Is abortion really wrong?

agreed echi.

Like condoms and the morning after pill. Between those two, abortions could be reduced to almost zero.

Eorl wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

To those who are not having abortions, it doesn't affect them, and it is none of their bussiness.

To those who are not torturing children in a basement, it doesn't affect them, and it is none of their bussiness.

The problem always comes back to the same thing....what defines a human being?.... and at what point are human rights granted?

Who's advice do you take to determine the answer...the doctors, the scientists, the priests or the politicians?

I somewhat understand the hesitation in trying to reason with "pro-lifers". They're all taking and no giving. When anyone on the "pro-choice" side says that abortions should be reduced to as few as possible, someone on the other side starts in with--" if it's not wrong, why reduce it?". I wish they would focus on the common interests.

Quote:

Quoted from real life:
Do you see any difference between a person who takes upon himself the risk of smoking and the unborn who has not made any choice to endanger or forfeit his/her life?

All i'm sayin is that, if you are infact pro-life, arnt thier bigger fish to fry? Surely more ppl die from smoking and/or alcohol then from being aborted. Besides, if someone really didnt want a child is it better to abort then for police to find infants in dumpsters?

If an unborn child can be shown not to have smoked, should abortion of that unborn child be illegal?

Smoking babies? In the womb? That would be a cool album cover, you might be onto something, hmm...

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

Do you see any difference between a person who takes upon himself the risk of driving and the unborn who has not made any choice to endanger or forfeit his/her life?

I, and everyone else with children take this risk. It's a risk but if you crash and burn while taking your kid to the docter and your kid dies, its a tragic accident, "**** happens" basicly.

If an unborn child can be shown not to have driven a motor vehicle, should abortion of that unborn child be illegal?

No, because we know the chances of the infant growing up and driving a motor vehicle is very high.

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

Since you continue to link poverty to abortion for some reason unknown, would you agree that if the residents of a state or county or city can be shown to be sufficiently well fed that abortion should therefore be illegal in that state or county or city?

No, because thier is the possiblity of the child growing up, eat too much, and starve the rest of the school kids of required nourishment.

If an unborn child can be shown not to have consumed more than his/her fair share of food, should abortion of that unborn child be illegal?

Yeah, I heard the womb hosts some awsome buffet's.

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

If it can be shown that the unborn has not participated in war nor approved of it, should abortion of that unborn child be illegal?

Abort, just in case, you dont want another Hitler do YOU???

If you havent noticed, I lost interest in this mindless discussion a while ago, I tryed to take it seriously, but it just aint happening.

I believe in pro-choice, thats where I stand. And I'm not gonna rant over a never-ending debate any longer.

Let's not kid ourselves. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming just to eliminate partial birth abortions in the third trimester.

If the pro-abortion crowd is looking for a compromise, how about if we start with no abortion (except to save the life of the mother, an exception I've always supported) after the unborn's heart is beating?

how about if we start with no abortion (except to save the life of the mother, an exception I've always supported)

real life wrote:

If the pro-abortion crowd is looking for a compromise, how about if we start with no abortion (except to save the life of the mother, an exception I've always supported) after the unborn's heart is beating?

That's not a starting point. That's a point of contention. Come on, man.

real life wrote:

how about if we start with no abortion (except to save the life of the mother, an exception I've always supported)

Why? Surely the "child" is more innocent than the mother? Why do you place a higher value on the mother's life?

(Sorry for being selective rl, but we do seem to cover a lot of the same ground again and again)

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

If the pro-abortion crowd is looking for a compromise, how about if we start with no abortion (except to save the life of the mother, an exception I've always supported) after the unborn's heart is beating?

That's not a starting point. That's a point of contention. Come on, man.

Most of the pro-abortion crowd , while claiming to privately deplore abortion in the later stages, vigorously opposes ANY attempts to ban abortion right up to the time of birth. ( A few agree with banning partial birth abortions.)

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, typically want abortion disallowed from the time of conception ( with exception such as to save the life of the mother).

Why is a middle ground unacceptable as a starting point?

True, both pro-aborts and pro-lifers will be dissatisfied with it, but that's the nature of compromise, isn't it?

and then there's this:

And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25

Real Life - Youare appraoching this in an all too confrontational and zelous nature.

You stated that pro-choice people don't want to comprimise abuot third trimester abortions etc. This isn't true, so don't state it as fact.

By trying this approach you simply dodge any obligation to comprimise.

Culturally spaeking, absolutism is facism. What doesn't bend breaks. If the pro-life platform doesn't comprimise then culturally we are in a stalemate.

As for the comparison of it not being the bussiness of others about abortion being compared to domestic violence issues, you'll have to do better than that.

Abortion is a dynamic issue. Treating it as a simple isolated issue is ignorant and juvenille in thought.

I'm not Pro-choice because I like or even think that abortion is moral or whatever.

I'm pro-choice because if you want to affect culture their are other ways than facism and absolutism.

I'd never get an abortion if given the choice, and I hope that no one I'm with would want to either.

Real life - You never answered my two questions either.

"If you are shouting outside of a clinic calling some terified girl a whore trying to get her to turn around, and maybe out of fear she does just that is it a victory?"

"If you support all human life, do you continue to offer support her or does your focus just shift to the next woman walking towards the clinic?"

"Pro-lifers" aren't as supportive of life as they often pose.

As for when a human beign becomes a human being, it's irrelevant to me. Philosopically speaking we have an infinite number of answers. If we went by when we able to develop memories all the way back to when a zygote develops a circulatory system. All irrelevant to me.