[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't like the idea of abortion personally, but I see two strong reasons to legalise it:

1] Individual rights.
Generally, people recognise less and less the right of the state to decide on individual matters of morality. They also increasingly consider that the state should be secular, and not promote religion (or atheism, for that matter). To state your personal moral qualms with abortion is one thing, but to state that the government should *force* this position on the population (or even consider putting it to a vote/referendum) counteracts this trend. To allow through a basically *religious* argument (that there is something mysterious and majestic about every newly-fertilised egg) for such a personal matter to be regulated by the state goes against the idea of a secular authority and individual rights.
2] Practicalities.
In 'this day and age', you also have to consider the practical effects of outlawing abortion. Outlawing abortion might seem as good an idea as outlawing alcohol was. But we know that prohibition was condemned as a failure. What percentage of women who really want an abortion when it's illegal will go ahead anyway? What proportion of them will be injured or even killed (not uncommon for instance in a country like Indonesia, where crude backyard abortions are common) by not having access to safe abortions? Community standards are already such that abortion is not looked down upon, so I suspect a greater number than ever before would have backyard terminations if/when abortion laws were introduced.

[Noumenon]

1] Individual rights.
Generally, people recognise less and less the right of the state to decide on individual matters of morality. They also increasingly consider that the state should be secular, and not promote religion (or atheism, for that matter). To state your personal moral qualms with abortion is one thing, but to state that the government should *force* this position on the population (or even consider putting it to a vote/referendum) counteracts this trend. To allow through a basically *religious* argument (that there is something mysterious and majestic about every newly-fertilised egg) for such a personal matter to be regulated by the state goes against the idea of a secular authority and individual rights.

Abortion is not an "individual matter of morality." An individual matter of morality would be the choice to smoke, gamble, drink, etc. Those things are victimless actions, and while some may consider them immoral, most agree that the state should not interfere. However abortion is not victimless. Therefore the state has the duty to interfere and stop this violation of the fetus's rights. The main reason the state exists is to protect rights, and by keeping abortion legal, it is shirking its responsibility.

2] Practicalities.
In 'this day and age', you also have to consider the practical effects of outlawing abortion. Outlawing abortion might seem as good an idea as outlawing alcohol was. But we know that prohibition was condemned as a failure. What percentage of women who really want an abortion when it's illegal will go ahead anyway? What proportion of them will be injured or even killed (not uncommon for instance in a country like Indonesia, where crude backyard abortions are common) by not having access to safe abortions? Community standards are already such that abortion is not looked down upon, so I suspect a greater number than ever before would have backyard terminations if/when abortion laws were introduced.

This is a utilitarian argument, and I am not a utilitarian. However, if you want to look at it from that point of view, the greatest good still comes from banning abortion. On the one hand you have the barbaric killing of millions of fetuses, and on the other hand a much smaller number of women who die by their foolish decision to get a backyard abortion. Banning abortion obviously saves more lives.

[Maxim Litvinov]

1] Argument one.

The choice to smoke, gamble, drink is not an individual matter of morality. Or, at least it is an individual choice which can have consequences for many other people - like abortion. The foetus is not a citizen of the state, so if anything the state has the responsibility to uphold the right of the woman (who probably is) to a termination.

The main reason the state would ban abortion, is if many of its members banded together and asserted (probably on the basis of their religious beliefs, and not particularly on scientific grounds) that they thought foetuses were just as 'human' as other people, and so wanted to interfere on such grounds in the pregnancies of all women within the state.

The state exists partly to, in cases of clear violations of rights, protect its citizens from having their rights violated. In abortion's case, there is no clear case that the foetus deserves its 'rights' upheld over the mother's rights, even if it is determined to have any rights in the first place.

2] Argument two.

A utilitarian argument would recognise greatest good, which is bound up in utility. It's not really a utilitarian argument at all. It's one of those "it's going to happen anyway, therefore you may as well regulate it" kind of arguments.

Even if it is accepted as a utilitarian argument, and even if it 'saves more lives' (arguable on practical and philosophical grounds), this still does not show it is the 'greatest good' anyway.

[Noumenon]

The choice to smoke, gamble, drink is not an individual matter of morality. Or, at least it is an individual choice which can have consequences for many other people - like abortion. The foetus is not a citizen of the state, so if anything the state has the responsibility to uphold the right of the woman (who probably is) to a termination.

If your religion says you cannot smoke, gamble, or drink, then you think it is immoral. However those things do not violate anyone elses rights, so they are merely individual moral decisions. It is the same with homosexuality. A christian would think that is immoral, but since homosexual actions do not violate anyone's rights, the government cannot get involved.

Now whether abortion fits into the category of individual matters of morality depends on whether the fetus has rights or not. I believe when it develops a mind, it has rights, as I explained in my post above. If it has rights that are being violated, then government must step in to protect those rights by banning abortion.

A fetus is not a citizen of the state, but it still has rights. You can't just go around murdering illegal aliens simply because they aren't citizens. That is because they have fundamental, inalienable human rights, independent from whether they happen to be citizens or not.

The main reason the state would ban abortion, is if many of its members banded together and asserted (probably on the basis of their religious beliefs, and not particularly on scientific grounds) that they thought foetuses were just as 'human' as other people, and so wanted to interfere on such grounds in the pregnancies of all women within the state.

I oppose abortion on philosophical grounds, as I am not religious. Whether the people who would get together and ban abortion would do it on religious grounds or not is really irrelevant. If people who banned slavery happened to do it on religious grounds, would you oppose them because of that?

The state exists partly to, in cases of clear violations of rights, protect its citizens from having their rights violated. In abortion's case, there is no clear case that the foetus deserves its 'rights' upheld over the mother's rights, even if it is determined to have any rights in the first place.

If the fetus does in fact have a right to life, then the mother cannot violate it. Are you saying she would have the right to violate another's rights? That is not a right I have ever heard of.

A utilitarian argument would recognise greatest good, which is bound up in utility. It's not really a utilitarian argument at all. It's one of those "it's going to happen anyway, therefore you may as well regulate it" kind of arguments.

Okay, I misunderstood your argument. But I am not convinced by the argument that its "going to happen anyway." Should we legalize murder, because it going to occur no matter what we do? We should stick to our principles. If abortion is violating human rights, then we have the obligation to ban it, even if some people still choose to get abortions.

This is not comparable to the prohibition of alcohol. In that case, drinking was an individual matter of morality in which the government had no right to get involved. The fact that people were going to drink no matter what is not the reason the ban was lifted. It was lifted because the government was trampling on our right to do what we want with our bodies.

[Comrade Nicolae Ceausescu]

For those who believe life begins at conception did you know that the fetus is a bunch of cells jumbled up that has the intelligence level of a carrot?Also,if you don't like abortion then don't get one.I have no problem with that.But don't be so selfish about it.Thats going by the logic "I don't like abortions.I think they are wrong. so this service should not be available to anyone else".Thats selfish.Pro-choice is the best of both worlds.Everyone has the choice to do what they want when it comes to abortion.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Hi DTGuitarist, you make some good arguments. Which I am quite happy with, because I personally don't like abortions. But to continue...

Smoking, gambling and drinking are not so 'individual'. They affect the moral fabric of society. If you gamble, and are in a relationship, the chances are your partner will be losing money. If you drink, you are liable to be a temporary danger (or increased danger) to society. Similarly, passive smoking seems to have proven effects.

I agree these are not as 'serious' as killing would be. And I agree if you think of a foetus as in the same category as a fully-aware human, then it is a form of killing.

My citizen point was badly made - all I was saying is that traditionally unborn children haven't come under the purview of the state, so that for a state to assert its right to ban abortions, it is really getting into an argument which it doesn't have any place intervening in.

I think the status of the foetus' identity is an interesting point. Newborn babies are hardly fully conscious of what is going on around them. We suspect foetuses to be even less conscious. While foetuses have the opportunity to develop into fully self-aware adults, they are not themselves in this category. Either is someone on life-support, for instance. In the case of having a potentially self-aware, dependant and currently non-aware person as our responsibility, I would think that - as in cases of those in comas - those responsible should be able to make the decision without having it forced upon them by the state.

I would personally hope that the decision was not to abort, and from a practical perspective as well would hope that no abortions were carried out in the third trimester, and that they generally occurred as early as possible.

If people banned slavery on religious grounds, I would not oppose them. A rather silly question. Because I believe there are - as you point out - good non-religious reasons for not adopting slavery.

On the point of the mother violating the foetus' rights. Well, understandably if the foetus has equal rights to the mother, then you have a dilemma. The general way 'rights' function is in a hierarchy, together with concomitant responsibilities. People all the time are deciding whose rights are more infringed, and what responsibilities come into the picture. It's not as simple as - if the baby dies, the mother violates its rights, if the mother can't decide what happens in her womb, the baby violates the mother's rights.

Abortion and infanticide are fairly common practices in history throughout the ages. It is reasonable to presume that much of the current anti-abortion lobby is motivated by fairly recent Judaeo-Christian ethics. Murder, on the other hand, is a less complex issue - most people have the ethical standpoint that it is generally wrong. If you stick to the principle that the state should intervene only when there is a reasonable consensus opinion, and it has the right to intervene, then you wouldn't be banning abortions.

It was lifted because the government was trampling on our right to do what we want with our bodies.

This is the point of pro-abortion campaigners. Whatever people's individual moral qualms, the state should not intervene and tell women what they have to do with their bodies.

[IMKant]

For those who believe life begins at conception did you know that the fetus is a bunch of cells jumbled up that has the intelligence level of a carrot?Also,if you don't like abortion then don't get one.I have no problem with that.But don't be so selfish about it.Thats going by the logic "I don't like abortions.I think they are wrong. so this service should not be available to anyone else".Thats selfish.Pro-choice is the best of both worlds.Everyone has the choice to do what they want when it comes to abortion.

You are just a bundle of cells, and it is possible that in the mind of some person somewhere you have the intellegence of a carrot. does that give he/she the license to end your exsitence?

[Xander]

Well, heres my argument for abortion, i understand were many anti abortionists are coming from, people shoudl definetly be more carefull, if they dont want children dont have sex or use contraception, however, when some politicians, like Cheney or Bush for that matter vote against abortion in cases of rape or incest, it disgust me, am not a woman, but from what i understand, most women couldnt take giving birth to what is in all Sense a monsters child, now regardless of what it is, i doubt the mother could ever forget how it got there, Rape is very traumatic, for males and females, it causes great pyscological damage to the person involved. Now i ask you, could you go through the pain of giving birth to the child of someone who was so evil to violate your own Chastity, sexuality, Femininity ect. Some would rather Die, if the mother could take the child she would, but forcing a mother to keep it is as immoral as killing. Some might call abortion killing, but not if its before 20 weeks, then theres no level of conciousness, the fact is, foster homes are hell, and just having to give birth to it may cause someone to commit suicide, and if not infanticide. If the mother could accept the child she wouldnt want an abortion would she? As i say am not a woman so i dont know how i would feel. I just know that its not right to block someones right to abort a child that is there through Great pain and evil.

I dont think i could Go through that, could you?

[Noumenon]

Smoking, gambling and drinking are not so 'individual'. They affect the moral fabric of society. If you gamble, and are in a relationship, the chances are your partner will be losing money. If you drink, you are liable to be a temporary danger (or increased danger) to society. Similarly, passive smoking seems to have proven effects.

They're individual because people can make the individual choice whether to do them or not (or at least they should be able to). If their choice leads to bad results that negatively affect those around them, they must accept the consequences. However, they should not be denied the freedom of making the choice in the first place, because things like drinking, smoking, and gambling can also be harmless fun.

I think the status of the foetus' identity is an interesting point. Newborn babies are hardly fully conscious of what is going on around them. We suspect foetuses to be even less conscious. While foetuses have the opportunity to develop into fully self-aware adults, they are not themselves in this category. Either is someone on life-support, for instance. In the case of having a potentially self-aware, dependant and currently non-aware person as our responsibility, I would think that - as in cases of those in comas - those responsible should be able to make the decision without having it forced upon them by the state.

I don't think the wrongness of killing has anything to do with conciousness. For example, murdering someone would still be wrong even if you made sure to knock them unconcious first. The wrongness has to do with the idea that a human individual's life has inherent worth that should be preserved. That is what rights are based on. A fetus may not be conscious, but it a human individual whose life must be preserved.

My citizen point was badly made - all I was saying is that traditionally unborn children haven't come under the purview of the state, so that for a state to assert its right to ban abortions, it is really getting into an argument which it doesn't have any place intervening in.

I believe the state does have the right to intervene, even though the fetus is not a citizen. Someone who murders an illegal alien should not get away with it just because his victim was not a citizen.

On the point of the mother violating the foetus' rights. Well, understandably if the foetus has equal rights to the mother, then you have a dilemma. The general way 'rights' function is in a hierarchy, together with concomitant responsibilities. People all the time are deciding whose rights are more infringed, and what responsibilities come into the picture. It's not as simple as - if the baby dies, the mother violates its rights, if the mother can't decide what happens in her womb, the baby violates the mother's rights.

Generally I would consider the mother's right to live greater than the fetus's, so abortion is okay if the mother's life is threatened. However the fetus's right to live generally trumps the mother's right to decide what happens in her womb.

This is the point of pro-abortion campaigners. Whatever people's individual moral qualms, the state should not intervene and tell women what they have to do with their bodies.

But the point of anti-abortion campaigners is that this isn't about what women do with their bodies. You can only claim that if you believe that the fetus is actually part of the woman's body, which is a rather strange claim. Once the fetus develops its own mind, it is an individual person who just happens to be attached to its mother. Its body is its own, not its mother's.

Also,if you don't like abortion then don't get one.I have no problem with that.But don't be so selfish about it.Thats going by the logic "I don't like abortions.I think they are wrong. so this service should not be available to anyone else".Thats selfish.Pro-choice is the best of both worlds.Everyone has the choice to do what they want when it comes to abortion.

Abortion is not an individual matter of morality. You can say "If you don't like smoking, then don't smoke," but you can't say "if you don't like stealing, don't steal." Smoking is an individual matter in which people have the freedom to choose whether to do it or not. Stealing violates others' rights, so you do not have the freedom to choose to do it. Abortion also falls under the category of violating another's rights, the fetus's rights. Therefore people should not be able to choose to do it.

Well, heres my argument for abortion, i understand were many anti abortionists are coming from, people shoudl definetly be more carefull, if they dont want children dont have sex or use contraception, however, when some politicians, like Cheney or Bush for that matter vote against abortion in cases of rape or incest, it disgust me, am not a woman, but from what i understand, most women couldnt take giving birth to what is in all Sense a monsters child, now regardless of what it is, i doubt the mother could ever forget how it got there, Rape is very traumatic, for males and females, it causes great pyscological damage to the person involved. Now i ask you, could you go through the pain of giving birth to the child of someone who was so evil to violate your own Chastity, sexuality, Femininity ect. Some would rather Die, if the mother could take the child she would, but forcing a mother to keep it is as immoral as killing. Some might call abortion killing, but not if its before 20 weeks, then theres no level of conciousness, the fact is, foster homes are hell, and just having to give birth to it may cause someone to commit suicide, and if not infanticide. If the mother could accept the child she wouldnt want an abortion would she? As i say am not a woman so i dont know how i would feel. I just know that its not right to block someones right to abort a child that is there through Great pain and evil.

If an abortion is done immediately after the rape or incest, it is okay. That is because the fetus has not yet started to develop a mind, which is what makes it an individual with rights.

[Visage of Glory]

I have not read everyone else's replies, but I am strongly against abortion. It IS murder. I don't even like it even if the woman was raped. Just because the child comes from a horrible act by a terrible person does not make the child any less alive. True, I am not woman, but that is my feelings anyway. If you feel strongly about it, give the baby up for adoption. At least it will have a life, instead of being tossed aside before it even has a chance.

[Maxim Litvinov]

1] Gambling, smoking and drinking aren't really qualitatively different. Sleeping around and taking the morning-after pill can also be harmless fun. Gambling (in my book) is never something that should be encouraged by society - yet governments recognise the right for this to occur (and not just for tax dollars) and for people to regulate their own gambling habits.

2] What I am saying is - a man who is not conscious, who relies on an outside force (a machine) to keep him alive, but who has actually been a perfectly norman human and could be again can be put down by society. A comatose patient can be killed off. Someone on life-support can be killed off. So, why not allow a baby - who has never been particularly conscious, and who is on the life-support of a mother, to be killed off?

3] You oversimplify the mind thing. It is not until about 2-4 years that humans actually have any real self-awareness anyway. They do not have concepts like the preservation of matter in their heads under 12 or so. I don't necessarily doubt that a foetus can feel pain, but most evidence suggests that this foetus really has little to no awareness of what's going on anyway. Next to zilch awareness. Less than a frog has. If you're arguing on the basis of a 'mind' then it's probably a much nastier thing to slaughter a cow than a foetus.

If you want to keep on saying that foetuses have a 'human mind', perhaps you can provide some backing for that statement. Sure, they develop a 'brain' in the womb, sure it starts to function at some time, but really - a foetus is not an individual in any meaningful sense of the word, and does not even have any concept of individuality.

4] I claim that a woman and not the state has the right to control what happens to her body. This does not mean that the foetus has to be classed as 'her body', although this is not a stupid statement. But, the foetus is something that gives her mood-swings, makes her stack on weight and size, changes her hormonal balance, makes her want to eat certain foods. An unwanted baby is like a parasite living inside her.

If you want to address one of these points in particular, I'd want it to be the issue of mind. Because I think this is something you too easily assume.

[Visage of Glory]

For me, whether or not the fetus is capable of intelligent thought is not the issue. The issue is that it will be capable of intelligent thought. You mentioned a man on life-support. If he can recover and have a normal life, he should be allowed to do that. If their is little or no chance he will survive, then, yes, he probably should be cut off. Does killing someone in their sleep when they do not know it make it any better. I think not. Even if the fetus does not know it, abortion ruins its chances of ever having a chance to know.

[Xander]

Visage, the problem with that is, some Rape victims are so pyscologically damaged they dont come forward for many weeks after the incident, id be interested in hearing what you think they should do then? Seeming your abit more rational then many of the Anti abortionists anyway, since youve justified your points well rather then merely justifying them with "its murder" or "its against my religion" (personal oppion and a generalisation, cant really say much different) its that sort of thing which gives the whole movement a bad name, im not in support of it, but im in support of your right to make it known.

So anyway, what do you feel a rape victim should do if they only go to the police, councilor, family member ect 10-20 Weeks after the event?

[clownboy]

This is such a polarized issue and I really don't see the likelihood that anybody's going to budge. That why government has to step in with a solution that doesn't please anyone, but only REALLY pisses off the fringes.

I don't think we've hit that sweet spot yet. When Roe V Wade was made up by SCOTUS (I'm showing bias here more for how the Constitution was raped by the decision than the effect of the decision itself), the science wasn't there - so they guessed, pretty much arbitrary, where to draw the line.

They said, you can go this far, no farther. We all KNOW what happenned to that line.

Personally I think the line should be drawn right after the junk DNA is finished processing and the gills and tail is dropped. After that, you're dealing with a human without doubt.

But if I had my druthers it would take a court order to have an abortion. She'd have to show cause why the life within should not be preserved. Have any of you ever actually witnessed a "late-term" abortion? I have (witnessed, NOT performed - LVN training years ago). YOU stick forceps into a fully formed baby's brain while holding the head just inside the mother so nobody hears the cry. YOU do that just once, YOU see that just once, in person, and your views on the subject are forever altered.

[Xander]

Yes, its not nice, thats why i set the 20 weeks mark in my post, at which time you often cant even distinguish the head, it should be aborted in the Cell Multiplicity Stage Virtually always though, In Cases of Rape or Incest i Just cant understand anyone denying a victims rights. Im thankfull there strict rules about abortion in the UK, weve got 1 Intitial Bracket (i think its up to 20 Weeks) and One Final Bracket for emergencies only, after 24 Weeks the child is Considered Medically Viable, and thats were my absolute limit is unless the mother Medical or Mental state is in danger directly or indirectly because of the child.

Personally i havnt seen it, but knowing the process is enough.

[Visage of Glory]

Sorry, Xander, I am not sure what you are asking. I think a raped woman should bear the child. Rape is horrible, but once it happens, purging the baby that came from it is not going to make it so that it did not happen. If anything, I think the woman should try her best to raise the child, to the best of her ability, into a law-abiding citizen that does not rape people.

Rape is horribly dramatizing. I understand that. Victims should probably seek assistance as soon as possible. If they don't, it will be much harder for them to cope with it, but I still think it is possible. I have never been raped and had to carry the rapist baby, so this is all just my opinion. If they truly feel incapable to carry the baby, I do not know what to do. I think the baby deserves a chance to live, and I don't see how it will ruin the woman's life. Rape may destroy a woman, but, surely, giving a life to child cannot be so harrowing.

[Xander]

Exactly, You havnt, i havnt, and i dont think many of the Anti Abortionists, Male or Female Have, is it really up to us to decide whether they can or cannot raise that child? Were all different, like with pain we all have different thresholds, a paper cut to me, may seem like a Stab wound to you, and no one should take away a rape womans right to choose, and the fact is, its up to men, Im pretty sure Most never been raped to decide whether or not they have that right, It may not make it go away, bt it may stop it from going any worse, its preventive rather then a cure.

What i was asking, is what do you expect those rape victims to do that are so traumatised they dont come forward into Middle Pregnancy or even late pregnancy?

[Visage of Glory]

I see. I honestly think they should persevere and keep the baby. As I said before, they can always give it up for adoption. I feel sympathy for the victims, but I do not think we should baby them too much. A state senator here in Utah got in big trouble with this issue. He said something that really offended some women. It is a touchy issue, and there are good arguements for both sides. I can see why some women would want to have an abortion, but I still think it is wrong. Especially when you have women that are cheating on their husband and get pregnant and have an abortion, or some teenager forgets to use protection. That is just irresposible, and I think some people use abortion to escape the consequences for their actions.

[clownboy]

What i was asking, is what do you expect those rape victims to do that are so traumatised they dont come forward into Middle Pregnancy or even late pregnancy?

The same thing that happens to the guy who has the pain in his back, but delays going to have it checked out, only to find out it's liver cancer - they suffer the "consequences" of the delay.

Also, this isn't the 70s when it was months into a pregnancy that we could detect it. We don't kill rabbits anymore either. Now the results are more immediate.

Now, too, recall the procedure I described before - yeah, THAT'S going to be good for the women so traumatized by the rape she couldn't pee on a stick for 3-6 months.

[Xander]

Ya, there definetly good arguments on both sides, clownboy as for your Delay thing, you cant really Blame Human Nature, Sometimes people are scared hell come back, or Ashamed that it happened, no different froma fear of being shot or a fear of someone dieing, you cant blame them for it.

Anyway Visage am Glad you cleared that up for me, sometimes i get left blank and wondering if some people really have a reason