Since PM_Mama said no religion in her thread, I had to come over to MoniMoo's thread. ;)

I think a lot of the core argument with making abortion against the law, is that many people are using religion as their reason to why it should be outlawed, which is fine as I am religious and respect those beliefs, but part of the foundation of this country is one of separation of church and state. I enjoy my religious freedom, and those who chose other religions or no religion, should be able to enjoy that same freedom.

If a woman becomes pregnant in a nonplanned violent way, and she chooses to have that baby, that is great. If she has a medical condition and choses to take the risk of her own life and health, that is great as well. However people who chose otherwise, for mental or physical reasons, shouldn't be forced into someone else's choice. These are very personal choices, and the government shouldn't be regulating it.

Lastly, I am for choice, regardless of what I would or wouldn't do in a situation. With better education and access to health care, there would more than likely be a lot less unplanned pregnancies. I don't like abortion being used repeatedly as a method for dealing with irresponsibility. If contraceptives were readily available, and people knew how to use them correctly, it would make sense that there would be less instances of needing an abortion. It is frightening how many college students, female and male, have no clue at what point in a woman's cycle she is able to get pregnant. Hey maybe even the STD rates would go down as well?

Oh and this other thing that gets me. There are so many children in the world that don't have families, homes, or the opportunities for a good life. If abortion is illegal, that is just going to increase. Yes they would be given life, but what kind of a life? Why not cut down the birth rate(with sex education), and give these kids the chance they deserve?

Settle down. don't want to lock this topic. Good debate so far. Leave personal attack out of the topic.

ETA: Damn people, I just deleted 3 replies. Keep on the topic please.

The Viceroy Has Spoken.

Well, apparently the moderators did not like my last comments, so I'll try to be more politically correct and not hurt anyone's sensitive feelings.

I still believe that the idea of having many biological children being selfish is wrong. I'm from a large family, and I don't think we're selfish at all because we use up a lot of resources. My family pays for those resources with money we earn ourselves.

And once again, China uses the argument that having large families is selfish because it uses lots of resources, so China forces couples to have abortions and limits the number of children they can have, because China cares more about resources than human life.

This is NOT a personal attack. Please don't delete my thread, moderators, I'm simply pointing out that I disagree with the logic valkyrie uses. I never personally attacked her--- I personally attacked her views on abortion. There is a difference.

The Viceroy Has Forgiven Your Sins.

I was speaking more to the scientific definition of a living thing: the ability to consume food/fuel to create and use energy, to procreate, to grow, and to respond to stimuli.

Thanks Moe

According to that decision, a computer virus is living.

It's not perfect, but it is the accepted scientific definition. Viruses (the non-computer kind) are a very gray area - pretty much any time you see a definition of life the virus is mentioned as a "is it alive or not". Viruses aren't able to reproduce without help from a host cell. Change cell to computer and no.... computer viruses are not alive :)

Okay... just out of curiosity, if having children is selfish due to the use of resources, for exactly what are the resourses there? The cockroaches who will survive an atomic attack?

The issue of abortion will NEVER be resolved. There will always be those who fundamentally believe in the sanctity of life starting at conception. There will always be those who feel that "embryonic selection/reduction", potential disease, rape, incest and such are all acceptable reasons for an abortion. And there will always be those who find themselves inconveniently pregnant and choose to abort.

I think we can all agree that these three parts of the whole debate will never come to a compromise, because of the value system of each individual.

I've stated before that I will never understand how hundreds of thousands of dollars can be used to keep a wanted 22-week fetus/baby alive, while the brains of an unwanted 32-week fetus/baby can be lawfully sucked out & used as spare parts.

I just find the entire argument riddled with hypocrisy.

(moe.ron - I tried to keep this as unthreatening as possible!)

It does if you don't want to share your ice cream ;)

Anyway, I understand what you're saying. But I also don't think there is such a thing as a completely selfless act. There are different degrees of selfishness.
If someone chooses not to have children because they either don't want them, don't have financial means to support them, etc. Does that make them selfish? (Not speaking about people who have abortions here, people who take mesures to ensure they don't have children like tubaligation, birthcontrol, vasectomy)

My cousin for instance, has one ovary. Doctors told her it would be difficult to reproduce. Well now she has 3 that she can't take care of. Her reasoning is that well because it's so hard for her to haev children she's just going to keep having children as long as she can because that's her right. Even though she can't take care of the ones she has. That seems pretty selfish to me.

Abortion is selfish. Thats fine.

Pro-lifers that forgive abortion for incest or rape lose moral credibility. It goes back to the whole, its not the kids fault argument.

Pro-lifers are better off arguing in absoute terms.

And so are pro-choicers. Any legislation infringeing on a woman's manipulation of her own bosy in reference to the fetus is a bad idea.

HA! i eat pumpkin ice cream, so normally no one wants me to share, so i'm not used to it.....but i will if i must. ;)

i don't think that just b/c someone doesn't want a child makes them selfish. it's not the lack of desire for a child, it's what happens after/during the pregnancy that reveals that characteristic. if you get your tubes tied or a vasectomy or whatever, that's all fine and dandy.....ppl need to know their limits, whether their limit is none or 10. from what you mentioned about your cousin, it seems she hasn't realized her limits....but i have to respect the fact that she is having these children (b/c i can see her point of view....she prob feels more blessed with 3 kids than burdened). i don't want to make a lot of assumptions on your cousin b/c i don't know all of her situation and how much these children are lacking in care.....and while i know that kids need more than love to survive, she does show them love by having them and (hopefully) caring for them as best as she can. a lot of ppl grow up in less than wealthy homes and are successful and accomplish great things.

i can see your point as well, though, b/c it does seem selfish to just have kids until your living in a van and all that. but if you're so pro-choice, isn't it her choice to have them as well as abort them? (trying DESPERATLY not to sound catty.....promise.....i'm sure you're just trying to say what i was saying with the whole "selfish" thing.....and while we're on it, let's get a count of how many times the word "selfish" has been used in this thread!)