Todd Akin wants abortion banned for rape victims

[occasional]

Trying to impose their own (rather baseless) views on others is not the only problem of the pro-life movement.
It also seems to ignore the fact that making abortion illegal would not make abortion disappear, which can proved by the fact that women did have abortions before it was legalized and that women in countries where it is illegal still do. The only difference is that these "back-alley" abortions are unsanitary and much more dangerous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

So I think it's also a matter of being pragmatic vs being an ideologue.

Also

This is the kind of decision I think the medical community should determine -- certainly not politicians and religious fundamentalists.  Of course, I don't think even doctors & scientists currently agree on the exact definition of life, either.

I don't think it's possible to ascertain when life starts anymore than it is possible to ascertain whether God exists or not.

I think the government should be pragmatic, and therefore leave the decision to the individual women.

The best way to lower the incidence of abortion is to make contraception affordable and available, as well as teach real (not abstinence-based bullshit) sex ed in schools, both measures that pro-lifers are generally opposed to.

[AceHigh]

I can do a sanitary abortion. I call it FALCON PUNCH!!!!!! 

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

@Ixarku

The problem with these examples is that none of them will turn into a person if properly cared for.  Apples and oranges.  That really seems to be where these people are coming from.  Rape and incest aside for the moment, their stance seems to be that if you get pregnant intentionally or due to carelessness, then you have a responsibility to that life that you helped create.

First off, there is only one anticonception that has 100% success - not having sex, ever, unless you want a kid (Which actually might be the aim there, partially) and I just don't see why having sex should always come with a life-long obligation. Now, thinking about that, if you believe in the Bible, even not having sex isn't a 100%.

Secondly, apples and oranges, not quite - you could just as well argue that a person who ate meat without properly cooking it and got a tapeworm is obliged to care for it, because now they have a responsibility to the life they helped to create. And before you go there, tapeworm might actually be more advanced organism than the parasite called fetus is at the start. And tumors, well, prove they don't have souls, maybe they are just a little cosmic entities trying to live with humans.

Lol, no, a tapeworm is not human life.  A tumor is not a baby.  And the question of having a soul or not is almost irrelevant.  You keep trying to make comparisons to other things but in the context of the discussion, I don't think there are any other appropriate comparisons between a human embryo and anything else.
 
Having sex doesn't have to come with a life-long obligation -- that's one reason why humanity invented birth control.  Which is why the Catholic position on birth control and abortion is such a /facepalm.  Those folks paint the situation far too black and white -- don't have sex unless you are willing to have babies, period, end of story.  Or if you're priest, it's OK to fuck little children.  It's such a ridiculous stance that I don't know how it has survived to become dogma.

It would almost look like we are going in circles, but what I am trying to demonstrate is, that there are more complex and "alive" things which can live in human body than the handfull of cells we call an embryo that work in very similar way, only difference is that they are not cells originating from a human. The term "parasitic growth" summs it up quite nicely, actually.
My point is, banning abortions in early stages is a bull, no matter your argument, because you cannot call that a human, unless you call every cell on human body a person.

What I meant about the AC is that it's never 100%, the chance is there, however small and that is why the very early pregnancy abortions should not be a big deal, let alone banning them in any semi-civilised country, unless you want to ban sex or argue that it doesn't matter because it doesn't concern men.
Now, as I said, late term abortions are a whole different matter, which is rather important thing. Then the definitions what is human come in.

At this point, it's just forcing women to have children aginst their will, and that is bad. Simple as that. Unless you perfect embryo implantation in men and force 10% of "healthy" male population to have a kid this way every year, chosen by lottery.

[Ixarku]

It would almost look like we are going in circles, but what I am trying to demonstrate is, that there are more complex and "alive" things which can live in human body than the handfull of cells we call an embryo that work in very similar way, only difference is that they are not cells originating from a human. The term "parasitic growth" summs it up quite nicely, actually.  My point is, banning abortions in early stages is a bull, no matter your argument, because you cannot call that a human, unless you call every cell on human body a person.

Lol, I think we're going in circles because you won't acknowledge that none of those other things you've mentioned won't eventually turn into human beings.  Whether an embryo is a human being "now" or not until "later" is completely irrelevant to the pro-life perspective -- the point, pure and simple, is that a human zygote will eventually turn into a human being if properly nurtured, and, as such, that speck of human life is sacred to them.  There is nothing else that exists in the human body that will eventually turn into a person.  It's fallacious to compare a zygote to dead skin cells, tumors, tapeworms or anything else biological.
 
The funny thing is, I agree with your stance that abortion should be a matter of individual choice, but I completely disagree with the logic you use to justify your conclusion.  This has actually been a helpful discussion for me, because it helped me crystallize my thoughts on the subject.  I've had trouble reconciling my liberal sensibilities that tell me abortion should be a matter of choice, and with my own moral compass that says it's wrong.  I think practical considerations and the rights and morality of the parents should be the guiding factor in any individual case of abortion.  Government and religious fundamentalists should not legislate morality (which is similarly why I think the religiously charged term 'marriage' should be removed from legal language altogether and replaced with the secular term 'civil union').  And certainly the government should not be involved in telling women what they should do with their bodies.
 
I think the difference in our stances is that I don't consider the situation at all from a scientific perspective, ie what defines a person, what defines human life.  I think it's irrelevant.  When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'

[AceHigh]

When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'

While I don't have anything against the perspective of both sides, some of the argument annoy me. This is one of them, because you use a possible future as a criteria. Yes it may become a person in the future, but it is not a self aware person at the moment. When a descision is made in present time, the discussion should be around present, not future. Because otherwise by that logic you could say that we murder potential people by masturbating instead of having unprotected sex.

[Burkingam]

In some cases, if for example at the 15th week you realize the fetus is handicapped, I'd argue that keeping it would be evil. Better kill it before it becomes a being than to create a being whose life will be absolutely miserable.

[Ixarku]

When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'

While I don't have anything against the perspective of both sides, some of the argument annoy me. This is one of them, because you use a possible future as a criteria. Yes it may become a person in the future, but it is not a self aware person at the moment. When a descision is made in present time, the discussion should be around present, not future. Because otherwise by that logic you could say that we murder potential people by masturbating instead of having unprotected sex.

The flaw in your logic is that a sperm by itself is not going to turn into a person.  A zygote will.  It's not a question of potential people versus actual people.  At the point that you have a human embryo, unless something goes wrong or some other process interferes, it's going to gestate and eventually turn into a baby.
 
(I seem to be repeating this argument a lot; there seems to be a deliberate attempt by some people to dehumanize human offspring by insisting that a clump of cells is somehow less human or of less inherent value because it's not fully developed.  I don't really understand this.  Human is human.  I'm personally OK with killing something, anything, if there's a rational or compelling reason to do so.  Execute a condemned man or abort a human fetus -- the end result is still the same, and both can be morally justified in the right circumstances.)
 
And people make all kinds of decisions all the time based on considerations for the future.  I choose route A on the drive home from work instead of route B because I think I'll run into traffic.  I plan out my budget ahead of time so that I can anticipate future needs.  Why is the decision to abort or not to abort somehow different?
 
 

In some cases, if for example at the 15th week you realize the fetus is handicapped, I'd argue that keeping it would be evil. Better kill it before it becomes a being than to create a being whose life will be absolutely miserable.

Sure, this is a practical example of where the parents should be allowed to make their own choice, rather than having the government force that decision upon them.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

It would almost look like we are going in circles, but what I am trying to demonstrate is, that there are more complex and "alive" things which can live in human body than the handfull of cells we call an embryo that work in very similar way, only difference is that they are not cells originating from a human. The term "parasitic growth" summs it up quite nicely, actually.  My point is, banning abortions in early stages is a bull, no matter your argument, because you cannot call that a human, unless you call every cell on human body a person.

Lol, I think we're going in circles because you won't acknowledge that none of those other things you've mentioned won't eventually turn into human beings.  Whether an embryo is a human being "now" or not until "later" is completely irrelevant to the pro-life perspective -- the point, pure and simple, is that a human zygote will eventually turn into a human being if properly nurtured, and, as such, that speck of human life is sacred to them.  There is nothing else that exists in the human body that will eventually turn into a person.  It's fallacious to compare a zygote to dead skin cells, tumors, tapeworms or anything else biological.
 
The funny thing is, I agree with your stance that abortion should be a matter of individual choice, but I completely disagree with the logic you use to justify your conclusion.  This has actually been a helpful discussion for me, because it helped me crystallize my thoughts on the subject.  I've had trouble reconciling my liberal sensibilities that tell me abortion should be a matter of choice, and with my own moral compass that says it's wrong.  I think practical considerations and the rights and morality of the parents should be the guiding factor in any individual case of abortion.  Government and religious fundamentalists should not legislate morality (which is similarly why I think the religiously charged term 'marriage' should be removed from legal language altogether and replaced with the secular term 'civil union').  And certainly the government should not be involved in telling women what they should do with their bodies.
 
I think the difference in our stances is that I don't consider the situation at all from a scientific perspective, ie what defines a person, what defines human life.  I think it's irrelevant.  When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'

By the same logic used here, you could say various rocks are pretty valuable because they will eventually turn into gems - and while that is mostly true, it's not a valid argument for anything. More extreme case, murder could be forgiven alltogether, seeing how human isn't much more than a ground fertilizer -eventually-. So no, you cannot treat something that is not human by any standards anyone can set, because there is a high chance that it could turn into human -eventually- when left alone. There is a reason why we treat things depending on what they are, not based on what will (likely) they become in the future.

Also, this is not a justificaton, this is a fact. Embryo is not a human and / or a person with rights it is a mass of cells and only mass of cells unless you apply spiritual or religious meanings, which is what is happening here.

The flaw I see in what you say is very clear in your summarisation at the end. "Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?" - Wrong. That is a false, flawed statement. The thing will not become is person nor is one. The thing, given time, nourishment and several other factors has a certain chance of becoming a human. You may say that is getting close to semantics in a way, but it is important. "You will be fired." and "You will be fired , should you violate agreement stated in your contract." - do you see the difference here?

Comic relief: Marriage is not an instution created by current religions, so if anyone should change the term, it's the people lobbiing for religious union.

Well, as you prolly noticed before, I'm actually more concerned about the incredible violation of rights going on there, rather than actual parasites which may eventually grow into a human. (The best part is that I don't really consider born kids to be much more than that either, but I aknowledge they are human at that point )

PS: Sorry for the seemingly chaotic writing here, but when it comes to longer posts, I have the bad habit of reading a part, then answering and reading further, so it may look a bit fragmented, but I hope understandable still.

[Burkingam]

And egg and a sperm will become a human being unless something wrong happens e.g. Mister has an headache and is not in the mood, a condom is in the way, masturbation => Kleenex, another sperm gets there first. etc.

[Ixarku]

By the same logic used here, you could say various rocks are pretty valuable because they will eventually turn into gems - and while that is mostly true, it's not a valid argument for anything. More extreme case, murder could be forgiven alltogether, seeing how human isn't much more than a ground fertilizer -eventually-. So no, you cannot treat something that is not human by any standards anyone can set, because there is a high chance that it could turn into human -eventually- when left alone. There is a reason why we treat things depending on what they are, not based on what will (likely) they become in the future.

You keep making essentially the same comparisons over and over, but just changing the individual object, and I don't think your examples are really applicable.  A rock is not a human being.  Why would anyone care whether a rock might turn into a gem in a million years?  It's not like anyone is going to be around to harvest it if it did become a gem.  If they were, maybe they would care.  Pro-lifers see an inherent value in human life.  I'm thoroughly Atheistic, I don't believe in any sort of divinity at all, but I can appreciate this point.  At least in regards to the beginning of life, while innocence still exists.
 
If you choose to believe that an embryo is not human (kind of silly IMO) or not a person (a more reasonable stance, not one that I think is relevant, but certainly more reasonable), that's fine.  It's not going to convince a pro-life person that the embryo is any less special, though.  You keep arguing as if your stance is rooted in some sort of absolute inescapable logic, but on both sides of the issue, it's really a question of two different, incompatible moralities.  Edit - if you don't see an inherent value in the life of the unborn, that's fine, but recognize it for what it is -- a moral decision, not something grounded in science or logic.
 
Murdering an adult is a whole different discussion.  Executing an adult who has committed a crime, also a different situation.  Context is everything.

Also, this is not a justificaton, this is a fact. Embryo is not a human and / or a person with rights it is a mass of cells and only mass of cells unless you apply spiritual or religious meanings, which is what is happening here.

I'm not arguing that an embryo has 'rights'.  'Rights' are arbitrary, an intellectual construct intended as framework so we can all try to get along without killing each other and pillaging and looting everything in sight.  In my book, the state decides what rights we all have, and they are subject to change under the rule of law.  If the state rules that an embryo has no rights until it reaches a certain age, then it has no rights.  There's only one truly fundamental characteristic (I hesitate to call it a 'right') that we all have -- free will.
 

The flaw I see in what you say is very clear in your summarisation at the end. "Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?" - Wrong. That is a false, flawed statement. The thing will not become is person nor is one. The thing, given time, nourishment and several other factors has a certain chance of becoming a human. You may say that is getting close to semantics in a way, but it is important. "You will be fired." and "You will be fired , should you violate agreement stated in your contract." - do you see the difference here?

I don't get what you're trying to say here.  The mother doesn't have to do anything in order for an embryo to develop into a fetus.  All she has to do is to not die.  It's in her own self-interest to stay reasonably healthy, and it's no coincidence that her good health also affects the good health of the fetus.
 
 
 
2nd edit - incidentally, I'm kind of glad that we can actually have a discussion about this topic without it turning into a bunch of name calling or vitriolic arguing.  I have no problem with you & I disagreeing fundamentally on the finer points.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

By the same logic used here, you could say various rocks are pretty valuable because they will eventually turn into gems - and while that is mostly true, it's not a valid argument for anything. More extreme case, murder could be forgiven alltogether, seeing how human isn't much more than a ground fertilizer -eventually-. So no, you cannot treat something that is not human by any standards anyone can set, because there is a high chance that it could turn into human -eventually- when left alone. There is a reason why we treat things depending on what they are, not based on what will (likely) they become in the future.

You keep making essentially the same comparisons over and over, but just changing the individual object, and I don't think your examples are really applicable.  A rock is not a human being.  Why would anyone care whether a rock might turn into a gem in a million years?  It's not like anyone is going to be around to harvest it if it did become a gem.  If they were, maybe they would care.  Pro-lifers see an inherent value in human life.  I'm thoroughly Atheistic, I don't believe in any sort of divinity at all, but I can appreciate this point.  At least in regards to the beginning of life, while innocence still exists.
 
If you choose to believe that an embryo is not human (kind of silly IMO) or not a person (a more reasonable stance, not one that I think is relevant, but certainly more reasonable), that's fine.  It's not going to convince a pro-life person that the embryo is any less special, though.  You keep arguing as if your stance is rooted in some sort of absolute inescapable logic, but on both sides of the issue, it's really a question of two different, incompatible moralities.  Edit - if you don't see an inherent value in the life of the unborn, that's fine, but recognize it for what it is -- a moral decision, not something grounded in science or logic.
 
Murdering an adult is a whole different discussion.  Executing an adult who has committed a crime, also a different situation.  Context is everything.

Also, this is not a justificaton, this is a fact. Embryo is not a human and / or a person with rights it is a mass of cells and only mass of cells unless you apply spiritual or religious meanings, which is what is happening here.

I'm not arguing that an embryo has 'rights'.  'Rights' are arbitrary, an intellectual construct intended as framework so we can all try to get along without killing each other and pillaging and looting everything in sight.  In my book, the state decides what rights we all have, and they are subject to change under the rule of law.  If the state rules that an embryo has no rights until it reaches a certain age, then it has no rights.  There's only one truly fundamental characteristic (I hesitate to call it a 'right') that we all have -- free will.
 

The flaw I see in what you say is very clear in your summarisation at the end. "Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?" - Wrong. That is a false, flawed statement. The thing will not become is person nor is one. The thing, given time, nourishment and several other factors has a certain chance of becoming a human. You may say that is getting close to semantics in a way, but it is important. "You will be fired." and "You will be fired , should you violate agreement stated in your contract." - do you see the difference here?

I don't get what you're trying to say here.  The mother doesn't have to do anything in order for an embryo to develop into a fetus.  All she has to do is to not die.  It's in her own self-interest to stay reasonably healthy, and it's no coincidence that her good health also affects the good health of the fetus.

The countless comparisations were supposed to demonstrate that just because something has a chance to develop into a human does not mean we should or have to treat it as one at the given time (such as you don't treat simple carbon as a diamond just because it has the capacity to become one, it really wasn't supposed to show that rocks grow into humans).

You also say that not considering embryo a human is silly, but I just can't see how you can consider something that doesn't look like, doesn't think, doesn't feel and doesn't work like one at all a human.
And person, well, that is absolutely out of questions as it by definition requires self aware, thinking and individual being, which actually doesn't really apply on kids up to about 2+ years of age no matter how you look at it.

Not sure what's that about murder, unless that was on purpose. Just in case - Embryo -> Human, Carbon -> Diamond, Human -(dies)> Fertilizer.

And once again, flawed, if you do nothing, nothing happens. Embryo has a potential to grow into something if certain conditions are met, again, the work example was supposed to demonstrate something here. You say "X will happen." I say that is wrong, because "X will happen when condition Y is met.". It's really just about that little logical fallacy you did there.


The problem is that this is basically a debate about religion. It's no coincidence that countries with lower religious population are having smaller to nonexistant pro-life movements or for that matter, anti-homosexual movements. Just as atheist will rarely turn "true" believer, pro-choice is very unlikely to convince pro-lifer (and vice versa), because it all goes hand in hand.

Admittedly, I might have a little too "cold" approach to the matter, but even if I, for the sake of debate, would believe that pro-life has absolutely nothing to do with religious influence, then I still cannot see how you can value a life that could eventually exist, because then you'll get into the bad spot where you have to consider all things that "could be" as valid, just to avoid totally contradicting yourself.

Edit: Ix, just to be clear - I'm not arguing, I'm really just "debating", which I really love to do, but many people misinterpret it as me being pissed off and that can get a bit awkward. Also, I think part of what we disagree on is an actual misunderstanding caused by the length of the posts and response time, prolly wouldn't happen on IM or similar. And yes, noticed your edit kinda late.

[Nikkoru]

2nd edit - incidentally, I'm kind of glad that we can actually have a discussion about this topic without it turning into a bunch of name calling or vitriolic arguing.  I have no problem with you & I disagreeing fundamentally on the finer points.

You misogynistic bastard.

[AceHigh]

When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'

While I don't have anything against the perspective of both sides, some of the argument annoy me. This is one of them, because you use a possible future as a criteria. Yes it may become a person in the future, but it is not a self aware person at the moment. When a descision is made in present time, the discussion should be around present, not future. Because otherwise by that logic you could say that we murder potential people by masturbating instead of having unprotected sex.

The flaw in your logic is that a sperm by itself is not going to turn into a person.  A zygote will.  It's not a question of potential people versus actual people.  At the point that you have a human embryo, unless something goes wrong or some other process interferes, it's going to gestate and eventually turn into a baby.

Sperm can eventually turn into a person, just like fetus. The only difference is that sperm needs one more assisting factor in order for it to happen. Also the first weeks the female body is rejecting the fetus as a foreign object. Abortion is just what I would call rejecting it consciously with medical assistance.

[Ixarku]

Admittedly, I might have a little too "cold" approach to the matter, but even if I, for the sake of debate, would believe that pro-life has absolutely nothing to do with religious influence, then I still cannot see how you can value a life that could eventually exist, because then you'll get into the bad spot where you have to consider all things that "could be" as valid, just to avoid totally contradicting yourself.

I'm definitely not saying that pro-lifers aren't influenced by religion.  That's well-established.  I do think it's possible to be pro-life without being religious though, simply because one does have to be religious to place a value on human life.  Again, I think it be can crystallized down to a moral decision.  I suppose if I thought it was moral for me to impose my beliefs on someone else, that there was a morality that transcended human decision, then I might be a pro-lifer.  Fortunately, I don't believe in either of those things, so I come down squarely on the pro-choice side.  I won't argue further on the 'it may or may not be a person' aspect, since I think we're at impasse there.
 
 

Sperm can eventually turn into a person, just like fetus. The only difference is that sperm needs one more assisting factor in order for it to happen. Also the first weeks the female body is rejecting the fetus as a foreign object. Abortion is just what I would call rejecting it consciously with medical assistance.

This is obviously an interpretation of the event.  Not necessarily one that I find fault with.  Shooting a man because he's breaking into my house is also an abortion, although a very late term one.  Anyway, the point being that, IMO, there aren't a lot of hard, objective facts when considering abortion.  In the end, it comes down to a moral choice that each person has to decide for themselves -- which is the perfect reason for why the government should stay the hell out of it.  I don't see how it could be anything else.
 

You misogynistic bastard.

And here I've been hoping you tag in on this debate.  I've been fighting off the wolves, but they've been wearing me down.

[Burkingam]

Since the "what's a person" argument is bringing us to an impass, I will bring another which you might find more convincing.

If someone is dying and needs a new liver to survive, nobody has the legal obligation to give this person their one, not even if there is only one person on earth whose blood-type is compatible with him and it just so happen to be his/her parent, not even if this is the result to a road accident and his/her parent was one of the two drivers. You are simply of no legal obligation to give part of your body to someone else, especially if it would impact your own health.
Do you see where I'm coming? Pregnancy forces a women to provide part of her body to a fetus, in a way that could irreversibly damage her health or even kill her, rarely, and yet if she wants an abortion it's usually because the pregnancy is part of an accident.

Some people try to refute this argument by pointing out that the women was only taking this risk to gain sexual pleasure (except in the case of a rape) and so she should take the responsibility of her act, but again, if a driver is using his car to go eat an icecream, he's also taking a risk just for to gain some culinary pleasure and yet if someone gets hit by his car and the victim needs a new liver, nobody is trying to force him to give his own.

[Nikkoru]

You misogynistic bastard.

And here I've been hoping you tag in on this debate.  I've been fighting off the wolves, but they've been wearing me down.

Look, if women see all stages of human life as sacrosanct, and believe its a moral imperative that potential human life be preserved, that's fine. You're free not to have an abortion if you get pregnant, you can even try to convince others of this viewpoint if you so choose. Many will listen with welcoming ears, even among the areligious. I don't think that position is unreasonable until it becomes intractable, absolute, and political. I maintain that the State has no right deciding what occurs in or around the reproductive organs of its citizens, it never has and never will.

Instead of trying to bully women and medical professionals who disagree with them at every turn, why not try an affirmative and compassionate approach to fellow human beings? As in, provide for the circumstances of mothers when they are in need of it. Or just be considerate to the least among you. Provide credibility to claims that you indeed love life and wish to preserve it, something more tangibly beneficial to the human condition than the venal indignities some states are subjecting women seeking abortions to in the U.S. We're all alive now, here, make this less miserable. 

This is much the same argument for Gay marriage, I'm perfectly sanguine with you not marrying another male, that's fine with me. Rather than worrying about other's love, show attention and care to your own spouse and embrace the love which you share.

I don't really have more to say on the subject.

[elvikun]

Admittedly, I might have a little too "cold" approach to the matter, but even if I, for the sake of debate, would believe that pro-life has absolutely nothing to do with religious influence, then I still cannot see how you can value a life that could eventually exist, because then you'll get into the bad spot where you have to consider all things that "could be" as valid, just to avoid totally contradicting yourself.

I'm definitely not saying that pro-lifers aren't influenced by religion.  That's well-established.  I do think it's possible to be pro-life without being religious though, simply because one does have to be religious to place a value on human life.  Again, I think it be can crystallized down to a moral decision.  I suppose if I thought it was moral for me to impose my beliefs on someone else, that there was a morality that transcended human decision, then I might be a pro-lifer.  Fortunately, I don't believe in either of those things, so I come down squarely on the pro-choice side.  I won't argue further on the 'it may or may not be a person' aspect, since I think we're at impasse there.

Well, yes, as the clishe goes, let's agree that we partially disagree, because I'm not sure that there actually is a definition that is "the" truth at this point.
Either way, what I meant now is that the "inherent right to life" (despite of what and when you define as a human being) might actually sound more complelling and rational than the usual "blah-blah is sacred blah blah", but it really isn't - it just deals in the nice looking business of what "could eventually be", which is pretty much synonymous to "maybe if" and makes it about as valid statement as "Maybe it would all make sense if aliens created us" at which most people just laugh.

Since the "what's a person" argument is bringing us to an impass, I will bring another which you might find more convincing.

If someone is dying and needs a new liver to survive, nobody has the legal obligation to give this person their one, not even if there is only one person on earth whose blood-type is compatible with him and it just so happen to be his/her parent, not even if this is the result to a road accident and his/her parent was one of the two drivers. You are simply of no legal obligation to give part of your body to someone else, especially if it would impact your own health.
Do you see where I'm coming? Pregnancy forces a women to provide part of her body to a fetus, in a way that could irreversibly damage her health or even kill her, rarely, and yet if she wants an abortion it's usually because the pregnancy is part of an accident.

Some people try to refute this argument by pointing out that the women was only taking this risk to gain sexual pleasure (except in the case of a rape) and so she should take the responsibility of her act, but again, if a driver is using his car to go eat an icecream, he's also taking a risk just for to gain some culinary pleasure and yet if someone gets hit by his car and the victim needs a new liver, nobody is trying to force him to give his own.

Well, it might sound like an extreme argument to some, but it really isn't. This is just the good old "women control" and "Women do not have the right to have sex, unless it's for the sole purpose of pleasing a man or bearing a child" I mentioned earlier. It's that simple and that terrible.
It has it's merits tho, for example when you see a man argue along those lines "Yeah, they shouldn't be slutty, then they wouldn't need abortions! Ban that!", then you can almost instantly know the person is an huge, ignorant imbecile (And that is not just a random offense, by that I literally mean they are likely to be of weaker mind, uninfomed and inproperly raised to boot), without spending too much time talking with them.

On a different note, I'd say the irreversible damage and possible danger play a big role in many of the decisions. Magic of birth my ass, I'll sooner set my head on fire than go there.


Edit: I just clicked interesting ad while reading news - amazing bumperstickers representing all that is wrong with some people aginst abortions. Now, just how stupid do you have to be to put any of that on your car? Made me laugh nonetheless, I especially love the one that is reappearing several times "Guns do not kill people, abortions kill people.". That is just so hilarious. I mean, really... really... ah, screw it, I need to move to another planet. Soon.

[Xycolian2332]

I don't really care whether a woman does or does not have an abortion, or their reason behind doing or not doing it.

It just irritates me when politicians are like a broken record when it comes to the word "freedom" and then proceed to pass bills that essentially tell us what we're not allowed to do. The hypocrisy is disgusting.

If a woman who's been raped doesn't want to do a complete 180 with her life and raise a child, then she should have the right to get an abortion. I'll be damned if an old fat monkey in a suit signs a piece of paper before telling me what I can and can't do with my body. They prattle on and on about how it's morally wrong, so much so that, to me, it seems as if they're saying the abortion overshadows the rape itself in terms of immorality. Also, am I the only one who finds it ironic that typically it's men (in political positions) who debate and decide on the issue? (Yeah I know men are the majority in politics, but still, it's funny to me). Why don't they have a heart to heart with some of their constituents who've had to make this decision, and try to see it from their point of view, rather than sitting up in their ivory tower and passing down judgement on them? Oh wait, they need to win the election by catering to all the retards in bible country. Nevermind. Who cares if thousands of woman have to raise a child? I'm the president bitch!


Meh.

[Burkingam]

Edit: I just clicked interesting ad while reading news - amazing bumperstickers representing all that is wrong with some people aginst abortions. Now, just how stupid do you have to be to put any of that on your car? Made me laugh nonetheless, I especially love the one that is reappearing several times "Guns do not kill people, abortions kill people.". That is just so hilarious. I mean, really... really... ah, screw it, I need to move to another planet. Soon.

Oh god so many appeal to emotions. And caplocks are annoying. Not to mention that half of them are factually wrong. E.g.:
"ABORTION STOPS a beating heart" No, abortions usually occur before the fetus' hearth starts to beat.
"I SuPPort a BABY's RiGht to CHOOSE" Yeah if by "BABY" you mean a fetus younger than 20 weeks, good luck with that, because they don't have the brain necessary to make a choice.

And others could also be used against abstinance. e.g.
"IF YOU CAN READ THIS...YOU WERE NOT ABORTED" If you can read this... your parents where probably not abstinent.
"I've Noticed Everyone Who is For Abortion Has Already Been Born!" I've noticed that most people who are for abstinence had parents who weren't abstinent.

[elvikun]

I don't really care whether a woman does or does not have an abortion, or their reason behind doing or not doing it.

It just irritates me when politicians are like a broken record when it comes to the word "freedom" and then proceed to pass bills that essentially tell us what we're not allowed to do. The hypocrisy is disgusting.

If a woman who's been raped doesn't want to do a complete 180 with her life and raise a child, then she should have the right to get an abortion. I'll be damned if an old fat monkey in a suit signs a piece of paper before telling me what I can and can't do with my body. They prattle on and on about how it's morally wrong, so much so that, to me, it seems as if they're saying the abortion overshadows the rape itself in terms of immorality. Also, am I the only one who finds it ironic that typically it's men (in political positions) who debate and decide on the issue? (Yeah I know men are the majority in politics, but still, it's funny to me). Why don't they have a heart to heart with some of their constituents who've had to make this decision, and try to see it from their point of view, rather than sitting up in their ivory tower and passing down judgement on them? Oh wait, they need to win the election by catering to all the retards in bible country. Nevermind. Who cares if thousands of woman have to raise a child? I'm the president bitch!


Meh.

Goverment exist to provide services which individual people are unable to provide for themselves, such as telling you what you can do with your body, how are you allowed to have sex, where you can have fun, how (and if) will you live, what gods will you worship... and... wait a moment, that actually sounds like fascism, that can't be possibly right.

Also thanks for saying the part about that it's almost exclusively men (and uneducated to boot) passing "commands" which affect only women, was starting to feel lonely repeating that.

Edit: I just clicked interesting ad while reading news - amazing bumperstickers representing all that is wrong with some people aginst abortions. Now, just how stupid do you have to be to put any of that on your car? Made me laugh nonetheless, I especially love the one that is reappearing several times "Guns do not kill people, abortions kill people.". That is just so hilarious. I mean, really... really... ah, screw it, I need to move to another planet. Soon.

Oh god so many appeal to emotions. And caplocks are annoying. Not to mention that half of them are factually wrong. E.g.:
"ABORTION STOPS a beating heart" No, abortions usually occur before the fetus' hearth starts to beat.
"I SuPPort a BABY's RiGht to CHOOSE" Yeah if by "BABY" you mean a fetus younger than 20 weeks, good luck with that, because they don't have the brain necessary to make a choice.

And others could also be used against abstinance. e.g.
"IF YOU CAN READ THIS...YOU WERE NOT ABORTED" If you can read this... your parents where probably not abstinent.
"I've Noticed Everyone Who is For Abortion Has Already Been Born!" I've noticed that most people who are for abstinence had parents who weren't abstinent.

Yes, they are all so insightful and clever. I also like "I've Noticed Everyone Who is For Abortion Has Already Been Born!" , it's just incredible how empty that is. You could just as well say "I've noticed everyone who is driving a car is sitting in a vehicle!" and use it as an argument for more money for space flight program. Makes sense.

I've also noticed the amazing thing how the pro-life (What a stupid name, when you think about it) movement keeps throwing around those rather distasteful photos of "aborted" children, failing to mention most of those are stillborns or some other types of dead fetuses which had to be "taken out" during the last weeks to avoid the death of everyone involved.