Pro-lifers...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think both sides of the debate can be faulted for not doing enough to reduce the number of abortions by making birth control readily available so that abortion is not simply used as birth control by the lazy, the uneducated, or the poor.

Both sides?

I've never heard a "pro-choice" person come out against birth control, and many pro-choice organizations are strong advocates of birth control as well... look at Planned Parenthood as a good example of this.

OTOH, the religious "pro-life" side tends to also be anti-birth control as well as anti-abortion, effectively trying to stop both abortion and the best alternative to it.

I think that abortion should be kept legal but that morally it should be a last resort. Whatever you think of an embryo or fetus an abortion is still an act of violence against something helpless.

Animals raised for meat are effectively helpless. Should anything but veganism be considered "a last resort"?

 

[KingM]

Both sides?
I've never heard a "pro-choice" person come out against birth control, and many pro-choice organizations are strong advocates of birth control as well... look at Planned Parenthood as a good example of this.

Sure, but plenty of pro-choice people act as though abortion is just one more form of birth control. Is it?

OTOH, the religious "pro-life" side tends to also be anti-birth control as well as anti-abortion, effectively trying to stop both abortion and the best alternative to it.

True.

Animals raised for meat are effectively helpless. Should anything but veganism be considered "a last resort"?

Oddly enough, I worked with someone who was both a vegan and pro-choice. I wasn't sure how this was a tenable position to hold. She wouldn't eat honey because of its cruelty to bees, but saw no problem in aborting a human fetus.

The thing is, we should have different standards for different forms of life. Few people feel guilty about swatting a fly. You drown unwanted kittens, however, and you'll probably find yourself in trouble. Similarly, we want to ban the hunting of whales not just because they are endangered (some species are not) but because we recognize them as higher life forms.

Along the same lines, I think there should be different standards for the morning after pill, for a first trimester abortion, or for a late term abortion. I think we should have different standards for the consumption of fish, for chickens, or for pork. Again, our moral responsibility is greater for those things more like us, more capable of thought, and more capable of feeling pain.

I know this position isn't 100% consistent, but I find this an extraordinarly complex subject that I can't reduce to the easy dichotomy of murder vs. enslavement of women, that many people make it.

 

[cardero]

Whatever you think of an embryo or fetus an abortion is still an act of violence against something helpless.

Yes, wait until they are old enough to brandish a weapon.

 

[Mister Emu]

OTOH, the religious "pro-life" side tends to also be anti-birth control as well as anti-abortion, effectively trying to stop both abortion and the best alternative to it.

As far as I know, Catholics are the only ones who don't go for artificial birth control...

 

[Tigress]

I think both sides of the debate can be faulted for not doing enough to reduce the number of abortions by making birth control readily available so that abortion is not simply used as birth control by the lazy, the uneducated, or the poor.

I think that abortion should be kept legal but that morally it should be a last resort. Whatever you think of an embryo or fetus an abortion is still an act of violence against something helpless.

I agree, KingM. Both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, need to step up and do more to reduce the number of abortions. For the pro-choice, this means not only making sure that more women have access to birth control, but also to accurate information regarding its use, as well as to their bodies in general, and other care and support, should they find themselves pregnant. Crisis pregnancy centres are great for pro-life and pro-choice alike. For pro-lifers, especially those against birth control, helping to establish more places of support like a CPC should high on the 'to-do' list, for those able. I firmly believe that with more information made available to women everywhere, abortion rates will go down, as will the number of unwanted pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as I know, Catholics are the only ones who don't go for artificial birth control...

Many non-Catholic Christian groups actively campaign for things like abstinence-only education and are against programs that make condoms available to teenagers.

Most abortions happen in situations outside the confines of marriage, so in terms of the abortion debate, being against birth control for teenagers and other unmarried people (as part of a larger campaign against sex outside marriage) is effectively almost the same as being against birth control generally.

 

[PureX]

And it's also why this is such an emotionally charged issue. Both sides tend to get hysterical and frame the discourse in apocalyptic terms.

Actually, it seems to me that only one side does this.

 

[PureX]

I think both sides of the debate can be faulted for not doing enough to reduce the number of abortions by making birth control readily available so that abortion is not simply used as birth control by the lazy, the uneducated, or the poor.

I think that abortion should be kept legal but that morally it should be a last resort. Whatever you think of an embryo or fetus an abortion is still an act of violence against something helpless.

Now you're on the right track. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion. And that's where the two sides can meet and agree. And that's where the work of ending abortion should begin - not with prohibitive laws, but with ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.

 

[w00t]

Abortion is often the lesser of two evils. A woman should always have the right to terminate a pregnancy at least up until 12 weeks gestation imo.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sperm are potential human life, embryo's are potential human life. The difference is in the probability. Embryo's are more likely to become a human life then a sperm. Conversely egg's are more likely to become a human life than a sperm, because there are fewer eggs. It's all in probabilities.

There is no likelyhood for sperm to become human life of itself. Ditto eggs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no likelyhood for sperm to become human life of itself. Ditto eggs.

Technically, there's also no likelihood for a fertilized egg to become a human life of itself either (or to become a full-term fetus, if you consider a fertilized egg to be "human life" from the outset). It needs plenty of things supplied by the mother: the safe environment of the uterus, nutrients, hormonal triggers for various developmental processes, etc.

Yes, if you leave a sperm cell alone and it won't become a baby... but if you leave a fertilized egg alone, it won't become a baby either.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Now you're on the right track. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion. And that's where the two sides can meet and agree. And that's where the work of ending abortion should begin - not with prohibitive laws, but with ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.

But, but, but...this kind of logical thinking makes WAY to much frickin' sense to the knuckleheads at either end of the spectrum of this debate.

Many of the folks who want to outlaw abortion come across as quite inflexible, and the folks who do not want to it outlawed come across as callous and uncaring.

As to the question in the OP, even though I do not consider myself a 'pro-lifer' in the strictest sense, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would not automatically be considered murder. The issue would then be up to the states to allow or outlaw abortion. IF the law were changed to classify abortion as murder, then anyone participating should be prosecuted as a murderer.

Whether or not I agree with the law, my belief is that it must be upheld.

 

[PureX]

But, but, but...this kind of logical thinking makes WAY to much frickin' sense to the knuckleheads at either end of the spectrum of this debate.

Ignore the extremists, they can't hear, anyway.

Many of the folks who want to outlaw abortion come across as quite inflexible, and the folks who do not want to it outlawed come across as callous and uncaring.

As to the question in the OP, even though I do not consider myself a 'pro-lifer' in the strictest sense, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would not automatically be considered murder. The issue would then be up to the states to allow or outlaw abortion. IF the law were changed to classify abortion as murder, then anyone participating should be prosecuted as a murderer.

Whether or not I agree with the law, my belief is that it must be upheld.

Goverments don't have the power to significantly alter people's behavior. Look at prohibition in America. If the people don't agree with it, no law can stand for long. Power is an illusion created by mutual consent. When the people don't believe in a law, en masse, there is little the government can do to enforce it. If the government tries to make abortions illegal, it will simply go "underground" as it did in the past. And that won't eliminate abortions, it'll just make them more expensive and dangerous. And when enough daughters of the rich and influential have been maimed and killed, the laws will be revoked, just as they were before.

The only real solution to the problem is to find other real solutions to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. And then to convince the majority of the american people that abortion is not an acceptable option FOR THEM. Once we achieve these two goals, we could successfully ban abortion without much problem, because there would be both reasonable alternatives and public support.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Abortion is often the lesser of two evils. A woman should always have the right to terminate a pregnancy at least up until 12 weeks gestation imo.

Why should anyone always have the right to terminate a life?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Technically, there's also no likelihood for a fertilized egg to become a human life of itself either (or to become a full-term fetus, if you consider a fertilized egg to be "human life" from the outset). It needs plenty of things supplied by the mother: the safe environment of the uterus, nutrients, hormonal triggers for various developmental processes, etc.

The same can be said for a two year old so exactly how old does one have to be to be considered human? Shall we say six?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The same can be said for a two year old so exactly how old does one have to be to be considered human? Shall we say six?

A two year old has already been a full-term fetus and is a human life, but if you want a specific age at which someone can be considered a person, how about the very Biblical cutoff of one month of age, as was attributed to God in the Book of Numbers in His instructions to Moses for counting the Levites?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

A two year old has already been a full-term fetus and is a human life, but if you want a specific age at which someone can be considered a person...

Yet a two year old still needs to be suplied nutrients, a safe environment and triggers for development so your original premise is full of holes.

... how about the very Biblical cutoff of one month of age, as was attributed to God in the Book of Numbers in His instructions to Moses for counting the Levites?

Loose application of scripture at it's finest. Give the man a cookie.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet a two year old still needs to be suplied nutrients, a safe environment and triggers for development so your original premise is full of holes.

How do you figure? A two-year-old has already attained the status of "human life" by any reasonable standard. No matter what else you do to the child at that point, it's already a human life.

There is no problem with the premise at all unless you claim that a fertilized egg is a human life... but then that claim would require its own support.

 

[UnTheist]

Why should anyone always have the right to terminate a life?

Which life?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which life?

This topic deserves better than adolescent semantic games.