Mnay cultures practiced abortion via herbs and stuff for thousands of years. Abortion is hardly a new issue, its pretty old. The body itself causes abortions, also called miscarriages.

Adoption, again, is not realistic. For one, youre still bringing an unwanted kid into the world. they could end up with evil parents who abuse them, or go through life wondering why thier real mommy didnt want them. others adjust nicely. regardless, its not realitic for everyone.

Birth control and abstinence are the best options. But people dont seem to realize how stupid people really are. especially teenagers. Kids. they have NO sense whatsoever, being run by thier hormones. i see all sorts of 19 year olds, 16 years olds, running around with kids. Its fun for a few months, its like a new pet or toy, Then, suddenly, they realize, wow, Im young, i wanna go out and play, and end up negelecting the kids Its unfair to the kid to have to grow up like this. Why create and throw more potential criminals out into the world? more unhappy, unstable people? people dont think before they breed, and its thier kids who suffer.

Thus.... better a girl or woman be given the option to do what she feels is best, and deal with the concequences. How many more welfare kids does society want to support?

Stupid people breed in massive numbers.

Jedi, what about of the moms life is threatened or the fetus will be born with severe defects? what about rape victims?

and sometimes contraception fails....

a friend of mine has four children - everyone of them unplanned as a condom, the pill and the IUD let her down. She finally got sterilised but due to the fact only one of her ovaries was functioning originally, they didn't bother tying the other tube. It decided to work eventually and thus arrived baby number 4!

Fetus? You desensitized people try and ignore the fact that you are talking about a baby, but you are actually saying that in Latin.

There is no life-endangerment issue, never has been. That is a smoke screen for the sickness that is now protected because of judicial activism and not legislature.
Of course, I am not in favor of the murder of unborn children. I'm not in favor of destroying precious little lives in the very place they should be the safest.

imagine being at one of the worst points in your life, the point where you're unsure whether it's worth carrying on or not. Then imagine you discover you're pregnant, and that on top of everything else you have to lose control of your mind and body for at least the next nine months.

Now imagine how protective and parental you feel to what you now essentially see as in invader inside your body.

Sometimes the desire for self protection outweighes any desire for selfless action.

I'm not going to answer your poll, Skadi. Because I believe your question to not be defined well enough.

Are you asking "Do I believe that abortion should have some be legalized? be legalized with restrictions? be legally banned completely?"

OR, are you asking "Do I believe that abortion is morally wrong 1.) never, 2.) sometimes, 3.) always.

So I don't know how to answer your poll, because believe it or not...the first set of questions will get a different answer than the second set of questions.

Skadi: a fitting subject for the new mud pit forum!

I am pro-life, all the way! (Unless, of course, there are excruciating circumstances, abort or mother may die, etc, etc, blah, yawn). This has nothing to do with religious beliefs either. And abortion certainly shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control.

As far as capable of providing for the children (i.e., the ‘social’ aspects of it): I myself had a child (well, my wife 'technically' had a child) when we were very young and had very little. Yet, I did it. (and w/ out any entitlments - no village needed). It’s not impossible. I just think people are too lazy or don’t want the inconvenience of being a parent.

And since we’re in the mud pit: Why don’t liberal just call themselves ‘pro-abortion’ – they are certainly not pro-choice when it comes to guns, schools, and what we do with OUR money (such as in investing our own social security money) among many other issues.

A wise man once said: ...Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

Ok, Vhall, Ill explain it better.

Yes means abortion at any time, unfettered, whenever, wherever.
Yes with restrictions means, limited to first trimester, no govornment funding, ect.

Only under special circumstance means in case of life threat to the mother, deformity of fetus, or in case of rape or incest.

No means absolutely never, no way, dont care of kid is deformed, dont care of mom was raped, dont care of moms gonna die.

And yes, Thomas, there are sick issues for some mothers who need it done. if a woman is a diabetic, or has cancer, or blood pressure problems, then the pregnancy is endangering the moms life. My aunt almost died carrying my cousin because she has metabolic problems that caused her blood pressure to shoot sky high, she got the shakes, ect. After she had my cousin, she got sterilized because the danger of another pregnacy. but she was unaware of her condition before she got pregnant.

Bob, remeber, not everyones story is as happy as yours. Not every dad wants thier kids, not every kid is lucky enough to be born to parents who realize the gravity of kids, and strsaigten up. Seattle is full of dirty, udnerfed kids born to single moms running around in traffic unatteneded and stuff.

but glad you joined the debate regardless

Skadi, I realize that. Really I do. I know many single mothers trying to make ends meet. One even 'fears' the father of her daughter, she won't even try to get child support out of him. BUT - I think that's in part a seperate issue. Not that they don't intersect

Skadi, the point of the matter wasn't that conditions or crisis does not arise, but that Roe-v-Wade wasn't necessary to protect the life of the mother. The abortion clinics throughout the country aren't making a mint by saving women in emminent danger. That happens at hospitals.

I guess what I am trying to ensure is crystal clear is abortion rights advocates are not advocating what has always been the case, the right to choose who is to live, but advocates murder on demand for selfish reasons. And the ones who are most helpless and in most need of legal protection gets diced up and sucked out, burned up with salt and flushed out, or pulled partially out, held still while the doctor jabs the base of the brain with scissors, with which he scrambles the brain, and then sucks the brain out. After which, the little, lifeless baby is tossed into a bucket.

The question of the status of the fetus is still up for debate. Some insist because the bible says its a human that it is, others, its a potential one, but not a human, anymore than semen is a human. if that were the case, then the old church prohibitions against masturbation would be in place, since semen was once considered life too, and masturbating or expelling it was killing life.

The right of the mother comes into play too. In some, or many cases, girl does guy, girl gets knoceked up, guy splits, girl left standing with the burden alone. As a conservative, you rpobably dont support social welfare. So, whats she gonna do?

I dont support social welfare either. But why force it on the mom? Why make the woman have a kid she doesnt want, inst gonna care for, and let they kid grow up into a street rat? I see quite often stories of kids getting murdered, raped, ect, by sick parents who were unstable trash to begin with who shouldnt have been breeding in the first place. Im tired of these little unmonitored unsupervised punks roaming the streets, mom somewhere, dad unknown, running amok and creating problems. this problem would be ten times worse if abortion wasnt legal.

Roe VS Wade was revolved around choice, youre right. However, there are morons who would even snag that right if the moms life depends on it. Make it illegal, and people will use coathangers or dangerous potions again.

edited with humility...

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by astrocreep]

Personally, I don't understand why there are men posting on this subject. This is a woman's problem, and a hard one at that. Even though i lean more toward the right, no man here on these boards, or over there on the HIll, have the right to tell a woman her business regarding this subject.

Interesting, astrocreep. 40 million potential taxpayers? 40 million potential slaves? 40 Million potential soldiers to get shot in Iraq?

Its also worthy of note that theres 40 million less potential criminals, killers, crooked politicians, ect. Note the drop in the 90's of crime wasnt due to anything Clinton did. The majority of criminals are ages 18-25, and roe vs wade happened during the time when these 18-25 year olds of the 90's would have been born. Since so many abortions took place, the population of my paticular age bracket is very small. Its alot more difficult to find people born from 1973-1975, the lowest recorded birthrates in US history.

So, while you argue that Bush and firends were denied 40 million more tax paying miserable slaves and soliders to feed to the cannons, I argue thats that fewer criminals and such. Its a double edged sword. While we are denied Einsteins and Voltaires and such, were also denied Ted Bundys, Adolf Hitlers, and Bill Clintons!

let me throw this out:

What if the mother wanted to abort and the father didn't?

And yes, a very good question: why do men get so touchy on this topic? I mean, they are the ones who more often than not leave the pregnant moms and go live thier lives elsewhere. They are the ones that leave millions of kids fatherless, they arent the ones who have to deal with 18 years of child rearing. I know too many kids from divorced families whose dads simply go off and marry again and breed more kids. Men seem to be the most vocal in the anti abortion lobby, yet they are the ones who often drive women to have them. And men seem to forget that often, women, after having kids, find it hard to find a male partner, many men run from women with families and kids and stuff. Its men who bitch about how ugly and fat women get during and after pregnancies, men who constantly insult and dog women for this fact of nature.

If men were forced to carry children for 9 months, have them, and take care of them, would thier views be different?

That is indeed the crux of the male/female standoff on the situation, Bob. I guess you would just have to leave that in the hands of the partners and count on them BOTH to make wise decisions.

then thats something the couple should sort out between them, the father is entitled to voice his opinion. But at the end of the day the final decision rests with the mother - afterall she has to carry the baby, go through the birth etc.

I can understand why many of you men are against termination. especially if you have children of your own. Once I've had kids I doubt I'd willingly consider having a termination unless my life was in extreme danger or the baby was unlikely to survive the birth due to major handicaps. But that still wouldn't stop me from having an ounce of sympathy for any young woman would had managed to get herself into a horrendous predicament. Do any of you actually stop to imagine how it feels to discover you are pregnant at a point in your life when the last thing you can handle is a baby?!

The only thing I would add is that I would not want to see routine terminations carried out past the third month nor do I agree with women using the termination option as contraception. Accidents, errors of judgement and rape do happen, but some basic common sense when it comes to birth control should be employed. And in answer to TC's delightfully explicit account of how a baby is removed from the womb - that happens at much later stages of pregnancy. Before 3 months the baby is simply vacuumed intact from the womb. I did some research on this as sadly the week following my own termination, a pro-lifer shoved a graphically explicit leaflet through my door which majorly distorted the facts.

Skadi, a very good counterpoint...but the thing with a double edged sword is that once you hone your edge to the tip, you find the opposite edge is always still there..

So, we have the lowest population birth rates in American history moving into the demograph of the driving work force trying to pay for the retirement of the largest population birth rate, the baby boom generation. Interesting situation beginning to develope isn't it? Oh..and not all demographs have partaken of the abortion frenzy. While we had the working class running for the abortion clinics, we also had our welfare class cranking out more children who have grown up being taught to rely on the system and given no real incentive to enter the work force. So, if from all this we have a huge reduction in the total poplulation, then we could conceive that we are entering a time of few workers and many dependants. As a 35 year old Gen-Xer, I'm not planning on having social security to fall back on..as I fear it will be program destroyed by the time I retire.