I look at it this way. Say a woman has a tapeworm (stick with me on this), and lets it grow inside of her for, say, 9 months. And at the end of 9 months (per example), she either craps it out at home, or goes to a hospital to get it removed.

Now, if she finds out about it BEFORE 9 months is up, and goes to the doctors to have its tiny, one celled brains scrambled and then get it sucked out of her, nobody bats an eye. In fact, people may even congratulate her on making it through something like that without any long-term effects (save the whole "worm pulled out of your backside part").

Now, what can be compared to tapeworms?

Babies.

I mean think about it, they are both put into her body by a piece of meat (in most cases), they both spend all that time in her, sharing her food, getting bigger, making her throw up in the morning, what have you. About the only difference is that tapeworms don't kick.

So let me ask this, if a baby is more or less the same thing as a tapeworm, why is it considered such a bad thing to have it removed? Hell, I'd even go so far as to say it's better. After all, you don't need to take care of a tapeworm once it's out.

Of course, I find that Maddox also has a valid position on the matter.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

I'm pro-choise as long as there is a set timeline for when the abortion must be carried out. I'd rather a barely developed embryo be removed than a fetus, if that makes any since. I'm not very knowledgable about the levels of baby development, but I'm pro choice as long as its early on.

I hate the rabid all-or-nothing politicization of this particular issue.

Any "worldview" (hey, look, a dog-whistle word!) that treats a blastula as morally equivalent to a person is ridiculously out of touch with reality.

It's stupid to draw the line at birth, too. The brain doesn't turn on the moment a child passes through the birth canal.

"Drawing lines" at all is pretty misguided. Consciousness just doesn't start up in an instant. Human development is a gradual process. How we treat a developing human needs to be much more refined than just "tissue" one moment and "person" the next -- notice how, outside the world of abortion debates, there are actually all kinds of categories in between those two.

When it comes to the ballot, I tend to favor "pro-choice" policies simply because "pro-life" measures cluster around a very extreme end of the spectrum.

-- Alex

Wow alex, you have a pretty good point. The brain doesn't turn on in the birth canal.

Let's go with the spartan viewpoint where babies are inspected at birth, and if they are unworthy/unfit they are thrown into a canyon for scavengers to feast upon.

gim73:
Wow alex, you have a pretty good point. The brain doesn't turn on in the birth canal.

Let's go with the spartan viewpoint where babies are inspected at birth, and if they are unworthy/unfit they are thrown into a canyon for scavengers to feast upon.

Except for that one evil baby surviving and leading Spartan into excess and decay.

I don't care about abortion laws because as a man I'm never going to have one personally and I don't have any problem morally with the act, in fact I don't care if the abortionist just stood outside and clubed the babies head on the way out like an infant version of whack-a-mole.

This is an issue for the pregnant woman and whomever they are with at the time (if anyone). No one else has the right to decide what a woman does with her body, least of all men and religious groups. Yes, I'm a man, and was nearly aborted before birth, but my mother decided adoption was a better bet. I've been told repeatedly that I should be antiabortion, but logic dictates that I can't be. As a man, I have no qualifications to say what a woman goes through when she is pregnant. If she feels that aborting the pregnancy (I refuse to classify it as a child, because medical science shows otherwise. It is non-sentient, just a collection of cells) is her best choice, then that is her business, not that of any god bothers or morals and values crowd (who also seem to have none of what they preach).

[Edit for incredibly poor taste joke. No more forumming after pub crawls for me.]

ThaBenMan:
I'm pro-choice. The decision should lie with the pregnant woman. And I wouldn't consider the baby to actually be a person until after it has left it's mothers body.

I agree for the infinity of time and space, although by the third trimester the idea of abortion is too creepy to be legal.

Third trimester is when it starts to look like a baby and not like a lizard monster, right? Ladies? Help.

Copter400:
I agree for the infinity of time and space, although by the third trimester the idea of abortion is too creepy to be legal.

Third trimester is when it starts to look like a baby and not like a lizard monster, right? Ladies? Help.

Almost, its like a really deformed mutant, like what someone would draw/sculpt if they'd never seen a human before and only heard a description of their appearance. If your willing to lose your stomach contents, some of the more "aggressive" pro-life websites have thousands of photos of dead fetuses from the third trimester, if only to provide further evidence of their warped psyches.

It should be mandatory, really. People should need a license in order to breed. I think the window should also be expanded until about the, oh, 30 year mark? That way if you get someone who's "just not working out" you can get rid of them and try again!

Seriously. There are already enough people who should not have children having children, last you need to do is make it impossible for the ones who have the common sense to say "Hey, this might not be a good idea, I can't support this kid!" to avoid it.

You make a good point there Deceased Frederick. Actually an idea like yours would cut down on foetual alchol syndrome. I've seen so many kids whose mothers kept knocking back beers, its depressing to see so many in my town. Such an easy thing to avoid but no, they want their kids to be born with congenital defects.

I think it's fine AS LONG AS it's before 6 months, I think it's sick that some people abort their baby when it's basically alive, I've heard stories about kids who were aborted and lived.

SecretTacoNinja:
I think it's fine AS LONG AS it's before 6 months, I think it's sick that some people abort their baby when it's basically alive, I've heard stories about kids who were aborted and lived.

I believe those stories are completely urban legend, its not possible, unless its China style and the syringe missed.

Abortion should NEVER be a form of birth control, and, after the first trimester, I think is when it gets really wrong.

I am, however, for abortion if it (the pregnancy) will harm the mother,and in cases of rape and incest.

I'm personally against it, but I don't want it to end by having Big Brother come and make it illegal. I just hope that everyone in society decides it's something they don't want anymore.

Either way, I respect everyone's right to choice, even when I might not agree with it.

Pro-choice.

I read an interview with a retired doctor who was called upon many, many times to try to fix the damage scared teenagers did to themselves back in the 50s. Sex education was absent in these days and parents didn't want to discuss it either, so more often than not he would have to try to repair a girl's mutilated urethra because she didn't even know where to stick the coat hanger.

Self abortions go back to ancient days, evidence has been found in Egyptian ruins, so laws aren't going to stop it. (We have plenty of laws about murder. Has murder stopped happening?) I would rather women be allowed to safely do what they want to do instead of crippling themselves in fear and, even worse, ignorance.

ThaBenMan:
I'm pro-choice. The decision should lie with the pregnant woman. And I wouldn't consider the baby to actually be a person until after it has left it's mothers body.

This is correct.

LewsTherin:
My stance on this issue is that abortion would be a choice in some situations. Not in the lieu of "Oh, I'm pregnant again, I'll just have an abortion", blowing it off as an excuse to just go around having sex with whoever because the doctors can magically un-impregnate you.

So is this.

I'm talking about situations like the mother is a victim of rape or the child would be born into a family unit that would not be able to support it, be it from financial troubles, abuse, whatever else. You have to consider the child in your decision making, as much as the parents, IMHO.

And this.

While there are times that an abortion might be necessary, it should only be done in those times.

If you choose to have sex, then you choose to take the risk of having a child and therefore an abortion should not be an option.

What about a rape? Well, that's a bit different. I think it might depend on circumstances but I think that in most cases an abortion isn't the answer. If the woman is incapable of supporting a child, then maybe it's best.

If the abortion could save the mother's life, then do it.

But something like this should be born of necessity and not desire.

Can we call abortions near life experiences?

I believe it's the parent's choice to slaughter their growing parasite (not being rude but an unborn baby in the womb is technically a parasite). It also depends totally on the situation.

I'm amazed to think anyone would consider a woman would be going 'ah dont want this, I'll pop down the docs and get rid of it'.

Despite being horrendously ignorant of both abortion and childbirth, surely there's got to be serious physical,emotional and psychological effects to having an abortion, to stepping in the way of nature.

Now having said that, I'm totally in favour of abortion, so long as the woman gets the care and after treatment to deal with the effects of it. (and as stated above, if needed, the education to not be back next year, if it's thru carelessness.)

Really tho, a foetus isn't a baby human, until it's out, same way I'd be pissed if I order chicken nuggets and get handed a box of eggs.

Can't remember who said it but I'm also in agreement with 'I'm in favour of abortion up to the age of when they quit making noise in movie theaters'.

jamanticus:

H.R.Shovenstuff:
Pro-choice here
I don't see how anyone else can dictate to a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. And that group of cells in her womb is not a child.

....But there's an excellent chance that those cells will develop into a child, so you have to take the future into consideration, right?

sorry for the late response, but I'm afraid that argument doesn't wash with me. If you use reductio ad absurdum, which I happen to be a massive fan of, you could say all human endeavor is ultimately futile because we are all going to die a terribly ironic death when our main life-giver, the ,sun, decides to explode. The fact is, those cells aren't a human being capable of pain, emotion or thought.
And my first statement is still apt, a woman's body is her own damned business.

Eyclonus:

SecretTacoNinja:
I think it's fine AS LONG AS it's before 6 months, I think it's sick that some people abort their baby when it's basically alive, I've heard stories about kids who were aborted and lived.

I believe those stories are completely urban legend, its not possible, unless its China style and the syringe missed.

No, there was a girl at my brother's school who had been aborted and lived, I'm not sure how though.

gim73:
Wow alex, you have a pretty good point. The brain doesn't turn on in the birth canal.

Let's go with the spartan viewpoint where babies are inspected at birth, and if they are unworthy/unfit they are thrown into a canyon for scavengers to feast upon.

If only this still happened. The world wouldn't have had George Bush.

The safty of the woman is always more important.

Choice, man. Choice.

Because if said woman doesn't want to have a child, and if she has to, then chances are, the child is probably going to grow up emotionally unsound. Even if the child does do well in school, goes to a great college, etc. (and honestly, if the mother doesn't want him/her, what are the odds?), the former argument holds. May be unstable.

Besides, that's one less mouth for the environment to feed. Which, for example, works in China, with it's 1.3 billion citizens. The whole 1 child per family may give less freedom, but it makes ecological sense, since the country's having so many problems.

Pro-Choice. Only women and men of the strongest character and resources could treat their child right if they didn't intend to have it or concieve it, and the last thing we need is more children being abused by unloving parents. When all's said and done, the woman having the child should get the final say. All the pain and preparations and medical expenses aside, having and raising a child is a far, FAR greater responsibility than having a job. Dump a tough job on someone they never wanted or knew how to do and they'll resent you and it for all eternity.

It especially gets me when young couples refuse to have an abortion against all logic and reason just because their religion says it's bad, or their parents say it's bad. BAH!

I don't consider it a child until it has fully developed and started moving, but even then it still should be the woman's decision. I can't tell you what's right and wrong, you need to decide for yourself.

Boober the Pig:
I'll call myself pro life. There are times it may be justified but I would never want to make that call. For disclosure I have a seven year old son with Downs Syndrome. It was diagnosed early in the pregnancy and several complications followed. The OB suggested that abortion was an alternative but my wife and I went with it. I'm more for dealing with the causes of abortion the just saying no. My OB friends, my wife is a doctor so I know a few doctors, agonize over it. Most have done it though. More education, more birth control, and a little more respect for the power of procreation and maybe the question wouldn't come up so often.

My compliments on your moral strength; I don't know if I would have the strength and courage to do the same. On the negative side, your child will always need assistance and will face many things he/she can't do, but on the plus side, you'll never have a sweeter, more loving child.

On abortion, ethically it's probably murder - killing a unique and separate human being, after all. Legally, I think it should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside the womb. At that point anyone can raise the baby and the mother's choices should devolve to childbirth at term or early childbirth via induced labor. Just as the law cannot (and should not) be able to force you to donate an organ to save someone's life, neither should it be able to force a woman to carry a child if she does not wish to.

DRIVE-BY EDIT: Survivors of botched abortions aren't an urban legend - I've heard two speak and I haven't exactly been seeking them out. One was the victim of a botched 8th month partial birth abortion where the "doctor" literally attempts to pull the baby into pieces. He managed to pull one arm off, but the stress to the baby triggered labor and the baby was delivered in the abortion clinic. She survived, albeit with only one arm, and was placed up for adoption. The second was the victim of a botched fifth or sixth month (I forget) conventional abortion where the doctor injects a caustic (I forget what) into the amniotic sack to kill the baby, with the intention that the woman then suffers a spontaneous miscarriage (which usually happens when a fetus dies.) This particular child survived and was born a couple of weeks later, very premature and with some severe health problems from the toxin. I think she has muscular dystrophy, but it might have been something else. She is an amazingly upbeat and positive child in high school or just starting college, I forget which. (If you can't tell, I'm trying to forget both of those stories.)

To those arguing that fathers should have a say, remember that to do that you have to assume life starts at conception or implantation. That leads to things like mandatory investigations for miscarriages (to see if you did something to cause the baby to die) and forcing a woman to carry a rapist's baby to term (could anything be worse?) That's not a nice road to go down. Much better in my opinion to simply delegate the decision to the mother and recognize that once again, life is unfair to everyone at some point.

Khell, I understand that you hate your job and you hate your life, but do you blame that specifically on conservatives or do you just feel better hating everyone who thinks differently? If the former, I for one would like to hear that story - maybe in a separate rant thread? You do those so well, by the way.

ThaBenMan:
I'm pro-choice. The decision should lie with the pregnant woman. And I wouldn't consider the baby to actually be a person until after it has left it's mothers body.

Are you insane? If the baby is not a person when it's in the mother's body then what is it? Unborn babies have unique genetics that are different from the mother. They have fully functioning brains at about four months. They appear to be very obviously human at only two months. Since when do we put an age limit on the rights of people?

South Park pretty much sums it up.

I honestly dont get the silly arguments used to put against it, the 'its still a life' one seems to imply that all anti abortionists must never eat meat, wear leather, use sinew for anything or, most importantly, never use a product thats been tested on animals because animals are 'still life'?

In the same way what makes something alive is a mind, not necessarily a brain, but a mind. The ability to think again is not necessary but the ability to think and whilst a bunch of stem cells can process datum and such they aren't alive since a computer can do more thinking than a cell can if were putting it like that so are computers alive too? I doubt any religious person would accept that (and it is mostly religious people who are against it) because a computer doesn't have a 'soul', that magical non-existing thing.

Severely pro-choice, it should also be the doctors choice if they want to carry out the procedure though, if they don't the woman should be referred etc.

EDIT: "Since when do we put an age limit on the rights of people?"

Cant drive till 17
Cant have sex till 16
Cant drink till 18
Cant get married till 18
Cant leave education till 16
Cant vote till 18 yet have to pay tax at 16

Enough for you?

I have known too many girls who just sleep around randomly and get abortions every other week so for that reason I am against it.
I believe if you can spread your legs to let something in then you can spread em again to let something out.
However. There of course is the fact that these girls would obviously be horrible mothers so not only would they suffer but more importantly the child would suffer so in the end it is for the best to abort.
Also it does come down to one thing. If we start controlling other people then where will we stop ?
Youre pregnant its your fault so no abortion. Smoking causes lung cancer so thats illegal too. Youre fat so we are going to force you onto a diet.
Basically all of us have issues that others do not like and none of us would like being controlled so how can we do it to others ?

"I have known too many girls who just sleep around randomly and get abortions every other week so for that reason I am against it."

I highly doubt that, typically after about 3 abortions you become infertile....