<begin hyperbole>

I agree with you. It is a necessary evil.

Jamie,
Jamie, while I am pro-choice, I am not sure I understand your logic of why abortion should be legal. To many, its a question of murder. To others, its just cells.

Assuming for a second it is murder.... If you act responsibly and wear a condom and accidentally produce a person, murder is ok in that situation??? While I can accept #5 above, the previous 4 really have no relevance in absence of #5.

It's not murder, in the same way that killing a dog or a mouse is not murder, but may still have ethical or moral implications. It's not murder because the thing being killed is not yet a human being in the generally understood sense.

It is, however, killing a living thing, and there are therefore a number of considerations beyond "is it murder or not?"

"the thing being killed is not yet a human being in the generally understood sense"
I dispute the hidden premise that there is a generally understood sense of human being but would be interested in a clear definition of where in the development of a foetus it becomes a human being in the sense understood by Jamiet99uk. If your answer is at birth then I'd be interested to know at what point in the progression down the birth canal it steps from being a foetus and thus unmurderable to being a baby and thus a human being. I think an attempt to explain this clearly might make it obvious that arbitrary distinctions are being drawn and that other people might draw them in other places which is why I deny your hidden premise.

DJ hits upon an important point. If one believes that life starts at conception, then it logically follows that abortion is murder. The question is not whether or not abortion is acceptable or not; the question is when does life start. The answer to abortion will follow.

@ Parallel: Your question is a good one. In terms of answering it, would you accept, first of all, that there IS a point at which it becomes a human being, and therefore also a point before which it is not a human being?

(That question goes for you too abgemacht)

Abortion should be allowed in all cases no matter what
It's the woman's right to choose if she wants to have a baby or not
I get the point that when life begins abortion could be considered to be equivalent to murder. But as ti seems noone knows when life begins...
I believe that in the next decades only Muslim countries will still ban abortion. Maybe the USA too as well. What I hate is the view that this is a religious matter.
It's a social and legal matter. Not a religious one ffs...

I want to make a small correction to my position, I would never never vote for anyone, Democrat or Republican who supported abortion.

I have a lot to say on this subject, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to participate in the debate this time around because of my trip...I have a ton of stuff to do today before we leave :/

I also can't view abortion as a necessary evil as you mention above.
It's an expression of freedom to choose.
We are not in the Medieval ages anymore.

@ hellalt: I think using the term 'necessary evil' simply acknoweldges the fact that having an abortion isn't very pleasant.

For the record, I'm Pro-Choice, but I do recognize that the opposing side has very legitimate points.

hellalt--When you say in all cases, does that include 3rd trimester? What about 1 day before the expected delivery?

Jacob--What are your views on the morning after pill?

I thought hellalt would try to troll even harder and say something like "Abortion should be required in all cases." :-)

@hellalt
That is simply not a valid argument for abortion. Those who want the right to choose are saying they want the right to choose what to do with their own body.
1)The baby has completely different DNA from the mother. It is inside her body, but it is NOT her body.
2)She DID have a choice...whether or not to get in bed in the first place.

I don't think that you will come up with a precise point in time that a fetus becomes human, and even if you could, that point would be different for every conception, so trying to tie an arbitrary point in time where it would be legal at one point and then illegal a second later is fruitless. It would still be arbitrary.

If 'life' begins at birth, is it human life? I don't think even a abortion foe would consider at 10 second old fetus a 'human'. So even if it IS life, would killing it be murder?

I too hate any argument on abortion that starts with 'God says...' or 'Its written in the bible....'. I could care less what either of those two things say, so I will immediately discount any argument that follows.

Jamie,
Back to your list above... if the condom breaks, should you be punished? That sounds like the argument of a 13 year old. If you have sex, its a risk. Period. Regardless of the precautions, one of the possible outcomes is pregnancy. 'you acted sensibly and responsibly'? Don't have sex, that will be even more sensible and responsible if you aren't prepared to have a child.

I will try to present my view on the important question of "when does a human life begin?"

Here goes:

1. There IS a point at which it can definitely be said "this is a human being". Peter Singer, at one extreme, thinks this point occurs some weeks after birth. Some religious pro-lifers, at the other extreme, think this point occurs at the very moment of conception.
2. Following on from this, there is also a point at which it can be said that a given human being or person did not yet exist. As a very extreme example: I am a human being, a person. I am alive now. I definetely did not exist in, say, 1945. At some point more recently than that, I began to exist.

We can, I think, therefore agree that there is a point at which a human being does exist, who did not exist before.

Because it is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment at which the embryo or fetus becomes human, it is perhaps better to think of the development of the baby as occurring over a number of stages, the first being conception and the last being the moment the umbilical cord is cut. You could then argue that at each new stage, the fetus has moved closer to becoming a human being, and that therefore a greater justification is needed for an abortion.

I would suggest that, on this basis, the 24-week limit generally used in the UK is probably about right. (Abortions can be done after this point, but only on serious medical grounds, ie where continuing the pregnancy may endanger the life or seriously harm the long-term physical health of the mother or baby)


And just to respond to one thing Jacob just said: "She DID have a choice...whether or not to get in bed in the first place."

What is your view in cases of rape, Jacob?

the morning after pill prevent a fertilised egg (embyro, as distinct from a fetus) from attaching to the womb lining. Thus preventing pregnancy.

If you have sex while your partner is just after her period you can have the same effect - the womb lining is not ready for an embryo to attach - this is the rythm method of contraception.

if your contraception fails then taking the morning after pill is responcible, i don't see it as an equivalent to abortion. I do see it as a responcible choice. It is not an alternative to contraception, and shouldn't be used as such, it is an emergency measure when all else fails.

"the 24-week limit generally used in the UK is probably about right."

Probably. Well, this PROBABLY isn't murder, so lets go ahead and do it. Again, you can't get a point in time. It is NOT possible, nor the same for every pregnancy.

@jacob
"2)She DID have a choice...whether or not to get in bed in the first place."
What if i come to your house and fuck the shit of your mother? DOES SHE HAVE A CHOICE ASSHOLE?
@abgemacht
"When you say in all cases, does that include 3rd trimester? What about 1 day before the expected delivery?"
the answer is obvious

I'm generally pro-choice (for want of a better term). However, I do think that abortion has become a lazy form of contraception in many cases, and that we should be aiming to reduce the number of abortions through better use of contraception and abstinence.

For me, the point of no return is when the fetus has a change of surving if 'born' at that point - currently (I believe) somewhere around 22-23 weeks. This should be reviewed regularly as medical science continues to advance.

Denying all abortion is lunacy (I think) - rape, incest and serious risk to the mother's health are all valid reasons for abortion

@hellalt,

Could you try to be a little more constructive? We almost had a legitimate argument here...

And no, it is not obvious. If you say that you can't abort on the 9th month, or the 8th, or the...Why is the 1st week, or 2nd week, or... OK? What justification do you have for drawing the line where you do?

Why is it so difficult to fathom that we have different rights depending on age? We are not born fully formed with every faculty intat, thus at different times we gain the right to hold a gun, drive a car and drink or snort cocaine, (oh and confirm we wish to be part of our Catholic community - in the confirmation ceremony). Different countries have differing cultural standards on when these rights should apply.

when are we full humans entitled to full rights? An equally difficult question is when are we dead? does zero brain activity kept alive by a feeding tube count as alive? Should we have the right to choose when we die?

To get back to Abortion, it is legal in Ireland only in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. That may include the mother being suicidal. This is a generally accepted view, that the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the unborn child. ONLY when the mother choose to refuse medical treatment which will save her but may kill the child would the child survive and the mother not.

I think it is fair to say that since the unborn child is dependant on the mother for survival it is the mother choice whether to keep it alive or not. Practically this is the case, as pointed out by 3.) if a mother so chooses there is very little a state can do to prevent an aboriton occuring, they can only make it safer for the mother.

That still leaves the question of when should a woman choose or not choose an abortion. It is her choice, it has to be.

I'm going to try to respond briefly to the OP's points

"1. If woman is raped and impregnated, why should she be forced to have her whole life altered by having to raise a child she did not want, a living reminder of the sexual assault she suffered? The answer is that she should not, she should be allowed to have an abortion."

>This is such a sall percentage of abortions that I would like to see the debate framed around the normal types of abortion, not around a very rare and unique situation. I do not agree with abortion even in this case, and I realize that on the surface that may sound harsh, but I think this should probably even be a different debate which would be a subset of the one in which we are currently engaged.

"2. If you use contraception, but it fails to work effectively (a condom breaks, for example) should you be punished for that? No you should not - you acted sensibly and responsibly, and if the woman falls pregnant she should be allowed an abortion - at least in the early stages of pregnancy"

>Congratulations, you just made my jaw hit the floor. Can you really be serious?? Maybe we should tell all those nasty infectious diseases that they are only allowed to infect us if we fail to use protection. After all, if a condom breaks we were still acting responsibly... The point is that all contraceptive measures have an inherent failure rate that you accept as an acceptable risk when you use it. You still have to be prepared to deal with the results shohuld they fail. This is the worst argument in your list in my opinion.

"3. If you ban abortions, many desperate women will still find ways to have back-alley abortions, seriously endangering their health."

>This argument is silly as well. We could apply your reasoning to legalizing drug use. What about all those meth labs that have exploded and killed or injured people. Those poor meth manufacturers with back-alley labs wouldn't have to face that if they could have legal, safe labs... There's probably a lot more to be said here, but I'm going to try to finish responding to your other points.

"4. A child's upbringing, especially in the early years, is very important, in my view, to their future life. Forcing women to give birth to unwanted children, in circumstances where the mother is often not prepared or ready to bring up a child, gives a child such a poor start in life it is hardly fair to bring them into that situation"

>This fails to understand the intrinsic value of life. Your argument could easily be applied to children who are born with disabilities. Under your reasoning those parents are cruel for allowing their child to grow up in a situation that is hardly fair to them. Maybe we should just kill them all... Do you think that children with disabilities are glad to be alive? Yes! They are! Your argument here is simply rubbish.

"5. A fetus is not a person, in the same way that an individual sperm or egg is not a person. It is a potential person, but it is not a person yet. Therefore to give it all the same rights as a person is misguided."

>Let's follow your logic here. You said earlier that this fetus is alive. So what you're saying here is that we have an alive, non-person, potential person. If it is not a person then why should it become a person? Why can't it become something else? This is ridiculous of course - it will always become a person because it IS a person. If it is not a person then you have to answer the question, "What are the defining characteristics of personhood." Try it. Is it the ability to breathe? Is it the ability to be self-sustaining? If those are your requirements then we should enact legislation to go kill all those non-persons living in nursing homes that are such a high health care burden. You see, you open yourself up to craziness and implications that you do NOT want when you try to define a fetus as a non-person. Oh man...go ahead and respond to this - you are waay out on thin ice with this argument - I don't think you've thought through the implications of your statement...

Well, I guess that will do for starters. I tend to get a bit passionate when I talk about this so I hope I didn't offend you jamie. I really do appreciate you bringing up the debate.

I also would like to point out that child raising is one of the most important parts of an individuals life, and if you really care about life - and i mean every life and the quality of it - you wouldn't be so quick to refuse those lifes medical treatment (Universal health care) or so quick to have them brought into poverty.

I would surmise that only certain adults should have the right to have children. (not practical) You should have to pass some test like a drivers license. (of course being able to take this test during the 9 months of pregnancy would be acceptbale in my mind) This could improve the quality of life of all our children and change the world for the better (while only risking complete state control of everything meaningful in life - who is with me on enforced sterilisation and controlled breeding programs?)

"I think it is fair to say that since the unborn child is dependant on the mother for survival it is the mother choice whether to keep it alive or not. Practically this is the case, as pointed out by 3.) if a mother so chooses there is very little a state can do to prevent an aboriton occuring, they can only make it safer for the mother."

Dependency/Independency is not a good criteria for evaluating whether someone has the right to live.

For goodness sakes, my 6yr old and 2yr old are dependant on me! My grandmother was dependant on my parents when she lived with them for the last few years of her life. If you are going to cling to the dependency argument then you have to be willing to say that we can kill anyone who is dependant on us because they aren't really a person.

"I would surmise that only certain adults should have the right to have children. (not practical) You should have to pass some test like a drivers license. (of course being able to take this test during the 9 months of pregnancy would be acceptbale in my mind) This could improve the quality of life of all our children and change the world for the better (while only risking complete state control of everything meaningful in life - who is with me on enforced sterilisation and controlled breeding programs?)"

Please tell me this is sarcasm and that you are not serious.

"3. If you ban abortions, many desperate women will still find ways to have back-alley abortions, seriously endangering their health."

">This argument is silly as well. We could apply your reasoning to legalizing drug use. What about all those meth labs that have exploded and killed or injured people. Those poor meth manufacturers with back-alley labs wouldn't have to face that if they could have legal, safe labs... "

Actually i agree with you there. Legalizing a drug would then bring it under consumer protection laws, where if you took contaminated drugs they could be traced back to the supplier and they would face charges ranging from negligance to murder.

This is something i use in arguements to legalize cannabis, along with the social benifits of moving the drug into the tax net, and moving the profits out of the hands of criminal gangs, (only licensed dealers who have no criminal record perhaps)

That is to say, it is a valid arguement, where the drug in question does less damage than alcohol, and only to the individual concerned (it is less likely than a cannabis user will get into a fight on the street after a night on the town because - unlike alcohol - does not encourage violent behaviour.)

In the case of abortion you have to look at the potential damage/risk to the woman and value that somewhere. Are you saying a mother's life isn't as valuable if she is willing to break the law?