Is this it?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

My stand on this is, as long as there is no consensus, let's err on the side of individual liberties. It may not be clear that the organism inside a woman's womb is alive, but it is very clear that the woman is alive. I say let the woman decide. She may decide wrong, but hell, that's what being free is all about.

I guess we will just throw all law out the window and let individuals decide what is right.

Laws have to be based on fact.

For example, murder is bad because a murdered man is no longer alive and is thus deprived of his life and liberty.

There is no fact regarding when life begins. There are only theories. To say that the organism within a womans womb is a life worth protecting is not a fact, but a belief. However, to say that the woman is alive is a fact.

You can figure the rest the out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

YES YES YES YES YES.

One day, I hope to see the day my wife reacts that way to something I ... do!

Sounds like a stamina issue to me...

[ChristinaM 0]

There are people who are morally opposed to stem cell research, but someone legislated that that was morally ok. And the death penalty lives on, despite some serious moral objections from some factions. Morals are ok when they match your own because yours are divine, right?!

Morality is subjective, and when one is making decisions on behalf of the whole country or state, one has to function within reasonable boundaries. "Reasonable" is not defined at either extreme, which is a major flaw in the abortion debate.

It doesn't have to be an "all-or-nothing" approach. There IS middle ground there.

Edited February 23, 2006 by clmarsh

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There are people who are morally opposed to stem cell research, but someone legislated that that was morally ok.

Morality is subjective, and when one is making decisions on behalf of the whole country or state, one has to function within reasonable boundaries. "Reasonable" is not defined at either extreme, which is a major flaw in the abortion debate.

It doesn't have to be an "all-or-nothing" approach. There IS middle ground there.

Yeah. I propose a compromise. In odd-numbered months women must go into back alleys to get their babies heads vaccumed out. In even numbered months they can get an abortion legally and safely in abortion clinics while Jesus freaks throw rocks at them.

[ace13 0]

This issue will go away eventually. They are able to sustain life outside the womb earlier and earlier. If a woman doesn't want her baby, then they will just remove it from the womb, let it grow and then let it live. Then they woman can just go on and live her marry life like nothing happened.

"They" will? Who will? Who will perform forced caesarean sections on women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term?

Her "marry" life? First of all, you mean "merry." Second of all, most circumstances under which abortions happen are anything but "merry." Too many people believe the myth of the serial abortion.

What do you care? If the baby can live outside the womb who is the mother to say it can't? It would have it's own rights--and rightly so. It would also be less of an issue because more people would then realize it is a viable human being.

Oh, thanks for the english lesson. You are so smart.

[Sister Fracas 5]

It would also be less of an issue because more people would then realize it is a viable human being.

*sigh*

[pax 0]

What do you care? If the baby can live outside the womb who is the mother to say it can't? It would have it's own rights--and rightly so. It would also be less of an issue because more people would then realize it is a viable human being.

Oh, thanks for the english lesson. You are so smart.

You are more than welcome!

How about addressing the point I made after your English lesson?

[ChristinaM 0]

Even a full-term baby cannot live outside the womb without adult intervention. So here we come back to the issue of who cares for the babies which would have been aborted?

If you would take away a woman's right to an abortion you either need to put your money where your mouth is and adopt a child or keep quiet, in my opinion.

[ceriserose 1]

This issue will go away eventually. They are able to sustain life outside the womb earlier and earlier. If a woman doesn't want her baby, then they will just remove it from the womb, let it grow and then let it live. Then they woman can just go on and live her marry life like nothing happened.

This is a very short-sighted and simplistic solution, akin to how you describe how you feel most people treat abortion.

This is also fraught with moral implications. Is it any more ethical to do this than abort? Is life for the sake of life the goal or is it quality of life?

What if the child "grown" in this manner has emotional problems? Physical problems? What's the measuring line then?

Who takes care of these harvested children? Who pays for them? Are they a "different class" because of this?

Please note that these are not questions I really want you to answer, I'm merely pointing out some of the most basic flaws in the concept. We have overcrowded orphanages with 'less than perfect' children in them (children, not babies, meaning they have even less of a chance at being adopted into a "normal" family life), and if you don't think that a child incubated like this without ties to a secure family unit will fare any better, then you have blinders on.

Edited February 23, 2006 by ceriserose

[faith 0]

There are GREY areas.... there are circumstances that only the woman in question would understands. What gives the lawmakers any more right to decide what that woman does than she has? Everything is subjective!

And as far as a woman going on her merry way after having an abortion... why don't you ask someone who's had an abortion and see if that's how she's viewed her life after? Or viewed the situation? Abortion is not having a tooth pulled... even if the woman KNOWS she is doing the right thing, sometimes she will regret her decision later. There IS such thing as regret even when you know you were right in what you did.

Even if you think abortion is not for you, why should you judge if it is for others? What gives you that right?

And just to shock the hell out of the rest of you, you'd be surprised to know that I'm a republican and I feel this way

[pax 0]

I'm going to take up some space to try to give this subject a fair treatment.

I am personally opposed to abortion, and the fact that it happens saddens me. It more than saddens me; it disgusts me. It disgusts me to be a part of a society that has given the message to poor women, minority women, and abused and exploited women that we do not want or care for their children. They are no more to us than another mouth to feed, and we certainly don't care to feed it. The contempt that our society shows for the poor is something we will have to answer for--if not in our lifetime, then in the afterlife. I believe in one and I know that not everyone does, but again, this is my belief.

And so it's not with gladness that I support the continued legality and accessibility of abortion. But it's that I recognize that we have put poor women in an abominable situation. Most of us posting here have never known the kind of poverty into which too many children of poor women are born. And most of us posting here don't know what it's like to be part of a system that deliberately and consciously conspires to destroy the poor. And so, to me, it is the final insult to tell a poor woman that she must carry an unplanned pregnancy to term, that she must bring her child into a world that would prefer to have nothing to do with it. And, dammit, she better be happy about it, too!

This, of course, assumes that the woman's consent was involved in the pregnancy in the first place. It is a million times more insulting to tell a rape victim that she, too, must carry her child to term. Again, our society does nothing to eliminate rape. We have a War on Drugs and a War on Terror, but we've never had a war on rape. And we never will. Rape is the most underreported and underprosecuted violent crime in this country. It damages lives in ways that many people can never understand. And so, again, it is, to me, the final insult to tell a woman that not only do we not particularly care about catching your rapist, punishing your rapist, and making sure rape stops happening, but you must also carry his child.

When we as a society decide that the circumstances under which women have abortions are unacceptable and truly decide to eliminate those circumstances, then I will happily join the pro-life side. Because then our country will truly be able to say that it is pro-all life.

[keltic 1]

This issue will go away eventually. They are able to sustain life outside the womb earlier and earlier. If a woman doesn't want her baby, then they will just remove it from the womb, let it grow and then let it live. Then they woman can just go on and live her marry life like nothing happened.

"They" will? Who will? Who will perform forced caesarean sections on women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term?

Her "marry" life? First of all, you mean "merry." Second of all, most circumstances under which abortions happen are anything but "merry." Too many people believe the myth of the serial abortion.

What do you care? If the baby can live outside the womb who is the mother to say it can't? It would have it's own rights--and rightly so. It would also be less of an issue because more people would then realize it is a viable human being.

Oh, thanks for the english lesson. You are so smart.

how bout a biology/physiology lesson now...

i work in a neonatal intensive care unit... we take care of those babies who are born on the edge of viability... we see the outcomes of those infants too... 23 weeks borders the line of viability... IF the child survives (with MUCH mechanical, medical, and nursing assistance to the tune of around a million dollars), their quality of life is extremely questionable... dont presume to make it sound like those babies can be removed from the mother's womb and survive with no difficulty or handicap... just because it is doable, doesnt mean it should be done... sometimes it is best to let go... when you watch a baby born at less than 500 grams be tortured (chest compressions, intubation, iv meds, umbilical lines - all without ever being able to feel the warmth or comfort of mothers arms) for hours, then you talk to me about viability

btw... to give some perspective on this... 23 weeks is just shy of 6 months... it isnt until a fetus is around 32 weeks that their lungs produce surfactant, which is what allows them to breathe effectively without mechanical assistance... abortion is (to my knowledge) only allowed before this time (6 months)

Edited February 23, 2006 by keltic

[faith 0]

This issue will go away eventually. They are able to sustain life outside the womb earlier and earlier. If a woman doesn't want her baby, then they will just remove it from the womb, let it grow and then let it live. Then they woman can just go on and live her marry life like nothing happened.

"They" will? Who will? Who will perform forced caesarean sections on women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term?

Her "marry" life? First of all, you mean "merry." Second of all, most circumstances under which abortions happen are anything but "merry." Too many people believe the myth of the serial abortion.

What do you care? If the baby can live outside the womb who is the mother to say it can't? It would have it's own rights--and rightly so. It would also be less of an issue because more people would then realize it is a viable human being.

Oh, thanks for the english lesson. You are so smart.

i work in a neonatal intensive care unit... we take care of those babies who are born on the edge of viability... we see the outcomes of those infants too... 23 weeks borders the line of viability... IF the child survives (with MUCH mechanical, medical, and nursing assistance to the tune of around a million dollars), their quality of life is extremely questionable... dont presume to make it sound like those babies can be removed from the mother's womb and survive with no difficulty or handicap... just because it is doable, doesnt mean it should be done... sometimes it is best to let go... when you watch a baby born at less than 500 grams be tortured (chest compressions, intubation, iv meds, umbilical lines - all without ever being able to feel the warmth or comfort of mothers arms) for hours, then you talk to me about viability

btw... to give some perspective on this... 23 weeks is just shy of 6 months... it isnt until a fetus is around 32 weeks that their lungs produce surfactant, which is what allows them to breathe effectively without mechanical assistance... abortion is (to my knowledge) only allowed before this time (6 months)

Abortions are allowed from 7 to 14 weeks in the clinics around here.

[Sister Fracas 5]

And just to shock the hell out of the rest of you, you'd be surprised to know that I'm a republican and I feel this way

WOT??? Say it ain't so...

j/k!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When we as a society decide that the circumstances under which women have abortions are unacceptable and truly decide to eliminate those circumstances, then I will happily join the pro-life side. Because then our country will truly be able to say that it is pro-all life.

My guess is that abortion would be a non-issue in such a society.