The older I get the more amazed I become on the efforts of societies to make laws governing what women can, and cannot do, with their bodies.  Amazing me even more is that some women are either ambivalent, or even support this trend.  It isn't just abortion in itself.  Dress codes, moral conduct, birth control and the right to participate in government, all work hand in hand. Where you have one 'woman regulation' you have many.  The effort to control women and what they do with their bodies is self perpetuating. If allowed unchecked, all women will be required to wear burkas.

Agreed snugglebuck.. then religion gets its say on contraception or not..

I think abortion on tap might not be the way to go. we'd a referendum last year.  the UK stats were dispayed on posters, something like 70% of pregnancies are terminated

A woman owns her body, I mean it goes without saying on any given day, but does the woman own the life  which grows within her body is the question.

I would say no, she is the guardian of the life

another question might be, when does the fetus become alive and concious enough to 'suffer death' because if alive and concious we are talking about 'somebody' and if somebody is killed then its murder


That said, no one has a diffinitive answer about life and conciousness, so i cant make an informed decision on whats what...

What I don't understand is why abortion is considered something that the government ought to have control over. I think it's wonderful that people spend time talking, giving each other moral/ethical advice about how to respond to pregnancies and expressing their concerns about what is right, safe, etc. But in what universe is it the government's job to prevent women from undergoing this medical procedure?
I understand the argument that abortion is essentially murder, and it is the government's job to prevent murder and unnecessary death. However, murder implies destruction of a life, the removal of a soul from this world. Who is to say what is the definition of life, who is to say when the soul enters the body? Various cultures and religions have different answers: upon conception, several months after conception, upon the infant's first breath, etc. Even in science it is difficult to pin down an exact definition, and this isn't something straightforward like observing gravity affect an apple. I therefore propose that this is a spiritual or religious matter.
I'm guessing this question is being debated mainly in an American context because I know it to be a divisive hot topic here; forgive me if that isn't so. While the first settlors of America were devout followers of a few specific religions which would certainly have agreed that abortion is a sin, the general and legal agreement was that people should have the right to practice their religion, whatever it may be. From history I may also recall a division between church and state: ie, that the law need not necessarily follow religious values.
I propose that the question of when "life" begins cannot be answered the same way by every person, or every culture or religion or scientific or belief system followed by the people in this country. When a question this important is answered differently by members of society, it is the duty of our government to allow each group to define and respond to the issue in their own way. I consider this to be the heart of religious freedom.
In other words, if a person's culture doesn't accept abortion, they can stick to their values and choose not to have one. But if another person's culture does accept it or has different traditions concerning when it is acceptable, why shouldn't they have the right to follow their beliefs in that regard?
As for my personal opinion, I think the primary thing to consider is this: when abortions are illegal, many women (out of desperation, shame, or other overpowering emotions) choose to attempt abortions anyways. The methods they choose are generally unsafe and can result in death or birth defects. This has been a historical fact for hundreds, probably thousands of years. Supposing you believe that abortion is wrong, what good does a law against it do if it does not actually prevent desperate women from choosing abortion? Even if some women are deterred, is it not a tragedy for each one who is not? If legality saves the lives of women who would choose abortion no matter its legal standing--because the medical procedure is safe compare to other options--isn't that also preventing unnecessary death?
A final point: let's also consider that these days, so many people are non-religious or follow modern, reformed religions that it doesn't make sense for the laws to conform to the values of only the strictest belief systems. If there is actually a  separation of church and state, then this essentially religious question ought to be treated like other religious questions: with tolerance, and with room for each to follow their traditions without interference. The government is supposedly here to serve all the people, not just the ones with the strictest traditions.

Humans create and destroy what hey create all the time, especially when hey realize they've made a mistake. Some people wait for their child to be born and then start destroying their children. I'd rather a child be aborted before birth than ruined by ruthless abusing parents or parent.

If you are against abortion for religious reasons, have that same faith you give to God in your own life that God will take care of the issue upon the day he judges the parents who abort heir creation. Or is your faith so questionable that you don't think God will do his job?

A woman's body belongs to her. I don't think anyone should have the right to force her to have a child, especially if she has been raped and possibly does not want to report. I was molested twice as a child but never reported it, but I can't get pregnant. I personally know four women, close friends, who were raped numerous times by either their father, brother or uncle and got pregnant and had abortions. Three ex-girlfriends of mine were raped by family members but did not get pregnant. Would you force them to give birth if hey had?

Women or girls must have a right o choose. It will be up to God to decide if they are to blame. I think God is not so much a control freak as humans...

JJ

A person who is strongly pro choice,
often will adopt strong vegan tendancies.
Feeling sorry for how the little chickens
don't have a good existence, then are
merciless lee slaughtered, projecting
what happened to their own unborn baby
at the doctors office, onto the farm animals.

I do. Ive been put in a situation where it was life or death, and many people say this is "special circumstances" but honestly many women find themselves in this situation, healthy or not. With recent event in the US and with the supreme court hearing, and the debacle with Brock Turner a couple years ago, I hear often that one mistake in a young man's life shouldn't ruin his future, and yet that is exactly what we expect of women.

What someone else does behind closed doors..wrong or right. What control do you or I even have? If someone wants to do something ..they are gonna do it.. unfortunately the ones who suffer either live with the abuse or leave.. if they get pregnant by their father then the baby won't live much of a life.. they will be deformed in many ways . Women have their own body.. just too bad they get abused by others and have to resort to an abortion.  Or they abort because of other reasons.. Religion is a flailing belief.. I bet tomorrow they say it's ok.. then the next day it isnt.. life is what it is.. or sometimes what it isn't.

HaiItsMo said:If no, what about in the case of rape or sexual assault?
If no, what if the person is going to die?
If no, what the baby is dead already?
If yes, why do you think that?

I fundamentally do not believe because a woman was raped that she is allowed to kill a baby. Evil is not corrected by more evil.

If it is a case of the mother dying, yes the mother's life should be prioritized. However, not only is this less than a percent of abortions, it is also almost never the case as abortions take long enough to the point where the mother is likely to die by the time the abortion is carried out and therefore it is better to treat the mother rather than kill her baby.

If the baby is already dead, it's not an abortion because there is no life to abort.

I think that abortion should be illegal because I believe that a baby is a human life and that life begins when there is a separate lifeform in your body and that it is cruel, unethical, and absolutely abominable to end an innocent life.

Ralph_Tamez said:What someone else does behind closed doors..wrong or right. What control do you or I even have? If someone wants to do something ..they are gonna do it.. unfortunately the ones who suffer either live with the abuse or leave.. if they get pregnant by their father then the baby won't live much of a life.. they will be deformed in many ways . Women have their own body.. just too bad they get abused by others and have to resort to an abortion.  Or they abort because of other reasons.. Religion is a flailing belief.. I bet tomorrow they say it's ok.. then the next day it isnt.. life is what it is.. or sometimes what it isn't.

Even if the parents can't provide for the child, that isn't an argument to kill it. If the government can't help poor people, should poor people be executed on mass through the streets?

If the parents can't provide for them, there are alternatives to abortion, one being adoption. Either way, rape is rarely the cause for abortion so it's a statistical non-fact anyway.

The only major religions that mildly supports abortion is Islam and Hinduism  whereas Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism all believe abortion to be immoral and even Hinduism only considers it in the case of the mother's health or if the baby is malformed. Since most countries where abortion is a severe ethical issue are mostly western, traditionally Christian countries, abortion is unacceptable amongst most people.

rabbitquest said:A person who is strongly pro choice,
often will adopt strong vegan tendancies.
Feeling sorry for how the little chickens
don't have a good existence, then are
merciless lee slaughtered, projecting
what happened to their own unborn baby
at the doctors office, onto the farm animals.


No, one is a human and one is an animal. Biologically, standing as one species rather than being interspecies is the best course of action for moral and practical dilemmas. As a pro-life person, I find being pro-life has more choice than "pro-choice" which is just the Left's word for "pro-abortion". Also, I love meat and I will not stop eating meat just to satisfy your fantasy.

Suoaei said:What I don't understand is why abortion is considered something that the government ought to have control over. I think it's wonderful that people spend time talking, giving each other moral/ethical advice about how to respond to pregnancies and expressing their concerns about what is right, safe, etc. But in what universe is it the government's job to prevent women from undergoing this medical procedure?
I understand the argument that abortion is essentially murder, and it is the government's job to prevent murder and unnecessary death. However, murder implies destruction of a life, the removal of a soul from this world. Who is to say what is the definition of life, who is to say when the soul enters the body? Various cultures and religions have different answers: upon conception, several months after conception, upon the infant's first breath, etc. Even in science it is difficult to pin down an exact definition, and this isn't something straightforward like observing gravity affect an apple. I therefore propose that this is a spiritual or religious matter.
I'm guessing this question is being debated mainly in an American context because I know it to be a divisive hot topic here; forgive me if that isn't so. While the first settlors of America were devout followers of a few specific religions which would certainly have agreed that abortion is a sin, the general and legal agreement was that people should have the right to practice their religion, whatever it may be. From history I may also recall a division between church and state: ie, that the law need not necessarily follow religious values.
I propose that the question of when "life" begins cannot be answered the same way by every person, or every culture or religion or scientific or belief system followed by the people in this country. When a question this important is answered differently by members of society, it is the duty of our government to allow each group to define and respond to the issue in their own way. I consider this to be the heart of religious freedom.
In other words, if a person's culture doesn't accept abortion, they can stick to their values and choose not to have one. But if another person's culture does accept it or has different traditions concerning when it is acceptable, why shouldn't they have the right to follow their beliefs in that regard?
As for my personal opinion, I think the primary thing to consider is this: when abortions are illegal, many women (out of desperation, shame, or other overpowering emotions) choose to attempt abortions anyways. The methods they choose are generally unsafe and can result in death or birth defects. This has been a historical fact for hundreds, probably thousands of years. Supposing you believe that abortion is wrong, what good does a law against it do if it does not actually prevent desperate women from choosing abortion? Even if some women are deterred, is it not a tragedy for each one who is not? If legality saves the lives of women who would choose abortion no matter its legal standing--because the medical procedure is safe compare to other options--isn't that also preventing unnecessary death?
A final point: let's also consider that these days, so many people are non-religious or follow modern, reformed religions that it doesn't make sense for the laws to conform to the values of only the strictest belief systems. If there is actually a  separation of church and state, then this essentially religious question ought to be treated like other religious questions: with tolerance, and with room for each to follow their traditions without interference. The government is supposedly here to serve all the people, not just the ones with the strictest traditions.


Scientifically, life is born at conception and develops during the stage when it is within the womb. This is agreed upon in the medical community as the common standard for life. People who are pro-abortion argue that life begins at birth which, while socially true, is not scientifically true. Biology says that when a new cell that is completely separate from your body and has it's own nerves, tissue, and DNA, it is a living organism. Also, note that abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks in some places in which case the baby looks like this:

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>

1. It is statistically untrue that your neighborhood Harley Quinn is the one having abortions. Most of abortions are performed on middle-aged women who are above the poverty line and have little correlation to crime.

2. The fact that you think that ABORTION leads to less crime is risible and staggering at the same time. The reason crime has been on the decline is due to increased police activity, less police corruption, and more gun ownership. Why is this logically correct? Maybe because people are less likely to commit crime if they think that the person they are about to mug might have a 9mm and blast them in the face? Maybe? This is honestly the most unsubstantiated argument in abortion I have ever seen.

3. Women aren't as much risk as you think. Just don't abort your baby and maybe your suicide rates won't go up after you realize that you just KILLED YOUR BABY.

I have many very close Friends who have had abortions and have felt poorly (guilty or worse) and confided in me because we're close friends and because they know of my zen Buddhist and witchcraft beliefs.  
That said, for me, it would depend on Your spiritual belief construct.  I am pro-choice because I believe all life has an energy and it's almost soul-like.   So, let's say I had a Rebirth and I am an energy not yet a fetus or a fetus but not yet fully conscious of such, and the birth mom changes her mind (or whatever reason) decides to end the birth -- it only means, me, as the energy getting to be rebirthed GETS an opportunity to get rebirthed anew and somewhere else.  No harm to anyone.

Having an upbringing with Christianity, I understand the conflict with many women (and men).  

But for me,
there is NO conflict -- only peace.