fast

It may be the case that anti-abortion laws generally and unsuccessfully prevent abortions; I have no idea about the truth of that matter, but I do know that anti-abortion laws compel people under the jurisdiction of those laws to not have abortions, and I know this because what laws do is compel.

Not only do laws compel us to act (or refrain from acting), but the mere believing that an act is wrong is a compelling force in itself that also compels us to not act wrongly (or act, in the case we believe that an act is morally righteous).

That a law or belief compels us to act as we might not otherwise act is not to say that a law or belief necessarily prevents us from acting wrongly, of course, for it is the case that there are those that believe abortion is wrong yet have an abortion nevertheless, and it is the case that there are those that have abortions in areas where there are legal prohibitions against those that would abort an unborn fetus.

In summary, although I agree with you that laws do not prevent most abortions, I would be remiss to not make mention of the fact that anti-abortion laws do compel us to act in ways that we might not otherwise act had it not been for the laws. Not us, but rather those under the jurisdiction of said laws.

The issue I'm having is that of compatibility. Is it indeed compatible that I can believe abortions are wrong and hold a pro-choice political position? I believe the answer to be yes, but I'm hazy on why that is the case.

To illustrate, I believe it's wrong to kill people over drugs, and I am for laws preventing others from killing people over drugs. I suppose there are those that could believe it's wrong to kill people over drugs yet be opposed to the enactment of laws preventing others from killing people over drugs, but such an opposition is counterintuitive.

One thing comes to mind, as I eluded to in the original post, is that weighing the pros and cons of the alternatives.

In the case of abortion, I would have to weigh both the positive side and the negative side of being a catalyst for the enactment of a law that would compel (not necessitate) pregnant women to refrain from having an abortion.

So, I'd have to ask myself, which would make for a better state of affairs:
1) a world where people are free to wrongly kill an unborn fetus, or 2) a world where people are prohibited to wrongly kill an unborn fetus.

To answer that, I would have to make a judgment call between the killing of an unborn fetus and the natural rights of women to do as they can.

As I ponder this, I find that it depends on just how far along the fetus is. For example, if we are talking about only a zygote, then I feel that it's better to not enact legislation that prohibits women from aborting; however, if we're talking about a time near the end of the pregnancy, then I feel there ought to be legislation prohibiting women to do as they would otherwise do of their own accord.

So, I suppose that even though I do believe abortion is wrong, I suppose there are exceptions that proves the rule (in a manner of speaking). In other words, I do not hold a strong belief that the killing of a zygote is immoral--at least not so immoral that it warrants the wrongful prevention of keeping a potential mother from doing with her body as she chooses.

I cannot determine the exact moment in a pregnancy whereby I would (then would not) want to prohibit an abortion, but that's because the issue lacks specificity. In other words, just as we can't tell the exact point a balding person becomes bald, neither can we tell the exact point where one may justly have an abortion.

But, that we cannot pinpoint a specific week into a pregnancy (for example), that is not to say that it's indeterminable. For example, we know that a person with just a receding hairline isn't bald, and we know that a person with just a little hair is bald. In other words, one doesn't have to have no hair to be considered bald, nor does a person have to have a full head of hair to be considered not bald.

Same case with the fetus. If we're talking about a zygote, then we're talking about a much different situation than if we're talking about a fetus with a beating heart and central nervous system.

So, even though I am pro-choice, it's seems that I am also pro-life, depending on just how far along the mother is. Wow! I guess that still makes me fall into the pro-choice camp, I suppose.

I apologize if this post comes across as rambling, but it’s my first time dealing with this issue. I am grateful for those that have contributed, and though I feel that at least some abortions are wrong, I still am pro-choice because there should be limits to how much we try to control the natural abilities of others.

Converse02

I support abortion if that's the woman's choice.
You need a qualifier.

Abortion is killing, it's killing a bunch of cells.

I remember a doctor telling me of a girl who got an illegal abortion...her intestines were coming out of her vagina. Women using coat hangers till they bleed to death, drinking poison, etc. Once a woman determines she wants to kill that which is growing inside her, some will stop at nothing. Laws will not stop it. I am nearly certain, faced with this horrible knowledge, this reality, the courts decided to allow abortions.

I know someone close to me that had an abortion long ago. She didn't think she was old enough or ready then. She is currently married with a happy family. She had a child, at her choosing. She is alive.

Keep abortion legal.

J-D

No, that doesn't follow. Laws may make it compulsory for people to behave in particular ways but, as you have recognised, that doesn't necessarily mean that people will actually behave in those ways. A law making it compulsory not to kill does not necessarily have the consequence of stopping killings from happening. What you have to make a judgement call about is what you consider to be the relative importance of the positive and negative consequences that the law actually has.

People get mixed up about this because they think of laws as symbolic affirmations (or denials) of values. But this symbolic effect can't outweigh the practical effects, and precisely for that reason it is better if people get the symbolic effects out of their heads.

seven8s

I’d ask myself this: Which would make for a better state of affairs

1) A world where people are allowed the option of abortion, or

2) A world where the option, for the most part, becomes unnecessary.

Then I would choose both, recognizing that those two options are going to ‘cost’ me something. From there I would vote according to that which I thought might someday raise those options to a reality.

Perhaps, within those scare quotes you see the root cause of the judgements concerning abortion.

Of course it is so much easier, and a lot cheaper, to walk away spitting spittle. We each decide, correct?

Sandy Price

Abortion is a personal choice. The Federal government had one Amendment to prohibit an action by Americans and it failed to control alcohol. The Amendment was repealed. Now the Religious Right has written up 4 prohibitions that seem to be running the Republican Party. Abortions, Gay marriages, stem cell research and death with dignity are all personal choices and no where in the U.S. Constitution is there a place for the government to take the authority over personal choices.

The GOP has been trying for years to intoduced the fact that America is a Christian nation and therefore should have a list of Amendments to the Constiitution to bring Christian laws where they do not belong.

Christians have the freedoms to live their lives without abortions, without gay marrying and can deny treatment from stem cell research. They can also live as long as they want in agony and enormous costs to their family. There is no mandate involved in any of these individual freedoms.

The problem is not the laws but the people who want the government to take care of them from the crib to the grave. These sad people cannot live within their own moral laws and will always demand a higher authority to lead them. Why must we cater to these weak morally tainted people?

We have already lowered the academics in our schools to try to bring them up to par and now we have to rewrite our Federal Laws to protect them from themselves.

Get a life folks! Try thinking before you make such ridiculous statements on the internet. Try getting sterilized before you intoduce any more religious laws.

fast

Fortunately, I have found what I was after.

If I can more readily self-identify with one group over the other, then which would it be? I suppose the answer is that I am pro-choice, and I am pro-choice despite the fact I believe certain abortions ought not be performed.

This thread is nearing its end for me.

fast

That's interesting. I'll keep it in mind. People support or oppose things sometimes for reasons I just don't understand, so I shouldn't jump to conclusions.

fast

Some people will go to great lengths to commit a wrongful act, and just because we can't do anything to stop those that commit wrongs is not to say we shouldn't try.

But, that's another issue.

Gudjonsson

I think abortion is wrong, but I am pro-choice. I think that since the morality of abortion is debatable, I do not have the right to take the decision for anyone but my self (for example, if my wife was pregnant, and it would be really inconvenient for us, let say we had no money or no time to take care of a child, I would still say "Keep the baby. It is wrong to terminate the pregnancy", of course we would decide together, and her opinion would weigh slightly more perhaps... but she is strongly "pro-life" anyway).

The government can not decide for anyone either.

It makes sense to me!

fast

Suppose for a moment that you believe many late term abortions are wrong, and suppose further that it is indeed wrong (and thus not merely a belief) to abort late term pregnancies. Keep that in mind.

Here is a critical question: If abortion is wrong, then is your supporting of that option to abort wrong? That's the clincher.

Purportedly, just because an act is wrong, that is no good reason to support prohibitive legislation. Yet, that's exactly why so many laws are enacted.

There's no problem when we're talking about killing the post-born, but there is a problem when we're talking about killing the pre-born.

The objection cannot be that it's just a clump of cells and thus not wrong. You know why? It's because of the very thing I told you to keep in mind that you're not.

Juxtaposing you do indeed believe it's wrong, and if it's indeed wrong, then the question isn't being answered by falling back on some notion that it's not wrong.

If certain abortions are wrong, then “A world where people are allowed the option of abortion,” is a world with the option to do what’s wrong. Whether supporting that option is right or wrong is another question, and a good question if I say so myself.

By the way, I am tiring of this thread, so I’m only going to entertain a few more posts before I call it quits.