Does anyone else find it interesting that the same people who are anti-choice also don't want to help pay for birth control? Cause, you know, that makes a lot of sense...

@'What does the scientific fact that when and egg and a sperm join together they have now created a unique DNA structure that is life? '

This means pretty much nothing.

Unless you would argue that identical twins (who share 100% of the same DNA) are only one person, thus you can afford to kill one because the other will still live... in that case the 'single egg with unique dna' means very little.

That combined with Chimerism (where two fertilised eggs with different DNA merge, and still develop into a single person) you can get single person with two different DNA signatures depending on the cell you pick.

Abge, yes, the same people that say the gov has no right to interfere in health care and that say the gov needs to keep its hands off of Medicare.

@Puddle Absolutely not. I'm very pro-choice. As implied above. I get pregnant I'd most likely have an abortion. I just make damn sure it doesn't come to that.

(edit: maybe that's not the video i was thinking of.. though it's still very good)

As I read this I found myself occasionally agreeing wholeheartedly (especially the whole cows and pigs thing.. Jesus), but occasionally feeling uncomfortable.

I understand and for the most part identity with the pro-choice movement.

But I get the impression from this article that the author is not convinced there is any point in gestation in which the fetus has its own rights, and that does bother me.

My own way of finally settling the issue was a third-trimester cutoff. Perhaps it is just because the tone is so vitriolic (the way she crows about "personhood" laws as if those are illegitimate in kind, not just in this one case) that it made me uneasy.

The broadest points are almost all correct though - the anti-women politics in this country is really starting to blow up in an incredulous way, but I guess that is what we get for electing like 80% males to our legislatures. This kind of discrimination was bound to happen eventually, I guess.

I admire policies like those of France who aim to get equal representation (i.e. half and half) for women in positions of power such as boardrooms (which are, if you can believe it, even worse than legislatures).

Abortion is one of the trickiest issues I know. It's as if it was crafted to be a case study in a human rights dilemma.

You have two people's human rights directly conflicting, sometimes so much that the right to life for each conflicts. How you resolve it is very hard to say.

I think both extreme left and extreme right positions on abortion are wrong. To force a woman to carry a dead fetus is ludicrous, but I also think that if a man and a woman just made a mistake and think they can erase it through abortion, they need to think twice. I believe abortion under those circumstances is murder. However, for cases where sex was not consensual, cases of incest, or if the woman's health is at serious risk, then I believe abortion should be an available option.

I have counseled with older women who had undergone abortions when they were younger and they almost always regret it. And as one who believes in Deity and an existence after this life, I pity those who will have to face the pain of their choice when they meet the soul of the person they aborted and are judged according to their circumstances, understanding, actions.

And I also believe that the father of the fetus has an equal responsibility and condemnation as the mother.

But how to put all that into law is impossible.

@Celtic - if the father is the one murdering the child, I suppose he shold be punished. But realistically, what involvement does the father have once teh baby is inside the woman? You are demanding freedom of your body...but want a man held accountable? That's ridiculous. I am also NOT telling you that you don't have freedom over your female body. What I am suggesting is to keep your violent medical death instruments away from the body that is growing inside you. You are purposely ignoring that fact, I see, which is typical. If you want consequences for the man...then you are assuming consequences are deserved...i.e. admitting it is murder. Thank you.

@Puddle....fetus can't survive on it's own....neither can a lot of the infirm in our society...say, mentally retarted children. You are right....let's kill ANYONE and anything that can't self-support.

"And I also believe that the father of the fetus has an equal responsibility and condemnation as the mother." - Yeah but does he have to carry it around inside him?
You think it's a sin. Good for you. That's the choice part of pro-choice. Should you ever find yourself pregnant don't get an abortion. Don't tell other people they can't, whatever their reasons.

@Krellin, I think you misunderstood her point. If a woman is going to be forced to carry even unwanted children to term, that what responsibilities does the father have to this child also. Other than child support, which should be much more efficiently enforced. (Don;t pay child support go to jail until either you pay or the child is 18).

Also scroll back up and answer my question please, I am genuinely curious as to how you would respond to that hypothetical

"...when they meet the soul of the person they aborted..." Meet the soul of a person who never developed a personality in the first place? What exactly are they meeting?

If you don't believe in an afterlife, don't worry about it.

Well I don't, but I'm genuinely curious. Are you saying you believe our personalities are fully formed before we're born?

"The simplification of 'detroit criminals = evil' is a flawed misunderstanding of reality. It can be seen that humans will act to make themselves feel good and worthwhile, and when a society offers no other options or role-models young males will engage in violent behaviour and young females will engage in sexual behaviour. " I can make a parellel argument to abortion. When elective abortion (i.e. I don't wan to be inconvenienced with a baby at this time...I don't want one but OOOPS...so I shall kill it...) the reason is cultural, and selfish. I don't want my lifestyle cramped. I don't want the burden. I...**I**.....***I***....****I**** have brought a new life into existence, but *I* am more important than the other life, so for reasons having to do with self I will eliminate the invader. Note the selfish tone of murdering another. Probably pretty damned similar to the selfish tone of a gun-wielding kid trying to make a name for himself. It sure isnt' done for the benefit of the dead human left in the wake...

I'm at work...so have been scanning...did anybody answer if a larva is a life before it goes through metamorphisis and become a full on insect??

@Puddle Exactly my point.

Fully formed? Yes. Unchanging? No. As a father of 4, I can guarantee that children are born with fully formed personalities. Their personalities will continue to develop and grow as they experience more in this life, but they don't come out as black slates.

*blank slates.

Well sure, babies are different from one another. But fully formed? I doubt it.

@Krellin, I'm not saying it's okay to kill those who can't survive on their own, just asking if we have a responsibility to cause potential harm to ourselves to in order to keep them alive.

I don't see how it is so hard for women that if they do not want a kid. Then don't have sex and isn't it also the man's body to once the egg is fertilized. Part of him created it. It did not dissappear. However, men have no say in the issue if say their girlfriend wants an abortion and they want to keep the kid. Abortion is just a way for people to have sex minus any major consequence.

What about rape HC?

You know, rape, which accounts for less than .1% of abortions...

Still needs to be taken into consideration.

But I do want to clarify a few things. So since the men have no say in whether a woman has an abortion that means he has no responsibility then? That everything is on the women?

If so, supposing there is no abortion and a woman has to carry a child to term. By forcing her to do so she's taking bodily harm and extreme pain that no man will ever know. But the father has no consequences at all? Where's the logic in that?

"So since the men have no say in whether a woman has an abortion that means he has no responsibility then?"

Actually, I think this would be fair. If a woman was truly free to chose to have an abortion, without government intervention, or without the consent of the father, why should the man have to take responsibility?

Now, that isn't to say I think the father should be able to force a woman to keep the child under any circumstance, but there needs to be some middle ground.

I just wanted to be sure I read that right. I agree to an extant because what if she wants to keep the child? Should he have to be responsible then?

Mainly I'm more curious about the response to the second paragraph there.