ABORTION

[pedroh 21]

It is simple, I don't care, It is murder. it is still living inside you. Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

And that's fine for YOU....not everyone thinks in that way, including myself.

as, for everyone it's different to state when does 'life begin'.. for some, life doens't begin when the sperm and the egg fuse into one.. for some, it starts a couple of days after.. for some, it's just a cell for a couple of weeks.. would you call a living being a cell that still has no heart, brain or spine?.. the 'swimming trip' is not instantaneous nors occurs at light speed....

this is an issue of differences, not rights or wrongs.. and you think everybody's wrong cuz they don't agree with you, get off the holy than thou pedestal pliz

[LaL 418]

One does not have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice. I support the right to a choice - pretty different IMHO.

[chri'stina 190]

No

Illegal

No

ditto

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Pro-choice.

Legal.

It would depend on situation.

[antda 13]

Hi Everyone,

What an interesting, yet controversial subject to vote and discuss about. In my opinion (not religiously based, but morally/ethically and experience based):

1) Are you pro-abortion: No (But I agree with women and men making informed choices about their healthcare, such as through birth control methods)

2) Do you think abortion should be: Illegal (If it's illegal, then maybe less will want to chose this. Other more positive options should be considered before abortion, such as giving the baby up for adoption.)

3) Would you have an abortion even if it's not for medical reason: No (Never. Why would anyone even want an abortion for no good reason at all? After all, what gives the right of someone else choosing over the voiceless unborn's life?)

Sadly enough, I have experienced miscarriage, so I know what it's like to lose life, not by choice, which still breaks my heart. Why anyone would chose on purpose to lose this life is beyond my comprehension....

Ant

[/size]

Edited August 12, 2008 by AntandD

[dalegg 143]

It is simple, I don't care, It is murder. it is still living inside you. Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

And that's fine for YOU....not everyone thinks in that way, including myself.

as, for everyone it's different to state when does 'life begin'.. for some, life doens't begin when the sperm and the egg fuse into one.. for some, it starts a couple of days after.. for some, it's just a cell for a couple of weeks.. would you call a living being a cell that still has no heart, brain or spine?.. the 'swimming trip' is not instantaneous nors occurs at light speed....

this is an issue of differences, not rights or wrongs.. and you think everybody's wrong cuz they don't agree with you, get off the holy than thou pedestal pliz

The controversy has nothing to do with that. People that are pro-choice don't generally take the question of whether its alive or not into account. Its not part of the equation. There is no way to argue that a fetus is alive at 2 months, but most pro-choice persons will not blink an eye at abortions being performed at 90 days gestation or less. Many will go into the second trimester before they become squeemish and for some only the question of late term abortions is controversial, and of course the real militant pro choice persons will argue until the day the cord is cut, the woman's right to do what she wants with her body supercedes the right of an unborn human to exist.

Pro choice people will never debate the question of life because they cannot win that argument, so their focus remains on painting pro lifers as bent on taking away women's rights.

[JULIAFERNO 0]

One does not have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice. I support the right to a choice - pretty different IMHO.

Yes - I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Also, doesn't mean I would have an abortion, but rather that I believe people should have the choice, within certain bounds.

[Amby 490]

It is simple, I don't care, It is murder. it is still living inside you. Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

And that's fine for YOU....not everyone thinks in that way, including myself.

as, for everyone it's different to state when does 'life begin'.. for some, life doens't begin when the sperm and the egg fuse into one.. for some, it starts a couple of days after.. for some, it's just a cell for a couple of weeks.. would you call a living being a cell that still has no heart, brain or spine?.. the 'swimming trip' is not instantaneous nors occurs at light speed....

this is an issue of differences, not rights or wrongs.. and you think everybody's wrong cuz they don't agree with you, get off the holy than thou pedestal pliz

The controversy has nothing to do with that. People that are pro-choice don't generally take the question of whether its alive or not into account. Its not part of the equation. There is no way to argue that a fetus is alive at 2 months, but most pro-choice persons will not blink an eye at abortions being performed at 90 days gestation or less. Many will go into the second trimester before they become squeemish and for some only the question of late term abortions is controversial, and of course the real militant pro choice persons will argue until the day the cord is cut, the woman's right to do what she wants with her body supercedes the right of an unborn human to exist.

Pro choice people will never debate the question of life because they cannot win that argument, so their focus remains on painting pro lifers as bent on taking away women's rights.

There is no argument to win.

[pedroh 21]

It is simple, I don't care, It is murder. it is still living inside you. Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

And that's fine for YOU....not everyone thinks in that way, including myself.

as, for everyone it's different to state when does 'life begin'.. for some, life doens't begin when the sperm and the egg fuse into one.. for some, it starts a couple of days after.. for some, it's just a cell for a couple of weeks.. would you call a living being a cell that still has no heart, brain or spine?.. the 'swimming trip' is not instantaneous nors occurs at light speed....

this is an issue of differences, not rights or wrongs.. and you think everybody's wrong cuz they don't agree with you, get off the holy than thou pedestal pliz

The controversy has nothing to do with that. People that are pro-choice don't generally take the question of whether its alive or not into account. Its not part of the equation. There is no way to argue that a fetus is alive at 2 months, but most pro-choice persons will not blink an eye at abortions being performed at 90 days gestation or less. Many will go into the second trimester before they become squeemish and for some only the question of late term abortions is controversial, and of course the real militant pro choice persons will argue until the day the cord is cut, the woman's right to do what she wants with her body supercedes the right of an unborn human to exist.

Pro choice people will never debate the question of life because they cannot win that argument, so their focus remains on painting pro lifers as bent on taking away women's rights.

so that allows pro-lifers to be all judgemental on pro-choice people? what's there to win?

[Yiyi and Chris 0]

More than life/death or choice controversy, I think it's a cultural issue!!! My family, my school, my society, my country (almost all of course) are "pro life", how to tell them "oh I am gonna get an abortion" (for any reason) It's my life and my choice but my background and my guts tells me "are you out of your mind!"...

By the way I am not preagnant!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is simple, I don't care, It is murder. it is still living inside you. Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

And that's fine for YOU....not everyone thinks in that way, including myself.

as, for everyone it's different to state when does 'life begin'.. for some, life doens't begin when the sperm and the egg fuse into one.. for some, it starts a couple of days after.. for some, it's just a cell for a couple of weeks.. would you call a living being a cell that still has no heart, brain or spine?.. the 'swimming trip' is not instantaneous nors occurs at light speed....

this is an issue of differences, not rights or wrongs.. and you think everybody's wrong cuz they don't agree with you, get off the holy than thou pedestal pliz

The controversy has nothing to do with that. People that are pro-choice don't generally take the question of whether its alive or not into account. Its not part of the equation. There is no way to argue that a fetus is alive at 2 months, but most pro-choice persons will not blink an eye at abortions being performed at 90 days gestation or less. Many will go into the second trimester before they become squeemish and for some only the question of late term abortions is controversial, and of course the real militant pro choice persons will argue until the day the cord is cut, the woman's right to do what she wants with her body supercedes the right of an unborn human to exist.

Pro choice people will never debate the question of life because they cannot win that argument, so their focus remains on painting pro lifers as bent on taking away women's rights.

Well that is what its about isn't it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is simple, I don't care, It is murder. it is still living inside you. Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

And that's fine for YOU....not everyone thinks in that way, including myself.

as, for everyone it's different to state when does 'life begin'.. for some, life doens't begin when the sperm and the egg fuse into one.. for some, it starts a couple of days after.. for some, it's just a cell for a couple of weeks.. would you call a living being a cell that still has no heart, brain or spine?.. the 'swimming trip' is not instantaneous nors occurs at light speed....

this is an issue of differences, not rights or wrongs.. and you think everybody's wrong cuz they don't agree with you, get off the holy than thou pedestal pliz

The controversy has nothing to do with that. People that are pro-choice don't generally take the question of whether its alive or not into account. Its not part of the equation. There is no way to argue that a fetus is alive at 2 months, but most pro-choice persons will not blink an eye at abortions being performed at 90 days gestation or less. Many will go into the second trimester before they become squeemish and for some only the question of late term abortions is controversial, and of course the real militant pro choice persons will argue until the day the cord is cut, the woman's right to do what she wants with her body supercedes the right of an unborn human to exist.

Pro choice people will never debate the question of life because they cannot win that argument, so their focus remains on painting pro lifers as bent on taking away women's rights.

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)

......

Personhood is attained at about 22 weeks gestation:

This argument is based on the definition of death.

Ethicist D.A. Jones has written:

"Death is not just another disease that can be specified, analyzed, and catalogued as viral or bacterial, infectious or auto-immune. Death is the final cessation of life. Thus defining death requires more than medical and technical expertise: It requires also some agreed understanding of what is constitutive of human life, and what it is that must be absent before the person can be said to be dead."

"Sometimes it will be obvious to any reasonable observer that someone is dead, or alternatively, that someone is still alive. Someone who is breathing [without a respirator] and talking and walking around is obviously alive. Someone whose body is rotting away and hanging off the bones is obviously dead. However there are some cases, perhaps many cases, where it will not be obvious to an unqualified layman whether someone is alive or dead. In these cases it is the decision of competent physicians that decides the issue."

1

Prior to about 1960, a person would be declared dead if both their heartbeat and breathing had ceased and could not be re-started. But newer technological developments made this definition invalid. Heart pacemakers can keep the heart beating indefinitely long after all other internal systems have wound down. Respirators can keep the person apparently breathing forever.

Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines." That is, there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. At this point, the person may be declared dead in many jurisdictions. The patient may appear to be breathing, as a result of the action of a respirator. Her/his heart may still be beating, either on its own or as a result of a heart pacemaker. But he/she is judged to be dead. Unplugging the patient from life support systems at this point will not actually kill the patient; she/he is already considered to be dead.

The great rise of transplant medicine has, then, been wholly dependent upon organ harvesting from so called 'beating-heart cadavers', that is, patients who are determined to be dead on the basis of brain death criteria. ₁ But their hearts continue to beat (sometimes with external help), to keep the body's organs fresh for transplanting.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life. One might argue that fetal life becomes human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness begins and ends when consciousness irrevocably ends. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.

According to author Richard Carrier:

"

...

the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we're talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that's one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo

.

"

8

Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, conceivably as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then society could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm

Edited August 12, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[tanyakaraman 0]

I tend to base the answers to these questions on a more personal level.

I am not pro-abortion.

For me, I believe it is wrong & I would like to *believe* that I would never have one. Then again, thankfully, I have never been in a situation where I felt I needed to.

As far as what others do....it's really not my business, or my place to judge. Period. Every individual deals with the consequences of his or her own choices in life. It is not within the realm of my abilities to save every egg that has met with a sperm, whether born or unborn, from meeting the terrible end that we eventually all meet in this world.

As far as whether it should be legal or not: First of all, quite honestly, I don't really think it matters what I think. It is legal here in the US, and I don't foresee it ever becoming otherwise....because of the fact that a large percentage of the population want it to be legal. Also, I don't really think that legality matters. If a woman is determined to have an abortion, she is going to have one, whether by legal means or otherwise.

So for that reason, I tend to reserve my energy and just stick with trying to live up to my own convictions and moral standards. Lord knows, I have a difficult enough time just doing that....

[kerewin21 2]

Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

I'm an abortion provider so obviously I am pro-choice, but I do agree that it would be great if adoption were a better option for more people. I wish that our society would support people who choose adoption, because as you state, there are lots of families that would be happy to provide wonderful lives for children whose parents can't take care of them.

[Marilyn. 340]

Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

I'm an abortion provider so obviously I am pro-choice, but I do agree that it would be great if adoption were a better option for more people. I wish that our society would support people who choose adoption, because as you state, there are lots of families that would be happy to provide wonderful lives for children whose parents can't take care of them.