^_^

That's exactly it. I don't begrudge a woman her right to choose. But if she does it JUST because she can, just because she decides she doesn't want the baby after all, then I get a bit iffy. I don't begrudge the choice to any woman, but it comes down to whether her reasons are good or not.

Meh, bone of contention with me ;P

Some people abuse the privilege. Like those who use it as a form of birth control. e___e;;
Those people are very far and few between, but... still.

I know that most women do get abortions for legit reasons, though. If a couple can take care of the child the chances are for them just keeping it anyway rather than aborting.

BINGO That's what I was trying to get at ^^; If you're going to use abortion for a cheap form of birth control, then go off and get your tubes tied. Or better yet, don't have sex at all, and you won't get pregnant. That's the best form of birth control I can think of.

OT: I LOVE your dress ;) Where'd you get it?

Abortions aren't cheap... they're more expensive than birth control would be. You can get birth control free nowadays. =D

Emporio Palazzio is where you get all the gowns. >w<

Exactly. And besides, there's always adoption too!

Yes, I saw XD Now if only MAC would be updated, I could see what some of the newer gowns look like! At least I'm closer now than I was before, thanks to selling off a pair of dove wings for 1k /OT

To me, even though it isn't murder, it is. It's still alive and can feel from the moment a fetus is conceived. I think it should not be allowable in some instances, where others, it should. like the examples you put up, if a girl is raped or unable to care properly for the child, then it should be allowed. (I don't like putting kids up for adoption either >.> I'd adopt some kids though.) If a girl is just being a total whore and screws up, ends up getting pregnant, there shouldn't be a choice, she should have to live through what she has caused and take care of it.

A fetus can't feel anything, LoversEnd. >_>;;

And why are some fetuses less deserving of life than others?
So a fetus conceived by rape is can be killed but one made via consensual means should be saved? That makes no sense.

Originally Posted by LoversEnd

To me, even though it isn't murder, it is. It's still alive and can feel from the moment a fetus is conceived. I think it should not be allowable in some instances, where others, it should. like the examples you put up, if a girl is raped or unable to care properly for the child, then it should be allowed. (I don't like putting kids up for adoption either >.> I'd adopt some kids though.) If a girl is just being a total whore and screws up, ends up getting pregnant, there shouldn't be a choice, she should have to live through what she has caused and take care of it.

actually it's been proven that a fetus cannot feel anything until 20-26 weeks. the majority of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. adoption only resolves the issue of an unwanted CHILD, not an unwanted PREGNANCY. besides, there are THOUSANDS of children already in the system. why add to that? and why do you want to use pregnancies to punish women with healthy sex lives?

Originally Posted by inkhart_9

Is there ever a good reason why the person should EVER kill a born or UNBORN child? I think that abortion should be illegal. I mean, people out there that abortion unborn babies are killing other people's hopes of having a kid when they are being abortioned. Some people will want a child that they can't have, so hey look. If someone was raped they don't have to kill a baby if they don't want it. All they have to do is basically ive birth and wiat for someone to adopt.

abortions will still occur if illegal, only they will be dangerous or deadly. women will be injured and women will die. do you honestly want that?

Originally Posted by June

What point are you trying to make, Ali? That scenario doesn't really have any basis on this discussion. Or have a likelihood of happening either. o_O

how doesn't it? it's a simple question. would you abort in order to save the life of your existing and very ill child? it does happen.

Honestly, I find that a woman who would kill her living child to save the life of a fetus to be a bit morally bankrupt.

Okay, Ali, could you give me one verified example of someone who aborted to save their ill child? *shrugs* The only case I know of is just the opposite, couples who HAD a child in hopes that it would be a good bone marrow donor for their existing child. http://blog.andy.org.mx/savior-siblings-pgd/

That's far more abominable as far as I'm concerned.

I don't have a verified example, but there are situations where that would occur.
If the mother needed to donate a piece of her liver to her child, she'd probably have to abort first.

Kinmotsu, I have to admit I'm not too fond of that either. Suppose the new baby WASN'T a perfect match? Would the parents resent it because of that? What about the new child him/herself? As he (for convenience) grew older, would he come to hate his parents because they had him just for his older sibling? Would he hate and resent his sibling? And so forth.

Fabby, how often do you think such an emergency would occur? And really, what bearing does that have on the vast majority of abortions that are done for the sake of convenience?

I don't doubt that most doctors will never see that in their lifetimes, I was simply pointing out that it is a valid scenario.
It's another point to be made that abortion can be the best option for all.

Not for the unborn, it isn't. And really, why should they have to abort the unborn just to remove a piece of liver? It's not like it's an either/or situation.

They don't exactly care. :\
Honestly, it seems like a bad idea to have major surgery while pregnant. And the drugs they'd give you would probably kill the kid anyway.

*blinks* Does this mean I now have carte blanche to go out and kill anyone who doesn't "care"? Sleeping people and coma victims, look out! I've got your number now!

All sarcasm aside, please let me point out the obvious. Because "they don't exactly care" is NOT a good reason to kill another human being.

Also, I did a little research about surgery and pregnancies and the general concensus seems to be that if it's done after the first trimester, when the unborn is past the worst danger of miscarriage, it can be done in reasonable safety. It's not a certainty, of course, nothing ever is. You could still lose the pregnancy, but in that case it would be a tragic accident, not a deliberate killing.

I think it's almost laughable to compare a bundle of cells that has never lived to an incapacitated person who has.

Abortion debates will never be settled because the fundamental platforms on which they are built is so vastly different. The religious right firmly believes that life begins at conception (based on a faith-view) and the progressive left believes it begins at a later time (variable, but usually surrounding heartbeat or physical characteristics based on science).

In fact, I've never seen a pro-life arguement that was not based on a faith or religion based stance. It's usually propaganda based on a conception that life begins at conception, a couple recitations of "thou shalt not kill" and a splash of pictures of late-term aborted fetuses from abortions that no educated person on either side of the debate would believe to be acceptable.

*stares* Brinne, you ARE joking, aren't you? I simply can't believe that an intelligent person, as you seem to be, can dispute the simple biological fact that LIFE begins at conception. It's not a religious argument, it's simple biology. From the moment the egg is fertilized, a new human being has begun and that human being IS alive. Life does not come from death, after all. The unborn is not miraculously somehow ALIVE at some point in the pregnancy, but dead before.

I simply can't believe that an intelligent person, as you seem to be, can't distinguish between life and potential life.

I can dispute all day that a fetus is alive. It can become alive. However, for an already determined span of time, it is no more alive than any other organ or tumor.

And therein lies your problem, your blindness. An unborn is NOT an organ. An unborn is NOT a tumor. It is a human being that is going through the necessary stages to prepare it for life outside the womb. It is a living human being from the moment of conception. If you don't believe me, go ask a doctor or a science teacher.

That's an apocryphal conclusion. For every "doctor" and "science teacher" you could present, I could undoubtedly present one who supports my statement.

I could claim, with equal tenacity, that your narrow view of life makes you as blind as you claim me to be, but tenacity and insult do not prove a point any more than name calling and temper tantrums.

I'm not going to bother to put any medical research into this, because to be honest it doesn't matter much to me. I was just pointing out that it's plausible.

And I believe there is a difference between just being alive, period, and being a PERSON. Personally, I couldn't fucking care less if the fetus could be a person. It isn't a person, plain and simple. Until it is born, it has no rights whatsoever.

See, it is technically a living human being, but only in the loosest sense. I cannot deny that it is organic matter and it has the number of chromosomes we do. It still should not be thought of on the same level as you or I. I can do such things as be aware that I'm existent and feel pain. A fetus drains nutrients.

Brinne, tenacity I will grant you, but insults? Name-calling? Temper tantrums? Where, please? And, please, do show me a doctor or science teacher that will deny basic biology.

Fabby, I will also grant that there is a dispute over whether the unborn is a PERSON, and just when it may reach the point it is considered a person. Unfortunately, Brinne wasn't using the word person, she was using the word alive. And I still maintain that as long as there is a dispute about personhood, the only sane and intelligent thing to do is err on the side of caution and NOT have abortions. It is better to let a non-person live (and reach personhood) than risk killing a person.

Until a fetus can metabolize, adapt, respirate, respond to stimulus and reproduce, it's not even alive by the most basic definitions of life. As I said, it has potential to be alive.

What you call "basic biology" is really your "basic opinion" about what you consider life to be.