This is all quite funny.

The discussion, not the topic...

Mrs. M:

I have no problem with restrictions on abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy, for exactly that reason. If I were writing the laws, I would ban such abortion except when medically necessary to protect the mother's health.

OK, so what you're saying then is (as I postulated earlier) that it's the potential to become a person which give an embryo the rights of a person in the here and now.

There's no denying it does have that potential. However, so does an unfertilized ovum. (So does a sperm cell, except that it's mathematically impossible for all sperm cells to become human beings, since there aren't enough ova.) If the potential is to be treated as the actual, shouldn't we ban not only abortion but also birth control? And I don't just mean artificial birth control, I also mean birth control by abstinence. Every time a woman has a period, every time an ovum is flushed down the toilet instead of being fertilized and implanted, a potential human being has his or her future stolen.

If we're going to outlaw abortion on that basis, shouldn't we also require every woman of childbearing age to be constantly pregnant? What's more, as soon as we have the technology to do this, shouldn't we take the remaining ova in every woman's ovaries, that she can't bring to term herself naturally, and fertilize them in vitro and gestate them in uterine replicators? I know we can't do this right now, but we should immediately begin a crash program to develop the technology! People are having their lives stolen!

What do you say to that?

If your daughter was raped by your son, and she ended up pregnant, that'd be cool with you?

I know it's an extreme example, but such instances need to be allowed for...

I'm talking about abortion in the last trimester only, Steve. If one of my daughters were to get pregnant, I would want her to have the option to abort in early pregnancy no matter who the guy was. If abortion is banned in the final three months, that gives pregnant women six months to do something about it if need be. That's plenty of time.

I must agree with you, Steve. The trauma of the rape, worrying about whether the baby would be born with a birth defect and carrying the baby for nine months could be detrimental to the mother's well-being and therefore abortion should be an option for her.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Misunderstood your point.

It would appear as though we're in agreement...

I voted for the first option, because I don't believe there should be any restrictions.

I did think about the second option - having some restrictions, but then I thought about it some more, and decided that, no matter if I disagree with the reasons why a woman wishes to abort a pregnancy, the decision is up to her.
I don't believe anyone has the right to interefere in such a decision, which is why I voted option one.

__________________
The smile when you tore me apart. You took my heart, deceived me right from the start. You showed me dreams, I wished they'd turn into real. You broke a promise and made me realize.
It was all just a lie.

Thanks for taking part, Kyle, and welcome to the forum.
Out of curiosity, what restrictions did you consider?

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

This seems like an appropriate moment to evaluate the state of the poll so far.
The most popular option thus far is clearly: "Abortion should be legal, but subject to some restriction(s)."
Intriguingly, at the moment the number of votes on either side (for no restrictions and for a general ban w/exceptions) balance each other out.

The most common restrictions mentioned seem to somehow involve the viability/development of the child/fetus or the late-term of the pregnancy, which I think we can say are related categories.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

The only restriction I really considered was the term of the fetus. I don't agree with late term abortions, to be honest, but I still support them, if that makes sense. As I said, I don't think it is my place to interefere with the life and choices of another.

__________________
The smile when you tore me apart. You took my heart, deceived me right from the start. You showed me dreams, I wished they'd turn into real. You broke a promise and made me realize.
It was all just a lie.

As a matter of pro-choice vs. anti-choice, the score is 30-8.

Kinda renews my hopes for America

I myself am somewhat encouraged by the strong support for some sort of middle-ground between allowing abortion under no circumstances and allowing abortion under any circumstances.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

That depends on how you decide to define "person" doesn't it ?

If your mom had found she was pregnant and didn't want to BE pregnant at that time, she could have taken away the life you have. You wouldn't be having this conversation. Or anything else. It would have been stolen from you. You'd have been murdered.

No biggie is what you're saying. You're a non-person. Or are you ? Or WERE you a non-person ? When exactly did you turn into a person ?

There's an obvious difference between individual sperm cells/unfertilized ova and the fertilized blastocyst that has joined and combined DNA. It is this combining that allows for the creation of what will become a fully functional human being if left alone.

Some guys spunk will never turn into a person on its own.

Some woman will never magically become pregnant on her own.

Yes, they both have potential. Potential IF some things happen to JOIN them.

This potential isn't comparable to the potential that they have after JOINING. That you're trying to MAKE them comparable shows poor judgement in my opinion.

The joined fertilized blastocyst has a future as a PERSON if left alone. The sperm and ova do ONLY if something ELSE FIRST OCCURS. In other words they DON'T until just the right things happen. They have to do a "meet and greet" and "mix" FIRST.

I say that's ridiculous. You'd have to make ALL pornography illegal. Some guy might spank his monkey. We'd probably need to all convert to Islam so women would keep their beauty under wraps. Men might see them and waste sperm in their britches.

Again, that you're trying to equate these things shows poor judgement in my opinion.

Don't you guys tire of this one? It doesn't work. How do you know that aborted embryos don't end up in heaven?

What about Jesus' mom?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Why doesn't it work ? Because I don't know that aborted embryos don't "end up in heaven" ?

Ridiculous.

Whether they "end up in heaven" or not doesn't change the fact that they had their lives yanked out from under them.

This isn't a discussion/critique on Christianity. I'm not here to argue about whether or not I beleive in "immaculate conception" ... what many call immaculate deception.

This is about abortion and whether or not it's wrong or right.