Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.

Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality

I think he's reffering to special cases where an abortion has to be performed in order to avoid complications for the mother, such as her being too young to safely carry the child (or the child being born with a crippling condition, thoughI don't know what US law says on this point). If that is what he is arguing, then it's really weighing up the value of killing the infant (if we are all agreed it is an unborn child by this point) in order to save the mother or risk losing them both.

Phototoxin wrote: Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.

I believe there is a limit on when abortion can be carried out even in cases of rape. Abortions can not be carried out after a certain period regardless of whether the child is simply 'unwanted'. This is not the issue here, your issue is that you refuse to accept the legal decision on when the act becomes illegal, which is fine and encourages debate. But don't argue around it.

There is no restriction for when the baby has 'defects' such as Down's syndrome. While I doubt the occur later than 24 weeks (since most abortions are 1st trimester) the possiblity is still there. Also yes there is no limit on a life saving procedure which I'm not against and in that case I think only nutjobs would be against it!
The unintended abortion is in this case an unfortunate side effect of treatment.

To your statment at hand - yes it may be the law and yes I refuse it as I don't accept it and believe it is ethically wrong based on the information that I have and know to be true. I'm not intending to argue 'around it' and have attempted to demonstrate why this belief is accurate and why the law is unethical if not immoral. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right as I have mentioned. (Similarly because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.)


Also can I just say that the fact we've had a near 12 page interweb discussion on abortion without flame wars, trolling and mostly without ad hominem is probably a credit to the fact that dakka is one of the more sensible forums online.

Phototoxin wrote:There is no restriction for when the baby has 'defects' such as Down's syndrome. While I doubt the occur later than 24 weeks (since most abortions are 1st trimester) the possiblity is still there. Also yes there is no limit on a life saving procedure which I'm not against and in that case I think only nutjobs would be against it!
The unintended abortion is in this case an unfortunate side effect of treatment.

I assume this is directed at my comment towards youbedead? If so, yes. The 'limit' on abortion in some countries (not sure about UK) doesn't apply when there is evidence of serious disabilties. Some of these are challenging and impair learning abilities ect, and some are downright horrific. One case where the infant was in constant pain due to nerve disorder, a soft wind was akin to being hit by a flamethrower. I read through an interesting case in Australian Law on a civil case where the claimant was arguing that if the doctor had not been negligent in informing the patient of the child having a condition (can't remember the specifics, but it crippled the child immensely) then the parent would have opted for abortion. This isn't what you might think though, the plaintiff was the child in question (who was in excrutiating pain) and was suing the doctor so that they had to provide for costs inflicted by her condition.

The judges sided against it (in appeal), as they decided there is simply no way for a court of law to decide whether a life in constant pain can be 'measured' against non-existence/oblivion, it extends (quite simply) outside of their jurisdiction. Very fascinating stuff (especially the opinion of the dissenting judge).

As to the 'life-saving' procedure, you then have to define 'life-saving'. Complications doesn't always mean death, it can also mean crippling (very serious in some cases, but not all life threatening) or just having the risk of death present.

To your statment at hand - yes it may be the law and yes I refuse it as I don't accept it and believe it is ethically wrong based on the information that I have and know to be true. I'm not intending to argue 'around it' and have attempted to demonstrate why this belief is accurate and why the law is unethical if not immoral. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right as I have mentioned. (Similarly because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.)

I know, I was asking you to argue with the law. Not the issue of 'consenting to pregnancy'.

Also can I just say that the fact we've had a near 12 page interweb discussion on abortion without flame wars, trolling and mostly without ad hominem is probably a credit to the fact that dakka is one of the more sensible forums online.

S'truth.

Phototoxin wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.

Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality

I think he's reffering to special cases where an abortion has to be performed in order to avoid complications for the mother, such as her being too young to safely carry the child (or the child being born with a crippling condition, thoughI don't know what US law says on this point). If that is what he is arguing, then it's really weighing up the value of killing the infant (if we are all agreed it is an unborn child by this point) in order to save the mother or risk losing them both.

Phototoxin wrote: Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.

I believe there is a limit on when abortion can be carried out even in cases of rape. Abortions can not be carried out after a certain period regardless of whether the child is simply 'unwanted'. This is not the issue here, your issue is that you refuse to accept the legal decision on when the act becomes illegal, which is fine and encourages debate. But don't argue around it.

There is no restriction for when the baby has 'defects' such as Down's syndrome. While I doubt the occur later than 24 weeks (since most abortions are 1st trimester) the possiblity is still there. Also yes there is no limit on a life saving procedure which I'm not against and in that case I think only nutjobs would be against it!
The unintended abortion is in this case an unfortunate side effect of treatment.

To your statment at hand - yes it may be the law and yes I refuse it as I don't accept it and believe it is ethically wrong based on the information that I have and know to be true. I'm not intending to argue 'around it' and have attempted to demonstrate why this belief is accurate and why the law is unethical if not immoral. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right as I have mentioned. (Similarly because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.)


Also can I just say that the fact we've had a near 12 page interweb discussion on abortion without flame wars, trolling and mostly without ad hominem is probably a credit to the fact that dakka is one of the more sensible forums online.

Well then, that makes a bit more sense. Also sorry for the hostility. It does beg the question though, is a life of eternal pain better then no life at all

Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics.

Really? That is surprising, though I suppose 'study' can be broadly interpreted.

Phototoxin wrote:It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist

You can be religious and be a scientist. Science doesn't automatically mean having a balanced or reasonable world view, it also doesn't mean someone is a good scientist either. Bob Jones University teaches science and they think the world is 6000 years old. You could be a fundie nutcase and a scientist. If you are an atheist or one of the myriad of religions that isn't one of the Religions of the Book I would be surprised, but it is certainly possible.

The problem just isn't one of science either, so approaching it solely from that perspective is also one of fail.

Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.

...

The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.

Apparently you think it is worthless, though.

Phototoxin wrote:
Well what is the case? – you’ve still not given a clear definition. Why is 24 weeks a bad time to kill a fetus but 13 is not? Waht about 14,15,16 weeks? 2days? 8 days? 75 days? It’s illegal to kill both a 24 week old baby and a 13 week old baby but not when its in the womb - why? Enlighten me.

I'm not particularly interested in a precise time frame, and really you shouldn't be either. We can talk about mental development and all that sort of specificity, but that involves deeply technical neuroscientific arguments that are best presented via well researched journal articles and the like. This is an internet forum, and not one with an academic bias; for the purposes of this conversation its best to simply accept that a specific time from conception is arbitrary, because it is, to some extent.

You'll also note that I've never made a claim about a specific time from conception, so right now you're simply talking past me. This is not only exceedingly rude, it points to a sort of self-righteous conviction that leaves me with the feeling that you're simply carrying this conversation in order to deepen your conviction; which means I'm wasting my time to an even greater extent than is normal for the internet.

Phototoxin wrote:
Who gives her the ‘unique authortiy’? – she has a unique RESPONSIBILITY, but not authortity. Parents are responsible for their children, they do not have roman-era type authorthty to kill (or sell them as was also possible then then)

Responsibility and authority are two sides of the same coin. If one is responsible for something, say admitting people to see the President, then they also have authority over who is admitted to see the President. Regardless, you're equivocating again. A fetus is not a child, it is a fetus. Women have a unique responsibility for the fetus that they carry, and this responsibility is given by biological necessity. She can take its life if she so chooses because it is not an independent life, as a child is, and therefore presents her with a unique burden. It would be preferable for her to be able to give the fetus up, but that simply isn't possible.

Phototoxin wrote:
If an adult has motor neuron disease and has no way of communication and a person is their designated carer, the patient is uniquely dependent on their carer. By your logic the carer has a unique authority and so should be able to kill the adult.

No, they are not. In that instance the designated caretaker could seek a replacement for himself. This cannot be done with a fetus.

At this point you're equivocating again as I clearly stated that the inability to transfer care of the fetus was the crux of the unique dependency. Please stop misrepresenting my position if you are able to do so.

Phototoxin wrote:
So what you’re saying is that the mother can choose to kill her own child because she doesn’t want to care for it. Hence if i have an 8 year old child and he becomes tedious I will just shoot him, since clearly I have the right not to care for him.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Stop equivocating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:
It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.

Interestingly you're using the standard Christian interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, which is really only relevant to the the original text, and only if you consider a fetus to be a child.

The classic version helps your position directly, but many institutions no longer use it.

There are many modern versions of the oath, and many of them don't help your position at all. If you study medical ethics, then you should be well aware of this.

Then there's the other oaths used by other medical schools, like the Oath of Maimonides, which would take far longer to cover.

In any case, simply saying that two versions of the Oath support your position isn't really a very good argument, nor is it at all indicating of any general agreement with medical ethics as a whole. Again, if you study medical ethics, then this should be something that's obvious. There is more to any given ethical field than that with which you agree.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.

...

The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.

Apparently you think it is worthless, though.

Of course he does. He you were pro life you would too. Personally, anything discussed by politicians can't be cited for anything...intelligent.

youbedead wrote:Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality

Not sure where you get the idea that there's a legal limit on abortion. Only about 13 states in the U.S. limit 'late term abortions.' There is no right for a fetus that attaches once the child is viable, the only protection it has is state law.

Also, the exception for late term abortions is life or health, which includes mental health. Some doctors take the position that a mother saying "I don't want this baby" is sufficient to indicate that continued pregnancy is a threat to the mother's health.

So, since you were wrong about the "legal limit," which is it for you?

This isn't what you might think though, the plaintiff was the child in question (who was in excrutiating pain) and was suing the doctor so that they had to provide for costs inflicted by her condition.

Yes I have heard of similar cases. However without medical intervention at all she would have had this child and had the moral obligation to care for it. (unless we abandon our sick and leave the young outside overnight to see if they are strong enough) The fact that the medics didn't 'pick up on it' is not good, but the child is her responsibility. She obviously felt entitled to terminate the child on the basis that it was going to suffer. But who are we to judge others lives? If I think starving africans are suffering I don't have the right to kill them to end their suffering, rather the morally correct decision is to aid them and relieve as much of their suffering as possible without killing them.

Really? That is surprising, though I suppose 'study' can be broadly interpreted.

You're clearly attempting to being antagonistic and trying to bait. Fail more.

The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.

Apparently you think it is worthless, though.

Killkrazy where have I said that I thought it was 'worthless' ? All I said was that I wasn't going to re-read since I'd read it before recently.

I'm not particularly interested in a precise time frame, and really you shouldn't be either.

Why shouldn't I be concerned with when a foetus 'becomes' a human/person wiht rights ? That is the crux of the argument. I say from day 0, you say the law says week 24. But not for downs babies.... double standards?

No, they are not. In that instance the designated caretaker could seek a replacement for himself. This cannot be done with a fetus.

That is not the foetus' fault however. When it is born the foetus can be left for adoption or in the care of the state.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Stop equivocating.

Then be more clear.

There are many modern versions of the oath, and many of them don't help your position at all. If you study medical ethics, then you should be well aware of this.

My point is that if the Greeks knew this to be true and morally wrong, then how come our modern doctors don't? Or as you say more modern versions have been revised to exclude this to facilitate abortion?

Phototoxin wrote:It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist

By their deeds shall you judge them.

It is assumed because you are acting like one. Nobody this entire thread has said that this is an easy thing to dicuss, or not a heartbreaking decision for a woman, or a simple black and white issue. Nobody at all except you and your ilk.

The real world has very few black and white cases, there are a million shades of grey. The only people in my experience who deal with black and white are "fundies" and soldiers. Soldiers by training and necessity because you cant reflect on if you are involved in a moral war, or if your enemy deserves to die, or if he has kids, or if he had a bad childhood when you are required to shoot him in the face before he tosses his grenade. And fundies, because they absolutely will not ever change their mind no matter what evidence is presented to them. Nobody has made this an entirely black and white issue other than you. I am pro choice, but if new evidence comes out that says a foetus is fully in charge of its faculties at 18 weeks, then gak, im sure almost everyone here would say "yes, we need to look at the law again, maybe move it back to 14 weeks?" or whatever. This was discussed in Parliament and thats what happens, people gather their information, then come to a well rounded and logical consensus as possible.

You ARE a fundie, you are also incredibly offensive but can get away with it because of your faith choices. You have basically been equivocating the entire thread, and painting people that disagree with you as "murderers" or wholly immoral. Thats why I have little interest in speaking with you, because the kid gloves they treat people like you with while you are busy smearing everyone else as immoral genocidal murderers frustrates me utterly.

You absolutely are a "fundie" regardless of your profession.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.

...

The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.

Apparently you think it is worthless, though.

Of course he does. He you were pro life you would too. Personally, anything discussed by politicians can't be cited for anything...intelligent.

The debate surrounding the Abortion Act involved churchmen, philosophers and ethicists, medical people, and the general public, not just politicians.

There really is no point in someone continually asking "why this" and "why that" when the reply is that the answers are in the history of the formation of the Act, and he refuses to read about it.

mattyrm wrote:
You ARE a fundie, you are also incredibly offensive but can get away with it because of your faith choices. You have basically been equivocating the entire thread, and painting people that disagree with you as "murderers" or wholly immoral. Thats why I have little interest in speaking with you, because the kid gloves they treat people like you with while you are busy smearing everyone else as immoral genocidal murderers frustrates me utterly.

You absolutely are a "fundie" regardless of your profession.

Frankly you're full os gak Matty. He's arguing individual life begins at conception. Thats science. You can't change that. You can argue when wedo something or not, but get off your fething high horse.

He might need a ladder though.

Melissia wrote:He might need a ladder though.

Stragnely enough, they have one of those auto ladder things stucked in a corner of the building's lobby. For those not familiar its a raisable platform attached to an electric cart, kind of like a miniature cherry picker. I so want to hijack it and go berserk through downtown. Just saying...

In the interest of clarity I should note that, although I believe individual life begins at conception, I'm very comfortable with vthe intersection of viability and Matty's pain threshold. My personal views are anti abortion but I support the law at the above nexus.

Frazzled wrote:He's arguing individual life begins at conception. Thats science. You can't change that.

I believe that a significant part of this and other "abortion yes/no/when/how" debate is centred around that very point. Not everyone agrees that "life" starts at conception. The process that produces "life" may begin there, but how we choose to define "life" varies, just as many such nebulous terms have different interpretations.

Some words have different meanings in "real life" and in scientific language.

Phototoxin wrote:
Why shouldn't I be concerned with when a foetus 'becomes' a human/person wiht rights ? That is the crux of the argument. I say from day 0, you say the law says week 24. But not for downs babies.... double standards?

No, as I said, I'm not making a specific temporal claim, so you're again misrepresenting my position when you say "week 24". If you're not going to approach this honestly, then again, you're wasting my time.

Either way, the reason the specific date is not of interest is because it would take a research paper in order to support the argument properly. Otherwise it just a tennis match of "I believe X", which is really, really boring.

Phototoxin wrote:
That is not the foetus' fault however. When it is born the foetus can be left for adoption or in the care of the state.

There's two potential refutations here.

1: It is the fetus' fault because if the fetus is person it is at fault for being itself, with all that it entails; just as a scientist is at fault for being a scientist.

2: If fault can only arise from choice, and the fetus cannot choose, then fault itself is irrelevant and we are left with the mere reality of the matter; meaning that the woman bears the responsibility and is still afforded a unique authority.

As you've already stated that no one chooses to be pregnant I imagine that the latter argument is more forceful, as it presents the situation as one which must be accepted and dealt with by choice, even if it was not the result of choice to begin with. As such, simply stating that it is isn't the fault of the fetus, or of the mother, is irrelevant; placing us right back where we started.

Phototoxin wrote:
Then be more clear.

I can't be. I mean, I've explicitly claimed the exact opposite of what you're stating as my position, which again tells me that you're only interested in deepening your own conviction.

Phototoxin wrote:
My point is that if the Greeks knew this to be true and morally wrong, then how come our modern doctors don't? Or as you say more modern versions have been revised to exclude this to facilitate abortion?

That's a terrible argument. You're either begging the question by assuming that abortion is wrong, or appealing to some imagined authority embodied by the Greeks. The Greeks also believed in slavery, so we could then take your reasoning and presume that if they knew it wasn't wrong, that we're foolish to presume it is.

Frazzled wrote:in a corner of the building's lobby. For those not familiar its a raisable platform attached to an electric cart, kind of like a miniature cherry picker. I so want to hijack it and go berserk through downtown. Just saying...

And they said you couldn't improve on the church tower...

There really is no point in someone continually asking "why this" and "why that" when the reply is that the answers are in the history of the formation of the Act, and he refuses to read about it.

Do you mean the supposed high numbers of illegal abotions and so by decriminalising it and ensuring better healthcare for women when would hopefully reduce it when infact the number of abortions has skyrocketed despite needing referral from two doctors on the grounds of physical or mental trauma. That debate?

Also you weren't clear the first time and you keep redefining and essentially 'moving the goalposts' when you initially said to 'read the act' (which I did before embarking on this thread!) but now are saying 'read around the act' All of which I've done before!

Yet because I've not come to the same conclusion as you there's somehow 'no point' in continuing to discuss this?
That I fail to understand. I've read I've thought, I disagree. I express my points and defend them. I have come to a different conclusion to you but that is fine. I think you're wrong. But I know that its ok for me to think that and for you to think that I'm wrong as we thankfully have the right to our opinions.


Also cherry pickers are fun.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:He's arguing individual life begins at conception. Thats science. You can't change that.

I believe that a significant part of this and other "abortion yes/no/when/how" debate is centred around that very point. Not everyone agrees that "life" starts at conception. The process that produces "life" may begin there, but how we choose to define "life" varies, just as many such nebulous terms have different interpretations.

Some words have different meanings in "real life" and in scientific language.

Fair points. His argument I think is that individual life begins at that point. Scientifically thats a correct statement. You can agree at that point without connating morality to it. Once the DNA is separate then its a separate living organism. Of course so is a cancer cell and all for nuking those buggers.
What it does do is open up the ethics debate, which has what made this thread interesting, until now anyway. Now I see Dogma is makeing his usual comments because someone disagree with him, so this thread is crapped out now.

Ill get off my high horse Frazz when you get off my balls.

mattyrm wrote:Ill get off my high horse Frazz when you get off my balls.

Hey leave of Alby'sd favorite line.

"GET OFF MY BALLS!!!"
-God, on why is the world is so messed up.

Frazzled wrote: I so want to hijack it and go berserk through downtown. Just saying...

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30InBgGhiSo

No, as I said, I'm not making a specific temporal claim, so you're again misrepresenting my position when you say "week 24". If you're not going to approach this honestly, then again, you're wasting my time.

Be more clear, as everytime i misunderstand you you use it to discredit my 'honesty'

Either way, the reason the specific date is not of interest is because it would take a research paper in order to support the argument properly. Otherwise it just a tennis match of "I believe X", which is really, really boring.

It's irrelevalent if life beings at conception which it factually does.

it is the fetus' fault because if the fetus is person it is at fault for being itself, with all that it entails; just as a scientist is at fault for being a scientist.

You cannot be at fault for being what you are as you've not done anything to do that. A scientist generally chooses to be a scientist. A foetus does not. One is a fact, the other is a carreer choice. A foetus in the context of what we are discussing is a human foetus. A scientist is merely a job description.

2: If fault can only arise from choice, and the fetus cannot choose, then fault itself is irrelevant and we are left with the mere reality of the matter; meaning that the woman bears the responsibility and is still afforded a unique authority.

There is no fault so it is not even irrelevalent. The woman doesn't have the authority to kill another human being's life, even if it is inside her.

You're either begging the question by assuming that abortion is wrong

Well it is wrong simply because if the willful termination of innocent life with no lifesaving purpose to the mother is not wrong, then why is murdering an adult wrong? It's a case of double standards. Just because a living human is small, or less developed physically and/or mentally doesn't make it right to kill them for any reason other than as an unintentional consequence of saving another person.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote: I so want to hijack it and go berserk through downtown. Just saying...

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30InBgGhiSo

Exactly but right through here:

Glad I've been to busy to see most of this. Typical abortion thread chock full of straw men, moral grandstanding and the most ludicrous comparisons. Yes, aborting a foetus is just like wanting to shoot an 8 year old through the head. This is why I can't stand the pro-life mob, positions advances are ludicrously emotive to the point where it's unworthy of debate.

Here's my view. Abortion isn't a nice thing, but on reflection the rights of the adult come before that of an unborn foetus, particularly in the early stages. There's an obvious argument against late-term abortion and I think the limits are fine as they stand.

My real beef with the pro-life bunch is that they want to impose their beliefs upon others and restrict their freedom of choice. Abortion should largely be a decision for the individual. Some people will be for, and others against, people should be allowed freedom of choice. No one will force abortions on anyone, and no one should prevent someone having an abortion. The issue is too personal and complicated for these sorts of blanket approaches.

It always interests me the number of men wading in and telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Frankly it's the woman giving birth, they have to carry the child to term and deal with that and the consequences of raising a child. Or the casual suggestion is that they 'give it away' once it is born. The emotional stresses of carrying an unwanted child to term and then being forced to either raise it or give it away are enormous, no one should be glib about forcing this upon women as a "solution". How in particular can a man, who can never even hope to experience pregnancy themselves, lecture women on what is reasonable to expect of them amazes me.

The other thing is that it's so very easy to be pro-life and lecture others until you are in the very terrifying situation of being pregnant and unable to cope with having a child. Why do pro-lifers think their beliefs some how blanket override the judgement and individual circumstances of others? It's also interesting that a lot of pro-life comes from far-right religious teaching, which often is paradoxically in support of the hopelessly optimistic abstinence-only sex education and restriction of contraception. Thus they help create the very circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancies. There's also the strong anti-sex attitudes from a lot of pro-life material, sex is shameful and women who opt for abortions are described as not understanding what they are doing or that they are being irresponsible. If you feel you are incapable of raising a child and don't have the finances to give them a worthwhile life then having an abortion may well be the responsible action. What is irresponsible is to knowingly bring a child into a situation where they will suffer mentally and physically, won't be cared for properly and won't be loved. It's a complicated thing, people should have the right to choose for themselves and the pro-life people shouldn't be sticking their oar in trying to take their freedom of choice away.

The system we have works in what is a very difficult and complicated situation for parents and unborn child. It has generally the right balance between the rights of the individual to control their body and the rights of an unborn child past a certain point to be born. The pro-life mob seek to take away freedom of choice from the individual. By all means be 'pro life' or 'pro choice' in your own doings and apply this should you ever be in the situation if dealing with a difficult pregnancy. But seeking to impose your moral beliefs upon everyone else and take away their freedom of choice is wrong.

Conception isn't a point in time, it is a process that takes several days.

A blastula is not an individual life. It is part of its mother. Even more so is the foetus, which is linked by the placenta.

Abortion rates haven't been increasing since 1973. They went up at first, for obvious reasons, then declined, and have shown recent increases between 2001 and 2006.

See government health statistics for more info.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

(This is the period when the Bush "silver ring" style system of sex education was most prominent.)

.... I'm a bit confused as whose balls we're now on..or something...

..man, the things you wind up typing eh ?

... It would appear, surprisingly enough, that the thread has now moved onto more general discussion of/about abortion itself, rather than the act refereed to in the first post. This particular direction, whilst understandable, takes us down roads or dances we've done innumerable times before and don't really look like they're going to any new ground or consensus, other than generating a, rapidly growing, amount of alerts and complaints, so I think it's best we leave this here before things descend into just/more insults and the like.