FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

k i've seen in a couple of other threads people saying things for abortion. Now I'm not particularly contected or knowledgeble of the gay comunity or know what the general consenses amoung gays is on any political issue that is not contacted to gayness or what ever.

I'd like to know where people here stand on the issue. Do you see it as more of a woman's body issue? Or do you see it as more of a baby's live issue?

--and watch the tempers

I support a woman's right to choice over her body. A woman's mental, emotional, and physical health comes before a fetus.

Being a man ...
I really don't think I should have a say in what a woman does with her body
..but since you asked
pregnancy terminations like Bill Clinton said...
Should be rare but attainable to women when they need them

I think it is taking a life. Science views life beginning at conception. With that said, however, I am am man and I will never know what it like to be a women who made a mistake, a women who got pregant from being raped, or someone who has to choose between dying if she continues with the pregancy or having a abortion. So, while personally I think it is wrong, I think people should have the choice to choose what they want to do. Each women has to make the choice that is right for them and I dont fault them for doing so/

I believe in choice, the baby's choice. Let the baby choose to live or die. the little girl's choice is just important as the mother's choice. Why should the woman's right supersede the female baby's choice, or male?


just because people change the word baby to fetus, the name literely turn a living thing into a dead tissue. A woman has the right to choose to take the ovaries, which is a tissue, out then have sex. that's her choice. leave the choice of life to the baby.

as for rape, if the woman has considered killing the baby via abortion, she won't have problem giving him up for adaption. the only case I see abortion is fitting is when the life of mother is threatened. And this would only account to less then 1% of all current abortion.

i've never understood that "personally opposed"

I'm personally opposed too people getting guned down in the street

i mean fuck if you really believed that it is the killing of a baby, then you wouldn't want to let it happen. Or are you just a little pussy, Andrecito?

I say suck that shit out with a Vacuum Cleaner. but make sure to use it in stem cell research.

I will say I was surprised to see a vegan be pro choice. they are all about we have to help the animals who cant help themselves so it seems to be against helping the fetus who can't help itself.

^ way to watch your temper Buff

I am opposed to abortion on an individual level because I don't think we can set a standard on when life begins. A fetus is going to become a child under most circumstances so I could never bring myself to think its only a child if it crosses a certain line.

Politically I respect that the government has no right to interfere with a women's choice. So I am opposed to any regulation. I only hope women would themselves make the choice to birth the child and even give it away if unwanted. At the same time I do not think abortions should be covered under any kind of national health system. If you want an abortion it is your choice and not my duty to help support.

As a man, I can truly never know what it feels like to be pregnant and happy about it, let alone become pregnant and decide I don't want it.

I support a woman's right to choose, but it's a fact of life that saddens me.

there was no temper involved in that. I just see an interesting juxtaposition and am intrigued as to why

oh I just got it... Had to check definitions to be sure. Personally does imply more than it lets on lol.

Well lets see individually works better. Changes made.

Well since I can't get pregnant or have an abortion, unless it's out my ass, I try not to have too strong of feelings towards this issue. Sometimes I see it as okay to scramble that shit up if the woman was raped or something to that effect. Then other times I see abortion as an easy escape route for those whores that fuck too much.

Because creating a new life takes both a man and a woman, it is both of their issue to come to an agreement on. When the man is MIA, yes, the woman is left to decide, but I think it is a disgrace to murder for convenience. Because there has yet to be a documented instance in which an abortion was necessary to save the mother's life (that I am aware of), I don’t buy that particular argument. Even if a link to a story is provided, how often is that the case truly and is that really the circumstance of which this debate surrounds? I think abortion is wrong. It is a life and deserves rights. I find it particularly interesting that while a woman can have an abortion, a doctor who mismanages the case of a baby at the same age is liable for the lost life. It either is a life or it isn’t. Right now the pro-abortion stance has the best of both worlds and I hope society comes to its senses. As a gay man, it doesn’t directly impact me, but as a person caring about my life and rights, I recognize a call to action to assist those who cannot stand up for themselves. Also, I am not religious, Agnostic at best, so this opinion stems from a personal sense of right and wrong, not a magic book. I have read and understand opposing arguments, in particular, Richard Dawkin’s position in the God Delusion comes to mind, and he can almost convince me.

I support the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

My ideal conceptualization of society does not include abortions, largely because my ideal conceptualization includes major positive incentives toward choosing to not terminate pregnancies.

Those persons who disagree with the right to choose should, in my opinion, work toward improving such positive reinforcement strategies (government child daycare, child welfare, government child health care, massive improvement of the foster care systems, et al.). Denying the right to choose is foolish and risks an undue stress upon the female portion of the population, skewed against those who lack financial resources and those who live within rigid patriarchal communities (where an unwed pregnancy can be devastating toward a woman's social ranking and opportunities).

As for why the pregnant-woman-in-question gets to decide and the growing fetus / potential baby does not: the woman is alive and the human growing in her stomach is still only a potential human due to its parasitic dependency on her for its survival.

I am not going to play words on the matter: as I understand the words, it is a fetus while it grows inside a human body and depends on its umbillical cord for sustenance; it is a baby once it has been pushed out of the human body and can survive following the severing of the cord.

And yes, I will refer to a human as "it" until a gender is designated as being preferred.
***
Given the Enlightenment-modern-based sentinmentality we attach to human lives in Euro-America, I strongly doubt that those who go through an abortion experience it as an easy solution. The concept of the "I'll just have an abortion" abuser comes across as more of myth or an urban legend with little factual basis; essentially, a worst-case scenario used to justify prohibiting the practice.

government daycare

I fear for our children.

NickOfTheNorth is on a roll today! I really couldn't put it better myself so I'll just agree with him completely!

I would also add that beware of those very emotionally appealing prebirth images of foetuses. They are indirect, manpulated, often highly misleading and need to be interpreted very very carefully.

a case where aborition is needed to save the life of the woman: Eptopic pregnancy

"Science views life beginning at conception."


SEZ WHO??

Trance--

Children raised by Christian homeschoolers.

(shudder) I fear for our children.

What I find most amusing is how this government seems to care so much about the "life" an embryo could eventually become into. But truth is, once that darn thing is born - they don't give a crap.

Yet another means of distracting and disorienting the public with issues that have no substance or meaning or any sort of importance.

Pro-choice. Get over it, move on. The issue is not that important. I promise.

As long as people let a government illegally interfere with issues they will use abortion as a voting stance. And likewise those seeking office will further the damage by making promises to one side or the other.

Abortion will always be an issue in a population where some people try and build laws based off the teachings of undead jewish zombies on a stick.

I think my contempt is slightly showing

I support a woman's right to choose, but if I were a woman I don't know if I could ever choose to have an abortion.

I used to work for a gal who had something like 6 abortions.. as much of a nutcase as she was, those 6 fetuses were better off going to the back of the line to get a more responsible parent next time around.

(Ok, so if you don't believe in reincarnation, that probably didn't make sense, but you get the gist I'm sure.)

But, that is my whole point. It is a means of diverging the public from issues that really matter towards some with an attached "ethical or moral" importance.

Democrats and republicans have much overlap. Any modern political scientist would be glad to enlighten you that this is a one-party government, with two factions containing much overlap, a few differences but none to a substantial degree.

The issues only have a veiled importance. What difference does it make if a woman terminates a pregnancy, really? What difference does it make if two men or two women marry? There is none. But the public is constantly fed an underlying sense of importance to these issues.

Education is so poor in this country, primary and secondary schooling in particular, that any means of diverting attention by a political authority are so easily followed by the public. And it works. It works in keeping those who are in power in power.

Tool: 100% agree. We should forget so many of the sideline issues that pretend to separate what really are just all faces to the same establishment.

Clearly the nation has lost its direction, so the only logical answer then is to ignore the small stuff and vote for returning American back to a limited government of informed citizens. Vote Ron Paul!

Sorry couldn't resist

I am for abortion. I will not give any reason why, because it is too damn long to say, and sometimes I can confuse the hell out of people. SO if you want to know why, then please ask in an e-mail or chat. but other than that, I say pro-choice.

Well, if you take a look at elections in a rather conscientious and scrupulous manner, you will notice that issues are restricted to those which the popular constituency supports - in one direction or the other.

I am not in favor of Ron Paul's establishment to support contracts protected by systems of authority, such as the police. It sets a standard, perhaps in an idealized society but certainly not this one, that workers and employers are equal. Which is self-evidently false. It practically eliminates all labor victories and places control of contracts back into the hands of employers - things that have been dealt with ages ago by labor movements.

He rejects the establishment of the UN which is not obsolete, it is just that US policy renders itself immune to international law.

Non-intervention is not a feasible means of maintaining world order. Intervention is highly necessary, but not in a militaristic fashion. There are plenty of other solutions that could be had. And the notion that the US intervenes in all sectors of the world is false. The US intervenes in sectors of the world which contain some form of strategic influence or natural resources. Did the US intervene in Rwanda? Did the US intervene in South Africa during apartheid? Did the US intervene in East Timor?

Some of his ideas are just not fit to a contemporary standard. I am sure he means no harm and returning civil liberties is not something anyone would object to, but certain solutions he views as answers to our problems are not pragmatic.

We digress. Back to the important issue at hand. Abortion.

There are too many mammals on the planet. Eat meat. Vote abortion. Wear fur. Spray perfume (ok, I think they stopped using whales for perfume, but still, P.U.). Be gay, even if you're closeted. VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Abortion is just another form of population control and god knows we need some fucking population control on this planet

In the US were not that bad. Were close to hitting the level where births equal the death rate. Much of Europe is falling below the line. 2.1 is the average rate of babies/per female needed to increase the average population. The US is about 2.3-2.4.

Of course those statistics don't include immigration. Legal or otherwise.

Say whay you want about them, and I frequently disagree with them vehemently: The Roman Catholic Church's position on [b]Life[/b] is morally unassailable.

I believe that abortions should be extremely rare, but available under certain conditions : rape of the mother, health of mother or child, etc.

Life is Life.

However having taken that view, I also believe that sex education, availability of birth control, etc should be mad vastly greater; and that birth options such as adoption should be made much easier for the mother and father.

I think it is morally repugnant to take the first view while espousing opposition to the second.

Burying your head in the sand and ignoring reality is immoral.

I believe women should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies too: If they don't want an unwanted pregnancy they should use a variety of widely available birth control options or abstinance.

Ok - Now, let the slams begin.

From the otherside, abortion brings up other issues that should be addressed. Why do men have no rights whatsoever concerning women having a baby and still be held accountable at other times? If the guy doesn't want the child, why should he have to pay child support, unless he's married and held to that contract? What if the guy wants the child even if she doesn't want anything to do with it; should she be made to have it? Some women feel that it would ruin their life and decide to have an abortion. Some women decide to have the baby and ruin the guys life. There's nothing fair about any of it.

Perhaps if the US gov. was more willing to actually support motherhood (paid leave for all workers, free daycare, universal healthcare, etc.) we could have the argument for pro-life...til then, it should CONTINUE TO BE pro-choice. Some women will always terminate pregnancies --- the question is do we as a society want this to happen legally or illegally? This fained innocence & hypocricy about sex and reproduction is really getting tiring w/ regards to official government policies

Better question should be:

Where is it within the powers of the government to place control over this.

All I know is if I was a girl... got knocked up by some bastard... I want that thing out! And I want it done at my local Walmart.. easy! lol

According to that guy who wrote Freakonomics, the legalisation of abortion in the 1970s resulted in the crime rate falling in the larger American cities in the late 1990s because there were fewer teenagers and young adults alive to commit crime. Again it's the law of uninteneded consequences.

I definitely think women should have the right to choose. I also don't think men should have any say in the matter.

A fetus is not a complete soul till it get life experience. Yes there is the possibility of being but not yet. I think is better to cut off than give a bad life. We suffer enough as is.

Why stop at abortion?

Is it okay to bomb a village because someone "thinks" they may be training terrorists?

Is euthanasia fine for the terminally ill - do you vote for assisted suicide?

What about the death penalty?

If your lover gets tired of you, should he just bury you in the backyard and move on?

If I were involved in creating a child, I'd certainly want a say in whether or not that child was aborted. Men have a responsibility in parenting starting with the choice of procreation.

Is murder of any sort justifiable and morally acceptable?

Everything is relative in this world. In Saudi Arabia, a woman gets punished for being raped, yet in this country women are allowed "freedom" over their bodies.

What is freedom? What is choice? Who is right or wrong?

Who are we to judge.

I believe in Pro Choice. If they want to have an abortion then that is fine. It is their life. The world overpopulated already! Hahaha

tapout... you suck.. think with your brain dude!

I have a question for you pro-life guys: if you had your way and abortion were outlawed, what then? What do those girls and young women who, for most likely very good reasons, supposed to do now with this baby that their government said they had to have and have no way of supporting? That's something I've never heard answered by a pro-lifer. All this emphasis on before the entity is actually born, and it almost seems like what happens afterward isn't your concern anymore. I could be wrong, but I'd like to hear someone give me a reason why the next step is never addressed.

P.S. Chungo44 rocks. Good point.

Jackal69Perhaps if the US gov. was more willing to actually support motherhood (paid leave for all workers, free daycare, universal healthcare, etc.)....

I am pro-choice, but I have to say I respectfully disagree with you on this.

I don't feel it's the government's responsibility to support someone's choice to have a family. You want a family? you change your lifestyle and make the sacrifices to have one.

In other words, is murder of any sort justifiable and morally acceptable?

The long and the short answers are both yes, and no. Every society justifies killing/murder in some instances, often condoning it and glorifying it in certain instances -- think military heroes, while at the same time placing restrictions on the activity as well.

But I doubt you can make generalizations to apply across the board for all the complexities that involve living and dying.

Also abortion is a part of human nature naturally -- there are more spontaneously aborted pregnancies than children ever born -- often the woman doesn't even know she was pregnant. At other times the woman is well aware that she was pregnant and the loss may or may not be emotionally difficult -- the same as it may be with an induced abortion. In any case nature culls much more of early human life than humans do, and this may or may not be a good thing -- some of these fetuses may not have developed normally, but certainly not all, and can you say it is good in a family desperately wanting to bear a child?

I'm not trying to be callous here, but just pointing out that there are many reasons, and more often than not, that a pregnancy even after conception does not progress. And there are both, human and natural, very good reasons not to allow a fetus to grow to maturity, just as there are good reasons to allow it to grow to maturity.

That after conception the fetus then develop to maturity is not a given, and nor probably should it be, for reasons both intrinsic and extrinsic, and for reasons that arise from factors prior or involving conception to reasons about what happens to the fetus after birth. The period from conception to birth is not an isolated segement, and there are factors before conception affecting the fetus, and certainly factors affecting it after birth, and while some may be labelled 'natural' and some 'human' they are almost all maternally affected, and or sometimes paternally as well, whether 'natural' or 'human'.

blah blah blah! Get that thigh out of MY body she said... let's not get romantic here. I think is a bigger issue if the male wants the child... then what?

If on the one hand the woman does not want to keep the baby and does not want to go through the serious physical changes and risks of pregancy, while on the other hand the man does want to have the child ... then maybe the man should move on and try to find a woman who wants to have his baby. Is that too simple?

for the man who wants the baby and the women who doesnt you have a discussion to have, in the end it should be the woman's choice it is her body. Men have the ability to have children at the drop of a hat. the only way to convince the woman to have the baby most likely would be a surrogacy agreement that pays for the medical care of the mother and exculpates her from responsibility after birth, these would be tricky legally. you would also have to pay the woman monetarily for the service.

As for the other kinds of murder, I would have to say assisted suicide should be legal as well. For the Terminally ill this really could be the best option. say you have had cancer 2 times and now you are really sick again and you know you have no chance why should you have to go through all the pain.

For me what it comes down to is you cant voluntarily take another persons life. and to me a life does not begin till it can survive on its own without any parasitic qualities or massive medical interventions. should you be able to save a premature child yes but up until the point that that child could survive I really see no problem with abortion. Do I believe in partial birth abortion no, because in most of those cases the baby could survive. I think about assisted suicide the same way. you have no right to kill another person except in self defense. If you choose to end your life to end your suffering I see no problem with that

In my mid twenties I was a contributor to an untimely and unwanted pregnancy. She and I were both in college (I was in graduate school). I can say that coming to the decision to terminate the pregnancy with an abortion was the hardest and most heart wrenching decision that I have ever had to participate in. Despite my religious views and those of my partner at the time (southern baptist and catholic) the abortion was the best decision we could make. Fortunately, none of my partners since then have been able to conceive--putting a little levity in since I am still fighting emotions 20 years later. Difficult decision but pro-choice.

Abortion should not be legal in the U.S. Period.

It's not a "women's" issue, it's not a "crime" issue, it's not a "health" issue, it's not a "birth control" issue, and it's not an "economic" issue. It's a LIFE issue, and that's all.

There is no "right" to an abortion anymore than there is a "right" to rob a bank or a "right" to break somebody's arm. Adopting a self-serving entitlement mentality where one's own personal whims or circumstances trump that of another (even to the point of ending their life) is beyond selfish.

Abortion is a completely outdated and barbaric procedure that has no place in modern society. We are better than that.

twisterguy20? its a LIFE issue? are you a vegan? That is also a life issue. Except a fetus cannot feel pain. What about the mental well being of the woman? You care more about a seed than you do a living person.

I am still undecided with this issue... too many pros and cons for either side.

Twister its not a life issue till that life can survive on its own. until then its a parasite issue. we Kill tapeworms should we not do that because they have a life?

Twister, when does life begin? If it's at conception that is very tenuous as most conceptions do not end in a viable fetus -- ie most are spontaneously aborted.

And what does that mean 'life issue'? And why is it assumed that life is always the answer?

And what about the personal whims of having a child in the first place? If I 'irresponsibily' get pregnant how is it suddenly 'responsible' that I remain pregnant and have the child? Or why isn't aborting the pregnancy not as responsible as having it when it was irresponsible to get pregnant in the first place? If it was irresponsible to get pregnant then isn't it responsible to get un-pregnant?

And again, twister, what is life? Because life may be being alive, but living is a social construct -- you can't be conceived without some sort of social relationships, you can't be born and raised to aldulthood without those social relationships and constructs, and while they may not be important for life per se, amoebas are 'living' afterall, all those factors that you negate are part of living and important parts of being social beings. We are social beings and our lives are social constructs. LIFE in capital letters is a nice idea, but not something that you can tease out from the strands of what it means to be human and that means to be socially dependant.

Timo, thanks for sharing your story, and yes, I doubt abortion is ever an easy choice, and one I would never want to make.

I completely believe it's a women's right to privacy/right to their body issue.

That said, it does make me feel uncomfortable the way some women use it as a form of birth control rather than using the pill or condoms, etc. But there are a lot of behaviors I don't condone (barebacking for one), that I may fiercely disagree with but feel can't be legislated.

Lot's of comments on this already, but I tend to think no matter whether a person thinks it right or wrong it needs to be an option for women. Why? If something as complex as abortion were to be banned in the US, we'd end up with a black market situation and that gets ugly as the drug market continues to prove year after year.... Regulation provides consistency and safety in both these arenas.

Also, to me, us "men" shouldn't even be allowed to participate in this debate... we can't have kids...though that doesn't seem to keep me from having an opinion. Finally, am I wrong or does it seem like the loudest anti-abortion voices in today's media are...well... men? And if anyone cares, Ann Coulter is technically classified as a man for this debate....

To all the guys on here who think it's a crime or that it's against some moral code...
if and when your sister or your mom comes home and says that she's been raped
and finds out that she's pregnant
....
when you counsel her to keep that baby
then I might agree with you
until then
it's everybody's right to choose

Why did the fetus cross the road?
Because they moved the dumpster



21 CM- thats the length of a rather large penis in metric scale! LOL!

Hello? Still not geting an answer to my question upthread. It's rather relevant and I'm hearing lots of "it's murder" and "it should not be legal in the US" dogma from kids in their early 20s. I'd like to know what they plan on doing if abortion were illegal as they'd like.

knock-knock
who's there?
you'll never know!

First off abortion is not immoral. It is very moral, you are keeping an unwanted child who will not be loved from this world. Second, if abortion were illegal women would just resort back to dangerous techniques like using hangars. Abortion: rare, safe, and legal.

Ways to reduce abortions:
-Safe sex education, stop federal funding for abstinence only.
-More access to condoms, birth control, emergency contraception.
-Making it easier for women who choose to give birth and give the baby for adoption, ie: let gay couples adopt.

Our society is so dumb.

UVaRob9

I think I did answer you - before you even posed the question.

For the rest of you who are for 'a womens right to choose'..

Read my stance again.

I think we can all agree that life begins at some point - whether it be at conception or at birth.

We currently have viable babies born as young as the second trimester - admitedly they need huge amounts of medical care however. A baby has a heartbeat, is developing a brain, and has sex determined prior to the beginning of the second trimester.

I point is that without knowing at what point life actually begins, we should take a position that does the least possible harm to the baby or fetus. So without being god - and unable to point a finger and say - HERE - this is where life begins; I feel that we should ere on the side of caution.

Yes, I agree that taking that position it is morally repugnant not to have widely available sex education and birth control from an early age. It is also morally repugnant not to support mothers and famalies more once the baby is born.

If society takes the position that we need to dictate a position for conception of life, and demand compliance, then that society should also have much greater responsibility for the care and raising of that child.

One without the other is morally unacceptable.

R

Ill play god

Life begins when that life can concievably survive without being parasitic and without Massive medical intervention.

What has always bothered me is the pro life people are also the same people that support capitol punishment. It seems inconsistent to me.

CoMale - I think we're all pretty much in favor of capitol punishment, given the current state of things at the Capitol.

Now, Capital punishment is another subject -

;)

I agree with ITJock in that science has not determined when life begins. So there are 3 possibilities: Life begins at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between. (And really, Chungo, one might argue that you weren't "alive" either by your definition until what, you were 21???)

Anyway, there are serious problems with the proposition that life occurs at birth since there are varying times of gestation and methods of delivery. Unless you believe there is something inherently magical about taking the first breath.

Equally problematic is the idea that life occurs at conception-from a scientific point of view. In fact if you suscribe to the religious ideal that this is the case, then you must take this belief to it's logical conclusion and determine that the egg and the sperm are equally sacred. So every time a woman has a period or a man ejaculates without a conception occurring we should morn.

As a scientist who has studied embyrology, I personally believe that life occurs at approximately 8 weeks of gestation, when it has a functioning nervous system, all it's organs, and actually looks like a miniature human and not a fish.

So my view is that we should restrict surgical abortions but fully allow the RU486 abortion pill, which only works up until about 8 weeks.

I think that late term abortions should definitely be illegal... when the fetus starts to become aware of itself, then I would say killing it is murder. There are documented cases where fetuses actually flinch away or try to escape the implement... really disturbing stuff.

Now early term abortions are a different matter; you kill more cells scratching your butt than exist in an early embryo, so at that point it has life-potential but but not true sentient life. I think that abortions at an early stage are probably OK, and I am a big supporter of the morning-after pill.

It would be nice if life were simple - if issues were always a case of either one outcome or another. But jumping to a conclusion that you can never do one thing or can always do another is not a real reflection of the world.

Look at cases where the mother might not survive taking a child to term. Who do you save? Who do you condemn to death? That happens a lot.

For me, the position has to be to allow abortion, but to do everything possible to make it unnecessary - reduce unwanted pregnancies, help mothers get appropriate pre-natal nutrition, get rapists off the street - or maybe even suppress their ability to sire children....

And this is from the perspective of one who was the product of an accidental pregnancy....

J.

for you fit I will update my definition but just for you

Life does not begin until that life can concievably survive (in a medical / biological sense) without being parasitic and without Massive medical intervention.

also restricting abortion to an 8 week point would be unrealistic as plenty of women don't even know they are pregnant till they are at the 8 or 9th week. I am sure you would like to argue that a Women should know they are pregnant at the first missed period, which is all fine and dandy but for the many women who commonly skip a period or sometime even two at a time an unmissed period is not a big deal and would not be considered a sign of pregnancy. so they may not know till they are 9 weeks pregnant at which point your pill is no longer functional

Joey you're correct. There always have be allowances for certain circumstances. In the medical field it is pretty much matter-of-fact that the life of the mother always supercedes the life of the fetus. (e.g. ectopic pregnancies, which were mentioned earlier in this thread.)

Oh, and I was an accidental pregnancy too. Very glad my Mom decided to keep me!

Thanks, Chungo. But I still disagree with your defintion. A healthy newborn cannot survive on its own without being fed. One might argue the umbilical cord does the same thing.

An unhealthy newborn might need "massive medical intervention" for a few minutes or weeks depending on the degree of medical complication. Should we not intervene at all, just throw the baby in a bin and hope it can live on its own? Seriously...

You are correct about the 8 week mark being difficult in some situations, but I'm just saying that having studied embryology that is when I believe the fetus meets the best definition of life, and that this would solve more problems than either of the other two possibilities.

I believe it's the right of the woman to chose what to do with her body.

As a man I have no argument to the contrary...I really don't.


I guess the other question is how many of you "MEN" feel the Roe v. Wade should be over turned?

I think there is a prevailing thought that abortions are being done by well-heeled professional women who play loose with their sexuality and don't want a kid dragging them down. Or by poor women who are equally loose and moral free. I sincerely don't think that any woman who has an abortion is doing so without giving it a great deal of thought and going through a lot of angst, and are usually making this decision because they fall into one of the "three main reasons:" rape, incest, threat to mother's health.

I am constantly surprised by how many right-wingers vote with this issue as being most important, and usually gay marriage is their second most important issue.

My mother is a devout Christian woman who has fantastic maternal instincts. She loves kids and is warm and loving to all of them. She is pro-choice, and she is so because she remembers when abortion was illegal and she knew women who did things like drink bleach, use wire hangers or throw themselves down stairs in hopes of aborting the baby. While she--like any of us--hates to see a life gone, she is aware that women will have an abortion with or without legal approval.

In any case it's tragic, but I don't think that with the exception of a very, very few cases, it's entered into lightly or relegated to the back of one's mind.

fit you are right that a newborn baby has to be fed, the difference is that when the umbilical cord is cut and it is surviving on its own the mother does not have to be the one to feed it anyone can.

Chungo> So I still need a little help determining your cut-off criteria. If a baby is born at 40 weeks and is healthy, is he alive? How bout one born at 34 weeks, also healthy? What about one born at 32 weeks that needs supplemental oxygen but it otherwise ok?

so far you havent mentioned any massive medical interventions so all those babies are safe.

Gotcha. Ok how bout a baby born normally, everything is fine, but then we realize after a day or so that it's not so fine afterall, and we have to perform massive medical interventions to keep it alive? (This happens routinely, btw, in care ur wondering.)

Thing is, it's not so easy to draw the line. The default scenario in medicine is that we do whatever is necessary in order to save a life (albeit with that definition undetermined) regardless of age, unless explicitly directed otherwise by the patient or legal guardian.

So as a law student, do you think we should use a legal cut-off for our criterion??

It is a touchy subject, and one where it is impossible to apply the "one rule fits all". Personally, I feel that human life starts at the moment of conception. The genetic make-up is such that the end result will be human. There is no question to that, so in that respect I think a fetus should be regarded as human. But being the mammals that we are, it is a fact (until modern science enables this process to change) that the female must carry the fetus inside of her body. Does governement have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus until it's viable outside of the womb? I'm not so sure. I feel the act of abortion iteself is immoral, but I am not certain that government has the right to force a woman to carry the fetus until it's born. My message to those considering abortion is that a woman may have a right to it, but keep in mind that a human life is being destroyed, a life that is unique, such that the likes of which will never exist again in the human race. As a side note, I just read a statistic that in China or India, since the advent of testing to determine a fetus' sex, millions have been aborted for the sole fact that the fetus was determined to be a female, and not a preferred male. This also leads to a scary thought on whether a fetus' sexuality could be determined by some test. That being the case, would some couples abort a fetus if they learned that he or she would be gay?

I think a legal standard for life would be a good idea, in fact that line has already pretty much been drawn. I know in crim law we read a case where a man kneed his pregnant ex wife in the stomach claiming he was gunna stomp it out of her. he was successful so they brought him up on charges of murder. you want to know what the court said. murder is the taking of a human life and a fetus is not a human so you did not have all the elements of the crime and he was set free.

I am not saying you should be able to use massive medical interventions if you want to, and yes if after the first day there is a need for massive medical interventions then I think you have some questions to ask. is this a one time thing, is this a condition that the child will suffer from it entire life and then die at an early age? at some point i dont think you should have to use massive medical interventions. because at that point you no longer taking a life. you are letting a life pass or you are failing to save a life but you are not taking a life. if the parents are choosing to not medically intervene because they simply dont want the baby that was born healthy they should have already been working toward giving up the baby and then it is truelly up to that state. someone has to pay for al those interventions.

Very good points. I do know of case decisions against killing pregnant women where the perp was convicted of taking two lives tho, so clearly the legal profession has not reached a concensus either.

I do think we go too far in medicine sometimes though. These poor premature babies are kept alive at any cost (and it runs into the millions) and are often left with severe neurological problems, and I am not sure we are doing the right thing. But then again sometimes they also go on to be healthy too. We just can't predict, so that's part of the issue.

Ok, to answer questions...

hippie4lyfeWhat about the mental well being of the woman?

I don't get this question. What ABOUT the mental well being? How is that a factor in determining whether somebody should be allowed to live or not? If I'm having a bad day, am I allowed to kill someone because I claim it'll help my "mental well being?"

chungo44Twister its not a life issue till that life can survive on its own

If that is your position, then I feel bad for the millions of handicapped, elderly, and young children out there who depend on others for survivial. I guess all those hospital and nursing home patients had better convince their caregivers that they are still life forms, huh!!

wrerickAnd why is it assumed that life is always the answer?

Wow. I guess you have no opinion then on war, the death penalty, or murders!! Thanks for your honesty, wrerick, but I've never seen such a blasé attitude on life-and-death matters. I hope you're equally apathetic when its somebody YOU love being killed, and not just some no-name statistic out there.

fit you are right there are cases that go the other way on the killing of the fetus, we read those as well. those cases came after the laws were rewritten.

Personally, I don't believe in abortion. Just as I don't believe in capital punishment/death sentences. It's my personal belief that all life is precious.

However, I also believe that we all have the right to govern our own bodies. Thus, I believe in the right to choose. I'll agree with Bill Clinton and GQJock.

I am very much against abortion. But since I am not a woman, I support their right to make those sorts of calls. Who am I to try and influence what they do to their bodies when there's so little at stake for me?

I'm not going to say whether it's right or wrong. It's not my choice, it's the woman's choice. Even though I don't like the fact of it, because to me, when the baby is concepted (don't know if I'm using the right wording) it's living to me. Yea, it saddens me, but like I said, it's the woman's choice.

This is such a HUGE emotional issue for so many, isn't it? The religious tend to believe strongly that life begins at conception, and to abort a pregnancy is to kill a child. Those on the other end strongly believe that a woman's body and what she does with it is sacred ground.

Problem is, we really do not KNOW scientifically when live begins, as we have already discussed. So in that regard I think it should be left to the individual. I personally find surgical abortions abhorrent, so therefore would not get one. (Or for obvious reasons would not counsel my friend/girlfriend/wife to get one.)

This is like any moral argument. If you are opposed to gay marriage, then do not marry a gay. If you are opposed to porn, then don't watch it, etc.

"The religious tend to believe strongly that life begins at conception, and to abort a pregnancy is to kill a child."

Depends on the religion. The Jewish perspective is that it's not a human life without a soul, and the soul doesn't enter the body until the first breath. In some New Age circles, it is believed that the soul enters the body during the third trimester.

Yes this is true, Paradox, and thanks for the info. I eluded to the "first breath" idea earlier in fact. Either way it's quite problematic from a logical standpoint, but nonetheless quite powerful emotionally.

And, of course, the "life begins at conception" perspective means a freezer full of embryos = freezer full of babies.

Probably the toughest social issue of our time. I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think outlawing it makes sense. Until we have a society that values sex education for kids and prioritizes and adequately funds adoption programs for unwanted babies, abortion is a necessary evil. The idea that a woman should be forced to have a child she doesn't want and cannot care for is frightening to me.

A lot of people seem opposed to abortion, but I don't see too many of them lining up to take the unwanted babies...

"its not a life issue till that life can survive on its own"
it's thoughts like this that there are actually small amount of pro choice who argued that abortion should be allowed to terminate children up to 3 yrs old.

fitnfunmich saidProblem is, we really do not KNOW scientifically when live begins, as we have already discussed..

I think this is a bit of specious argument. Once the baby is conceived, assuming nothing goes seriously wrong during the pregnancy, it will be born a human being. Take that baby and leave it alone and it is just as helpless as the fetus in the womb. In other words, it needs a parent to survive.

I have no religious beliefs, so I'm not looking to my faith to answer the question of when life begins. Logic is all I need and logic tells me that a potential/future life in the womb is just as real as a baby that has drawn its first breath. Neither can care for itself, so I don't believe that because one is in the womb it is less "alive."

Anytime a "pro-lifer", like ITJock, wants to make exceptions for women who have been raped, they are unwittingly revealing that the agenda is NOT the sanctity of life, it's the punishing of loose, whorish, slutty women who don't have the good taste to keep their pants up until marriage.

See, life is life. IF a fetus is a life (and I don't agree with that anyway), then one born of rape is as good as one born of a loving relationship, and deserves no less protection.

But NOOOOO, we excuse the raped woman because, after all, it wasn't her fault. Meaning that in all other cases THE WHORE HAD IT COMING.

This is why pro-lifers generally make me sick.

Paradox--

I believe the official Jewish position is that the fetus isn't viable until it has graduated from medical school.

Wow, this is a touchy subject, but I'm going to add my two cents anyway. I am 100,000% Pro Life. There's to many reasons why for me, and I don't have the time right now, but if you would like to know, why I am that way, just email me, and I'll answer.

I Have ONE word for some people, ITs a simple word, it even sound like abortion.....A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N.

I've seen lots of people, saying that these babies, are un wanted......By who? The birth parents yes, but there are MANYYYYYYYYYY couples out there, who can't have children physiclly(Sp?). Hetero nd HOMOSEXUAL couples, who wan't to have chiledren but can't.

Adoption is a beautiful thing. Why kill innocent babies,there are soooo many other parents, who want babies more than anything, but can't have them. What about them........ *Waits for the firestorm.*

I agree that adoption is a much better option overall.
What about rape then, Jakestud??? Would you would force the raped woman to suffer emotional anguish, and relive the rape, everyday of her life for almost 10 months, so the baby can live and be adopted?
Taking responsibility for your actions is an important lesson. Have safe sex, if you have sex with out the intention of becoming pregnant (a good idea overall). But safe sex is not 100% safe. OK, so you have the baby put up for adoption if you accidently get pregnant. What if you can't afford health care during the pregnancy, or to eat appropriately? There has to be some flexibility.

I agree adoption is a great and wonderful opportunity for someone that does not want the baby and those that cannot have one. I understand the the whole argument on both sides and agree that maybe if the womans life was in danger it would be a reason to abort. But to do it just because you dont want it I think is wrong. There are plenty of forms of birth control and if a mistake happens than give it up for adoption.

I have 3 children and with each of them I was there during the pregnancy, birth and am still raising one of them, the other 2 are grown. To watch a sonogram of an alive baby and actually have it respond to your voice while still in the mother is a beautiful and miraculous thing. To have a child and hold it for the first time and it recognizes your voice immediately and holds tightly on to your finger is a great feeling.

On the other hand....if a woman has a choice to do with what she wants to her body...why cant a man? Why cant I go and buy steroids legally if I want to and put them in my body? Im just hurting me, not a fetus or baby or whatever. Men should have the right to do what they want to to their bodies as well.

This is a touchy subject and everyones beliefs and experiences will let them lean to one side or another. I respect both points of view but if a woman can do with her body as she pleases than I should be able to also.

I personally believe a human being should have the final say on what happens to their body. That being said I don't think abortion in many instances is necessarily the right decision. If I was a woman and I was sexually active I would hopefully know the potential consequences of my behaviour. If I became pregnant and could not look after the child, then I would carry it to term and put it up for adoption. I hate thinking what the human being could end up accomplishing if given the chance. A great scientist, a doctor, a nobel prize winner, etc.. If the fetus is aborted then that person's potential is terminated as well. Like I said initially though, the final decision is with the person carrying the baby.

twister how can you compare a woman's mental health to oh just having a bad day. No woman just wakes up and feels like getting an abortion, thought goes into it and its a difficult decision.

why should a child be brought into the world that will not be cared for, abandoned, abused? if you are so concerned with childrens rights you should be in favor of abortion rights. abortion is preventing unwanted pregnancies and therefore preventing millions of potential miserable lives.

Highsierrahiker: "Once the baby is conceived, assuming nothing goes seriously wrong during the pregnancy, it will be born a human being...Logic is all I need and logic tells me that a potential/future life in the womb is just as real as a baby that has drawn its first breath."

Would that it were that simple. In fact, conception occurs in the fallopian tubes. It takes another week or so before the developing embryo implants into the wall of the uterus. So techically the "womb" argument fails.

Also, the fairly universalized definitions of "life" have in common the following: growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli, etc. An embryo really does not respond to stimuli in the literal sense, so this is one of the many reasons that science has not accepted conception as the defining moment of human life.

If you take your argument that the zygote (fertilized egg cell) has the potential for life and so therefore must be defined as life, then you must take it a step further and grant the sperm and the egg the same station.

Tapout said

If I were involved in creating a child, I'd certainly want a say in whether or not that child was aborted. Men have a responsibility in parenting starting with the choice of procreation.

Aren't you making the crass assumption that all men involved in such activity are 'responsible'? There's a significant difference in having a say as a husband as opposed to boyfriends, ONS, etc....

Men have the ultimate trump card, they can leave at any time. As such, women are ultimately left holding the bag. And that's why I tend to think they are far better to make these kinds of decisions than us.

I take your point for those responsible ones among us, but we can't legislate/regulate for the 'best', it's got to be lowest common denominator. Sad, but true.

It would be nice if the woman consulted the man prior to getting an abortion, but I don't think she has to. Ultimately the man just busted a nut. It is the woman who is responsible for the pains and tribulations of carrying and delivering. The mans job is over after ejaculation. Think of it in the reverse if men got pregnant would we want women dictating to us that we somehow lost the control of our bodies and we had to give birth? Scary thought.

"The mans job is over after ejaculation"

Oh, really? Child support payments are a myth? (for example)

Ah but in reality the man's job isn't over until the child turns 18. At least from the legal perspective. So we have no rights at all to make decisions but we are forced to pay for everything. Seems a tad inequitable to me...