Welcome to Gaia! ::

this is one of those debates that will never cease to be contemporary. the fact of the matter is- there isn't quite any one point in time where the "thing" becomes a human. obviously, the baby isn't any less a baby 3 seconds before it's born. and it certainly doesnt look human at any early stage of pregnancy. it all depends on when you think the baby actaully receives the soul. the second it receives the soul, technically, it has a right to life, should receive a social security number, and can be considered to be murdered when it's killed. i think the right to life (if there is a life) trumps the right to bodily privacy... in my opinion. if the baby however, is not another person, but in actuality, just only a part of the mother, then yes, she has a right to cut it off just like her toenails.

now if the mother is under serious risk of dying from having a baby, or if there's another excuse (rape, incest, etc.) then there's a decent arguement. i dont think i would ever vote for a straight up pro-life bill without provisions.

badnarik had a point but, i think we're pretty far away from forcing abortions due to overpopulation. (hopefully it'll take a long while to fill up all the empty space in the mountain time zone)

I always laugh when I hear peole talking about the "abortion pill"... because it's so inaccurate. It also annoys me when people parade around Planned Parenthood clinics with those pictures of aborted babies, first because only about 4% of Planned parenthood's clients come there for abortions (the rest come for birth control [which prevents unwanted pregnancies] and OB/GYN exams.) Secondly, most of those pictures they're carrying arouns are of thord trimester abortions, which aren't legal in most places anyway. I do wish people would get their facts straight.
Anyhow, I think that abortion should be allowed without any restrictions up until the third trimester. At that point, the fetus is viable in most cases (meaning it has developed a nervous system and can feel pain.) At that point the only reason it should be allowed is if having the baby would pose a health risk to the mother or the baby. Also, the third trimester would be when the fetus is more likely to survive a premature birth, because it's more able to survive outside the womb. They've ceased to be simply a parasite in my book, and moved into the realm of "potential humans".

I think the federal government has a decent time cut off at the moment. I don't really want to change that. Basically this one of the very few areas where I support the status quo. I think that women should be able to have abortions if they see fit in some of the early stages of pregnacy. It's not like it's a simple surgery. Women pay the price in more than one way, so I say that if a women wants to deal with the cost and the emotional/physical pain they should be able to. I don't think anyboby really has the right to judge the women who get abortion. So I'm not really pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice.

I guessing here. So you believe that people should be able to have an abortion by law, but you are against having one yourself?

I am against having one myself, yes. Also I don't think it should be a knee jerk reaction or RELIED upon as birth control.

"Oh we don't have a condom? That's ok I'll just get an abortion."

To me, that's just not right. When my sister who was EXTREMELY pro-life suddenly flipped and decided to have one, I had concerns she was being coerced by her boyfriend. I didn't think she should have one then, because I offered to adopt. Personally I feel that choices such as giving the child up for adoptions in a healthy woman should be explored first.

I think abortions should be done for heatlh reasons, a response to rape, or incest. The relying upon it as a form of birth control, or just because "I don't want to be incovienced with a child right now" to me are wrong. There are so many good people wanting a child who can't have them.

On the same hand the law has no right to dictate to me, my sister or any woman if she can nor can not have an abortion OR enforce the above restrictions. I think a woman or women in general should be responsible to do that themselves.

I don't agree with women having abortions as I truly belive they are killing a living being, but I fully support thier right to do so as I am not the boss of them.

Hope that further explains my position.

I am pro-choice. Don't get me wrong; I hate the idea of killing what might have a soul. When it comes down to it, though, if I were to ever get raped or something like that (God forbid), I'd like the opportunity to not have to go through the pain of childbirth because it was never on my to do list in the first place. I don't want children. In the end I don't know if I'd choose to get an abortion or put my baby up for adoption (because it's not fair to the baby to be raised by a teenage mother), but I would still like to have that choice. Thus, pro-choice.

I see it as a question of the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus.

Does the fetus have the right to do harm to the mother for nine months, followed by a short period of severe harm and suffering? Does the mother have the right to defend herself from said harm and suffering at the cost of the fetus's dubious life?

*nod* i can respect that opinion, but i'll continue to hold my own (although a tad pacifist) i think i would rather a baby live and be risk abuse than die if it was alive in the first place... and i'll echo the "if" because i suppose none of us know for sure the nature of souls. Until we do, any government policy will seem evil to a great deal of people.