I hear you MC and I respect what you say. Hopefully I've addressed what you've said in my previous posts as others raised the same questions.

As for what's being argued for - yes, that's what we all look like in the beginning. I included a link to an actual abortion earlier in the thread and I'll repost it here (it is gruesome).

http://jesushateschrist.com/Media/Vi...hoiceBlues.wmv

Under your care they would die huh? And what on earth do you think happens to fetus' that become children born to those that do not have the resources to care for them? (in some cases) It's not just black and white, there are so many variables that it is really hard to debate rape, incest etc...there is also mental illness, drug addicts and plenty more reasons to be pro choice or at least pro thought!

So, if every woman carried a fetus to full term rather than abort it, and then give it up there would be enough resources from society to care for these children? Please! I hate to break it to you, but society does NOT have the resources to care for every being in North America. If that was the case, there wouldn't be poverty issues etc...And why is it society's responsibility to care for these children? I am not trying to sound heartless, but come on, think about it.

Do you have any idea how many children actually get adopted vs how many children go through the system and are wards of the court until they are 18 years old? I didn't think so. Do you have any idea what it would feel like to grow up in a system, get shuffled around and have absolutely nobody care for you?

In the majority of cases foster care SUCKS. Do you have any clue on the suicide rate of those in foster care? The rate of drug addicts and or alcoholics in foster care? How about the rate of those that are in and out of jail while in foster care? Those that live a life of crime just to survive while in foster care?

It seems easy for you to say 'Oh, just have it and give it up, who cares of someone adopts it, it will go into foster care.'....Or how about this '9 months isn't a lot of time to carry a baby, you can quit your job, if you have one, go through everything that comes a long with having a baby, pay for the doctors visits because chances are you have no insurance, pay for the hospital stay, and pray that you don't need any extra medical attention due to a difficult pregnancy, OH and then you can just hand it over. And don't worry, it shouldn't affect your mental health once all is said and done.' Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

I am pro-choice, however, I am against abortion as a form of birth control. I don't believe that someone else has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body. And please, I have heard enough about "what about the child, it doesn't have a choice" It is NOT a child.

Ofcourse you are ignoring the main point in my post. All you see is the 'cruelty' of the thing. Typical. I have seen an abortion for having living one; and you know what? to tell you the truth, I have also seen women giving birth and let me tell you that THIS scared the shit out of me and made me react in a much less positive way then aborting a 40 days embryo. Another point; if you ask women all around you, did you know that more then 3 women out of 5 have had an abortion? Now this is living in a place where contraceptives are easy to get... I what kindof ratio it is in certain countries. Now if all of these babies would've been brought into this world, I wonder how it would be really.

Source? There's NO way 60% of women have had an abortion.

I provided examples of when I think abortion is probably necessary earlier in the thread. I suppose that makes me pro-choice, but I see my reasons as much more limited and strict to most on the pro-choice side.

There are scientists who argue we can feed the entire world. It's not a matter of not having resources, it's the distribution of those resources that's lacking. Society advocates that everybody has certain rights so we're responsible for ensuring those rights are adhered to, which means taking care of those children. It is the other attitude that has also made poverty possible.

No, I don't know. Do you? Are those reasons to end the life? What about those who are not drug addicts and not involved in crime?

I understand that it's life altering, but I still couldn't use that to justify the killing.

Why are you against abortion as a form of birth control?

Mike you seem to conveniently overlook the point that has been put forth here in several posts that the foster care and adoption systems in most communities are already overburdened. Why?

Making comments like "...I don't have the resources to feed, shelter, and cloth them. But as a society we do.

...I didn't say they had to keep it - I said to let it be born and give it into foster care."

is a bit (as in extremely) naive and irresponsible in my opinion.

When the day comes that foster care workers and adoption agencies are reporting that they can easily handled 1000's more kids.... well nevermind, I just don't see that ever happening. At least not in this lifetime. Do you?

This is going to be like clapping with one hand. Where there is one or a few scientist to advocate one opinion of fact there is always going to be others that can refute it and debate on other given facts.

I don't believe that the other attitude has made poverty possible, there are governments to thank for that as well as other contributing factors, again, it is not black and white.

And yes, I do have statistics for Canada, and believe me, it's not pretty! The point is, is that there is PRO-LIFE and PRO-CHOICE and whatever a persons reason is for having an abortion is their own. Who am I to say that one persons reason is not a good enough reason. Most times women abort with plenty of reason, whether it's good enough for me, is not my business.

And yes, I can see that you couldn't use it to justify it because you will NEVER be in that position.

Because abortion is not a form of birth control, that's why.

And please stop over looking the Foster Care system that everyone keeps mentioning that you neglect to acknowledge!

As has been pointed out the poll is retarded at best as the subject is way more complicated than 2 choices, not least of which is time limit for those that do favour some kind of abortion option being available.

That said it's another of those subjects that many outside of the USA shake their head in disbelief at. The head shaking is simply because it's a non-issue for much of the rest of the developed world as the decision is left to the individuals it effects. The few exceptions such as the ROI have religion poking its unwanted nose in. Most other countries understand the basic difference between an undeveloped fetus and a person as it's hardly rocket science, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.

The only true debate IMHO is where the cutoff date should be not if it should exist at all.

Who are you to say that a peson should not use it as birth control? Like you said, if it's a good enough reason for them, then what is the problem?

As far as foster care, I've tried to address that previously by stating perhaps that needs to be more of a priority. Noth America and the developed world use some 90% of the world's resources. Of course we could feed everybody in North America.

No, you don't understand my point. Let me explain what you missed.

You are defending the rights of "potential". Now, sperm cells and egg cells have "potential". Using condoms, you destroy that "potential". After all, without condoms, all other things being equal, a woman might get pregnant from sex. And yes, this potential is unique and the beginning of life as well, and yes, all of us were this kind of potential once as well.

See how your arguments make using condoms "wrong" as well? Clearly, there must be something wrong with those arguments.

Luckily, it is quite easy to point out exactly what is wrong with your arguments: you are basing moral rights on fuzzy concepts like "uniqueness", "the cycle of life" and "the beginning of life".

The cycle of life is NOT a moral concept. Yes, there is something that could be described as "the cycle of life", but it is simple biology. Nothing moral or spiritual about it.

Now, about miscarriages, my point there is that they are not as tragic as an actual person dying, since an actual person has a higher moral value than an embryo. The analogy here is that if abortion is "killing a child", then a miscarriage is "a child dying" - and no, that analogy does not work, because an embryo isn't a child yet.

As for endangered species dying... we're talking about risking an entire species there. We don't protect those eggs because of the intrinsic value of those eggs (if they were chicken eggs, they'd be an omelette), but because destroying those eggs could contribute to the entire species disappearing forever. Little risk of that happening with humans, now is there?

Pro-choice here!

The government should keep its big nose out of women's reproductive decisions.

Jesus. I am not saying that they should or shouldn't use it as a form of birth control, I said that I didn't agree and am against it being used as a form of birth control. Why? Common sense, that's why. If a person chooses to have umpteen abortions rather than take the pill (or use another form of BC), I don't agree with it. But again, it is their choice, why? Because we have one. Abortion is there as sort of a last resort or at least that is my view on it. Not an irresposible/lazy mans birth control.

I addressed this already. A sperm is not a human life nor is an egg. Only the union of a sperm and an egg begin the human life cycle. What you call potential is merely a human in it's earliest stage of development.

I agree totally. There is no need or room for spirituality in the discussion. Religious folk need not apply.

I'll take your word for that. I've never had a miscarriage and don't know what it's like. Many ppl are very distraught over having experienced a miscarriage.

Correct, but the point stands that the egg is the bird and that's why we protect it. Without the former you cannot have the latter. It's the bird cycle of life. You can't have the butterfly without the caterpillar, or the frog without the tadpole.

Using it as a form of birth control isn't for you, but you agree that it is fine for others. Understood.

I see other forms of birth control as prevention methods whereas abortion is an after-the-fact method, and thus inherently different.

No, she said she does NOT agree that it's a GOOD choice for someone, lol. It's not hard to comprehend :)

But again, what about fertility clinics throwing embryo's in the trash? When faced with the question of embryoinc stem cell research, most "pro-life" (anti-choice?) politicians say they're against it. But when asked if therefore they will close down fertility clinics they wont commit to it. Why? Politics.

In other words IMHO in the national discussion sense, the abortion issue is useless. It's a personal thing for everyone. If woman A is pro-life, she will carry to term. If woman B is pro-choice, she may abort her pregnancy.

Thats how it should be :)

No. I didn't say that it was fine for others, I said that I didn't agree with it and am against it. However, it is their choice and not my business. And that is YOUR opinion on whether or not it is different. You have to let others have their views and stop trying to correct them or beat a dead horse over certain issues. Not to mention your selective reading and understanding of certain statements. An abortion is a prevention of birth ergo Birth control. Again, that is my view, belief and opinion and entitled to those.

Anyway, I have work to do. I am not here to debate nor change your views, just stating my opinion for what it's worth :) Have a great day!

You're contradicting yourself here, although only implicitly.

You see, without spirituality, the "human life cycle" is a morally empty concept. There is no a priori reason why we should not fuck with it - the reason we do not fuck with human lives (and I'm not talking mere potential here) is because their are conscious beings with the ability to suffer.

Moreover, and especially considering that what makes a human is nature plus nurture, not merely a specific set of genes, one could just as easily say that the earliest stage of development of a human is its parents meeting for the first time, in a specific cultural context. Or the moment the first life form started existing, for that matter.

You treat "human life", arbitrarily defined, as something sacred, rather than looking at characteristics of human life that make it valuable.

Yes, just like many people are very distraught over having an abortion. However, usually, those who have miscarriages are not quite as distraught as those who get to watch their children die, while those who have abortions generally are in a rather different mental state than those who murder their children.

Ehm, no. We don't protect the egg because it is the bird, we protect the egg because it is essential for the species to survive.
Likewise, we protect the forest in which the bird lives, not because it is the bird, but because it is essential for the species to survive.
Likewise, we bring members of an endangered species together to breed, not because they are their offspring, but because we want their offspring to come into existence, which is essential for the species to survive.

If you eat an egg, you didn't eat a bird. You ate an egg. That egg, if fertilized, could have become a bird, but it didn't, because you ate it. Nevertheless, you didn't eat a bird, you merely prevented a bird from coming into existence.

Besides, a fetus isn't even a fucking conscious lifeform yet.


It's like cutting out a wart.

Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others.

Without reading the thread, I felt I should make it known that I am anti-abortion, and anti-life. Sterilize the populace, I say.

We should kill bad parents instead.

there r many reasons why abortions are needed, i think it would only be fitting of the times. Life nowadays seems to have presented many more problems of that nature.

I'm BOTH! I hate the idea of abortions, but I don't think the matter is simple enough for the governments to make a single decision that applies to each and every person.