Abortion

[Roarey Raccoon]

Oh, I think I see the connection now. I can tell you for sure that there is nothing in the Bible that makes women unequel to men. The way I see it, the whole thing that made women subservient to men in society was based on cultural tradition, not necessarily on religion.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

Quite a lot in the Bible would contradict you XP. If you can write all that off as just the culture of the period in which the material was written, you can do the same for the entire Bible.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Roarz

[BaronSFel001]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

Quite a lot in the Bible would contradict you XP. If you can write all that off as just the culture of the period in which the material was written, you can do the same for the entire Bible.

At the risk of getting off-topic, interpretations of the Bible by people with an agenda against the Bible are not sound. In marriage and the church, men and women have their place, but that does not make them unequal. The fact that polygamy existed does not mean that God condones it. "Possession" does not equal "property" - husband and wife belong to each other, not just the one way. I do not need to go on: that list's commentary is woefully narrow-minded, while some entries are completely irrevelant.

[Roarey Raccoon]

At the risk of getting off-topic, interpretations of the Bible by people with an agenda against the Bible are not sound. In marriage and the church, men and women have their place, but that does not make them unequal. The fact that polygamy existed does not mean that God condones it. "Possession" does not equal "property" - husband and wife belong to each other, not just the one way. I do not need to go on: that list's commentary is woefully narrow-minded, while some entries are completely irrevelant.

Lol, skeptical interpretations are automatically unsound. Mkay XP. Whilst that site has a number of flimsy interpretations given the magnitude of what they've attempted, one cannot brush them all off as simply being unsound interpretations. The Bible doesn't always leave room for interpretation at all, it's a very simply-written book that more often than not opts for plain to-the-point language. If the people whom God supported, like Moses, were perpetrators of the violent and sexual subjugation of women then he cannot have condemned the practice. But yeah, we're getting off topic XP.

[BaronSFel001]

But yeah, we're getting off topic XP.

Agreed, so I am closing out. By the way, I do want to thank you for your understanding earlier. You and I have debated enough that you do realize I never intend to be mean or hurtful, just passionate about some things.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Agreed, so I am closing out. By the way, I do want to thank you for your understanding earlier. You and I have debated enough that you do realize I never intend to be mean or hurtful, just passionate about some things.

Might want to work on how you come across your ideals on these subjects.

That intense passion of yours can really come across as aggrivating and forcing if you don't know how to watch how you come at the subject.

Happens to me all the time...although I'm not to fierce until it boils up after a few posts.

[Miko]

I don't feel that abortion should be legal unless the woman needs to terminate in order to save her life. Reading the Roe v. Wade decision, it just sounded like they were pulling a bunch of asshairs in order to pass it. Especially when trying to essentially say we have no need to discuss when life begins because religion doesn't agree on it. So if religion didn't agree for example that segregation wasn't ok (and many would contend they don't ), would it be ok to keep it around and not address the issue? How about if religions didn't agree about persecution based on sexual orientation? Does that make it ok to continue doing? No. We don't use religious consensus. In accordance (at least in the US) with separating church and state we typically go by a more secular means of assessing ideas such as the psychological affects of segregation, to when life begins. In which instance scientific consensus has held that it begins at conception.

Still, while I think striving to overturn Roe v. Wade is something I agree with, you can't for example tell an uninsured black female with 2 kids for example to pay $40,000 out of pocket when her year income is like 30,000 and the abortion clinic will abort the child for free. Even though such practices are racist and should be just as readily available for other women. I think inversely, pro life doesn't often understand that actually addressing the medical fees especially (and in the US women and children are the highest percent of the uninsured population) makes it pretty impossible to keep the pregnancy. And what about the many people who will get kicked out of their homeless shelters for being pregnant? Both sides create the illusion of choice. Pro life will then contend she's just being a slut and choice will parade it as demonstrating the capacity to choose. But in a similar context, choosing between robbing a bank at gunpoint and getting your head blown off isn't exactly much of a choice now is it? In many instances, given the persecution, removal of livelihood, etc women are left with in the midst of a pregnancy one real choice in the matter. For many women though society is simply not being as overt about it as say China.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Miko

[Roareye Black]

I have no desire to change anyone's opinion on what an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy entails - everyone is entitled to their own view. But you seem to still be missing my point, and your response was totally predictable: you play the compassion card by saying something along the lines of "the woman has gone through enough." That may be so, but the point remains of what is the right thing to do and what is not. Life begins at conception - despite what you may think, this is not a moral gray area, so stop trying to portray it as such - and the unethical ones are those with the audacity to deny the new life its fundamental right to live.

I resent being considered unethical just because I believe in moral absolutes. And I am hurt that you think I am being judgmental: you are absolutely right that I do not have that power and that only God does (but God did write down the laws and give them to us for our benefit), but it is not an act of judgment to simply be told when something is wrong. I have absolutely nothing against sex itself: it is the most wonderful thing when it is used properly. I am just trying to do the right thing, in or out of political power (funny you mentioned that: how else can I make a difference for the better these days?), simply because it is the right thing to do. Because this is black-and-white issue, I am not being legalistic - trust me, I have experienced Christian legalism, and it drove my freedom-loving American heart to near-rebellion.

This whole speech is flawed. The majority of your arguement requires you to believe in Christianity, and even if we all did it's still full of holes. Your key point is that murder is wrong, and that is correct. That is black and white (Unless you're in a warfare situation, in which it returns to the grey-zone. Christianity can't contest that either after all the wars it has caused). But the issue is the classification of non-formed cells as a human being. This is the bit that is not black and white, which you so wrongfully portray it is.

Let's be totally blunt here, the Bible has not told you abortion is wrong. The Bible has not stated anywhere amongst its pages anything to do with abortion or foetus' or anything else even approaching this issue. The Bible does not state a single thing on abortion (ignoring the blanket cover of 'murder' which you assume abortion is under) because the medical technology and the ability to perform such an operation did not exist at that time, the same way Video Piracy is not mentioned. It is too dated to directly mention these topics. Video Piracy is not theft in the Biblical sense, you do not physically take from someone, often you pay some money for a bootleg and the person who made the movie is still paid their wage. In the Biblical sense, Video Piracy is not able to be considered a crime as nothing is actually physically stolen. So how can we stipulate that Video Piracy is illegal? The law. Biblical Doctrine is absolute and stuck in its time period, law changes with social and technological change. Modern law, modern accounting and modern views attribute Video Piracy as a crime of theft.

So how does this relate to Abortion? Abortion is not actually a murder in the Biblical sense. Nobody has had a life actually taken from them (They simply don't have the chance to experience it), there is a clean medical procedure to prevent unwarranted internal damage and the effect is as simple as a bleeding cut or the effect of masturbation. Cell loss. Nothing more. In Biblical terms this is not murder, no more so than living cells seeping from a cut in lost blood, or sperm dying tragically for a man's own pleasure, or even the menstrual period of a woman when the living egg cell is removed.

This means we have to turn to modern law, social views and science in order to garner the answer. Social Views are divided, though I would take a wager the slight majority would be pro-choice if only because they can't be bothered to poke their noses into other people's lives. I could be wrong, I've not researched this. However there does seem to be a majority pro-choice even just here on the SSMB. If that's the case, that more accepted view would be deemed more accurate unless it is in opposition to science and/or the law.

Science states that before 24 weeks (I believe) an embryo has no conciousness, no thoughts, no concept of being. It is just a mass of cells forming randomly until the chromosomes kick in. Before this point there is no brain activity, it is completely female, it has a trunk, a tail and other assorted parts of other animals while the chromosomes sort themselves out and finally begin the process of making a human. At this point, the living cells are not even human, and there is no activity of life besides that of cell division (Which happens all the time in everything everywhere as it is). If science dictates that at this time the cells are not human, and not active as a being, then they are just cells, on a purely scientific level. I don't think that is a denyable fact, as science has proven it. As such removing these unformed cells is like removing white blood vessels from an open cut, or sperm cells from masturbation - absolutely fine. I know wounds and spunk isn't exactly happy thoughts, a bit gross etc, but at the end of the day that is natural scientific life process.

So social views may be against your arguement, and science definately does not regard the cells as human life to a degree where it holds the ability to be murdered, for it is not currently living. This leaves you the last of the three, law. And as you're aware, the law takes it's views more from science than religion, and as such abortion is a legalised subject, but it is regulated and has restrictions. There is a cut-off point where after a foetus has developed brain activity, an abortion would be considered murder. From the point science notes human life, actual human activity, the practice is no longer legal. This ensures that the practice is not immoral, if it were we'd be aborting babies at 8 months, but that would be murder considering the baby already has conciousness and awareness.

So the Bible has not stated that abortion is wrong, it was not in a position to do so as they did not have this dilemma. I also believe that Jesus himself would have been po-choice actually. I have very good reason to think this. Jesus was a bit rebellious, but in an open and thoughtful way. His father was a Rabbi, meaning that if he followed his father he would have been quite wealthy. He instead snubbed this and went on to become a Carpenter and help the poor and sick. This shows a rebellious attitude, but not one borne from anger. He also made no qualms about the "murder" of animal life. Whether you believe it was a miracle from God, or the dude had a lot of fish, he fed fish (and wine) to hundreds of people who had followed him. Strictly speaking, his followers were twats. Fancy following someone God knows how many miles without even thinking to bring food and water? Natural Selection wasn't their friend, it was lucky Jesus was. Jokes aside, and however you wish to believe he done it, Jesus presented them with many fish to eat. Now fish is actually more of a life than a foetus. It has a consiousness, it already exists and to capture and eat it is to kill it. It is not a simple product of cell-divison anymore, it's a self-reproducing, thinking (to a basic degree) and breathing animal. I'm sure this wasn't the only animal Jesus killed for food either (Not to mention the hundreds of goats God loved having slaughtered in the Old Testament), so why is it okay for Jesus to murder a living, thinking being and yet it's unacceptable to wipe out a few dividing cells with no conciousness? The logic doesn't fit. I doubt Jesus would have seen it either, so long as it had no conciousness he would likely be fine.

You could say I'm simply assuming his response. I am, no doubt about that. But I'm doing no less than you. You assume so readily he'd hate the practice of abortion, I think he'd use logic and be pro-choice for the simple reason that if he didn't he'd be a hypocrite.

I sincerely hope nobody takes the abortion issue lightly: the emotional toll it takes on the ex-mother should actually say something about human decency, and deep consideration that it should be avoided altogether. Your family's story says that directly, that you never forget about what could have been.

Having the baby would have been considerably worse. The existing parents and two children would have had a broken home, with no solid foundations for growing up. You would then likely enter into the same stuff Christians already hate as well, divorce, bad upbringing (or worse than they recieved), more stress, tension etc etc. The choice as not easy, and although very obviously abortion was the right choice to make in that circumstance, does not make the pain any less hard to bear. Abortion should be avoided, use a condom if you're not ready, but abortion shouldn't be stopped, that'd be a far worse crime on humanity. An increase in homeless children, domestic abuse, divorced relationships (which are on a high as it is!), social downturn. That is what you invite by allowing unwanted children to be born. The majority can be stopped by condoms (And I wish as much as you do that people would bloody well use them), but for the slips where the condom is ineffective, where all the right steps were taken but chance dimed you out, abortion is far more compassionate than raising a child in depression, hatred and a broken home.

Bottom line: a child is never, ever, EVER, to be considered a form of punishment. Whatever the case of its conception, a baby is meant to be a bundle of joy, not an overwhelming burden (frankly, your idea of the baby reminding the woman of her rapist is ridiculous, because it is her child too, a child which could very well grow up to love her back -- did I mention I once met a child of rape, whose mother was always questioned why she did not have an abortion, and who is now a strong anti-abortion activist? And "Jane Roe" certainly regrets what the Supreme Court did with her case). Think about it: your stance would hold up much better if everyone else in the world was as cynical, focusing only on the negative.

Sorry but your judgement is flawed by Christian standards. Was it not Christianity that states that children who are completely pure must go to church because of "original sin"? The sins of the father/mother are passed down to the children, dirtying them and they need to be cleansed (Does God have OCD?). You know this is true, filthy scheming evil scare mongering tactic to frighten the beaten workers of the old world into church on their one day of relaxation out of fear their honest working would simply be rewarded by a visit to the Devil. That is written in holy doctrine and cannot be changed, and that makes your comment wrong. If the child is dirtied by original sin, then it is an accomplice in the raping of the mother. As such punishment onto it is as due as it would be to the father.

The person you met is a rare case, and certainly to be congratulated for being so strong. But you think everyone is as strong? You would actually scorn people for not being able to happily recount a rape? That sounds very cold, and much more of a negative view than my own which is actually focussing purely on hope and the concept of helping ease wounds and keep together families. And as for the baby being a bundle of joy no matter how concieved, that's a harsh thing to say. If you get raped (And I hope to God you never do), be sure to come back and tell us what a bundle of joy it was. Yes, some women are brave enough to soldier on and even raise the baby with the love and passion it deserves (Or doesn't deserve according to the Bible), but to force that onto a woman who is weakened by the violation of rape is just nasty. You can but hope the woman can see past her issues, and be brave enough to raise the child on her own choice. If she does, she'll love it regardless of conception. But those who choose abortion do so because they could not love that child, and could not handle the additional agony of raising their rapist's child. Not everyone works in the same way, not everyone is strong on Biblical proportions (mind the pun), some people are frail, weak and require more emotional care. It is like a Christian to condemn the weak, but not I.

I think I am done here, on one condition: stop calling me things that I am not.

I am not attempting to offend you, I apologise that things in my previous post were somewhat more personal and for that I apologise. You'll find no such personal attacks in this post, and anything you feel as an attack was not written to be that way, simply a blunt reply to your view as I see it. I would be less blunt, but I would meander through so much bollocks I'd lose my point myself XD

Hope this finds you well.

Roareye Black.

[Miko]

Science states that before 24 weeks (I believe) an embryo has no conciousness, no thoughts, no concept of being.

Maybe it doesn't, but then again neither does a comatose patient. Many infants yank their hair when born because they are not born with self awareness. Which to me nullifies even discussing whether a baby has thoughts or consciousness because they don't have a sense of self to reffer those things to. So if a baby lacks self awareness and we see it yanking it's hair and crying, that would be license to kill it? Even though the comatose patient presently isn't conscious or demonstrating self awareness we give them value as human beings. Same with babies that pull their own hair.

Some people find that there is a value inherent in human life. In some respects, valuing all human life is for many people the first step to valuing and protecting as much life as we possibly can. Secondly, I don't buy into the whole "punishment" nonsense. You may not like everyone that comes into your life because of something you did, but that doesn't mean you go off killing them. A baby wouldn't hypothetically be an the state actively trying to punish you than laws that prohbitting you from killing born people that have made their way into your life.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Miko

[The Conductor]

Maybe it doesn't, but it's still alive though. And some people find that there is a value inherent in human life. In some respects, valuing all human life is for many people the first step to valuing and protecting as much life as we possibly can. Secondly, I don't buy into the whole "punishment" nonsense. You may not like everyone that comes into your life because of something you did, but that doesn't mean you go off killing them. A baby wouldn't hypothetically be an act of the state actively trying to punish you than laws that prohbitting you from killing born people that have made their way into your life.

I wouldn't considder it alive if it has no concept of being. Trees are living creatures but they aren't "alive" and I'll cut down an unwanted tree if that is better for all involved.

[Miko]

I wouldn't considder it alive if it has no concept of being.

1. Again with babies that pull their hair because they lack self awareness. This would give parents around the country license to kill any newborns that do these things. After all if they're not alive how can you murder it?

2. Scientifically life begins at conception. Schools of thought have disagreed on countless things but ultimately we put the final bullet on science.

3. In a supposed meritocracy where the act of stereotyping and juding an individual on the basis of his or her performance is essential, there is no quality that every human being has that would ensure human rights on a basic level except humanity. You cannot place rights on a human because of the group's performance and defend him for that which he has not personally earned. So you wouldn't for example defend the born human's right's and not the various other young animals who exceed it in intellect/development and independence. Or even the mentally challenged person compared to other animals.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Miko

[The Conductor]

1. Again with babies that pull their hair because they lack self awareness. This would give parents around the country license to kill any newborns that do these things. After all if they're not alive how can you murder it?

Once somthing is born then it is "alive", and I'm not sure what you are saying, if something pulls it's hair and feels pain then surley that means that they are aware?

2. Scientifically life begins at conception. Schools of thought have disagreed on countless things but ultimately we put the final bullet on science.

Bearing mind that - to me at least - living and being alive are two diferent things. Living involves any thing made up of cells, i.e. a newly conceived child or a plant. "alive" referrs to anything that is self aware.

[Miko]

Once somthing is born then it is "alive", and I'm not sure what you are saying, if something pulls it's hair and feels pain then surley that means that they are aware?

While the brain will signal pain, in instances I speak of, the child is unable to have the self awareness that the pain is happening to them and that they are causing it. So, hypothetically if you're in a nursery and bugged to death by an infant's crying because they won't stop ripping their hair out, we should kill them. As a matter of fact, parents could probably kill their kid regardless and tell the cops they were tugging their hair which made the killings lawful. You could just as easily in a state where abortion is illegal unless in cases of for example rape and incest say you were raped.

EDIT: I added some more stuff in my previous post because I hadn't known you responded.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Miko

[The Conductor]

While the brain will signal pain, in instances I speak of, the child is unable to have the self awareness that the pain is happening to them and that they are causing it. So, hypothetically if you're in a nursery and bugged to death by an infant's crying because they won't stop ripping their hair out, we should kill them.

EDIT: I added some more stuff in my previous post because I hadn't known you responded.

But surley that is more a case of the child learning than it is about not being aware? Obviously as it gets older it will realise that what it is doing is hurting it.

[Miko]

This is more of a case of an infant who hasn't learned self awarness. You may argue the hair pulling will be it's method of eventually learning the concept but it doesn't change that it doesn't presently understand. Otherwise it wouldn't do it. And while it will eventually attain self awareness, we could argue that for the fetus as well.

[The Conductor]

Yes but a fetus will only have the capicity to learn self awareness after a certain point, at which point I'd agree that it is wrong to abort.

[Miko]

But then I'd have to ask why does it matter? Learning to be "alive" or having even that capacity to learn the being alive isn't the same as actually being alive. Therefore if a mother wants to chop the infant's head off she should have the right.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Miko

[Roarey Raccoon]

But then I'd have to ask why does it matter? Learning to be "alive" or having even that capacity to learn the being alive isn't the same as actually being alive. Therefore if a mother wants to chop the infant's head off she should have the right.

Yes, she should XP.

[Water Colours]

I expressed my views on pro-choice on youtube once and was directed to a video called "The Silent Scream" a video of a real abortion when the fetus is able to feel.

Despite the fact the video was very old and has rather strange propaganda undertones to it it was fascinating and brutal at the same time but my belief remains pro-choice Of course within reason which is for it to be done as early has possible once the choice has been decided.

But surely we've came to far as a society to outlaw abortion, I would hate for women to go back to the back streets even if these are more modern times the risk would still be there.

[Miko]

But surely we've came to far as a society to outlaw abortion, I would hate for women to go back to the back streets even if these are more modern times the risk would still be there.

that's true but its like saying if we outlaw murder those that die won't be able to die safely. I don't think it should really be a matter of siding with this notion that we should make something legal because it will still be done if illegal. That essentially justifies ANY crime.

[Diogenes]

2. Scientifically life begins at conception. Schools of thought have disagreed on countless things but ultimately we put the final bullet on science.

Where's this coming from, exactly? I've never heard of this before, and frankly it doesn't make much sense to me.

[Roarey Raccoon]

that's true but its like saying if we outlaw murder those that die won't be able to die safely. I don't think it should really be a matter of siding with this notion that we should make something legal because it will still be done if illegal. That essentially justifies ANY crime.

Nah I think you're just being extremely silly. Like your argument that terminating a foetus is the same as killing a baby, when it's nothing of the sort. You do notice the fact that there is a difference in definition between a baby and a foetus, right? I mean that's a pretty good reason for giving them different names XP. But to dispense with the mockery, it isn't just a scientific issue (and your science is also completely lacking) but an obviously ethical one. Treating a fully formed, moving, laughing and crying baby exactly the same as you treat a foetus growing in the womb is just not a possibility. The prospect of it is simply rediculous, so your argument is irresponsibly bullshit. They aren't the same thing despite being alive according to the scientific definition. Your argument is a logical fallacy in that you're overstepping a giant portion of the issue just to state some nonsense scenarios which are not and will not occur.

Also, the argument isn't to make abortion legal because it will still be done anyway, it's that if it's made illegal the situation will be more dangerous and cause more harm to people who will be getting abortions illegally. It's a matter of protection and minimising damage, to make it illegal again would be a step in the wrong direction because having it illegal didn't fucking work. Rofl, sometimes, honestly XP.

[Miko]

Where's this coming from, exactly? I've never heard of this before, and frankly it doesn't make much sense to me.

Where is what coming from? At the point of conception it meets scientific characteristics of life

Nah I think you're just being extremely silly. Like your argument that terminating a foetus is the same as killing a baby, when it's nothing of the sort.

The point being raised was that self awareness should be what defines life over scientific characteristics. The problem with that is that I could kill a fetus or a person in a coma that has made their wish clear to be preserved unless their status goes into a persistent vegetative state. They are the same in the regard they lack self awareness.

it's that if it's made illegal the situation will be more dangerous and cause more harm to people who will be getting abortions illegally.

We're not going to open the gates for serious hardcore drugs just because people will find them, buy them and use them illegally. The problem is that anyone could argue danger either way. At least making abortion illegal discourages the practice of abortion and will mean that more fetii are in less danger (and mothers who aren't at any elevated physical risk for death are also not in danger of death). And even if every woman continued to do it, that doesn't mean that the law should make actively killing someone legal. If the choice was between letting a woman kill her spouse and bodily mutilation/suicide by her own hands, we would not suddenly say "oh well, we should make it legal" even if most married women did such a thing. The only reason this option sounds so rosy to you, is because you personally consider the fetus to be arbritrary and thus the dangers facing it do not count into consideration.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So overall, you see abortion as murder while we do not. I guess we can just agree to disagree, right? Or are we wrong in how we view it?

[Roareye Black]

Where is what coming from? At the point of conception it meets scientific characteristics of life

So does an amoeba, and the Swine Flu virus. They all meet the criteria for life, that doesn't stop you from finding ways to kill them. On that basis, we should just let E-Coli get everywhere and not bother with vaccinations because they kill life.

Having the characteristics of life does not mean the same thing as having the human right to survive. If it did, we'd be hypocrites on a mass murder scale. You yourself would be a murderer for eating meat, killing that fly you swatted, having a vaccination for that innocent flu/menangitis that just wanted to thrive in your body. Life and Conciousness are seperate, and that is how issues of murder and legality on the subject are based.

The point being raised was that self awareness should be what defines life over scientific characteristics. The problem with that is that I could kill a fetus or a person in a coma that has made their wish clear to be preserved unless their status goes into a persistent vegetative state. They are the same in the regard they lack self awareness.

If you'd done your research, you'd find that people in a coma showing no signs of recovery are disconnected and left to die after a certain amount of time. You seem to have no objections to this issue? In America especially because the Insurance Company will deem it unacceptable to pay loads of money into healthcare for a vegetable. This is deemed acceptable by cultural standards, let the body die and preserve who the person was. Preserving something positive through death, when keeping that person alive would cause more damage. You can apply the same to a foetus who's life will cause problems and further trauma further down the line, and since the foetus is actually less concious than a coma victim, I don't really see how your arguement is valid.

We're not going to open the gates for serious hardcore drugs just because people will find them, buy them and use them illegally. The problem is that anyone could argue danger either way. At least making abortion illegal discourages the practice of abortion and will mean that more fetii are in less danger (and mothers who aren't at any elevated physical risk for death are also not in danger of death). And even if every woman continued to do it, that doesn't mean that the law should make actively killing someone legal.

But you are being silly again. By deeming that abortion is killing a fully fledged human being when all it kills is dividing cells. And tbh, if the baby would come out as a danger to someone or end up living in a horrific state from neglect, bad parenting etc, then it's more humane to let it go and wait until the mother is ready to give birth. I cannot get my head around how people value dividing cells (Which at that point they are NOT anything more) above human life. I just don't see it. By the same logic I should protect Turberculosis or Aids despite the fact it puts you all in danger. That is the logic you are argueing.

If the choice was between letting a woman kill her spouse and bodily mutilation/suicide by her own hands, we would not suddenly say "oh well, we should make it legal" even if most married women did such a thing. The only reason this option sounds so rosy to you, is because you personally consider the fetus to be arbritrary and thus the dangers facing it do not count into consideration.

Yeh but the only reason sacrificing human happiness and allowing a child to be raised in pain and neglect sounds so rosy to you is because you think your view of the foetus being a fully matured human makes it worth more than an actual human life. And to be fair, your whole post shows how little experience you actually have with the subject of dealing with abortion. You're always downplaying the humane issues and sending up the women as murderers. It's that narrow-minded view that allows innocent women to be hated and spat at in the street for no good reason, but that is the view you defend. You defend a negative future full of neglected children and hatred against women who have already made a very dificult choice. You say "Just give them up for adoption!" but the reality of getting rid of a child is almost impossible, and those children who are sent out to adoption homes are rarely into a proper home. So you condemn the child as much as the parent.

Roareye Black.

[Flyboy Fox]

I suppose killing a tapeworm in the intestine is murder too, then, given that most foetuses aren't even THAT developed when they are aborted. I really can't see how the termination of a bunch of cells that doesn't even have neurological function is murder.

I would agree that the line is a little more blurred when the foetus has a functioning nervous system and the beginnings of independent functioning. In cases where the child is viable outside of the womb I would definitely be more iffy about it. But I am fully for a woman's right to choose. To me, her existing life, health and comfort are higher on the hierachy of rights than an unborn undeveloped clump of cells that doesn't have any form of awareness or independent functioning.