Welcome to Gaia! ::

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Marquis also said:

"Accordingly, morally permissible abortions will be rare indeed unless, perhaps, they occur so early in pregnancy that a fetus is not yet definitely an individual."

When does one become an individual?

I'm very iffy on the subject of abortion, from a personal standpoint. The problem is, we just don't KNOW what constitutes as "human" when we're talking about fetal development. My personal opinion is, if it doesn't have a brain and working nervous system, it doesn't qualify as human, and thus first-trimester abortion isn't such a bad thing. But that's me, and I would never pretend to "know" anything about when we get "souls" or whatever, so as far as I'm concerned, the person saying abortion is fine because the baby is just a parasite until it can survive outside the womb has just as much authority as me.

But let's think about the double-speak and spin given to this issue: pro-life people claim that they care about "life." However, the forerunners of the pro-life movement are evangelical Christians who believe in man's dominance over animals and probably didn't care when drowing newborn kittens and puppies was the standard method of keeping the pet population down (note: I said forerunners, the loudmouths who appear on TV making vehement "appeals" for life; most of the ones I have seen were televangelist types). Futhermore, nobody minds swatting a fly or a spider, plenty of people hunt for sport, and animal shelters frequently kill animals that are old, sick, or slightly more aggresive than they like. Every example I just mentioned is a far more "alive" example of life than a three-month-old fetus: the newborn animals can feel, they know cold and warmth and pain; the bugs eat and breathe and try to escape when you come after them with the sports page; the deer are frightened enough to run away when they hear gun blasts; and older, sicker animals have the same aches and pains as older, sicker humans, and the mean animals have had lives just as hard as mean people.

These things are all alive, and they're all innocent. But we don't care too much about killing them. Why? Because pro-lifers and pro-choicers don't give a damn about life. They care about personhood. It's what the pro-lifers say all the time: you're killing babies, little people. It's only because of their humanity that we care. But when does a fetus become a person? That's the question I have to have answered before completely condeming or condoning abortion. As it's up in the air right now, I don't have many arguments against it. I for one do not like it, and would like to think I would not get one myself, but if somebody else wants to get one, I have no authority to say, "No, it's wrong." And until God himself comes down and gives us a date as to when that lump of dividing cells becomes a true human being, neither does anyone else have any authority to designate right or wrong.

Well, you can attempt to use something like Kant's categorical imperative to challenge the base notion that rational beings should be so uncaring and passive towards the deaths of others, but that's about the only thing I can offer.

Sometimes people are just arguing from completely different paradigms. I've argued against many people - often younger people...many of them angst-ridden - who fall back on typical existential and/or nihilist arguments, which are hard to logically dismantle. There isn't much you can do if you're just on different planets in that regard. I used to get highly irritated by it, but I've mellowed out significantly after arguing with so many of them.

My stance on abortion is like my stance on a lot of other things. Let people do what they want. If they want to get rid of their unborn child, let them. If they want to give birth to it and either keep it or put it up for adoption, let them.
Getting into a less, "I could give less of a darn" outlook, There are certain circumstances where I think abortion is the right way to go. For example, if the baby is the direct result of a rape, then it would seem right. After all, who would want to hold on to a rape baby? I know some people do, so no Wise Alec comments on that regard, please.
But, if the person in question is some promiscuous chick who got pregnant because she was too dumb to use a condom or birth control and was always banging the boys, that falls under my 'Karma' category.
But like I said before. People have the right to choose if they want to. If they don't want a baby, so be it. If they do, so be it. Some angry group of women stating that abortion should be outlawed because their pregnant daughter died because of a crappy abortionist or a slip-up in the surgery should have no control over another woman's decision.
In my opinion, of course.

I honestly believe it depends on the person and their situation.
I really don't understand why there is so much debate over it.

It makes no more sense to force someone to have a child anymore than to force someone to have an abortion.

Both things effect people involved mentally and physically.

Sure it may be a potential life, but what kind of life is it going to have if it wasn't really wanted in the first place.

of course the people that use abortion when they say "its just not the right time... maybe in a few years" and are fully grown and healthy adults with a stable home/life... that I don't seem to understand... that is bordering on selfishness... if this was what we were discussing I'd have a lot more to say on it...

I stand by SND. I'm pro-life, as well. I understand that rape and incest will very likely lead the poor girl to eliminate the baby inside her, but I find that the equivalent of abuse.

When someone hurts you, most people will naturally lash out at the innocent and oblivious who live without that injury. Now, stick a raped girl and a sinless fetus together- who do you think is going to receive the brunt of the pain? Yes, the girl was raped and yes, she now has to endure a pregnancy because of the incident, but she's punishing the baby for the man's crimes. Only the man should receive the punishment, not the child who is only tied to him by blood and nothing else.

That's why we live with so few innocents in this time, because those who were wronged can only eliminate their pain by directing their anger towards those who are lucky to be untainted, therefore tainting them as well. Then these troubled souls grow to be our murderers, liars, rapists, and delinquents.

Let's place this situation in more understandable terms. Here stands three people, a man, a woman, and a child. The man wrongs the woman in an unspeakable manner, and the child is, in some sense, the unfortunate witness (but in actuality, the result). So the woman kills the child in order to 'punish' the man or expunge the sin? Most of the time, the rapists don't care if their kid lives or dies, as long as the cops can't find their cheap motel. If you look at it, the fetus IS only a witness, there at the wrong place and the wrong time; he or she doesn't deserve the man's punishment, but rather the man should receive his due pain.

I do understand what it's like to be violated, though I have not been pregnant at all. I can't guarantee my reaction if such happened to me. Including the hormone swings and stress and all-around terror and anger, a raped and pregnant woman is not the most lucid person in the world, so she still shouldn't be blamed for her actions.

I may stand against abortion, but I don't stand for blaming and criticizing the woman. Yes, I did earlier, but read my last paragraph, folks. Experiences can warp people more than we deserve, and rape is perhaps the most traumatic experience a woman (or man, in some cases) can endure. The mother can't be blamed, though I don't approve her option of abortion.

Yes, and people will still rape and murder and lie and do whatever crime they want.

But do you think claiming neutrality will really help? Do you think letting problems slide is exactly smart?

Sure, let's listen to you. Let's just stop caring about all the crimes out there, all the criminals and fugitives. People die anyway; what difference does it make if a serial killer runs around ending people before their time, torturing them as he goes. They were going to die anyway, so it doesn't matter, right?

I was once standing on that line, but one day, you'll realize that those in between must either choose or get run over. There's no room for neutrality in this world, no matter how much we want it.

Now, if we DON'T ignore our criminals and prosecute them as we should, then we lessen the death toll, we decrease the amount of unnecessary loss. It's the same with this debate.

Yes, children will be aborted no matter what, but depending on which side wins this debate in the world, the statistics of the killed children will be heavily affected. Obviously, if abortion if understood as murder, then less and less people will finally face their responsibilities and stop taking the cheap route out by blaming the kids; the amount of aborted kids, in the US at least, will decrease dramatically. Yes, it denies us a right, but face it people, the law says we can't shoot someone because we hate them, yet we don't complain about that. If you look at it, abortion is basically the same, so why do we whine?

Now, if people assume abortion as a woman's right over her child's fate, then more and more children will be aborted. Girls will enjoy their boyfriends because they can always dump the kid if anything happens, can't they? Men will most likely indulge in the passing woman more often, whether she's willing or not, since she can always abort the kid and therefore, in their twisted minds, no harm, no foul, right?

Understand that being neutral is plain stupid. It's the most cowardly route possible. If you're personality dictates to take the easiest path, that makes little difference. Isn't taking that easy route a form of cowardice, though you're loathe to admit it? I'm just saying that I don't approve your opinion in staying at the sidelines. This isn't gym class, and even in gym class, the teacher is eventually going to throw you into that field, willing or no.

This entire debate of right or wrong, in my opinion, is more or less on the morals of the people. Yes, it's wrong to kill someone. Then, that's in how we were taught. More or less, everyone was taught morals at birth, everyone was taught other people's thoughts on right and wrong. The simple truth is, there is no real right answer.

Death is a natural part, and a previous argument was right, we kill animals happily, animals that can feel it. Why care for a fetus that likely can't? Yes, it's human, but what is a human but an animal? No, in truth, we care because of what we were taught.

Religion is one of the big arguments because it is one of the big areas of morality. It is where morality takes the most hold, where morals that are taught by it teach all life to be sacred. But then, why do some people hunt if all life is sacred? Because they are hungry? Perhaps. Because they enjoy it? Perhaps. Maybe because they were taught that killing animals for sport or otherwise is fine?

The choice of abortion is just that, a choice. As a society we have morals that we believe must be followed. To harm another human being is considered wrong, but is allowed on some occasions. To murder is wrong. But to punish through the method of killing, that's just fine.

It's a question of morality, and different people have different morals. Right and wrong are up for debate at any given time, and different viewpoints bring different sides. In the end, the only thing that can be called right or wrong depends on where you live. Depends on society's rules. But to murder is for one human being to kill another, correct? That brings the question of when something is considered human.

The line must be drawn at some point. I personally agree with the one who said that first trimester abortions are fine. We have to draw the line truly. And since religion isn't supposed to have any place in our laws and decisions on laws, it does, but is not supposed to, then the religious belief that the thing was considered a human before conception, ect. ect. does not apply.

Anyway, sorry if I went off-topic anywhere.