Let's Talk About: Abortion

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

I'm pro-choice insofar as you only get to choose once.

Are you choosing to have consensual, knowingly unprotected sex? That was the choice, and I believe any potential consequence of that (pregnancy) should always be protected.

Was the sex or protection not your choice? Things such as rape, a partner deceiving you to force pregnancy, etc.? Then I support that you now get to make a choice with what to do with potential consequence (pregnancy).

Are in in favour of more abortions or fewer abortions? I mean, I think I know the answer. But I want to hear you say it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you choose to jaywalk and get hit by a car should a hospital save you?

Well, the hospital should have one chance to choose whether to save them. I think they should have the right to weigh their moral outrage against their Hippocratic Oath and then determine whether life saving treatment is in the cards. Is jaywalking an egregious enough transgression against their moral center to withhold services? Seems fair, does it not?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

While there is a wait list for adoption you are aware that about 1 in 6 fetus are aborted in Canada. I don’t believe there is continuous demand for 80,000 babies.

Also while there is a backlog for heathy babies there is a surplus of older children.

There are many improvements to be made with the adoption system.

I know many families that have adopted children and almost all of them have struggled and dealt with excessive wait times and abnormal red tape.

Even adopting a baby whom the mother CLEARLY does not want is a huge issue and requires the adopting parents to jump through multiple hoops and live up to completely ridiculous standards just to get past step 1.

Really strange how legally you can abort a baby at any time, without ANY regard for the possibility of protecting human life, but placing babies in adoptive homes is a hugely restrictive battle.

And all that is happening while we are in dire need of a growing population to overcome the baby boomers.

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by GGG

[1]What should be done with left over IVF embryos?

[2]Should we have funerals for the half of embryos that don’t implant?

[3]Is miscarriage the leading cause of death among humans and therefore preventing miscarriages should be the largest health priority.

[4]Should life insurance benefits be extended to fetus?

[5]Should pregnant women be let out of prison because you are unlawfully detaining the fetus.

[6]Why aren’t sperm and egg considered life. Aren’t these cells with the spilt strands the point where cells become different from the host.

1. They should be treated as any other human remains.
2. If the parents desire so, I don't see why not. I've heard of many couples who've gone through miscarriages and have had a service or some sort of way of grieving their lost child.
3. For the 3rd time in this thread, my issue with abortion stems from the deliberate and intentional ending of a human being's life.
4. Given that the intention of life insurance is to provide financial assistance to the insuree's dependents I'm not sure how that would apply since the fetus would have no dependents.
5. I don't understand this question. Are you assuming that I support imprisoning women who get an abortion because I never stated that.
6. Gametes contain human genetic material. However, without fertilization, there's isn't a new individual human being that has been created.

Originally Posted by New Era

Emphasis added for emphasis. It is not a human being. It is a glop of cells that may or may not develop into something. Again, 66% of fertilizations - that moment you are referring to as "conception" - never implant or just spontaneously abort.

The zygote is a human being, biologically speaking, just at very early development. For the 4th time in this thread, my issue with abortion is intentional ending of life and not natural miscarriage.

So all laws and declarations mean nothing unless YOU accept them? Is that your stance?

The ability to comprehend your place in your environment is pretty much a requirement for the granting of individual rights. Without that awareness an individual is not mentally competent to make decisions or be held accountable in the eyes of the law. The individual's rights are then protected or controlled by those of a benefactor. There is a reason why children cannot be prosecuted for certain crimes, nor granted rights of an adult - even when emancipated. So if a child does not have full rights, why should a glop of cells that has neither human form or the capacity to be aware of one's environment get that right and supersede the rights of the mother?

Cathy Newman, is that you? Never did I say that laws mean nothing to me unless I accept them. Am I not allowed to express disagreement with an aspect of some philosophical view or approach that informs some laws? This is a democracy after all. My philosophical approach to human rights is that all individual human beings deserve the right to life, the most basic and fundamental of all human rights. I accept that you reject the fetus to be a human life. I respect that. But I believe pro-lifers and others have a valid biological claim to argue otherwise which is why we'll continue to defend that view in the public conversation.

Because the zygote is an incomplete clump of cells that is NOT human. Just because it has the encoding does not mean it is going to develop. Every one of our cells has our DNA encoding, but we don't determine all clumps of cells to be human.

Cancer cells have our entire encoding in them, but with a genetic mutation that creates an aggressive variation. The cells are our own, and have a variation in the code. This makes them unique. By your own rules, stated multiple times, that the unique encoding makes those cells a new unique entity and worthy of our protection. By your rules cancers should have the full weight of protection under the law and we should grant them personhood.

Again, your own words - a unique individual with unique DNA - says that we must protect this life as well, because these cells are live and are unique. Development is irrelevant. You've stated as much by saying that life begins at conception and completely ignoring the fact that 66% of fertilizations do not implant and will never develop. Your stance is that we have to afford human rights to a glop of cells at that moment because it met a certain standard which was "life" and "uniqueness." Cancers are live cells, have unique encoding, and will continue to divide, grown, and develop. Your rules, not mine.

The comparison of the zygote to cancer cells is so disingenuous let alone disgusting. If you allow cancer cells to grow, a fully developed human is not going to suddenly emerge in the body of the patient at some point. Why is it that women who are expecting and are happy about it never compare the life in their womb to just a bunch of cancer cells or glops of cells? Yet, when the baby is unwanted they'll use euphemisms to disguise the reality of what the life really is?

There we go. It has now come down to a moral argument. It is you enforcing your morality on others and demanding that they abide by what you believe! As I said earlier, this issue is not about children or human life, it's about a perception of morality and wanting to establish a moral standard that can be forced on everyone.

Again, whose morality do we have to follow? Why does it have to be yours? What makes you so morally superior that we should all just follow your lead? What makes your imperfect moral views such that they should be enforced on everyone? How about we set a standard where people can hold a variety of moral views and from that we establish a baseline which everyone will be expected to meet or exceed? Doesn't that make more sense? That was everyone can exercise that "god given" ability of free choice, and then let the chips of our eternal damnation fall where they may when we meet our maker - or become worm food, for us people who don't believe in stupid #### like a supreme being? Wouldn't that be more reasonable? The morality of one individual, or even one group, should never supersede that of the majority of society.

Frame and misrepresent the pro-life view any way you like. For many in the pro-life cause it is about protecting human lives. Just as I see nothing wrong with you arguing your view of morality in the public space, I see nothing wrong with pro-lifers doing the same. Democracy. Isn't it beautiful? The laws are currently the way they are and I respect that. Doesn't mean I cant disagree and push for changes. Myself and others who care deeply about the pro-life cause will do everything within the bounds of law and public discourse to protect ALL human lives. I expect no less from those who disagree with us, or about any other issue, to do the same.

A body within a body where the parasitic body requires sustenance from the host for its survival. This is the part that is lost on the pro-lifers. This is something growing inside someone else, and YOU have no right to tell someone what they can, or cannot, do with their body. PERIOD! Maybe we can start a movement to protect those live cancer cells and prevent the pro-lifers from doing anything that could possibly harm them? Would that make sense? You can't destroy that life because, well, its life! I don't care that the cancer will ultimately kill you, because I'm protecting innocent life.

Well at least you acknowledge the life in the womb is a body. Regardless of the body's dependence on the mother, I still don't see that as an argument to terminate its life. Both ought to be protected. With your logic, is it fair to say that you support abortion right up to just before birth?

No, not really. If women can't have control over their bodies, what is the next logical step? You are demanding that women lose control over the most personal of things to them, and that is pretty scary to me. I find some things that people do to themselves as abhorrent, but I would never deprive them the right to do something to themselves of their choosing. I'm not a fan self-mutilation, but it is not my place to say that it is wrong for that person, or make it illegal.

Why is it that people can't keep their nose out of other people's private business? If your next door neighbor got knocked up and elected to have an abortion, would it impact your life? If she never told you, you wouldn't know, and it would have ZERO impact on your life. So why do you care? This is why fences make good neighbors. You keep your ####ed up morality away from my life, and I'll keep my ####ed up morality away from your life. We can still have beers and barbeques as good neighbors, but stay the hell out of my bedroom, my finances, my medical concerns, and my spirituality. If you don't like my morality than I can guarantee you I sure as hell won't like yours either. So keep that crap to yourself and let people live their lives as they see fit.

Again, your view makes sense if the life in the womb is not a human being. However, pro-lifers reject that view and the science would agree too. Argue viability, lack of development or use any euphemism to try and downplay... fine. Doesn't change the fact that it's a human being.

As for your end rant, it's hard not to take as anything else but an attempt to shut down debate on this issue. Not to mention that it does nothing to address the actual arguments. I never understand how people expressing alternative views is taken as some kind of aggressive attack on liberty. There's tons of things I disagree with but all the power to people who make those views known. In fact, I love to hear it. It keeps us from being complacent. It allows us to be engaged. Moreover, I don't know everything and I can probably bet that neither does anyone else... so we should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. Lastly, it's the sign of a great democracy to have all these views.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

My philosophical approach to human rights is that all individual human beings deserve the right to life, the most basic and fundamental of all human rights. I accept that you reject the fetus to be a human life. I respect that. But I believe pro-lifers and others have a valid biological claim to argue otherwise which is why we'll continue to defend that view in the public conversation.

This is exactly where I, as a staunch libertarian, stand.

As important as personal choice and liberty is, to me no matter what the right to life trumps them all.

And honestly, the silence surrounding this specific point is deafening.

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by Azure

This is exactly where I, as a staunch libertarian, stand.

As important as personal choice and liberty is, to me no matter what the right to life trumps them all.

And honestly, the silence surrounding this specific point is deafening.

Well we've got plenty of historical atrocities to learn from where a certain class of people were disregarded as less than humans based on some arbitrary selection of characteristics.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

This is exactly where I, as a staunch libertarian, stand.

As important as personal choice and liberty is, to me no matter what the right to life trumps them all.

And honestly, the silence surrounding this specific point is deafening.

So do you support all government regulation which has safety and preservation of life as a purpose? I ask because that is a large swath of government regulation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So do you support all government regulation which has safety and preservation of life as a purpose? I ask because that is a large swath of government regulation.

Lets take vaccinations as an example.

Right now it is a personal choice whether parents vaccinate their children, but there is a VERY good chance that we move to a point where you will required to be vaccinated in order to attend public events, school, hospitals, airports, etc.

I support that. I think if we don't do that it will become a bigger issue each year.

As for 'all' government regulation, it depends what you mean. Do I support a law requiring you to wear seatbelts? Yes, even though it only affects the safety of your OWN life, without any detriment to anyone else.

Do I support government regulation requiring you to not eat junk food? No, but I would support a sugar tax combined with a tax rebate on all healthy food items.

However, those things do not compare with a purposeful act like abortion, i.e. you do not purposefully try to get diabetes or a massive coronary.

I just think that a part of the pro-choice side, including some in this very thread have created a pedestal where they have gotten onto and deny, deny, deny, deny any kind of argument from the pro-life side because they have deemed ALL pro-life arguments to be ONLY about controlling the woman's body, thereby intentionally and purposefully ignoring the ENTIRE part about is it a human life, and if so, is a human life more important than your personal freedom, and is it not important to protect human life & as an extension, humanity above all else?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

Lets take vaccinations as an example.

Right now it is a personal choice whether parents vaccinate their children, but there is a VERY good chance that we move to a point where you will required to be vaccinated in order to attend public events, school, hospitals, airports, etc.

I support that. I think if we don't do that it will become a bigger issue each year.

As for 'all' government regulation, it depends what you mean. Do I support a law requiring you to wear seatbelts? Yes, even though it only affects the safety of your OWN life, without any detriment to anyone else.

Do I support government regulation requiring you to not eat junk food? No, but I would support a sugar tax combined with a tax rebate on all healthy food items.

However, those things do not compare with a purposeful act like abortion, i.e. you do not purposefully try to get diabetes or a massive coronary.

I just think that a part of the pro-choice side, including some in this very thread have created a pedestal where they have gotten onto and deny, deny, deny, deny any kind of argument from the pro-life side because they have deemed ALL pro-life arguments to be ONLY about controlling the woman's body, thereby intentionally and purposefully ignoring the ENTIRE part about is it a human life, and if so, is a human life more important than your personal freedom, and is it not important to protect human life & as an extension, humanity above all else?

Thanks for answering my question. Interesting answer. I think your views are a lot more nuanced than "staunch libertarian". But I take your point: Some "pro-choice" (when are we going to abandon these dated, misleading pro-choice/pro-life labels?) rhetoric is overly dismissive of "pro-life" concerns.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I guess it depends what you mean "legal obstacles". No, I don't think the police can stop you from having an abortion, but that's different than "not regulated". It would be like saying you couldn't dispose of hazardous waste in Canada, but you can, if you follow the regulations. So by telling people abortion is unregulated in Canada, and you get a reaction of disbelief, well that reaction is well placed because you are speaking falsehoods.

I am not sure what your objection is with what I am saying. From the very Wiki link that you posted it says

While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I am not sure what your objection is with what I am saying. From the very Wiki link that you posted it says



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

Because what you mean to say is that there are no laws(legal restrictions), not that there are no regulations.


https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_li...gulations.html


For example, one regulation is that all abortions after 21 weeks must happen at a hospital, not a clinic. So it's wrong and misleading to say there are no regulations.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because what you mean to say is that there are no laws(legal restrictions), not that there are no regulations.


https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_li...gulations.html


For example, one regulation is that all abortions after 21 weeks must happen at a hospital, not a clinic. So it's wrong and misleading to say there are no regulations.

Fair enough. I will certainly choose my words more carefully going forward. Thanks for the clarification.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Thanks for answering my question. Interesting answer. I think your views are a lot more nuanced than "staunch libertarian". But I take your point: Some "pro-choice" (when are we going to abandon these dated, misleading pro-choice/pro-life labels?) rhetoric is overly dismissive of "pro-life" concerns.

Valid point.

Being libertarian works great until you start talking about public safety, health concerns, the threat of epidemics, etc.

Suddenly human lives are at risk and you have to weigh the cost of personal freedom & the choice to as an example NOT vaccinate, a choice that many would strongly feel is THEIR right...suddenly things look a lot different.

Unless of course you plan to live in the woods and never come out, then fine you are free to not vaccinate.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Ah, the old 'false equivalence'. Your scenario so obviously excludes the most important element of the abortion debate (the life of the new baby) that it's laughable you considered it as a comparable.

It’s reducto absurdism rather than a false equivalence. You did not state that the babies life was important as part of the reason for your argument. Your argument boils down to it’s okay to kill a baby if it’s father was horrible. What did the fetus do to deserve to die. Why is the trauma of carrying a baby you don’t want because of rape different than the trauma of carrying a baby that the state is forcing on you. In both cases you are losing control over your body.

You are treating pregnancy as punishment for sex. So you create an exemption because you don’t want to punish the rape victim.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are many improvements to be made with the adoption system.

I know many families that have adopted children and almost all of them have struggled and dealt with excessive wait times and abnormal red tape.

Even adopting a baby whom the mother CLEARLY does not want is a huge issue and requires the adopting parents to jump through multiple hoops and live up to completely ridiculous standards just to get past step 1.

Really strange how legally you can abort a baby at any time, without ANY regard for the possibility of protecting human life, but placing babies in adoptive homes is a hugely restrictive battle.

And all that is happening while we are in dire need of a growing population to overcome the baby boomers.

I absolutely agree with you that adoption needs to be improved and sold as an option between keep the baby and abortion. However it doesn’t solve the abortion issue even if you can get past the ethics forcing women to carry to term. We have a surplus of fetuses.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

1. They should be treated as any other human remains.
2. If the parents desire so, I don't see why not. I've heard of many couples who've gone through miscarriages and have had a service or some sort of way of grieving their lost child.
3. For the 3rd time in this thread, my issue with abortion stems from the deliberate and intentional ending of a human being's life.
4. Given that the intention of life insurance is to provide financial assistance to the insuree's dependents I'm not sure how that would apply since the fetus would have no dependents.
5. I don't understand this question. Are you assuming that I support imprisoning women who get an abortion because I never stated that.
6. Gametes contain human genetic material. However, without fertilization, there's isn't a new individual human being that has been created.

The zygote is a human being, biologically speaking, just at very early development. For the 4th time in this thread, my issue with abortion is intentional ending of life and not natural miscarriage.

Thanks for answering. My questions were all trying to get at how we as a society view a fetus when the question is whether to kill it or not.

1)Why is a fertilized embryo outside the womb not treated the same as an embryo inside the womb. They are as much a living thing as a newly fertilized thing inside a womb. By your definition life has been created at this point.

2) in this case you are acknowledging that the zygote isn’t the same as a human life. If the parents want to mourn it they can choose to whereas it would be really odd to say that about a two year old. So there is definitely a different value placed on embryonic life as opposed to outside the womb life in terms of the trauma, traditions around mourning, and long term scarring. This was true long before abortion became mainstream. So independent of the abortion questions we certainly treat fetuses differently.

3) If a disease killed 33% of babies after they were born we would be doing everything in our power to prevent this from happening. My point wasn’t trying to equate abortion to miscarriage it was to show that the life of a fetus and the life of a child outside the womb have clearly different values in the way we deploy medical research.

Aside from the ethics of Abortion what is the practicality of legislation if you were to ban it. What do you do with the kids people don’t want? How do you deter and prevent abortion. What punishments do you put in place for people who get them

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by GGG

Thanks for answering. My questions were all trying to get at how we as a society view a fetus when the question is whether to kill it or not.

1)Why is a fertilized embryo outside the womb not treated the same as an embryo inside the womb. They are as much a living thing as a newly fertilized thing inside a womb. By your definition life has been created at this point.

2) in this case you are acknowledging that the zygote isn’t the same as a human life. If the parents want to mourn it they can choose to whereas it would be really odd to say that about a two year old. So there is definitely a different value placed on embryonic life as opposed to outside the womb life in terms of the trauma, traditions around mourning, and long term scarring. This was true long before abortion became mainstream. So independent of the abortion questions we certainly treat fetuses differently.

3) If a disease killed 33% of babies after they were born we would be doing everything in our power to prevent this from happening. My point wasn’t trying to equate abortion to miscarriage it was to show that the life of a fetus and the life of a child outside the womb have clearly different values in the way we deploy medical research.

Aside from the ethics of Abortion what is the practicality of legislation if you were to ban it. What do you do with the kids people don’t want? How do you deter and prevent abortion. What punishments do you put in place for people who get them

1) I originally read your question in such a way as to gauge what should be done with unused embryos that are slated for disposal (since I believe that's usually what happens?). So my original answer reflected that assumption--treat remains with dignity. I suppose I should actually mention that I disagree with IVF, precisely because it results in a large number of unused embryos in the first place, but also for other reasons. But I'll answer the hypothetical. Every effort should be made to find a surrogate for unused embryos.

2) Similarly, I answered this question too literally. Realizing that you meant mourning in general, then yes. I believe that they should be mourned. In what way? I think that's up to the parents depending on their values and belief systems. How one chooses to mourn the loss though, isn't really indicative of the humanity of the lost life. There are psychopaths who have murdered their born kids without a sense of remorse or mourning--the humanity of their kid is still unquestioned.

Thinking about this idea of mourning the life in the womb is interesting though. I believe that it should be mourned, but I can understand how it's easy for people to not feel a need to mourn. After all, it's such an early stage of development that one often hasn't built that deep emotional connection yet. It's easy to just see it as meaningless cells. Which is why it's probably so easy for many people to disregard its humanity. But when it comes down to it, biologically, it's an individual human life with new unique DNA that will grow into a full adult--just very, very, very early on. There's a reason why the Genocide Awareness Project, very controversial I know, uses images. It's not to disgust people, but to show them how remarkably human the embryos appear early on. Google an image of an embryo at 6 weeks, when many pregnancies are realized. It's tiny but oh so beautiful. You can see a head, where spinal cord will develop, where the eyes will be etc. Just amazing. I'm not a parent, but when I first saw my nephew's ultrasound as a little lentil, it was love at first sight. I believe a lot of people are pro-choice because they haven't really thought deeply about what has happened at conception--what's already in place. Being involved with pro-life groups and circles, many hearts have been changed by simply having that conversation.

3) That's the thing though, I believe we should be dedicating resources for such research. However, I think there's very little that can be done in terms of medical intervention. It's hard to prevent the body from rejecting a pregnancy if it's trying to. My sister recently went through a miscarriage at about 5 weeks. It was really tough on her emotionally and physically. She was aware that it was threatened a week before, but the docs said there was basically nothing that could be done. It was all up to God. In the end the baby was lost. She mourned it and still prays to it in heaven this day.


On to the practicals. There's really no easy solution to any of these questions. An overhaul of the adoption process would obviously be necessary--easier said than done. Preventing and deterring abortions ultimately goes beyond legislation. Legislation is one tool. But really, if we're to prevent abortions, it's a massive cultural shift that needs to take place. It saddens me that our culture is so quick to disregard human life. I wouldn't know where to begin. One of the reasons why I post in here despite knowing that most will disagree is that maybe someone who's lurking or something will have a change of heart. That's it. Starts with changing hearts. On a personal note, my Mom was scheduled for an abortion when she was pregnant with me. A nurse took her aside and convinced her not to. Thank God for that lol or maybe not from the perspective of the pro-choice people in here who probably think I hate women As for punishments, I tend to lean on the side that abortion providers should be criminally liable.

Anyhow, thanks for the questions. It's a topic that I and many others care about deeply and it's great to be able to have this discussion civilly even if it's clear many of us are very far apart on important questions.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I am sorry to hear that. Having said that, my main purpose in posting that scenario was to demonstrate that opposition to abortion is not about controlling a woman's body.

Why are you sorry? You knew I was pro-choice and my belief is telling a woman she must have a baby IS controlling her body. you haven't demonstrated anything.

Originally Posted by Ark2

I have addressed this in another post.

Yeah, here!

I believe that the rapist should spend the rest of his life in prison. At the same time, I believe that an unborn baby is a human being that is entitled to rights and protections and that does not change regardless of how it was conceived.

Sorry man but this is terrible and downright back to the stone ages thinking, just imagine your 11-12 year old daughter raped by some freak and instead of taking her to a hospital to abort the unwanted fetus and rape counseling that could with hope over time take the pain away and with hope she might have a normal teenage life, but you would have her life destroyed because of YOUR misguided thinking. By the way did you know 31 states allow rapists to assert custody and visitation rights over children conceived through rape?. just a wonderful sideshow for your daughter!!!

Here's my last thought for you and people who think like you with hopes of salvation, I wish you people would help and protect the people actually living that are in poverty, homeless and in dire straights over a 7 week old mistake. If you need some guidance PM me and I would be more than happy to help, essentially it means giving up one week of your yearly holidays and the 2% money you receive for that week(yes, it's tax deductible)

I promise you'll feel great after the first year

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Why are you sorry? You knew I was pro-choice and my belief is telling a woman she must have a baby IS controlling her body. you haven't demonstrated anything.

Alright, let's go back to what I actually said:

Originally Posted by Ark2

Imagine you are at a bar and you notice a visibly pregnant woman. Imagine that you know who this woman is, and that she has told you that she plans on giving birth to the baby that she is currently pregnant with. Now, imagine that you see her drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and smoking cigarettes. How does this make you feel? Do you think that since it is her body, it should be her choice to do so regardless of the effects that alcohol and tobacco will have on her unborn child? Personally, I do not. I don't believe that she should be allowed to consume such substances that would hurt her child. However, after she gives birth and is no longer pregnant, I couldn't care less how much she drinks or smokes. Frankly, if she wants to engage in more illicit drug use, I don't particularly care then either.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

My views have never wavered. It's not my body so it's none of my business if she's doesn't want the baby.

So you aren't even addressing what I am saying here. She DOES want the baby, but following your rules of her body, her choice, she can choose to put her unborn baby at serious risk of fetal alcohol syndrome, which I think is wrong. I posted that scenario for two reasons:

1) To rebut your claim that anti-abortion laws are just about men wanting to control women's bodies. In the scenario, my interest in "controlling a woman's body" only extends in so far as there is another human being growing inside of it. Once that is no longer the case, I don't care what she does with her body, and am actually pretty libertarian concerning her freedoms. Were it my interest to oppress a woman for womanhood's sake, this would not be the case.

2) I think this scenario touches on something pretty uncomfortable for those that view themselves as pro-choice. Maybe you don't feel that a pregnant woman intending to keep her baby should be prohibited by law from doing drugs and drinking alcohol, but I bet at the very least you view that as irresponsible behaviour. Yet, if a woman does not want to keep her baby, you are in favour of her ability to decide to end its life and believe that she shouldn't be judged poorly because of it. This essentially grants the mother the ability to determine what is, and is not a human being. If she doesn't want the baby, then it is just a lump of cells. If she does want the baby, then deliberately acting in a way that would cause considerable harm to the baby after it is born and for the rest of its life is irresponsible, if not downright immoral. This is wholly morally inconsistent in my view. How do you square this?

Sorry man but this is terrible and downright back to the stone ages thinking, just imagine your 11-12 year old daughter raped by some freak and instead of taking her to a hospital to abort the unwanted fetus and rape counseling that could with hope over time take the pain away and with hope she might have a normal teenage life, but you would have her life destroyed because of YOUR misguided thinking.

I would ask that you at least make an effort to address what I am saying if you are going to take the time to respond to my posts. My position is that I believe that an unborn baby, after it reaches a certain point in its development, is a human being that is deserving of rights and protections. Whether that baby was conceived by two, consenting parents in an attempt to get pregnant, or because some disgusting human being decided to force himself on an unwilling woman does not change my view of personhood. A baby conceived by rape should not be killed after it has been born. Its entitlement to human rights and protections should be no different than someone who was not conceived by rape. Can we agree on that much? If so, then why does rape factor into the state of someone's personhood before they are born? You are being completely inconsistent here.

Here's my last thought for you and people who think like you with hopes of salvation, I wish you people would help and protect the people actually living that are in poverty, homeless and in dire straights over a 7 week old mistake. If you need some guidance PM me and I would be more than happy to help, essentially it means giving up one week of your yearly holidays and the 2% money you receive for that week(yes, it's tax deductible)

I promise you'll feel great after the first year

Hopes of salvation? What are you talking about? I have not mentioned religion or salvation. I do not believe what I believe because of any religion. In fact, I used to be pro-choice. What changed is that I actually started to question why I believed what I believed and found that morally and logically, I could not defend my position. I am not sure what exactly you believe, but you have demonstrated in this thread that you are either unwilling or incapable of doing the same, which is disappointing. If you need some guidance, PM me and I would be more than happy to help. Living a life where you are afraid to challenge what you believe is not a very good way to live.

[PsYcNeT]

12 pages and everything focuses on the baby/fetus, and nothing on forcing a woman to effectively be varying degrees of somewhat to violently ill for 9 months.

Where's the autonomy concerns over not throwing away the better part of a year of your life feeling like total garbage (not even mentioning the 3-4 weeks of wearing diapers, constant bleeding, blood clots, incontinence and other fun factors that come after the birth).