my view, there is a spectrum between the moment of conception and the standard 9 month point where babies normally are born. For some, it's a binary distinction - moment of conception = life = full legal and moral rights. For others it's also a binary distinction, but the arbitrary demarcation point is birth. For me, it's not arbitrary, though I recognize there has to be some point where you draw a line. For me (as I've said) I feel OK with granting the 1st trimester as a period where a person can make an arbitrary decision to abort. After that point I'm OK with limiting abortion to health risk cases only.

[Karlifornia]

Dola,

Seriously, though, I believe that this is a decision that is so personal, that allowing the government to make that decision for everybody would make this a country I would rather not live in. Being able to make adult decisions like this is the greatest thing about living here.

You don't like abortions? Then don't ever get one, but I don't want my girlfriend/wife being told she can't because it goes against someone else's Bible.

[Galaxy]

You don't like abortions? Then don't ever get one, but I don't want my girlfriend/wife being told she can't because it goes against someone else's Bible.

Interesting point. Should a spouse who is the mother or father have a say in such a decision?

[Galaril]

When I first saw this thread title, the first thing that poped into my head was: are these guys heavyweights or middleweights? :) I guess thta tells me how much I am concerned with politics.

[dawgfan]

Interesting point. Should a spouse who is the mother or father have a say in such a decision?
Very sticky area. My position would be to say that it's ultimately the woman's decision, but if she decides to have the baby against the father's wishes, then the father is not obligated to provide child support. Ideally though, couples would have discussed the potential ramifications of a pregnancy before engaging in intercourse and come to an agreement on how they'd handle it.

[RendeR]

To play devil's advocate to your position, what about the example of premature babies? While 9 months is the standard gestation time, babies can be delivered prior to this length of time and survive. Yes, in most cases these infants need medical assitance, but we don't force premature babies to make it without assistance and we don't provide parents of premature babies the option to just say "Fuck it, I'd rather not have the baby now so let it die."

In my view, there is a spectrum between the moment of conception and the standard 9 month point where babies normally are born. For some, it's a binary distinction - moment of conception = life = full legal and moral rights. For others it's also a binary distinction, but the arbitrary demarcation point is birth. For me, it's not arbitrary, though I recognize there has to be some point where you draw a line. For me (as I've said) I feel OK with granting the 1st trimester as a period where a person can make an arbitrary decision to abort. After that point I'm OK with limiting abortion to health risk cases only.

Again, this is clear cut and simple in my view. if the child is born, premature or otherwise, it is a viable and individual person with all the rights thereof.

The difference in our views is that until that fetus exits the womb and is removed from the umbillicle cord it is just that, a fetus, not a life, not a baby, not a person NOT a citizen with any rights protections or consideration.

The one problem with the conception == life == rights point of view is this: Millions of women have spontaneous abortions every day, never knowing they were pregnant. Who's screaming about those "lives" lost? If life begins at conceptions then god is wasting a LOT of souls on those spontaneous failures. (I apologize, that sounds very rude, but I'm not trying to be)

This is why I believe its not a "life" until its born and breathing its own air and living on its own bodily functions. Anything while attached physically to the mother is still just a lump of flesh that the mother and ONLY the mother has the right to make decisions about.

[RendeR]

Interesting point. Should a spouse who is the mother or father have a say in such a decision?

No.


Its not their body, they have no rights over it.

Until the child is born they have nothing they can claim as theirs.

[Brillig]

This is why I believe its not a "life" until its born and breathing its own air and living on its own bodily functions. Anything while attached physically to the mother is still just a lump of flesh that the mother and ONLY the mother has the right to make decisions about.

You might want to be careful with that line of reasoning. Suppose the pregnant mother decided to have herself injected with an drug that would prevent the baby's brain from ever developing. The infant to be delivered at term, then harvested for organs. Still have no problems?

[bronconick]

Interesting point. Should a spouse who is the mother or father have a say in such a decision?

I think you should have discussed the possiblility beforehand if you decide to dip your wick. If it's a one night stand thing where discussing it isn't likely, it doesn't really feel like a situation where the guy's going to have a heavy interest in raising the child.

[MrBigglesworth]

You might want to be careful with that line of reasoning. Suppose the pregnant mother decided to have herself injected with an drug that would prevent the baby's brain from ever developing. The infant to be delivered at term, then harvested for organs. Still have no problems?
Allowing one or two or a dozen other babies to live with the new organs? I don't really have a problem with that. I'm a little grossed out by it, but I don't see how I would be morally opposed to it, unless there was some significant failure rate of the drug.

[larrymcg421]

Please.stop.using.strawman.arguments.about.the.bible.

They do nothing for me. I am not Bubba.

[larrymcg421]

Syphillis is a consequence of sex too, but that doesn't mean we don't give out penicillin to those who acquire it. So what's the difference? There is a potential human life. So how much you value the rights of the fetus determines where you stand. Does a month old fetus outweigh the rights of a mother? A week old? Do the rights of a one cell zygote outweigh the rights of the mother? I think it reaches a certain point where the the rights of the child do take over, but I don't think it's that early.

Right but my main point is who should make that decision on when the rights of the child take over? I'm suggesting that there is no "right" to an abortion within the constitution and the Roe decision was based on faulty logic. However, if enough people feel differently, then the Constitution could be amended to guarantee this right, or they could get serious and vote out the representatives in the states who are banning abortion.

[larrymcg421]

I don't. If you and your partner feel differently, you have the choice to act on your beliefs - give me the option to act on mine.

Ok, but do you think there is a point where abortion can be limited? 1st trimerster, viability, etc.? So what do you say to someone like Render who thinks abortion should be available up to the moment of birth? Why are you denying them the option to act on their beliefs?

And why do your beliefs deserve constitutional protection more than Render's? Why don't you have to fight for your beliefs democratically?

If it comes down to a definition of when "life" begins and your definition leads you to conclude that abortion = murder, then we will be unable to find a common ground.

I've never said abortion is murder, so I'm not sure why you're making this point to me.

[MrBug708]

I appreciated this approach, and wish more people of faith followed this path.

Do not mistake the outspoken cry of a few for the majority...

[MrBug708]

Syphillis is a consequence of sex too, but that doesn't mean we don't give out penicillin to those who acquire it. So what's the difference? There is a potential human life. So how much you value the rights of the fetus determines where you stand. Does a month old fetus outweigh the rights of a mother? A week old? Do the rights of a one cell zygote outweigh the rights of the mother? I think it reaches a certain point where the the rights of the child do take over, but I don't think it's that early.

You raise your Syphillis, I'll raise the baby...

[MrBug708]

No.


Its not their body, they have no rights over it.

Until the child is born they have nothing they can claim as theirs.

It's why I carry a waiver form....

Which begs the question. Would a legal document signed before sex or even a prenup that states no abortion will ever be done unless both parties consent or even vice versa, ever hold up in court?

[RendeR]

You might want to be careful with that line of reasoning. Suppose the pregnant mother decided to have herself injected with an drug that would prevent the baby's brain from ever developing. The infant to be delivered at term, then harvested for organs. Still have no problems?


NONE.

[RendeR]

Allowing one or two or a dozen other babies to live with the new organs? I don't really have a problem with that. I'm a little grossed out by it, but I don't see how I would be morally opposed to it, unless there was some significant failure rate of the drug.


DOLA: for the reasons he states. Including his position on the idea of the injection.

[RendeR]

It's why I carry a waiver form....

Which begs the question. Would a legal document signed before sex or even a prenup that states no abortion will ever be done unless both parties consent or even vice versa, ever hold up in court?

Pre-nups have had limitations in the past, I'm not sure how valid something along this line might be. Good question.

[RendeR]

Right but my main point is who should make that decision on when the rights of the child take over? I'm suggesting that there is no "right" to an abortion within the constitution and the Roe decision was based on faulty logic. However, if enough people feel differently, then the Constitution could be amended to guarantee this right, or they could get serious and vote out the representatives in the states who are banning abortion.


Again, the same problem with most anti-abortion positions is exactly what you just did.

This isn't about having the right to an abortion, this is about having a right to choose what is done to your body. Not having that choice taken from you based on someone elses belief system.

The Constitution does not protect abortion, anywhere. It DOES however protect the individual rights of every citizen. If you no longer have the right to CHOOSE for yourself, what good is the Constitution?

[larrymcg421]

Again, the same problem with most anti-abortion positions is exactly what you just did.

This isn't about having the right to an abortion, this is about having a right to choose what is done to your body. Not having that choice taken from you based on someone elses belief system.

The Constitution does not protect abortion, anywhere. It DOES however protect the individual rights of every citizen. If you no longer have the right to CHOOSE for yourself, what good is the Constitution?

I understand that aspect, as I've stated in my first post. I think the decisions leading up to Roe were correct in recognizing that liberty protects private behavior. But still, that right is not universal. For instance, you do not have the right to take drugs within the privacy of your own home. It seems to me bizaare that the courts could come to a conclusion that you have a right to terminate an unborn fetus, but you do not have the right to ingest heroin.

I think Roe misapplied the privacy argument. In all of those previous decisions, there was no third party that received any harm. Now we can all argue over the value of that third party, but that still brings a much different aspect to the case than was apparent in other privacy cases. And I think the disagreement over that key fact should be settled democratically rather than by judicial fiat.

[dawgfan]

Ok, but do you think there is a point where abortion can be limited? 1st trimerster, viability, etc.?
I do - as I've said, I'm OK with limiting unrestricted access to abortions to the first trimester, and limiting abortions thereafter to health risk cases only.

So what do you say to someone like Render who thinks abortion should be available up to the moment of birth? Why are you denying them the option to act on their beliefs?
If he actually thinks that abortions should be unlimited up until birth, then he and I disagree. I would also argue that his rights are limited but not completely denied - there is enough time within the first trimester period for a couple to know that a pregnancy has occurred and to give some thought to what they want to do.

The difference between the example between him and I and you and I is that my position still allows RendeR the chance to have an abortion (within a certain time frame). Your position doesn't allow me the chance to have an abortion at any time. That's a critical difference IMO.

I've never said abortion is murder, so I'm not sure why you're making this point to me.
The "you" in that sentence was not a specific reference to you but a general reference to someone that thinks that way, so my apologies about the confusion.

[MrBigglesworth]

I understand that aspect, as I've stated in my first post. I think the decisions leading up to Roe were correct in recognizing that liberty protects private behavior. But still, that right is not universal. For instance, you do not have the right to take drugs within the privacy of your own home. It seems to me bizaare that the courts could come to a conclusion that you have a right to terminate an unborn fetus, but you do not have the right to ingest heroin.
Perhaps they are wrong on the latter and not the former?

[flere-imsaho]

I have pretty well settled on the view that personhood starts when the brain has developed to the point where consciousness is possible. From what I've read, that's during about the 5th month. So I'm completely fine with first trimester and early second trimester abortions. After that, I think there needs to be a compelling health reason.

To add to this, I'd just like to point out that according to the CDC's statistics, 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are a very small percentage of overall abortions and are mostly due to health reasons.

[dawgfan]

To add to this, I'd just like to point out that according to the CDC's statistics, 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are a very small percentage of overall abortions and are mostly due to health reasons.
Yeah, this is what pissed me off about the hullaballoo over "partial-birth" abortions - these are only performed for health reasons. Women aren't walking into clinics at 8 months saying "On second thought, I don't want this baby" and getting this procedure done.

[Glengoyne]

Ok, I know this will obviously piss off every christian/believer/etc around here but this is my take on the topic:

Its not a viable life until its born. If its in the womb its no more than a parasite and it lives and dies on the mother's whim. its part of HER body, it is not its own entity it does not have any self control or ability to survive on its own.

Abortion is not murder, its a medical procedure to remove/correct a physical issue with the mother.

Makes this whole point pretty moot for me.

I don't think a person has to be a christian to find this position offensive, or maybe offensive isn't the right word. I say that because I'm not offended by your position. I find it ridiculous, in that the parasitic relationship has much more utility for a troll on a message board, than it does in accurately describing the relationship between a mother and her unborn child.

Edit: to add that after reading the rest of your posts in this thread, it is apparent that you aren't just simply trolling. I'm still going to leave my post intact, but I understand that your position is simply completely opposite of mine in that you believe you can definitively state that life begins at point "X". I just disagree with that assertion.

[Glengoyne]

Yeah, this is what pissed me off about the hullaballoo over "partial-birth" abortions - these are only performed for health reasons. Women aren't walking into clinics at 8 months saying "On second thought, I don't want this baby" and getting this procedure done.

Well the deal here, is that in order to do a partial birth abortion, you actually deliver the child breech. This is done in order to retain the technicality that the child wasn't completely born, so it essentially doesn't count. That is where the deal the "health of the mother" comes into question on that procedure. If they just let the child move a few more inches out of the birth canal there would be NO danger to the health of the mother. Is it really necessary to kill the child before letting it travel those few last inches?

IIRC during the congressional hearings on this the AMA's position wavered around on this, but essentially declared that while they couldn't identify a situation where a woman's life was in danger where this would help, they weren't able to rule out that such a situation could exist.

I don't honestly know what the motivation to undergo these procedures is. But considering the details of this particular procedure, I find the "health of the mother" to be specious at best.

[Glengoyne]

Not trying to attack you here, because I like your open minded outlook, but doesn't your faith say that abortion is sinful because your faith believes that life begins at conception? So isn't saying you are against abortion because of your faith implicity saying that you agree that life begins at conception?

Don't know if I'll make the unintentional tripple Dola, but in any case I'm catching to the posts in this thread.

I don't know that anyone's "faith" proclaims that life begins at conception. That is just the essentially convenient and arbitrary assertion that some people of various faiths have asserted.

[dawgfan]

I've never said abortion is murder, so I'm not sure why you're making this point to me.
Upon further thought, why would someone oppose abortion if they didn't feel that the procedure was tantamount to murder?

[larrymcg421]

Upon further thought, why would someone oppose abortion if they didn't feel that the procedure was tantamount to murder?

Well I don't necessarily oppose abortion in a strict sense. I simply think it is an issue that should be left up to the states. I think the Roe decision was faulty for a number of reasons, including standing, but also misapplying the privacy precedents.

The issue of where life begins is a very difficult and troubling one that people are not going to agree on. But I'm more comfortable with this question settled democratically instead of by the courts. I can certainly sympathize with your argument, because it's where I stand on almost every other rights issue. I just think this situation is different because of the extra life (potential or otherwise) at stake.

[larrymcg421]

Perhaps they are wrong on the latter and not the former?

Perhaps, but to me the latter would be more clear cut because no there is no additional party that receives any kind of harm.

[MrBigglesworth]

Perhaps, but to me the latter would be more clear cut because no there is no additional party that receives any kind of harm.
Then we are back to determining if and/or at what point there is an additional party.

[larrymcg421]

Then we are back to determining if and/or at what point there is an additional party.

I think there definitely is an additional party. It depends on the value placed on that additional party and at what point the value is enough to where the state has the right to intervene.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, and that's the crux of the problem. A collection of cells to one is human life to another. Where human life begins is, I would argue, a subjective judgment, and thus a debate with no middle ground.

[larrymcg421]

Well, and that's the crux of the problem. A collection of cells to one is human life to another. Where human life begins is, I would argue, a subjective judgment, and thus a debate with no middle ground.

Right, and because of that I'd prefer it be handled in a democratic fashion rather than decided by the courts.

[WSUCougar]

Ok, I know this will obviously piss off every christian/believer/etc around here but this is my take on the topic:

Its not a viable life until its born. If its in the womb its no more than a parasite and it lives and dies on the mother's whim. its part of HER body, it is not its own entity it does not have any self control or ability to survive on its own.

Abortion is not murder, its a medical procedure to remove/correct a physical issue with the mother.

Makes this whole point pretty moot for me.
Just curious, but do you have children?