Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
-Rorschach.


I would never compromise, for to do so would be to grant rights to that which does not exist--something that is entirely nonsensical.

I maintain that human rights come from the fact that we are indeed capable of advanced cognition, and that as a result, until such things are capable of occuring, there cannot be rights attached.

No fetus is capable of thinking at all.

While young children are not terribly capable of thought, given that their birth can be prevented, or the child given away after birth, once a child is born, no concievable reason, short of severe birth defects, exists for terminating a child.

Pensee

I support a woman's right to choose up until 8 weeks gestation. After that, no. (with the exception of the mother's life being in danger)
JTDC: That's the primary reason for my stance on having it made illegal after 8 weeks. We really don't know when the fetus begins having self-awareness and possession of its senses (i.e., can feel physical pain). But the brain develops at 8 weeks. It definitely should not be before then, and since we don't know exactly when, I'd rather be safe than sorry. That's why 8 weeks is the cut-off I'd like to see implemented.

Bree--my 23 year old friend just got pregnant that way. She thought that since her boyfriend pulled out, she couldn't get pregnant. She told me this just a few weeks before she found out she was pg. I told her, OH YES YOU CAN!!!! and scared the shit out of her. But alas, it was too late...

Melkor

When it is human and when it is not is a matter of belief, plain and simple.

And "belief" does not make good law.

viscousmemories

I disagree. I think that a human is, by definition, the biological organism created as a result of a sperm fertilizing an egg.

I also think there are many valid justifications for terminating the life of a human being (i.e. self defense, war, death penalty, euthanasia, etc.) and abortion is one of them.

In my experience, most religious types that oppose abortion do so because they believe a "spirit" has been injected into the fetus and therefore needs salvation, and most secular types that oppose it do so because they oppose killing humans in general.

I don't believe in "spirits" and I don't oppose killing humans in general, so I have no problem with a woman having an abortion.

I want to add that I disagree with the idea that men don't have a right to have an opinion on the issue. It's a matter of law, so all of us who live in this society have a right to our opinion.

I disagree, however, that the man should have equal say in what happens to his sperm after he deposits it inside a woman. This analogy will probably offend someone, but consider the idea of spitting on somebody and then saying, "Don't wipe that spit off. It's as much mine as yours, and I like it where it is." IMO the woman, as the only person who has to really live with the consequences of getting pregnant, has the final word in what she's going to do about it.

JerryM

That is quite right. And another factor underlying it is plain old puritanism. That's why many of these people don't like comprehensive sex education. They are uncomfortable with sex, and they don't want to hear about it or to talk about it. At some level, they think sex, certainly outside of marriage, is wicked--and if a pregnancy results, well that's just getting what you're asking for. It's a primitive, repressive attitude, but it's still out there.

crocodile deathroll

No. I believe that if I was aborted as an immature fetus it would be subjectively identical to never been conceived at all in the first place.
Immature fetuses do not have a sense of self like we do.

Kuu

I sort of wonder why only the incest/rape exceptions were used for this poll. What about danger to a mother's life - the most compelling reason for an abortion in my view.


I fully support the right to have an abortion in the first trimester. I think there is a case for some abortions from then to about 20 weeks (at which time there is possibily that the brain is advanced enough for thought processes to occur). Many young girls, especially those that have poor sex education, do not realise that they are pregnant until after the first trimester. Also some health problems do not arise until the second semester.

In the third semester I think that the only reasons should be if there is a significant danger to the mother's life or health or in the case of severe deformities.

Mageth

Another man who voted "no", and who agrees the right to an abortion is not an issue that should be decided for women by men.

I also think that the argument against abortion that "it's a human at conception, and you're murdering it!" is largely based on a religious definition of when we become human. As such, it's self-defeating IMO, as such a religious argument should not be used by our government in making law. In any case, whether to abort a fetus is very much a moral question to be decided by the woman, and IMO the government shouldn't be making laws dictating morals on such issues.

AdamSmith said:
I would like to see less abortions and more people using birth control and not using abortion as their only method of birth control.

I'm curious as to what makes you think many or even most women who have abortions are using it as their "only method of birth control."

But I do agree that it would be best if more of the women who choose abortion hadn't become pregnant in the first place. That seems rather obvious, and I'd wager that most of those women would agree with me. Better, universally-available sex education, stressing sensible methods of birth control (rather than the absitnence-only stuff pushed by our current admin, which is doomed to fail) may be a good step in that direction.

Kuu

Whether a woman decides to have an abortion or not deals with her rights to her own body.

Once a child is born his/her rights come to been. A child has a right to be supported by his/father without any decision made by the mother coming into the equation. A mother deciding not to have an abortion has nothing to do with the child's right to be supported by his/her father.

This is the inequality that come in simply because the woman is the one carrying the child. Her biological contribution to the pregnancy is nine months - in that nine months she can make decisions about her body and how it is used. The man's biological contribution to the pregnancy ends with the sexual act. The only time he can do anything to avoid the pregnancy is during or before that act.

tronvillain

Kuu:

I disagree that a child has a right to be supported by their father... if their father has rejected all rights and responsibilities to them before they were born. As a result of human biology and technology, women now have nine months (in reality less than nine months of course) to choose whether or not to be a mother, while a father has no choice in the matter at all. You are apparently fine with this inequality and say "If he wasn't willing to support the child he shouldn't have had sex", but as far as I can tell this makes no more sense than saying "If she wasn't willing to give birth to the child she shouldn't have had sex." I am in favour of making things a little more equal, and preventing anyone (male or female) from being forced into parenthood.