As you can see, this is a poll on your opinion of abortion.

Should a mother have the option to abort a healthy fetus?
(I say healthy because 99.5% of abortions are done on healthy fetuses)

-If you picked maybe explain the circumstances
-Don't be overly aggressive persuading anyone to believe in your point on view. Just state your argument and let it be.
--¡MOST IMPORTANT!--
-Don't bring politics into the argurment.

Thanks

If you say "depends on circumstances" please define the circumstances. Circumstances can mean anything from "I wanted a boy" to "My acting career will be ruined!"

If the women's life is in danger then yes, she should have an abortion. If she's not in danger, she shouldn't.

I don't think a mother should by any means be permited to abort any fetus. Unless there is 100% proof that both she, and the child will die in labor/birth.

The only thing I don't understand is that most people who are anti-abortion don't even want to take propper care of the living people. If it was up to me, I would gaurantee good healthcare, a good public education, shelter and food to any child that needs it. If a mother  aborts a child, chances are she doesn't want it/won't be able to financially support it because of poverty or whatever other problems she has. If a mother can't take care of her baby, the government should. But most politicians who are pro-life don't want to do that. So they are basically throwing that life away anyway. And that's why the US has such a high infant mortality rate. It's not because the baby is born unhealthy/un-cureable, it's that the mother can't afford to pay for it's life, and the government refuses to. Hopefully that would convince some mothers not to abort and save some lives. Instead of saving them and then throwing them away. That's just what I'd do though.

But those are just my moral beliefs. According to the law it's legal though, so it doesn't really matter. A country is run by the law, not personal beliefs.

i was an aborted kid.

636andy636 wrote: themovielife wrote: I think it is fine. Their body, their choice.

pluse wut if its some 15 year old who got raped?

Fallout_soldier wrote:   pluse wut if its some 15 year old who got raped?

...or this one chick in my english class last year...she was not raped, though.

Anyway, as a catholic i'm supposed to say it is wrong, however, i disagree with some things in my religion, so i believe it depends on the circumstances...

Hades wrote: Boy, one thing in life I have noticed, is that opinions on this topic greatly change once people start having sex. I came to the conclusion the other day that a woman who does all in her power, ie... birth control, regular doctor visits should indeed be allowed to have an abortion. Obviously she does not want to have a child at that time. Also in instances of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, abortions should be allowed. As for women that are underdeveloped in age and econmically unable to raise or care for a child should also be allowed to have abortions. I personally feel that women that have abortions instead of using birth control are abusing the system, but it is still the parents choice. Personally, I think the bigger arguement is whether or not the father has the right to force the mother to have the child when he is for having the child when the woman does not.

I could not have said it any better.

well if the woman wants to kill a living HUMAN than let her  (sarcasm)

abortion only in most rape situations. Im pro-life

Dune wrote: Hades wrote: Boy, one thing in life I have noticed, is that opinions on this topic greatly change once people start having sex. I came to the conclusion the other day that a woman who does all in her power, ie... birth control, regular doctor visits should indeed be allowed to have an abortion. Obviously she does not want to have a child at that time. Also in instances of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, abortions should be allowed. As for women that are underdeveloped in age and econmically unable to raise or care for a child should also be allowed to have abortions. I personally feel that women that have abortions instead of using birth control are abusing the system, but it is still the parents choice. Personally, I think the bigger arguement is whether or not the father has the right to force the mother to have the child when he is for having the child when the woman does not. I could not have said it any better.

Me neither

I used to be pro-choice but I am more and more leaning twords the pro-life side everyday.

I think that, if it does not pose a health threat, there are enough things to do with the child after its born than just killing it. Adoption, Giving it to friends/family, Ect.

If the birth of the child will cause severe health problems to the mother, I think it should be her choice, as with babys that have health problems and will most likley come out still or not live long after birth.

SandMan wrote: The question, in short form, is: When does the fetus become and independent life of the type that murder laws become effective?

That's the perspective I always take on this topic and what I base my opinions on. Because I believe that once an egg is fertilized, there is life there. That's just my personal beliefs though, science can't prove that to be true even though it probably is.

However, I don't think this "independent life" stuff should matter. Take a vegetable for example. They live totaly off of life support. They are not "and independent life". The life support system breathes for them and meets all requirements for life to be necessary in that body and keeps them alive. If you pull that plug on the support system, you take their life. Is that murder? Well, that all depends on the legal definition of murder..... My beliefs completely contradict everything I just posted in this paragraph though, just ignore that.

What we need is a legal definition of "life" and "murder".

Yes, everyone has there own beliefs, but I don't no how someone can reason with me about how killing a baby is right.

SandMan wrote: Everybody has their beliefs; on both sides of the fence. The fallacy BOTH sides fall into is the opinion that law should be based on THEIR beliefs. People just don't do a very good job at recognizing the difference between what they BELIEVE to be true and what IS, in fact, verified truth.

I COMPLETELY agree with what you just posted. THANK YOU. I'm glad the entire world isn't ignorant...

I don't think my beliefs should be law. That's why it is so hard for me to place a legal decision and viewpoint on this tpic. Because there is no verified truth that personally satisfies me. And because the current laws go against my morals and beliefs. So I contradict myself.

Big Jim wrote: Hades, they're a life form, taking away LIFE IS murder.

Not true.  Whether or not a fetus is a "life" is barely relevant, since we (humans) kill all kinds of things all the time.

It would be an interesting sidetrack to compare fetus killing with hunting (for instance), but that isn't even necessary, as we humans kill other humans all the time, for a variety of reasons.

Only a small minority of taking of human lives is "murder" by any law.  Most killing, of course, is in a war context, where most laws are suspended.  And historically there have been many other legal killings in different societies.  Heck, it was only 150 years ago in this country that one could kill one's own human property for no reason at all.  And under current law, you can shoot to kill anybody who was just trying to rob you of a few hundred dollars.

So.  Therefore, I say fine - if you want to call a fetus "life", that is fine by me - but SO WHAT?

Why does it automatically follow that just because a fetus is life that we shouldn't kill it?

So you don't believe in eating anything natural or using paper? Cows, corn, and cucumbers are life forms as well.

Not saying they're equivalent lifeforms, just pointing out huge, swiss-cheese, holes in your argument

                                                          Quote from Sandman.

Thanks, that was humbling.

Yes I did think that and figured on someone pointing that out to me.

Slothbutt wrote: Yes I know that Sandman, But you still have to diagree with one of the premises to disagree with the conlusion. P1. If it is raining the sidewalks are wet. P2. The sidewalk are wet. Conclusion- It must be raining. In order to say you desagree with the conclusion you have to say one of the premises is wrong.. the sprinklers are on it is not raining. Premise 2 is not correct. (this was an example for people with no experince in philosopy)

Actually, no.  What you just demonstrated is a version of syllogistic fallacy.

1.  If A, then B
2.  B
Conclusion:  A

That doesn't follow.  This is the correct version:

1.  If A, then B
2.  A
Conclusion:  B

The first example (yours) illustrates how two correct premises could lead to an incorrect conclusion.  I can agree with both your P1 and P2, and still correctly disagree with your conclusion.

Slothbutt wrote: Clark Kent wrote: And under current law, you can shoot to kill anybody who was just trying to rob you of a few hundred dollars can you point out this law? Just because people are killed unjustly everyday doesn't make it ok.

In every state in the US you can kill to defend yourself from a felony.  What constitutes a felony varies, but robbery of $500 is a common limit.

In some states, I believe, you can shoot to kill for a lot less than that.  In Texas, for instance, you can kill trespassers, even the harmless ones.

themovielife wrote: I think it is fine. Their body, their choice.

its not her body its her baby's

I will have to check my sources...   That was my understanding of the legal situation.

Regardless, however, I will stand by my general statement that killing =/= murder, generally speaking.

I'm happy to see that this debate has gone quite well for 4 pages.

I will continue to side with earlier comments made by Hades and be pro-choice. Morally, it may be wrong or hard to deal with. However, morales are not always laws. This is one situation that should apply.

All right - this is from teh Texas Penal Code (sorry for big cut'n'paste):

§ 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41;  and
(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;  and
(3)  he reasonably believes that:         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;    
(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means;  or
(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43.  PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.  A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1)  the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;  or
(2)  the actor reasonably believes that:         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;       
(A)  the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B)  he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property;  or
(C)  the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

-----------------------------

-The Unknown- wrote: Pro-life, pro-usingmybrain...

Those two don't always go hand in hand.

SandMan wrote: My knowledge of civilian law is apparently skewed by having been trained in Law Enforcement. We followed much stricter rules I guess.

Yes, being trained in law enforcement places people (me involved) on a different sort of level. Your knowledge isn't skewed, you've got it correct.

Enos Shenk wrote: While i dont partiularly like abortion, im a libertarian. Completely pro-choice. As Jay said "Me and Silent Bob are pro choice, a womans body is her own ****** business" Anti-abortion people are disgusting anyway. I went downtown to hit the main library one day, and there was some guy standing across the street with some giant sign with a dead baby on it, like all smashed up and torn apart. I started yelling at him, i told him i would wager almost anything he was one of those cult of christ idiots that think video games are corrupting the youth, and there he is standing on a public streetcorner with a picture of a dead baby.

I am pro-life. I can't see how killing a baby before it is born is moral. I also can't see how it is any different then putting a gun to someones head and blowing thier brains out. Hey Enos guess what like it or not that picture is true. Thats what happens in an abortion. They cut the head open and suck the brains out then they cut the baby in to a bunh of little pieces just like the picture you talked about. I find liberals like you to be "disgusting" and retarted. You take no morals into consideration just "constitutional rights" which is a joke. If the constitution was ever ripped up the liberals would be nothing. They would have no dumb argument.The only way to destory conseritive views is to destory every religion that is conserative and believes murder and abortion is wrong and that will never happen.

sk8r4life432 wrote: You can only truly answer this question if you have had the fear of your or your female partner being pregnant. I like to think of myself as pro-life but not too long ago when it actually came down to "I think im pregnant" I began debating very hard the thought of abortion...I mean I was scared, not ready, unable to support and just plain didnt want to have a kid. I honostly dont know what I would have done if it would have come to it.

While I am vaguely annoyed with you for bumping this ancient thread, I applaud what may be the most sincerely honest post we have seen in a while.

Zesty wrote: Put it this way: If you were an unborn baby and had the choice, would you rather (a)be aborted, or (b) live a life where nobody wants you? For all those people who say pro-life, are you gonna raise the kid for them? It's all good to say, "Oh, don't kill the poor babies!" But when it really comes down to it, what are you saving them from? I'd rather be dead than live a life feeling unwanted.

Im sorry but that is so retarted its not funny. So its better to kill the baby then put it up for adoption..yea thats morally right. There are plenty of people who would adopt a baby that is unwanted. Its plain ignorance to say just kill it because its not wanted. Is Adolf Hitler your god? because thats not any better then killing 6 million jews.

Random_Person wrote: Because I'm catholic, I'm suposed to be pro-life, but I'm pro-choice. Her body, her choice. We had some interesting debates in my religion class last year about that, but I'm to lazy to type them in.

My post from back in August.  Edited for grammer and mechanics, but my ideals are still the same.  And yes, I'm still to lazy to write about the arguements I had in religion class the year before last.

ScarFace22 wrote: Its plain ignorance to say just kill it because its not wanted. Is Adolf Hitler your god? because thats not any better then killing 6 million jews.

Sorry for not putting this in the first post.  But that is so...

Nevermind, no need for a flame fest.

cough...cough...Hitler has nothibg to do with abortions, thats like someone saying coke is better than pepsi and then someone else replying "Do you worship Kool-Aid? Cause that's not any better than water."  Oh yeah, cough.

I just thought it was interesting how the pro-life people said more things about how abortion is wrong and the pro-choice people said few things about how it is right.  Hmmmmmm.. maybe that's because it is wrong.

By the way it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception whether you (pro-choice people) like it or not.