In Stev13jay's opinion

[Ecurb Noselrub]

That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".

I think that human life begins with conception, for a variety of reasons, but I still come down on the pro-choice side.  Generally, I like government to stay out of my life, and I highly value individual liberty. A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is.  She knows more of the facts about that particular pregnancy, and her moral capacity should be honored.  I do have a problem with a very late term abortion in which a healthy fetus is fully viable, unless there are serious safety and health issues involved, but other than that it should be left to the woman.

There are other situations in which we terminate the life of an innocent fetus and almost nothing is said about it. How many pregnant women have been killed, along with their innocent fetuses, in war? Many of those who claim to be pro-life have no problem with Hiroshima.  That seems a little inconsistent.  I think its better to say that there are no absolutes in these matters, that competing principles and interests have to be balanced, and that the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to be the moral agent who makes the decision.    

[not your typical...]

That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".   

I agree with that statement. I, personally, am pro-life and I do believe that new life begins after conception.

[DeterminedJuliet]

That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".

I think that human life begins with conception, for a variety of reasons, but I still come down on the pro-choice side.  Generally, I like government to stay out of my life, and I highly value individual liberty. A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is.  She knows more of the facts about that particular pregnancy, and her moral capacity should be honored.  I do have a problem with a very late term abortion in which a healthy fetus is fully viable, unless there are serious safety and health issues involved, but other than that it should be left to the woman.

There are other situations in which we terminate the life of an innocent fetus and almost nothing is said about it. How many pregnant women have been killed, along with their innocent fetuses, in war? Many of those who claim to be pro-life have no problem with Hiroshima.  That seems a little inconsistent.  I think its better to say that there are no absolutes in these matters, that competing principles and interests have to be balanced, and that the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to be the moral agent who makes the decision.    

I know we don't see eye-to-eye on every topic here, but I have to say, I have a lot of respect for this response

[Ecurb Noselrub]

That being said, I think the argument is going to come down to your definition of "human life" - If you believe new life exists at conception, you'll likely be "pro-life", if you don't, you'll likely be "pro-choice".

I think that human life begins with conception, for a variety of reasons, but I still come down on the pro-choice side.  Generally, I like government to stay out of my life, and I highly value individual liberty. A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is.  She knows more of the facts about that particular pregnancy, and her moral capacity should be honored.  I do have a problem with a very late term abortion in which a healthy fetus is fully viable, unless there are serious safety and health issues involved, but other than that it should be left to the woman.

There are other situations in which we terminate the life of an innocent fetus and almost nothing is said about it. How many pregnant women have been killed, along with their innocent fetuses, in war? Many of those who claim to be pro-life have no problem with Hiroshima.  That seems a little inconsistent.  I think its better to say that there are no absolutes in these matters, that competing principles and interests have to be balanced, and that the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to be the moral agent who makes the decision.    

I know we don't see eye-to-eye on every topic here, but I have to say, I have a lot of respect for this response

Going back and reading my post, I would like to amend this statement: "A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is."  Given the dysfunctionality of governments around the world, I should have said that "a pregnant woman is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion than a government is."

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'm against abortion personally, although the woman carries the baby and has the right to choose.

One of my children was "an accident" and abortion was never considered by my wife nor I.

I'd just feel uncomfortable with killing my own unborn child! What right do I have to decide whether it lives or dies? Obviously though that is my own personal feeling and you can't tell everybody they can't decide for themselves. You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.

[bandit4god]

Going back and reading my post, I would like to amend this statement: "A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is."  Given the dysfunctionality of governments around the world, I should have said that "a pregnant woman is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion than a government is."

There was a time in our nation's history when similar arguments were in play: "A landholder is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have a slave than a government is".  Both arguments abdicated responsibility for the liberty of the helpless to those for whom oppression of the helpless yielded a benefit.  

I do believe life begins at conception, and that stable households can offer an alternative to poor women that promotes life AND gets the woman into a more stable, hopeful situation by paying for the adoption through cash, addiction treatment, housing, food, job training, etc.  To simply give a poor woman her fifth free abortion and send her on her way, as our country currently does, is tantamount to eugenics.

[not your typical...]

You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.

I understande that there are circumstances, but still, (and this in my opinion) in the case of rape, the child didn't choose for it's father to be a rapist as much as she didn't choose for him to rape her, but shit does happen. That doesn't mean that killing the child's going to do any good. Even in cases where it comes down to not being able to provide for the child, she could birth it then give it up for adoption. And as for the risk of the child being severely handicapped, on the surface it may seem like a good reason to have an abortion, but what about those unexplainable medical mysteries where the child comes out fine? I was one one those. You think my mom should have had an abortion, just because the doctors' said that I was going to live a miserable life?

[DeterminedJuliet]

Going back and reading my post, I would like to amend this statement: "A pregnant woman is just as capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion as a government is."  Given the dysfunctionality of governments around the world, I should have said that "a pregnant woman is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have an abortion than a government is."

There was a time in our nation's history when similar arguments were in play: "A landholder is more capable of making a moral decision about whether or not to have a slave than a government is".  Both arguments abdicated responsibility for the liberty of the helpless to those for whom oppression of the helpless yielded a benefit.  

I do believe life begins at conception, and that stable households can offer an alternative to poor women that promotes life AND gets the woman into a more stable, hopeful situation by paying for the adoption through cash, addiction treatment, housing, food, job training, etc.  To simply give a poor woman her fifth free abortion and send her on her way, as our country currently does, is tantamount to eugenics.

Uhh, you know that rich, stable women get abortions too, right.
Some women just don't want babies.

[DeterminedJuliet]

You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.

I understande that there are circumstances, but still, (and this in my opinion) in the case of rape, the child didn't choose for it's father to be a rapist as much as she didn't choose for him to rape her, but shit does happen. That doesn't mean that killing the child's going to do any good. Even in cases where it comes down to not being able to provide for the child, she could birth it then give it up for adoption. And as for the risk of the child being severely handicapped, on the surface it may seem like a good reason to have an abortion, but what about those unexplainable medical mysteries where the child comes out fine? I was one one those. You think my mom should have had an abortion, just because the doctors' said that I was going to live a miserable life?

Yeah, the thing is, a tiny group of cells isn't a child. Even if you argue that it's "life", I'll let that one go, but it is NOT a child. It's not cute, it's not thinking. What grows in a woman's uterus the first several weeks of her pregnancy in no real way resembles a human in any real sense.

And, as I wrote before, saying "oh, just adopt it" is completely dismissive of what a woman actually goes through. Having a baby is a big deal! You can die! You can have complications that can follow you for the rest of your life! Personally, I had second degree tearing, broke my tail bone and suffered "moderate" (though it did not feel like it at the time) post-partum depression after giving birth to my son. I still can't sit on a hard chair for more than 20 minutes without the bottom of my spine causing me severe pain and I don't know if it will ever go away.

And my story is mild.

No one should have to go through that unless they want to. Unless it is a free choice made out of love and commitment to the being you are bringing into the already overpopulated world. And the argument that a woman should go through that, after having been raped, because a tiny clump of cells MIGHT turn into a living human several months down the road is completely abhorrent to my mind.  

EDIT: FYI, I am married, in a relatively stable financial situation, already have one child. But if I got pregnant tomorrow, would I have an abortion? Yes. I would. And my husband would be 100% on board.

Double edit: Though I should add, we are currently on two forms of birth control and my husband is going to be getting a vasectomy within the forsee-able future, so it would be a freak 1,000,000-1 shot of that actually happening. I just wanted to make it clear that abortion is my absolute last resort, but I would take it in a heart beat.

[Norfolk And Chance]

You can have circumstances where a child may be massively handicapped and likely to have a miserable existence, the child may be likely to die, the pregnancy might be a result of rape, you can't take the abortion choice away from those people.

I understande that there are circumstances, but still, (and this in my opinion) in the case of rape, the child didn't choose for it's father to be a rapist as much as she didn't choose for him to rape her, but shit does happen. That doesn't mean that killing the child's going to do any good. Even in cases where it comes down to not being able to provide for the child, she could birth it then give it up for adoption. And as for the risk of the child being severely handicapped, on the surface it may seem like a good reason to have an abortion, but what about those unexplainable medical mysteries where the child comes out fine? I was one one those. You think my mom should have had an abortion, just because the doctors' said that I was going to live a miserable life?

No killing a child won't do it any good, and a child didn't choose a rapist to be it's father, BUT you have to think of the mother here, isn't being raped bad enough? She may (or may not) regard having to carry a child that she may (or may not) hate for 9 months as an extra and unfair punishment. Then the pain of labour reminding her what happened? Then the trauma of giving the child up for adoption.

Choice has to be available to the woman.

For your own little story at the end there, you said on another topic that doctors said you might die, your mother might die, and neither of you did die- thus goddidit - instead of simply understanding that the doctors assessed the situation wrong...

Now for this topic you are using the doctors being wrong to make a point about how you could have been aborted, which is fair enough.

The trouble is in the other topic you assumed the doctors as certainly correct and therefore god, who isn't real, performed a miracle.

It can't be both, which is it?

PS you'll be an atheist by 16.

[not your typical...]

PS you'll be an atheist by 16.

I was trying to see things from your perspective. And as for the atheist by 16, you have about 5 months. Good luck.

[Norfolk And Chance]

PS you'll be an atheist by 16.

I was trying to see things from your perspective. And as for the atheist by 16, you have about 5 months. Good luck.

No such thing as luck.

Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.

Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnacy, either goddidit or the doctors were wrong...

You've already accepted that the doctors were wrong because you stated when trying to make a point about abortion that if your mother had listened to the doctors you wouldn't be here. The thing is, they called it wrong, therefore no need for a miracle for you to be here, and that is one proof of your god out of the window. He just wasn't required.

[not your typical...]

No such thing as luck.

Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.

Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnancy, either God did it or the doctors were wrong...

You don;t believe in God, you don't believe in luck... What do you believe in?  And as for why I'm here... well, that's a story for another time.

[DeterminedJuliet]

No such thing as luck.

Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.

Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnancy, either God did it or the doctors were wrong...

You don;t believe in God, you don't believe in luck... What do you believe in?  And as for why I'm here... well, that's a story for another time.

You'll find that there are a lot of people who don't believe in superstitions of any kind here.

[Norfolk And Chance]

No such thing as luck.

Deep down the cogs are turning and that's why you're here. Deep down you know reality but can't quite accept it yet.

Don't forget to ponder what I just said about your hypocrisy regarding your mom's dangerous pregnancy, either God did it or the doctors were wrong...

You don;t believe in God, you don't believe in luck... What do you believe in?  And as for why I'm here... well, that's a story for another time.

I believe in nothing. Should I believe in something?

I know what I know and I don't know other stuff.

I have opinions, but are they beliefs? Not really. Like when I said I struggle to see the human race lasting another 100 years due to population increase, that's not something I believe because to believe is to accept something as true. I think it is possible that the human race could destroy itself in 100 years, but equally I could be well wrong. It's just an opinion, not a belief.