"If my feeling that a human life begins at conception happens to be the same as pro-lifers, it coincidental."

And why should your feelings matter more than those of the woman facing the choice to terminate a pregnancy?

Come on, AWB. If life begins at conception, surely you can understand the argument that we should protect that life?

If you think life begins at birth, then that's well and good. If you can't put yourself in the place of the people who oppose you then you have zero chance of constructing a rational argument against them.

@AWB MichiganMan is arguing that, while his personal opinion is that life begins at conception, abortion is not wrong.

My addition to this point would be that there is a large multitude of life in the world that we couldn't care less about, and the distinction has to come down to when we see the clump of living cells as an organism we feel the need to protect.

I'm still waiting to hear the pro-life position on government-provided birth control to make abortion unnecessary.

@Koch: I was wondering what MM's "feelings" on when life begins have to do with anything, and why they should matter more than the feelings of the women he's judging.

I don't see when life begins as being relevant, and I'm pro-choice anyway.

@AverageWhiteBoy:

When the life of the mother is at stake, I don't see how one who says that abortion should be prohibited could seriously call him or herself pro-life (e.g., in the case of an ectopic pregnancy; there are more ambiguous situations, of course -- a lot of grey -- where I think it should be the choice of the mother).

Re: Pre-conception birth control: Sure. I think that's a perfectly reasonable and responsible service for the government to provide. Also, it is important to have good education on how to use it.

So I slept on this last night and did some soul searching and meditating on it...

The real key to me is when is this life truly a human life? I'm pro-life in the sense that when it takes on the virtues of being a person (brain waves, heartbeat, feels pain, etc.) then it becomes an innocent victim. Where does that happen? I don't know. The current limit to 2nd trimester is perfectly acceptable in my view. I would say that the only absolute limitation is after the child is viable outside the womb. No one can legitmately argue that if the kid could still live without the mother as life support that it isn't a human life granted the same rights and protections any of us take for granted, would they?

And before anyone gets into the mother's life at risk. That is easily covered by self defense laws anyhow. If the doctor says it's the mother or the baby, then the mother gets to choose her own life if she so desires even up to the day of the birth. That's an easy one.

"I was wondering what MM's "feelings" on when life begins have to do with anything, and why they should matter more than the feelings of the women he's judging."

@AverageWhiteBoy:

My feelings don't really matter, and neither do yours. The only people whose feelings matter are those of the Supreme Court who hear/heard abortion cases.

It is my right to judge women that choose to abort a pregnancy. I think that in a free society there are some "necessary evils" that, unfortunately, must be in place due to legal quandaries -- abortion being one of the main ones. I don't like it, but I understand the necessity, but I reserve the right to feel the way that I feel about it being used.

I feel similarly about capital punishment. I don't like it, but I understand its necessity. Both forms of destruction, IMO, should be used with the utmost care and deliberation, not as a wanton substitute for responsibility. Just like the Innocence Project has shown that there has been a disturbing number of abuses of capital punishment, I feel that there are analogous abuses of abortion. Again, I think BOTH types of killing are necessary, but we should never forget that they are killing, and should be undertaken with the utmost care.

Ok here's a good arguement let's say all life is scared from conception. Forcing a women to give birth is an unimaginable torture in my mind, but let us assume that it's allowed and sets a standard.

Do we then start having people registar for organ donors (like bone marrow, kidney etc etc). How is it different to make a women give birth then to force a person to donate an organ? Both are saving lives and both would be done without consent of the person giving birth/donating. This is a big reason to me why a woman has to be allowed to have a choice. It's a very slippery slope to something like that.

CF, it's the active versus passive distinction that's key in a lot of ethics. In the one case, the child will be born unless you actively abort it. In the other, the person will die unless you actively do an organ transplant. Choosing to change the course of what's already happening has moral significance, so the two are distinct.

Of course, in cases OTHER than rape, there's also the added significant fact that the woman made choices that led to the life, whereas the organ donor (presumably) did not make choices leading to the imminent death.

As I've been told before a life is a life. Why should that matter? If you can save a life why wouldn't you?

Sorry, but there's a distinction between murder and failing to save a life. Not murdering somebody is usually not considered "saving a life" in the first place.

See I disagree I don't think all abortion is murder. I will probably never agree with you unless I have cold hard facts in front of me. Either way it's up to a person to decide what to do with their body. It's ok to force women to give birth, but not to force people to save a life. I disagree with that stand.

"See I disagree I don't think all abortion is murder."

Yes, I know, but by your own stipulation, we were in a hypothetical scenario where it is. Obviously you disagree with that scenario, but that's beside the point for the discussion.

A woman can't just refuse to give birth, and the baby thereby automatically die (something Rep. Akin might easily be convinced of, I would imagine). In order to refuse giving birth, the baby must be actively murdered -- it's beating heart stopped, it's skull destroyed, etc.

The case is opposite in the organ donation case. It's not like I have to go knife somebody in the chest if I decide not to donate my heart to him. If I did, that would be wrong, because that would be murder. But the fact is, he'll just die of natural causes, and it is legitimate to privilege control of one's body to the extent of not forcing somebody to donate organs to stop that. Not a single aborted baby dies of natural causes, however.

That's why when I set up the scenario with organ donation it was things people could donate while still surviving. I don't think anyone would ask a person to donate a heart if they're still living. Bone marrow sure why not.

And I don't know I'd say you'd be murdering that person out of neglict. You -could- save them you choose not to. It's a choice. You see it differently because you don't think it's your responsibility to save another persons life. But, it's ok to force someone who doesn't want to have children, who can't afford to take care of them or would just flat out be a bad parent to have children. That's just messed up.

Actually how did this thread become a topic about abortion anyways?

@CF:

I completely understand why a woman would feel so strongly about being allowed to do with her body what she see's fit -- all people have that Right. However, rights cease when they infringe upon the rights of another. This brings up an interesting quandary -- whose right takes precedent, the mother's or the unborn child's. There is no doubt that a woman choosing to abort is infringing upon the right to life of the unborn child. But, so too is the unborn child infringing upon the rights of the mother. The only way that the court has been able to reconcile this quandary is to state that the unborn child is not human, and thus has no rights, before a certain point in its gestation. As a society, we have decided -- although not unilaterally -- that we elevate the rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn child. Personally, I don't like that decision, but I see no other way to reconcile the issue in a free society -- sometimes, 100% equality is not possible, even in a free society.

As to this, "unimaginable torture" that you speak of. I think that the only situation in which this is an apt characterization of carrying a pregnancy to term is a pregnancy resulting from a rape. The Republic was founded upon the concept of "personal responsibility." As such, if one voluntarily engages in an activity with known consequences, that individual must deal with the those consequences. Absolving one of responsibility is a freedom afforded to only a woman in this instance. For example, a man who accidentally got a woman pregnant and didn't want to be a father, emotionally nor financially, cannot force a woman to abort. Yet, if the situation is reversed, the woman can abort without the consent of the father. As I said, 100% equality isn't always possible. If you don't want to get pregnant, if you're going to abort a child that might result, then don't engage in the causal activity if you're not willing or able to deal with the consequences.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

- F Scott Fitzgerald

Celtic, adoption is always an issue. As for your hypothesis -- the organ donation scenario is not murder regardless of whether you can stay alive afterward or not.

I mean, if you think it is, then let's move farther from controversial topics and ask this: is it murder for a family to decide not to put somebody on life support after an accident?

@MM I understand where you're coming from but I have to disagree. I have to say it's been nice talking about this subject without name calling or being told I'm going to hell. Thank you to people from both sides for that.

@Semck Depnds on the medical situation. Survivability, living will, and quality of life.

Also, have you seen our adoption system. It's a mess.I'd be all for that as an option if it was a good one.

Our adoption systems (plural as there is no single system) aren't bad when it comes to infants and that is what we are talking about here. Would be parents in the US find it difficult to adopt newborns because they are so rare. Sure, the public subsidized adoption of orphans (i.e. foster care) has got issues, but that isn't infants usually unless the infant is a special needs child do to a crackhead mother or other infirmity. A haelthy infant baby *will* find parents and will find them quickly.

http://i.imgur.com/6fs6A.png

Also guys, adoption is beside the point. If someone doesn't want to be pregnant and doesn't want to give birth, telling her, well if you do those things anyway, you can always put the kid up for adoption. It's a bit like if I'm feeling too nauseous to eat dinner, you're going to force me to anyway, but if I do, I can always give my dessert to someone else. It doesn't solve the problem that I'm too sick to eat dinner in the first place.

Still no word from anyone but Willtor on government-provided birth control to keep abortions from being sought in the first place... hell, I can't even get anyone arguing that providing women with birth control would be against their religion.

"However, rights cease when they infringe upon the rights of another." - Wait, always? Universally? In every case?

"There is no doubt that a woman choosing to abort is infringing upon the right to life of the unborn child." - Whether that right exists at all is exactly what's at issue here. Kinda begging the question aren't you?

" The only way that the court has been able to reconcile this quandary is to state that the unborn child is not human, and thus has no rights, before a certain point in its gestation." - I don't think anyone has ever said a fetus isn't human. I mean, I don't think anyone will tell you it's a cow or a squid or anything, but what's at issue is whether it's a person in any meaningful way.

"Personally, I don't like that decision, but I see no other way to reconcile the issue in a free society -- sometimes, 100% equality is not possible, even in a free society." - Or desirable. Why would we want the "rights" of something that is completely incapable of thought, not even abstract thought, but just thought, to be equal with the rights of someone who is a living, feeling human being?

"The Republic was founded upon the concept of "personal responsibility." As such, if one voluntarily engages in an activity with known consequences, that individual must deal with the those consequences. Absolving one of responsibility is a freedom afforded to only a woman in this instance." - Ummmm... good point. This is why doctors aren't allowed to give treatment to people who get lung cancer, or cirrhosis or get into car crashes. They chose to smoke/drink/get in the car, and have to deal with the consequences.

@Mafia - "something that is completely incapable of thought, not even abstract thought, but just thought"

Seriously? A child 2 days before it is born and two days after has suddenly magically changed to having thought when it didn't beofre? And they say I'm fucked up for believing in the skywizard. You believe the birthcanal somehow magically imparts thought. Or maybe it's the kid getting it's ass slapped. Whatever it is, you think thought magically appears. An unborn baby in the third trimester has brainwave patterns similar to a sleeping infant. It dreams and has an imagination as best it can considering it's world view. By your logic, a comatose patient who wrote out a living will and clearly stated they *did* want extraordinairy measures taken in case they suddenly wake up should still be taken off life support if his/her family doesn't want to keep them around (maybe the patient is rich and the family wants to use that money for something and can't until the patient dies). After all, he or she may as well be brain dead and therefore not capable of thought and have no rights.

"Seriously? A child 2 days before it is born and two days after has suddenly magically changed to having thought when it didn't beofre?" - Nope! Babies can't think either not in the way I mean! It's just once a baby is actually physically born a woman's right to choose is no longer at issue. The baby is already out, she can't after giving birth decide she doesn't want to have given birth in the past. It's already happened.

The issue at question is choice. The comatose brain dead patient has, in the past, been capable of making choices, and in that case, did choose to have extraordinary measures taken. If the person has no living will, or instead states that they want the choice made by a medical proxy, then the medical proxy gets to decide whether the person lives or dies. Also last I checked extraordinary measures to be kept alive to not include being implanted in the body of another person. If they did, I'd say whatever the person with the living will wanted, the person who's body they're being implanted into also gets a say in the matter. There's a woman involved here too, why are we only talking about the baby!? The woman is a person and needs to be considered.

So what your saying is the baby after it's born has rights but it's rights are trumped by the mother's rights over a matter of circumstance. K... Gotcha...

So kill in the womb, abortion and OK. Kill 5 hours later outside the womb, murder. K... Gotcha...