Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

Originally Posted by SydneyK

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)

I think you missed the part of my post that I quoted above, Sydney K.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by starang21

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

This is ironic, because . . .

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

you're still comparing the two. it's an incorrect and silly example because the underlying circumstances and reasons for either one are completely different. again, your logic is way off. people aren't getting abortions at the same rate or reasons as tattoos or speeding. this comparison is about as valid as tax evasion and jay walking.

it IS a woman's body at the forefront. without the woman's body, that fetus is dead. the text book definition of that is that the fetus is a parasite. it needs another being to live and grow.

The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point.

sounds pretty good to me.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I think this is oversimplifying things. If Ann thinks a woman should have a right to choose abortion, that doesn't mean that Ann is pro-abortion. It could just mean that Ann thinks the government shouldn't get to decide what she does or doesn't do with her body. If you're looking for different terms for the debate, perhaps anti-abortion vs. anti-government would be more appropriate (solely in regards to the abortion debate).

I just think there are two very different arguments in play. There's the moral debate and there's the political debate. I think it's fair to say that some people who are pro-choice have that opinion because of the political/governmental concerns involved. Some of those same people might be pro-life from a moral perspective (meaning that if they were ever the one making the choice, they would always choose life).

/end soapbox

I think using pro-abortion and anti-abortion is just a gross oversimplification.