"the woman's womb is a biological machine designed to sustain a life"????
I don't think so!!!! Are you for real buddy?
LOL when you GROW one of your very own, you can have an opion on that, alrighty?

"Paternal rights? You gave those up when you decided to impregnate a woman who would need to resort to abortion because she is either mentally, physically or emotionally unable to have a child. Simple as that."

Wow, so only weak women have abortions.

Sorry I didn't read all posts here, so maybe this was written before.

In Germany we have a (in my eyes quite good) law on abortion that says that the fetus mustn't be older then 12 weeks AND the woman had to share some advice offered by an official consultancy. This would state that from week 13 on it is murder... which I do not agree (will talk about that later on) and that abortion without questioning the moral of it would be illegal as well (which I think is very important!). The consultancy thing, thining of what you are about to do, what may follow, what alternatives you might have, I think is very important as it won't be a everydays choice to make (at least in most cases I hope so).
Then there are two exceptions in German law: childs from rape and danger for the mother-to-be's live or health in general.

For everyone that is talking here: have you ever seen how an abortion is performed? Esp. the "aspiration"... imagine a sort of vacuum cleaner being used to suck the fetus out. If the fetus is too big already to be sucked, you have to cut it into pieces before aspiration. Medical approaches also exist, but they fail if the fetus is too big and mostly have side effects. And, refering to the German Wikipedia, they have a 5% chance of failure in general, and have to be followed by an operation.

So in my eyes an early abortion should be legal if the woman has a really good reason to not having the child. Like rape, illness, or I would also count strong social criteria. But a simple "no, it is my body and I decide what to do with it!" or "the baby would overburden me and my future life" are not enough in my eyes to get a chance of a free choice over weeks and months.
In northern America and Europa and Japan etc there is enough knowledge about contraception and there always would be the option of an early abortion if contraception failed (and if legalized some day...).

So now to the question: from when on is it human life? Having studied a life science I can handle the definition of the word "life" in general. That is:
- having metabolism of any sort
- having a clear structured body of any sort (a cell is enough for that definition)
- beeing able to grow and multiply
So, an egg cell that was fertilized is a living organism. The egg cell itself is not...
And the word human comes into play as soon as the most important skill of higher organismns is born: feeling (pain, happyness, warmth, etc.).
And this is something that could be tested without killing the fetus before an abortion is performed, I think.
And yes, there is some time point when a fetus starts feeling pain. It can recognize what is done to him during abortion...

Beside all this I think that legalization of abortion will not increase the numbre of aborts performed. It just starts to count them by some serious statistic and makes them public.

>So, an egg cell that was fertilized is a living organism. The egg cell itself is not...

Actually, an unfertilised egg is already a living cell. It has a metabolism, and it is able to multiply if it can find a mate (a sperm cell). To say that it is not alive because it is haploid and needs more DNA before it can divide is to say that a drone bee is not alive.

I'm glad that nobody has brought up the canard that a fertilised egg is an "individual" since it has a complete set of DNA. It is certainly not an individual, since it can be divided; this is where identitcal twins come from.

So why do I mention this at all? Anyone arguing for or against the right to kill blastocysts should also know about chimerism and parasitic twinning. Look 'em up, you'll see just how weird those little guys can get!

(I should have phrased that better to make it clear that I meant what weird things the blastocysts can do, not how weird they can be. Plenty of ordinary adult humans are chimeras or have parasitic twins, and I don't think that anybody would want to attack their rights on the grounds that they are weird.)

The surest way to reduce the occurence of abortion is to promote sex education, including both the benefits of abstinence of the practical usage of contraception. I wish that the religious right here in the U.S. understood that. Planned Parenthood prevents more pregancies than it facilitates abortions.

(I'll shut up now.)

Jacob, I never said religious belief. I just said belief. It can't be debated and compromised like the merits of our tax system, people just fall on one side or the other. That is all.

@ Jacob: In response to my question on the issue of whether a woman who is raped should be allowed an abortion if this impregnates her, you say:

"This is such a small 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."

So first you establish that you think rape is a special case, but then you go on to say that your opinion is exactly the same even in this special case.

I specifically wanted to include the case of rape because I was interested in whether your view held that abortion should be banned in all cases, no matter what the circumstances. So I do think it forms a valid part of this debate.

Why DO you think rape victims should not be allowed abortions if the rapist impregnates them?


On the issue of using contraception, but the contraception failing to prevent pregnancy - you, and others, are right to point out that this is a weak argument. I accept your argument, and am happy to withdraw this part of my argument.



In response to my point 3. (If you ban abortions, many desperate women will still find ways to have back-alley abortions, seriously endangering their health.) you say:

"This argument is silly as well. We could apply your reasoning to legalizing drug use."

I think that there are in fact strong arguments for allowing the use of certain currently illegal recreational drugs, and the fact that it would bring health benefits to drug addicts is certainly one of them. So I am going to stand by this point.


My point 4 is open to criticism as well and I will withdraw that too.


Finally your comments on my point 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.)

You say:

"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?"

A rose bush is alive, and not a person. A plankton is alive, and not a person. It will not become a person. This does not mean it is not alive. Not all living things are people.

"This is ridiculous of course - it will always become a person because it IS a person."

What if it dies first at a very early stage in the pregnancy? Due to a natural miscarriage, for example? In that case, it never became 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..."

This IS a very difficult question to answer, yes, but that doesn't mean that we should not try to answer it, nor that it is impossible to answer. I have made an attempt to begin to do so in my post at 1.59pm above.

@ Persephone:

Are you for real? Paternal rights don't go away because you impregnate someone. Perhaps other rights supersede them, like the right of the mother to live, for example, if the baby threatens her life, but they do not go away. And why is it the mans fault when he impregnates the woman? Is it not equally the woman's fault?

I'm seriously done talking to you, because all you make is blanket statements. Like DJ said, if your view on abortion comes down to a blanket statement, you're a bigot, a moron, or both.

As Centurian said a long time ago: Abortion is a belief question. Not a debate question.

I can shout when I believe "life" begins all I want, and you can shout it back at me, but we're never, ever going to convince each other. So lets not do that.

I'm disappointed that no one responded to my points about paternal rights, which I think are the thing that is lacking in the abortion debate. Fathers should not be forced to pay child support for a child that they didn't want, if mothers have the option of aborting that fetus if they want to. That is simply not fair, as are a number of permutations of that situation.

RLumley,
That last paragraph of yours is silly. If you don't want that risk, don't have sex. Asking a woman to undergo a serious medical procedure (which is what it is) with possible psychological and physical side affects for your financial benefit?

Not at all DJ... Simply allow the father to opt out of child support payments if the mother refuses to have an abortion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Criticism_of_child_support_policies

Again RLumley, you want to force someone to have a medical procedure for your financial benefit. That's distasteful.

I'm more into the thought that potential-fathers should have a say in the abortion debate, even if it is a minor one compared to the potential-mother's, in cases where the mother wants the abortion but the father does not. That's not to say equal rights in the matter, because the mother obviously has more of a stake in the pregnancy than the father, but to have the male half of the equation completely ignored because he is not the one carrying the child is rather unfair.

Someone said it earlier in the thread, but the words 'it takes two to tango' have to work for both sides of the coupling if we are to live in a truly free society.

How does that force them to have an abortion? It doesn't... at all.

Forgive me. It gives them financial pressure to have an abortion. You took the risk having sex. You have to deal with the consequences. Next time, ask these questions before you have sex.

thats a mood killer

So is a screaming infant :P

I'd like to correct your statement. It doesn't give them financial pressure to have an abortion. It gives them more financial pressure.

And why do men have no choice in the matter? If a woman wants to have an abortion for financial means, she should be able to. (I don't actually believe that, but I'm not arguing my beliefs here.)

There is no way to make the two genders equal. But there are ways of making them less biased. The subject of paternal rights is completely overlooked when it comes to abortion. If you'd like to look at it and say that you think that other rights supersede it, then that's fine I guess. I disagree, but that's ok. We can disagree. But almost never do I see the issue of paternal rights even discussed, and that, in my opinion, is wrong.

I have to admit guys i don't get why we're arguing this. If you're anti-abortion then just don't have an abortion but for those of us who would consider it if the need occured then it is available to us. I just don't understand why people need to butt into other peoples beliefs. Anti-aborton is YOUR belief, lots of people feel differently and should have the option, they still might not take it.

Maybe that's the English way of looking at it - everyone has the right to their own beliefs and own choices!

RLumley,
Its kind of funny. You want the men to have a say and to have rights, but you also want to allow them to walk away if they choose without responsibility. How can you ask for both?

I don't... I want them to have a say, and the option to sign that say away with no future obligations.

^ hahahahahaa omfriggingod rlumley

You really don't see the contradiction?

No. I don't. Will you please explain it to me?

@ Biddis: What a constructive statement.

As to the post where you actually made a point, your argument doesn't stand. Presuming that you believe that Abortion is murder, would you really sit around and not care about people murdering others? You can't just say that it's their choice, because that's begging the question of being pro choice...

You want the right to interfere with a woman's life because of the consequences of her actions (having sex with you), but you don't want her to be able to interfere with your life because of the consequences of your actions (fathering a child).