Are you pro-choice or pro-"life"? — Page 5

So, if a woman has an abortion at the stage when it's technically some cells interacting, would you call her a murderer?

---

I often wonder why the truly fantatical 'right to lifers' don't ever quote the actual bible when talking about the time life starts? They claim to believe in the words written there, but they choose to ignore the passages that don't agree with their personal philosophy.
___________________________________________________________

The Bible Teaches Us That "Life Is In The Blood."
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4 KJV)
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have
given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement
for the soul." (Leviticus 17:11 KJV)
"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for
the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for
the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth
it shall be cut off." (Leviticus 17:14 KJV)
"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood
is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh."
(Deuteronomy 12:23 KJV)

Human life does not begin until blood is present in the embryo.
Therefore, Life (As The Bible Understands It) Cannot Begin At The Moment Of Conception, Because There Is No Blood Or Heartbeat Present Until Sometime During The Third Week Of Pregnancy.

The early timeline of fetal development, from Pro-Life America, an anti-abortion organization, shows that the first heartbeat occurs at the eighteenth day after conception, and that blood is pumped at the twenty-first day.

---

Now for the opening of an extra-large can of worms... The biggest issue I have with the absoluteness of the Anti-Abortion / Pro-Life camp is this (playing Devil's advocate here): IF we theorize that the stance of conception = child is correct, and IF we subscribe to a religious or moral code that states that terminating such life is a sin, AND if abortion is 100% illegal: is morality in the absence of free will morality?

Just to play devil's advocate right back here, cause it's an interesting issue:

Would you like murder not to be illegal? Because, if in this scenario where we are accepting the belief that abortion is murdering another human being, how would it be different from any other form of murder? We don't just challenge people to do the right thing in those situations. The government says, "No, you are not allowed to needlessly harm another human being."

We're all intelligent enough to know that making abortions illegal is NOT going to stop women from having them, just like laws against murder doesn't stop people from killing each other. Free will still exists to a certain extent in this situation, unlike something like A Clockwork Orange, where he actually becomes physically incapable of violence.

Again, I mean this all as a theoretical rebuttal, devil's advocate and all that.

Thanks, ghost!

---

Pro-Life except in the case that the mother's life is in danger or she has been raped. To get an abortion just because you don't want a third child or you had a careless roll in the hay, is just inhuman and irresponisble, in my opinion. I can't imagine what it's like for woman or gay couples who so desperatly want a child but can't have one. It must be painful for them to see women, who are perfectly able to raise a child, ending their pregeninces just because they don't want a kid. Putting the child up for adoption is a great alternative. I feel as though it is often overlooked. I don't understand why woman who are perfectly healthy and finacially stable would get an abortion when, you they bring a life into the world and pass that on to a couple who really wants the child they can't have.

All that being said, I don't think abortion should be illegal. Just regulated. The reasons being that 1)There are too many doctors who know how to perform abortions. 2) I don't know what the punishment would be for those who had had abortions or performed them and 3) It would cause woman to danger themselves by trying to terminate their own pregnencies.

Updated On: 9/11/08 at 05:42 PM

"I don't understand why woman who are perfectly healthy and finacially stable would get an abortion when, you they bring a life into the world and pass that on to a couple who really wants the child they can't have."

Maybe because there are already millions of orphans who need those couples.

---

"I don't understand why woman who are perfectly healthy and finacially stable would get an abortion when, you they bring a life into the world and pass that on to a couple who really wants the child they can't have."

There are no guarantees that these babies would be adopted. There are hundreds if not thousands of children that are put up for adoption that are never adopted. They might be the wrong color, or have a disability or simply aren't cute enough. They're shuffled from adoption agency to foster home to foster home until they are too old...then they are booted out of the system. Adoption is not some abortion ending panacea.

Simply because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND why a woman would choose an abortion, does not mean that the woman does not have legitimate reasons for doing so.

---

Abortions should be legal until the child is of legal age - 21 years old. I think parents - or society in general - should have the right up until that point to say, "Ooops, this one didn't work. Better luck next time."








And I'm KIDDING, by the way.
Sort of.

brd - and mine WORKS

Y, sadly the choice has been taken away from millions by tactics from the right which have driven providers away from small towns and even from entire states.

I will restate my point earlier that I hope the young women and men on this thread grasp the urgency of this election!

edit: I'm pro-staying-out-of-this-conversation

Updated On: 9/11/08 at 09:09 PM

Okay - I have to ask - is there anywhere that people are willing to draw a line? Jane has approached this aspect, but it's been kind of danced around.

The argument about 'the beginning of life' gets bogged down in religious gobbledigook. But, most people acknowledge that sustainable life exists before actual birth - which means that taking THAT life isn't so much about the woman's choice, as it is about the viable life being denied. So, where do you draw the line?

I'm intrigued by this notion of blood and heatbeat showing up so early in the pregnancy. Honestly, as a gay man, I haven't had to deal with this much - well, ever. And I had always thought that, for me, a logical 'cutting off point' would be when the fetus could feel pain. But that's just based on my own sense of pacifism - I can't conceive of causing anyone else pain.

But I really do think that there is some sort of 'divining line' that exists here - because sustainable life is proven to exist before actual birth. So, where is the line to be drawn, and why?