Is Abortion Genocide?

You bring up an interesting point

Unborn Children (if you choose to call them that) do not constitute an ethnic group (they are of many ethnicities), do not constitute a racial group (they are of many races), and do not constitute a religious group (they have, by definition, no religion).

I have heard many people say that the systematic killing of homosexuals during WWII did not constitute genocide because of the reasons you cite for why abortion cannot be called genocide. However, some of the same people who say that the killings of homosexuals wasn't genocide says that abortion is. I hope they read your post.

Just out of curiosity, do you know anyone who has had an abortion that made the decision "frivolously"? If so, they are a bad sample of the people who are faced with this choice. I do not believe that any woman who decides to get an abortion generally comes to that conclusion with ease. Do not forget that while you may be sad to see a child not get a chance at life, you can bet the woman (and possibly also the man) who makes that decision is having a much harder time. So, for the question at hand, genocide? clearly no (as illustrated by Killfile and Ara). Murder? not in my opinion.

p.s. As an aside (in response to an aside, I suppose), I also believe that protecting the environment for all of the children that are born into ready, capable homes is a very important thing.

@Ara

Your talk of the antics of the pro-environmental activists makes it sound like there aren't people doing that to fight abortion.

It might be noteworthy that there would be so little overlap between the ideaology of the environmentalists and the abortion fighters.
People for fighting for life in various ways and forms.

But can we extend the term "life form" to the caterpillar? Are you saying it is not alive? By your logic could we say that prepubescent youths are not a human?

I don't pretend to know when life begins but I sure hope I know when responsibility does.

Thanks. And I want to say for the record that I personally DONT group all Christians into the pro-life group, nor all Republicans. This can be seen from the numbers that show that majority of Americans favor pro-choice. (albeit in most cases, pro-choice with limits)

First point is, aside from Ara whom I cannot tell what gender he/she is, I would guess that most of us on this thread are men. So, unless you are a miracle of modern science, you frankly shouldn't be involved. If you were the "father" of an aborted child, then I'll give you some leeway, but I doubt anyone here is.

I will address the most egregious point first.

I am a man and a father and I take offense to your statement. I think you are casting a wide net here with your statement and I don't think it will help further a reasonable debate. You are giving preference to men that have had experiences with short lived fetuses? By what logic can you possibly elaborate on that lead you to that? And by what reason am I to be omitted from the decision? You say I have no womb so I have no choice. You say that out of three beings involved you are the sole owner of the moral high ground? What if I want to be a responsible person and help raise the child or at the very least be involved in the "choice"? I still have no legitimate voice? This is where your opinion, which you have every right to, slaps mine in the face. Your generalizations about what male involvement should be do nothing to raise this discussion to where it needs to be.

I understand what you are saying about low income women and the possible economic factors involved with raising a baby. However you are giving credence to an ultimate and grave decision based on a very modern and hasty presumption. By your argument we shouldn't be here at all. Our ancestors that lived in caves or on the plains were in abject poverty. What if they were privileged enough to know better? By your empathetic rational they might have spared us all. Your assumption that abortion is a solution to economic pressure is somewhat disheartening. I would put my hope into finding other methods other than "choosing" to end a presumptive living burden by termination.

Take offense all you want, Ldubya, but the decision about abortion is up to one person: the woman carrying the fetus. It is not a child and it's rights cannot trump the woman's. You have no ownership over her or her womb and you have exactly as much say in her decision to abort as you have in her decision to donate a kidney, which is to say: none. Remember that "no means no" thing? The reason behind that is it's her body and you can't force her to do anything she doesn't want. What are you going to do: lock the woman up for the term of her pregnancy if she decides to abort? Do you have that right? Usually before we take someone's liberty away, there's a trial and a conviction, but the obvious outcome of your claim to have some "say" is to prevent her from doing with her body as she wills. Your only essential role in the pregnancy is as a sperm donor; anything beyond that is because that is what the woman permits.

The final choice must be up to the woman, no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, however to say the man should have no voice is just plain silly. The decision effects both parents.

The decision effects both parents.

Exactly. The PARENTS, which I should have been more clear about in my post, so I'll concede on that point a little. Yes, the father should have some say in the matter from a non-legal standpoint, but ultimately the decision, and most of the consequences, are on the woman.

BUT, my point was that anyone besides the parents (i.e., society, and especially a bunch of posters on NewsVine) should not be involved in the decision. And when I was talking about "men" Ldubya I meant men who aren't directly involved. Which means, most of us.

And I never said that my "that abortion is a solution to economic pressure". My point was that very likely none of us here, debating the issue on our computer screens over the Internet, have had to live through that. So we shouldn't be all high and mighty about what other people do with their lives, until we've actually had to experience it for ourselves.

Stop reading what you want to hear into what other people say.

Your only essential role in the pregnancy is as a sperm donor; anything beyond that is because that is what the woman permits.

Then you are saying no deadbeat dad should have to pay child support?

Ldubya,

theannalog wrote a nice article about a man's right to choose. Look up her article history and read it. She has a very interesting point of view on the subject.

Deadbeat dads have nothing to do with a discussion about abortion and pregnancy. Once the child is born, it's a different story. Once it is born, it has financial, physical, psychological and emotional needs, which most studies agree are best served by two parents. While the child is inside the woman the only decision that counts is hers. She is free to allow the man as much participation in the decision as she wants to, but he has no recourse if she changes her mind.

However, it's gotta go both ways. Right now, fathers are not permitted by law to relinquish parental rights. If the woman has to go on welfare at any point, the state can then sue for paternal responsibility, whether or not the man didn't want the child or doesn't even know there is a child. This is wrong. The woman has to have rights over her own body and take responsibility for her decision. If she chooses to remove him from the decision making, and they are not married, then he should not be responsible. Right now, the rules are almost exclusively in the mother's favor. Women can make the choice to have a child knowing that the full power of the state -- including wage garnishment, revocation of driver's and professional licenses, and even revocation of passports -- will be brought down on the man whether or not his part went any further than sperm donor.

And some sex education for teenagers, instead of just trying to tell them to abstain. You can't pretend that something isn't happening, then get angry at the people who do it anyway.

God yes, if I have to hear one more teenager say "oral sex isn't sex," or "you can't get pregnant if they don't stick it in". I just want to smack their parents, the president, congress, and numerous others who thought teaching abstinence was sufficient. I stopped doing volunteer HIV/AIDS education because, I just couldn't take the ignorance anymore.

Even the smart teens, and heaven help the "somewhat religious teens"—who frequently spoke of abstinence and saving themselves for marriage, while discussing whether or not to give their boyfriend head. The disconnect was just gapping, they've broken off all the components of sex that they do—kissing, oral, mutual masturbation, and for some even anal sex—and those items just aren't sex anymore. Sex is the thing I do that might get me pregnant and typically those items won't. Of course they skip all over what they were doing before they got to those tasks, and don't even mention condoms—cause those are for sex.

So if the state has no say in the process why are they sanctioning the right to abortions?

The supreme Court saying that states do not have a right to outlaw abortion in the first trimester is not the same thing as giving a right.

Also, even if they did expectedly say "women have the right to an abortion" it is still removing the state from any decision making which is exactly what the state should not be involved with.

The supreme Court saying that states do not have a right to outlaw abortion in the first trimester is not the same thing as giving a right.

Sanction, 1 a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule.

So how is telling the states they cannot outlaw abortion different from sanctioning it?

Also, even if they did expectedly say "women have the right to an abortion" it is still removing the state from any decision making which is exactly what the state should not be involved with.

You are telling me that the states have no say but the federal government does?

I am not a constitutional historian or expert but I know enough about the roles of the states and the original intent of the constitution to know that the states were supposed to have more power regarding what laws they wanted to pass. That is unless it would interfere with national security or interstate commerce.

I am not a constitutional historian or expert but I know enough about the roles of the states and the original intent of the constitution to know that the states were supposed to have more power regarding what laws they wanted to pass. That is unless it would interfere with national security or interstate commerce.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States incorporates the previous amendments (most importantly the Bill of Rights) upon the states. In layman's terms, this means that the State governments are bound by the same restrictions imposed by these amendments upon the Federal Government.

Moreover, because the US Supreme Court is the ultimate and final arbiter of what the Constitution (and thus the Bill of Rights and all following amendments) means - it has the last say as to what these amendments mean, both to the Federal Government and to the states.

The Court has found that the right to privacy is inherent and foundational for the existence of the Bill of Rights. As a consequence it is also incumbent upon the States to respect that same right to privacy as incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Under this right to privacy the Court has found that the Federal Government does not have the right to outlaw abortion within the first trimester - and thus, because of the 14th Amendment, the States also do not have that right.

The political term for no getting involved in Darfur is called democratic realism

Actually, the correct term for what Mr. Krauthammer advocates is "hypocritical excuse-making." Advocating that we should "keep our powder dry" unless getting involved is in our "strategic interests" just proves what someone said above: if Darfur were sitting on oil we'd have 100,000 soldiers there right now. There's nothing humanitarian about that and for all the talk about how horrible genocide is, it doesn't mean a thing if getting involved wont fuel our SUVs. Maybe we should send the troops to guard our women's wombs, since somehow, that seems to be worthy of national intervention.

I am not disagreeing with you... but, what was our involvement in Somalia? Was that a legitimate use of the military? If we go in to Darfur without the U.N. is that going to be kosher? Why hasn't the U.N. done anything besides slapping wrists?

Not on subject but interesting.

if Darfur were sitting on oil we'd have 100,000 soldiers there right now

There's no oil in Sudan? Are you sure?

The Sudanese government plays ball with the US. The original statement should have been "If the Sudan was an unfriendly government, we would be in there"

Sudan is an oil producing nation. My error. However, it is not a major oil producing nation, ranking 35th in the world in 2005 with production just above 400,000 barrels/day -- about the same as Vietnam, and just a little more than Yemen and Denmark. For comparison, the US itself produces 7.6 million bbl/day and the 20th ranked producer, Algeria, produces 1.3 million bbl/day.

I am a pro-choice person that is pro-life morally. What I find disgusting in the anti-abortion movement (not pro-life) is that they cite religious morality as reasons to outlaw the process.

No where does Jesus advocate the use of the government to force anyone to live by God's law. No where does Jesus say there is virtue in forcing people to follow God's law. Being a Christian is a personal affirmation to follow God's law. Codifying any part of it reduces the personal responsibility of the individual.

I got distracted enough by this line of reasoning to write a post on it. Since it is somewhat off-topic to the discussion at hand, feel free to pursue the status of a fetus as a human being (within certain constraints) here.

What did you think having sex was for? To have fun? Is that why we have the biological capability to have sex? No, we have it primarily to procreate.

Correct - we have the biological capability for sexual reproduction in order to increase the diversity of our genetic code and to perpetuate the species.

But sex is fun. Lets not mince words here. In fact, as far as pass-times go, sex is way the hell up there, probably at the top of the list.

There's a reason for that - to encourage sexual reproduction in order to increase the diversity of our genetic code and to perpetuate the species.

In fact the purpose of our highly evolved brains, tool using limbs, and sophisticated self defence apparatus is realized in the moment of intercourse. We are hard-wired from a fundamental level as humans to desire sex, to enjoy sex, and to continue having sex even after our first birth.

Think about that - a species such as homo sapian, capable of discerning cause and effect, is biologically programed to want sex so much as to overcome the unfathomable pain of birth -- particularly in a stone age environment.

Yea -- personal responsibility and abstinence education -- that's the way to go. Surely billions of years of evolution and the powerful chemical influences on human behavior can be overcome with a stern lecture as some good ol' fashioned Jesus.

Yea -- personal responsibility and abstinence education -- that's the way to go. Surely billions of years of evolution and the powerful chemical influences on human behavior can be overcome with a stern lecture as some good ol' fashioned Jesus.

Nice try, but I have no religious objection to abortion. Did you miss the part above in my comment where I stated:

Just trying to get across there is a logical, secular reason to be pro-life.

What, you just had to throw in the Jesus comment and connect my thoughts to religious teachings, didn't you? You just couldn't resist to connecting my arguments with the religious ones, could you?

Sex, like all biological functions, have consequences. One consequence is pleasure. Another is the chance of being pregnant. Another is the possibility of getting an STD. So on and so forth. We must be willing to both accept, and treat, these consequences. We treat them by going to the doctor for STD's (not me, but the royal "we"). We treat them by completing the pregnancy to term. What I argue against is treating the consequence of sex with abortion. It's not a disease, nor is it something to be treated as an unnatural result of sex. It is a natural result that results in procreation.

Abortion denies what is created, which is human life. We have socially constructed life to mean a variety of things, and I err on the side of life being when we conceive something, not ending when we feel like getting it vacuumed out of us.

(can't keep their legs shut)

So what is your opinion when rape is involved? Sounds like you assume that women can always control what men do to them. And it sounds like you think that people just run around having abortions on a whim.

The people who support a pro-choice stance are merely arguing a philosophical viewpoint.

For some, yes. For some its about forcing their will, god, or morality on others. I'm convinced that some do it for their own personal power trips, especially in the cases where they blow up clinics or harrass women going into them.

Terrorists are human life and [...] we must treat them as humans

So, you are assuming that everyone in gitmo is a terrorist, and that they are being treated humanely. Us "liberals" who complain about gitmo aren't complaining about the fact that the prisoners are there. We're complaining that their human rights to a fair trial and legal representation have been denied, with some of these prisoners having sat in a cell for four years now without seeing a lawyer. We don't coddle terrorists either. But we'd like to know that they really are terrorists first and not just assume that because they were captured in their home country that we invaded (for just cause in the case of Afghanistan) they are immediately guilty. That same right that we'd defend for you, or anyone else. I don't consider that "liberal," I consider that being a patriot.

Sounds to me like you deal in the same gross generalizations that you seem to hate so much from others...

Vulgrin,

I'd advice you to read more carefully into what I posted before responding to what I posted. You stated:

So what is your opinion when rape is involved?

In response to me saying:

Because I'm willing to say, unquestionably, that the women who received elective abortions

The operating word being elective. If they are raped, they get an abortion performed for medical reasons around the same time a rape kit is done.

Then, Vulgrin, you went on to say:

Sounds to me like you deal in the same gross generalizations that you seem to hate so much from others...

When you completely ignored what I said:

But from someone who believes life begins as conception and abortion is the killing of a human life, I find it funny that some (not all) liberals support abortion rights...yet they complain when a few terrorists languish in Gitmo.

Are you so geared up and ready to respond to me that you completely miss my above statement? Do you even care that I stressed some and not all, as to avoid generalizations?

Really, please be more careful next time. I don't appreciate my own argument being portrayed incorrectly.

The key difference (and again, this is a purely philosophical issue) between terrorists (or non-terrorists) being imprisoned/mistreated/etc and abortion is that there is *NO* question that terrorist are living, breathing, thinking people. Even if they're terrible people, willing to commit atrocities, they are aware of themselves, their actions, and the choices they make in life.

An unborn child, especially early on, has none of these features or abilities. True, they have no choice whether or not to be aborted, but they also lack the ability to make *ANY* choices, as they lack a human consciousness.

For me, early unborn children simply do not have the most important thing that makes one human (and grants one rights), and that is a human consciousness. If it were established that human consciousness begins at conception, I'd agree with you.

I don't know your beliefs on the death penalty, but I am always struck by the high correlation of people who are pro-life and pro-death penalty.

In absolute terms, I suppose the best way to sum up a pro-life position is as follows:

"There is a nonzero chance that a fetus is alive and cognisant and viable, therefore it is reprehensible to kill it."

And, to my way of thinking, that is a very intriguing (if not downright compelling) argument. We don't really know, so why carelessly end the life?

Which of course, is what I would say, almost word for word, to any death penalty advocate.

"There is a nonzero chance that a death row inmate is innocent, therefore it is reprehensible to kill it."

And we all know of the many instances where people's death row convictions have been overturned because of DNA, new evidence, sloppy work by police, etc.

Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure you weren't refering to me, but either way, I'm pro-death penalty, but think the system needs serious reforms, and that it absolutely should be reserved for cases where there is *NO* question (although, in theory, that should always be true).

Vincent:

The key difference (and again, this is a purely philosophical issue) between terrorists (or non-terrorists) being imprisoned/mistreated/etc and abortion is that there is *NO* question that terrorist are living, breathing, thinking people. Even if they're terrible people, willing to commit atrocities, they are aware of themselves, their actions, and the choices they make in life.

I personally would argue that there are a select few on this earth who may be human, but also forfeit their rights. Heck, every prisoner in this country has had their rights suspended, as is allowed in the Constitution, upon their conviction of a crime. Extending that to terrorists isn't that difficult, nor is it difficulat to debate how much of their rights they lost.

For me, early unborn children simply do not have the most important thing that makes one human (and grants one rights), and that is a human consciousness. If it were established that human consciousness begins at conception, I'd agree with you.

I'd argue that life begins at conception because it is very difficult to come up with an arbitrary line somewhere in the middle. It keeps getting moved around anyway. 20 years ago, we couldn't have expected the amount of premature babies we have today to live. Now, babies born less than 12 oz. are not only viable, but being raised normally. The line keeps moving back and back and back. I argue on the safe side of humanity and say life begins at conception. Does that mean I don't err on the side of women's rights? Yes. But I don't care. I put basic human rights above a specific groups rights any day of the week.

Slade:

In response to your death penalty question, as time goes on, I am less and less in favor of the death penalty. Years ago, I was all for it. Now? The 20th hijacker just got life in prison, but I am happy he did. Sure, if he got the needle, I wouldn't have cried for him. But, I also know that the system has serious flaws as is. I would rather be safe than sorry.

I don't believe in the death penalty becasue in the case of Mousoui (sp?) and like child rapists, I would rather have them rotting in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.

I don't have a problem with the line being moved as science and medicine get better and better. In fact, I like the line as a moving target. If viability is set as the divider between child and fetus, then someday we might get to the point where a blastocyst is capable of surviving outside the womb. At that point, there is no question in my mind that abortion should be prohibited. But, until we get that far, there is no way to accord rights to the fetus without taking rights away from the pregnant woman.

There is always the microscopic textual analysis of the Constitution, where the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the US, but I am also quite certain that the Framers didn't intend that to prohibit citizenship to fetuses, probably because they would never have considered the idea in those terms. (I wonder what they would have thought of that idea, though.)

Nonetheless, the amendment also prohibits depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process. There is debate over whether the fetus is a person -- we may be able to agree that it is a life, but personhood seems to me to require some sort of individuality and free will. (I have nothing to back that up; it is just my personal -- individual -- definition of the word.) But, the Amendment does indicate that a person has life, liberty, and property as natural rights, otherwise they could not be taken from them by the state. Of those three natural rights, a fetus may have life, but it can have neither liberty, nor property.

There is no question that, today, the woman is a person, with full liberty and equality under the Constitution, although it has not always been so. It would seem that depriving her of her liberty would require due process of law in the same way that any other person is deprived of their natural rights -- through trial and conviction. If the fetus is classified as a person, then there would be due process of law required before depriving it of its life. We don't have either protection, nor do we have some essential legal definitions, and that, to me, is why Roe v. Wade is such a crappy precedent to have to live with. It was an abdication of judicial responsibility by the Supreme Court, but it is the only thing that is protecting women's rights today.

The problem is, Evano, that Roe v. Wade itself established limits to abortion and actually said that they couldn't get an abortion at a certain level. This set the precendent that they are subject to an arbitrary line. That line was moved again in PPSEPA v. Casey, and again by other precedent. It is indeed a dynamic line, which supports both sides. However, what it does not support, is a Constitutional argument that the fetus is not something to be protected as having inherent rights at certain points in its existence.

There is always the microscopic textual analysis of the Constitution, where the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the US, but I am also quite certain that the Framers didn't intend that to prohibit citizenship to fetuses, probably because they would never have considered the idea in those terms. (I wonder what they would have thought of that idea, though.)

Turning this concept on its head -- if we put the line at, say, the beginning of the 2nd Trimester - shouldn't we be conferring citizenship upon any fetus that's in the country when it enters the 2nd Trimester? Should we offer citizenship to any children conceived in the United States - regardless of the parents' nationality? If we take the 14th Amendment to be non-exclusionary on the basis of birth v. conception for the purposes of determining a woman's right to abortion, why not for the purposes of determining citizenship?

Most likely because citizenship, literally, depends on the blood of the individual. The legal principal of Jus Sanguinis ("right of blood") holds true, just as other paths to citizenship exist (if they are born on American soil, they are citizens).

The court in Roe only said that the states cannot prohibit abortion during the first trimester. It defined two other periods for abortion, but regulation over these, in general, were left to the states [interior citations omitted]:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

In Chapter IX of the decision, the Court addresses the issue of whether the fetus is a "person" -- not in a moral, theological, societal, or philosophical sense, but solely in the legal sense:

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held... Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

Casey did not overturn the basics behind Roe, but removed the strict trimester framework with its arbitrary time periods and substituted a two-period framework consisting of pre- and post-viability. It also kept the rationale of two interested parties in the abortion decision: the woman and the state. The woman has a liberty interest -- Casey avoids the privacy discussion for the most part -- and the state has an interest both in the woman's health and in the protection of a "potential" life. There is no discussion in either case of a fetus' rights.

The court in Roe only said that the states cannot prohibit abortion during the first trimester. It defined two other periods for abortion, but regulation over these, in general, were left to the states [interior citations omitted]:

Which was my point from the getgo. Roe set standards, be them standards that say you (or states) can do this, or standards that say you (or states) cannot do this.

Casey did not overturn the basics behind Roe, but removed the strict trimester framework with its arbitrary time periods and substituted a two-period framework consisting of pre- and post-viability.

Which is effectivly overturn Roe's restrictions, as I said. It didn't overturn the whole case law, but overturned certain parts of the reasoning.

Although I think we're in agreement on most of the effects of Roe and Casey. Most of the case law I posted was pretty much just to show that none of the current decisions are based on personhood of the fetus. That's probably where you and I differ in our agreement/disagreement with the current situation. I think it is possible to compromise with a framework something like the current one which balances the interests of the parties involved -- including, through the state's supervision, the fetus' interests. If we set the line at viability, then someday, when medicine gets more advanced, there won't have to be any abortions at all.

Under that logic, we shouldn't have any laws. People will inevitably find ways to do something be it legal or illegal, so why make laws?

We have laws because we are a nation of laws. We combine making a deterrent (the punishment) with upholding the values of society (the law itself). If people are going to do it anyway, that's not a good enough reason to just decriminalize it. Because if that were the case, why have laws at all?

Yes, people will perform abortions anyway if they are made illegal. And I am not even sure I'd want a sweeping ban. It's a question of deterrence, upholding societal standards, and finding a compromise in between the two. Deterrence doesn't have to exist in order for something to be made law. Sometimes, laws are made because they are the right thing to do.

James,

What is your moral code? From what I can see, it is that you do not believe abortion is morally right and it also seems that you see it as a moral obligation to make sure no one has one, either by convincing them not to have one or by forcing them not to have one.

My moral code is my own personal code, in that it applies to my own life.

My ethical stance on abortion, how it should be applied to society, is different. I realize the near impossibility of legislating it at this point, for a variety of reasons (Constitutional, getting representatives elected). I don't force anyone to do anything. I just condemn them myself and let them do what they want. Do I think it's indiscriminate killing of unborn children? Yes. But there's nothing I can do, and considering societal standards don't really exist uniformly for abortion, it makes the fight that much tougher. I'll just live my own life and not stop people legally from doing what they want.

But that also means that I don't give people a philosophical pass for what they do. I can, and do, condemn the group of people who get elective abortions. The difference between me and some others in pro-life is that I am not using the government as an enforcing arm of my morals.

are you pro-life or anti-abortion?

Pro-life, I don't believe in the death penalty either. Although probably for the wrong reason.....

Nice try on the trying to place me as a hypocrite though.

I was asking you a very important question, not trying to pose you as a hypocrite.

I am pro-choice, yet, I am pro-life in that I do not think abortion is right, I try to convince people not to use it, I find it morally repugnant and irresponsible.

Why then am I pro-choice as well? Because I do not think the state should tell a woman that they can not make that choice when the baby is not capable of surviving on its own due to its developmental stage. Also, Jesus does not teach people to use the state as a tool to enforce God's laws. Abortion is a sin and that is something that the parties involved will have to sort out with God, not with the state.

But what was going on in Iraq before we got there was genocide. Saddam used chemical gasses on his own people and he killed millions, so before we go talking about going to Darfur and then head out to protest the war just remember that point.

No - what was going on in Iraq was not a genocide, at least not according to the UN definition. Poison gas does not a genocide make. Remember that genocidal actions must constitute "an attempt to destroy a... group." For a guy in command of the only real military power in Iraq for many years, Saddam did a piss-poor job of destroying the Kurds.

Saddam's crimes, horrific as they may be, also do not constitute genocide or attempted genocide. Political oppression is bad, but it's not genocide either. Saddam wasn't terribly interested in eliminating the Kurds as an ethnic group - he just wanted them to stay out of his way and submit to his government.

Darfur is a recognized genocide. The United States has stated that it is a genocide. We are required under international law, treaties we have signed, and the Nuremberg Tribunals to intervene to stop it. Our failure to do so constitutes a breach of international law and an abdication of our duties as a member of the international community.

Where do you get your morals from?

How can abortion be murder if it doesn't kill a human being with a consciousness? If one doesn't belief human life, worthy of rights, begins at conception, then it would be ludicrous to see it that way.

@cJw314
Consider this situation:
When a doctor fertilizes eggs in a laboratory environment to be placed in the womb for development, the doctor may fertilize more than one. If that is the case, not all of the eggs are used, and some may be disposed of. Do you consider this murder?

Sorry, this should've been in my last comment. I am not starting to talk about stem-cell research, its another discussion for another forum. I am asking your honest opinion about the above situation and nothing more.

Some point in the second trimester, it's not a fine line.

That life begins at conception doesn't mean at conception a zygote is living.

The whole abortion debate is pointless, really. It's none of our business; every individual will have a different standard for when an abortion becomes unethical and immoral, and that decision is best made by a woman and her doctor.

As a Christian (Roman Catholic, I'm aware some consider us not "real" Christians) I think it's important to point out that here's a whole bunch of Christians here making Christian arguments. Those arguments are not germaine to the discussion of public policy.

T-Bone,

If the decision is made by a woman and the doctor (with an upper limit of when the baby is viable outside the womb given by the current law ) then why does it matter?

I think the point is that this point is different for different people. The fetus is not sentient, self aware, or really capable of "thoughts" "feelings" or any other emotional/physical response more sophisticated than the chicken that died so that I could have dinner last night.

Thus, there is no scientific point at which we can draw a line and say "on this side of the line it's a collection of cells and on this side it's a human being" short of actual birth -- and even then only by custom, tradition, and our own biological programing (which isn't to say that those things don't have value).

I think that means that this sort of decision has to be made by individuals - not by governments. Each of us has a personal belief about where that line is. None of us has the right to take that decision away from anyone else.

proof? well lets see...

http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/scheibel.htm

perhaps you could educate yourself on embryonic brain development.

Then read up on the abilities a new born baby has to process information. You will learn quite quickly, that new borns' actions are controlled through instinct and not thought.

All that should prove to you that an embryo is incapable of conscious thought and when taking into account that at early stages it cannot survive on its own (or is even a human shaped object with differentiated cells at very early stages), abortion in the first trimester should be a personal moral choice and not a legal one.

I do not believe abortion is right, so there is no magic date.

Again, I'll ask - so what's the cutoff then? I mean, when it is ok?
What's that magic day or number?

Are you asking us to speak for ourselves and our personal religious dogma, or are you asking us to speak for the 295,734,134 other individuals who live in the same country as me (us?) and who each have the constitutionally protected right to hold different religious beliefs?

Guess what.... Cassey says that the point that abortion can be legislated on by the state is post viability. thus, as medical tech gets better, the line moves earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.

right now it is 24 weeks or so.

You don't think it's important to know what that line is? How do you, then, know when it's ok to abort?

You talk to your doctor.

Murder is wrong, not killing. The hebrew scriptures are correctly translated as Murder.

# S: (v) murder, slay, hit, dispatch, bump off, off, polish off, remove (kill intentionally and with premeditation) "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"

and?