I believe that it is fair to ask the father, but should the child itself have some say? My belief is that unless you have a strong, valid reason not to, you should at least put the child up for adoption. This way, there is no arguing over when the baby becomes human, and everyones happy, even those who get to accept a new child into their family.

Hi fish out of water - just so you know, this topic has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past. I'm not sure how many people will be willing to discuss this again.

 Just do a search or look back to past posts and you will get the full meal deal.

i'm gonna bring it.  i think that we need to discuss it again, considering that so many states in the us voted against limiting abortions.

i believe that life begins at conception as well, and would never have an abortion myself.  that being said, i don't think that i have the right to enforce my views on everyone else.  i work as a foster parent with many young mothers, and so i know first hand how little assistance there is for them once they carry their children to term, give birth, and take these little ones out of the hospital. 

i will not support any effort to limit abortion until canadian society realizes that there needs to be adequate social programs in place to care for these women and children, and so far that ain't happening.  in fact, the people screaming the loudest to stop abortions are usually the ones who also support cuts to the minimal social programs we already have, imho. 

It is obvious that both the female egg and the male sperm have a form of life but no one would call either a “person”. When they unite to form a zygote we certainly have a form of life. There is a potential person there and a great many people would claim that it actually is a person. Let us grant for a moment that the zygote is a person and let us call that person Mary. Now, we all know that a zygote develops into an embryo through the process of cell division. Every now and again the first cell division does not produce a two celled embryo but rather a second zygote --- twins. Did Mary suddenly become two persons? Was Mary two persons to begin with? Was Mary even a person to begin with? Let us set those questions aside for the moment and grant that the second zygote is also a person whom we shall call Margaret. It is entirely possible that one or both of these zygotes could divide again to result in triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets etc. The same question applies as to whether one person can became two, three or more persons. When does a person become a person? These questions might be difficult enough but now it becomes even more complex. Rarely the two zygotes (Mary and Margaret) merge together again to form a two celled embryo. This is called a “chimera”. Who is this new embryo? Is it Mary or is it Margaret? This new embryo, this chimera, let us call it Mary, develops to term and is born. There is now no question at all that Mary is indeed a person. But here is the odd thing, some of the organs of Mary carry her genes but other organs carry the genes of her twin sister Margaret. So Margaret continues to exist within Mary or perhaps it is Mary within Margaret. Do we have two persons within a single body? These very serious questions of personhood arise only if we assume that the soul is infused at conception and that the brand new zygote is fully a person. Is there a more reasonable understanding? I believe there is. Personally I believe that the developing fetus becomes a person only when it is able to survive outside the womb. This happens very late in the second trimester. For this reason I am against abortion beyond the 20^th week. Otherwise I believe that abortion should be legal, it should be safe, it should be available and it should be the woman’s informed choice but most important of all --- it should be rare.
 

Fish wrote:

> i'd love to hear everyone's opinion

OK (but remember, you asked).  My opinion is that rejecting abortion based on religious beliefs or concepts, such as "human life is sacred" or "everyone, even babies, has a soul", makes no sense, since those who feel this way obviously don't mind that God is allowed to conduct abortions, and does so without even bothering with the mother's feelings, much less the father's.  My mother had a miscarriage before I was born.  Who knows, maybe I'd have had a brother.  I would have liked to have had a brother.  But no, your God decided to abort my mother's fetus.

> ending a human life is (and should be) against

> the law and everyone's morals, right?

Nope, not right - it's not necessarily against my morals, for example, I think those who want to die should be allowed to end their life, assisted or otherwise.

> when exactly does life begin? 

Since any answer to this is merely opinion and is rather arbitrary, mine is "when the umbilical cord is cut".  Until then, it's a part of the woman's body, and she can decide what she wants to do with it.  We let people have plastic surgery, and remove parts of their bodies.  We remove hair, teeth, organs, fingernails, warts, moles, etc...

> what percentage of women receiving abortions

> are rape victims?

Would the answer to that sway your decision on whether abortion is right or wrong?  If so, what number is the tipping point, where on one side you'd be against it and on the other, for it?

> What about the fathers right's? should it be partly

> his decision whether or not his child is aborted?

Depends.  If the parties are married and/or otherwise "together", if they are a couple, then I'd see it as there being an inate "togetherness" about trying to get pregnant and/or accepting the risk of getting pregnant, and so the decision to abort in this case should be a joint decision.  But if it's the result of a one-night stand, or a rape, or someone having gotten the sperm from a sperm bank, etc., where there's no expectation that the father has an inate interest in the pregnancy, then no, the father's decision is moot.

> Should abortion be legal?

Since I support abortion, then yeah, I think it should be legal.

Well said, Sigh! I wonder if these people that are so against abortion would be willing to give all the new moms who keep their babies under difficult circumstances diapers, formula, clothes, toys, and emotional support. I wonder if they'd take these new young moms in and let them live in their house? IMO it's okay to be pro-life, but only if you're going to offer some practical help. I don't see that happening in our society at all.

Just for the record, at this point in my life, I am anti-abortion (meaning I won't have one), but totally pro-choice when it comes to other women.

Legally life begins at birth.

Conception is not life as we know it, the fetus is actually a parasite living off the mothers body.  As a parasite the fetus occasionally takes so much from the mother that it weakens the mother ( host).

In addition, occasionally the mother's body causes distress and illness in the fetus.

A fetus can also have a negative effect on future pregnancies of the mother ( most commonly in Rh neg and Pos fetus/mother interactions.)  In the not too distant past this issue caused fetal mortality of second pregnancies.  Does that make the first child a murderer if you think that life begins at conception?

A  woman certainly feels that she is incubating a life. and that life may feel precious to the mother.

and yet, with out the mother, the fetus will not survive and even now, can't have a chance of survival till 24 weeks and not a good successful survival till closer to 30 weeks.  Babies born between 24 and 30 weeks may survive and they may do well.  THey also may have catastrophic medical issues. 

People adamantly against abortion talk about "baby" talk about "life".  It isn't a baby, even though we talk about a preganant woman as having a "baby " growing.  It isn't life till it is born and takes a breath.  A still born baby is not alive, it didn't take a breath.

It is too easy to say, adopt.  Adoption, as many adoptive children and parents who gave babies up , will tell you is not an easy answer to the issues.

Neither is the woman keeping the baby.

For a woman with an unwanted preganancy , there are options but in reality none of them are very good options.  It is a case of choosing which of these poor options do you take.

the best option is for unwanted pregnancies to not occur and that will require a far greater education of young men and women .

Fish - even though this has been discussed many many times,   you are new here and you have a right to ask questions, although from your last paragraph it sounds as though you have already made up your mind.    Is it just curosity that you want to hear others opinions.

As another poster said I am anti-abortion but pro-choice.  I don't think that I could bring myself to have an abortion, even if I knew that it was probably the right thing for myself, my marriage, my children, and for the potential baby growing in me.  It would be a very hard choice for me to make - even if my health was at risk.   But I am very glad that I have that choice; that someone else doesn't control my reproductive system and force their opinions on me. 

And I would never want to deny any other person the right to make that choice.

When does life begin - although both the egg and the sperm are alive, I would likely say at conception.  And I still mourn my two miscarriages, the my grandson's twin that never developed.  But I mourn them for their protential - they were not fully formed viable babies.  So I would conclude that they were not human life.   Sometime between conception and birth I believe a fetus develops into a human baby.  Sometime - probably between the four and six month - closer to the six month.  Few abortions in Canada are performed at that late time.

Adoption - it isn't as easy as it sounds.  Some people mourn the baby they give up for adoption for the rest of their lives - note the number of birth parents and adult adoptees who search until they find each other.  And despite what you may believe - not every baby is easily adopted. 

Should the father have a say.  It would be nice to think he could.  But what about the many possible fathers in a gang rape.  Do they all have a say until the fetus develops to the point where DNA tests can prove who the father is?   What about abusive husbands and fathers?  Might this not just be another form of abuse - to force his wife to carry a baby that neither wants and that he is likely to abuse before and after its birth?    Sometimes it might be safest and best for the mother if the father doesn't even know that conception took place.

As for the percentage of women that have abortions because of rape - I don't know if any statistics are kept, or how that would be determined.  Do you consider a woman who is coaxed or pursuaded by her husband to have unprotected sex to be raped?  And even if it was only 1/10 or 1% wouldn't that woman be as entitled to make an informed choice as if it was 50% or more.

As for women using abortion for birth control - I don't believe it happens very often.  Its when birth control fails that women have to make that choice.

It is difficult to search past threads when the 'search' option seems to have disappeared.

I'm anti-aborition unless the pregnancy represents a risk to the mother's health.  In which case I'd take the life of the baby...to save the mother. :S

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

P.S. no matter how you look at it, abortion is kinda heartless, and definately gross

Funny, I was thinking about just this topic today.   I was listening to the radio and there was a woman on there who was anti-abortion but pro-death penalty.  I came up with an interesting thought experiment.  Say we could see into the future and a woman was pregnant with a fetus who would eventually grow up and be killed under the death penalty, should that woman be allowed to abort her fetus? 

Just a thought I was thinking and this seemed a good place to share it.

I've wanted to say this for a very long time .....

There is no valid reason to debate abortion.  It's pretty simple because of the following facts:

1)  Life begins at conception.  Of course it does --- it is the conception that creates life!  Duh!

2)  A woman most definitely has the right to chose -- she can chose to become pregnant; she can chose not to become pregnant. 

3)  No one has the right to kill another human being.  That's called "murder".  Abortion, therefore, is murder.

 4)  Regarding rape, because the woman's pregnancy is the direct result of a criminal act committed against her that took away her right to chose to become pregnant or to chose not to become pregnant, it is the only case when abortion is abortion and not murder.  

5)  In the case where a woman did chose not to become pregnant, but became pregnant anyway (where birth control method failed), she can chose to mother the child or arrange legally for a proper adoption.

6)  Abortion must not be used as a method of birth control   It is murder.

Wow, you must be God with the power to determine what we get to debate!

Fortunatly, you're not God, and you do not have the right to determine what is a valid topic of debate. You have an opinion, but your opinion is not binding on us. To suggest, as you have, that you can tell us what to debate, or not, is the epitome of arrogance. Of course, moralistic arrogance is certainly not a rare trait among the anti-abortion arm of the religious reich.

You appear to confused about the definition of the word "fact". The points you give below are not "facts", they are opinion. If you ever manage to prove them by preponderance of objective evidence, then you can call them facts. Until then you're just spewing empty religious rhetoric, like some rather poor used car salesman.

The question is not when life begins. Life isn't even the question at all, since you kill things every day to eat and live.  The suggestion that life beginning at conception makes abortion wrong is a common ploy used by anti-abortionists in the hopes that people will confuse it with the real issue.

The real issue is when does "humanity" begin. The answer is, no one knows. However, the idea that a single cell floating around in a uterus is a human being, is rather ludicrous. That may be why the Bible doesn't forbid abortion. The only mention the Bible makes of it at all is a passage that instructs the priest on how to perform one.

Oh, and "Duh" right back to you. You might want to get your own facts straight before you question the intelligence of others. You'll look less foolish that way.

There's that Godlike authority to dictate again.

Sorry, but it's only murder, by definition, if it's a human person killed. Since you cannot possible show that the fetus is a person at the stage when abortion occurs, your premise is fallacious.

So a fetus is only a human being, depending on how it is concieved? Do you have any idea how hypocritical that is? Sorry Sharney, but the rights of a human being to life trumps any right of another to convenience. If the fetus is a human person, then it is murder to intentionally kill it no matter how it was concieved. That's the problem with moral absolutes. People like you always manage to make them "depend on" something. The moment a moral absolute "depends on", it automatically becomes relative, by definition. Your willingness to make an exception for killing something which you pretend to believe is a human being is not only hpypocritical, it points to a big crack in your moral high ground.

Or she can have the fetus aborted before it can possibly reasonably be shown to have obtained humanity. You cannot artificially limit choices based on your own prejudice, with no objective evidence, without it being a fallacy of false dichotomy.

Sorry, but all the bold text in the world is not going to change your unsubstantiated and unsupportable opinion into fact. You've got a lot of work to do before you can even begin to reasonably abrogate the rights of your sisters. Until you're willing to actually do that work, all your irrelevant soapboxing is nothing more than sounding brass and tinkling silver.

P.S. If you have a little time, look up the word "fact" in the dictionary. You might be rather surprised. A class in human development probably wouldn't hurt either.

first of all, there is a big difference between opinion and fact.  much of what you have stated as fact is not fact, but rather just your opinion.

secondly, if 'no one has a right to kill another human being', how do you justify canadian troops in afghanistan killing others in the context of our mission there???  we are killing other human beings every day.  again, your statement is simpy your opinion, it isn't a fact at all.

Biblical guidance on abortion is sparse. This should not be a surprise, values were very different then.

In biblical times, the birth survival rate was about 25%. Thus, an infant was not really considered alive until after it was presented to the priests, who inspected it for defects. Only relatively perfect babies were returned to the parents. Those were brutal times. Further to that, there was Lex Paternis, where the father had the power of life and death over his children. Females had no rights at all then.
 

The modern Christian value of "all life is sacred" has no roots in history and very tenuous support in scripture. Note that I make no actual comments so far on whether it is right or wrong.

Abortion is a very serious act and never to be done frivolously. Were my wife to get one, I would divorce her as it would be an extreme violation of our marriage agreement. Once. an ex-wife told my pregnant stepdaughter that she had to get an abortion as I didn't want a baby in the house. This lie was a major factor in the marriage breakup. However, the ultimate questions are Who decides whether to get an abortion? and  Who has the right to judge?

My respect for the rights of women tell me that the woman alone has the right of final decision over her body and her future. True - others have the right to input. but the final decision belongs to the mother, not the church or the state. My Bible and my Christian beliefs tell me that the only one with the right to pass judgement on this decision is God.

As soon as I read Sharney's arogant post I started composing a reply to him, although it probably flow past him like water off a duck's back it might show others who might be influenced by him the pitholes in his arguments.  Fortunately Witch and Sighs have done a better job than I could do.  God alone, not all those people who think that they have godlike powers or that they speak for God, has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.

Omni - you state that you would take the life of the baby to save the mother.  Would you also by that reasoning take the life of a twin to save the other (there are cases where one twin is ill or isn't developing properly but still alive and it is draining the health from the other)?   Would you consider pregnancy reduction in the case of multiple fetuses if that would give the others a chance of survival and health?  

And for all those who think that life begins at birth  (isn't the egg and the sperm alive before birth?), my question is?   What about all those eggs that are furtilized in medical labratories for various reasons - is it abortion and murder to allow these to die?   Are we playing God every time we help an infertile couple to conceive?  Or intervene with medical assistance in a threatened miscarriage? 

I agree Sharney that the "facts" you list are not facts but opinion.  Oppinion that doesn't match the laws in our country.

I too am puzzled by the discrepency between abortion for the woman's reasons, abortion because of rape,   You either feel that all life begins at conception and is sacred or you don't.  Can't be both.

And if you feel that all life begins at conception, how do you explain the 1 in 3 pregnancies that spontaneously abort ( miscarriage) 

I don't think any one considers abortion a "valid" type of birth control , certainly not in Canada.  but it is a valid choice in the decision process of what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

women get pregnant accidently for many different reasons.  A woman has the difficult choice on what happens next.

None of it is easy.

Abortion is not an easy choice.  It is a difficult choice.

Adoption is not an easy choice.  Carrying a pregnancy to term, knowing you will not care for the child, is not easy.  Being young an preganant is not easy.

Keeping the baby, is not easy and depending on the life circumstances of the woman, may be the totally wrong choice for a child.

As to the choice of keeping a fetus over a mother due to health issues.

wow omni.  I am surprised that you would sacrifice the life of a woman you love for the potential life of a fetus. 

Sometimes , a catastrophy happens at the moment of birth.  Sometimes there is a choice but mostly there isn't.  The mom is hemorhaging perhaps and it can't be stopped.  The baby is delivered, saved by one group  of MD's while another group tries to save the mom. 

the more common issue would be a problem in the pregnancy.  Perhaps the mom develops a life threatening health situation.  Depending on how far into the pregnancy she is, there may be no choice. 

Sometimes there is a choice.  I have seen several women put off chemotherapy needed for cancer treatment until the baby is a viable age of 32 weeks , deliver the baby prematurely but at a pretty good size and then start treatment.  Some times the woman is sacrificing her life for that but it is a well thought out measured repsonse.

 a very common situation would be late in pregnancy, the woman deveopsy toxemia and the baby needs to be delivered to save the womans life.  Again, different docs will work to save both patients.

If it is for the survival of a 'signifigant other', I would certainly consider it.  But as a last resort.  I would need as much info, as many statistics, and many doctor's reports as I could get my hands on before I made my final discission (if it were up to me of course). 

I think you read my post wrong, I said I would sacrifice the life of the unborn baby to save the mother....not the other way around.

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

P.S.  If other people are going to get abortions, fine, I don't care, I think it's wrong, but I won't stop you or force my beliefs upon you (because it is un-islamic, and just outright dickish).  I personally wouldn't want anything to do with an abortion unless the woman was in serious risk.  I don't like to play God.

Omni,

I am sorry,

I read Take" as that being the life you would keep.

my appologies for  misreading your meaning.

I think that very few people are pro-abortion; although many people are pro-choice.

I actually feel that rape should not be a reason to allow an exception to allow abortion.  If abortion is illegal for moral reasons, rape should not be a reason to make an exception. 

I can't say that I know at what point in a pregnancy that abortion should no longer be considered, but I feel that if an abortion is to be performed, it should be performed before the third trimester.   

"Pro Choice" IS "Pro Abortion". 

Rather than thinking about babies, we should be talking about what the babies grow into.

1.Pro Life is generally also pro military, so we can establish by this ipso facto that pro life wants more babies to grow into barely adults to join the army to kill other barely adults.

2.  Babies born to troubled mothers often lead troubled lives, even when adopted to perfect parents . . . this is not genetic necessarily but just something in the human equation of the psychology of belonging.

3. Today, my partner received news that the daughter he created at age 17 with his 17 year old girlfriend died this summer of a prescription drug overdose.  He had not been "allowed" to see his daughter from the time she was 10 years old.

Is that anoother onew of your "facts" Sharney? If so, it is as valid as all the other "facts" you've spouted.

I am pro-choice.

I am against abortion.

Thus your premise fails utterly.

So far your batting record is 0 FOR 2. Will you be trying 0 for 3?

nope.  i'm pro-life, but i would never enforce my views onto other people.  so i'm a pro-lifer who is pro-choice. 

i don't see abortion as a great solution.

I do see it as a choice i can consider.

But I strongly feel that it is my decision.

If the Anti abortion crusaders, spent even one tiny bit of their energy fighting for the safety and wellfare of the children that already exist, rather than fighting for the potential life of a fetus, we would have a kinder and gentler and more supportive country.

I always want to find out of our anti choice friends

How much time and energy do you devote to Children's Aid

how many children do you foster

How much money do you give to women's shelters

Teen shelters

how many homeless teens do you employ

how much reading/visiting do you do in our inner city schools

how many teen mom's do you give guidance and support to

These are our real needs.  These are the real babies/ moms/teens that need our suppport.  These are real lives that are needing help.

We have Pro choice people and we have Anti choice people.  ( it isn't prolife, it's anti choice)

what we need are everyone to help the mom's and babies that are with us today.

amen, lastpointe.

amen x2, lastpointe...To many Pro-life, the rights of a child begin at conception and end at birth...

Nope, sorry. They're two very different things. I'm really curious where you get your "facts" from.

At conception.

No.

As has been pointed out. That is just a fundie ploy to obfuscate the issue. The more precise question, and the one you can't answer definitively, is when does humanity begin?

Your opinion is noted. Now if you'd like to offer anything to support your opinion, in order to make it a tenable position, please feel free.

I’m neutral really. I myself wouldn’t get an abortion but I also believe every woman should have a choice because it’s their body. I also think it’s wrong because you shouldn’t be able to take someones life from them before it has even begun. I do think that the father should have a say but then that’s also unfair to the mother because she’s the one having the baby. It’s all very confusing and I really don’t think there is a right answer.

I do think that some people shouldn’t be allowed to get it done. People who randomly get one every time they get pregnant should not be allowed this privilege. That’s not right. They should know better.

I do think rape victims should be allowed to get abortions because they had no say in the matter.

Although I would rather people put their child up for adoption.

One thing that really bothers me is that, if abortion was banned, people would just go to backyard butchers or illegal doctors as most put it, to get it done, which can result in disease from unsterilized equipment and death because the person you’re going to is obviously a felon and may have no idea what they’re doing.

Agreed.

wow, THAT IS BRILLIANT.  very simple and to the point... well said.

mind if i use that occasionally??

Roseofmay - you are young yet.  Presumably you have never faced the tradegy of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

My mother did.  I was too young to know anything more than Mom was sick and had to go to the hospital, but my older sister recently told me.  You see, while carrying her fourth child in six years my mother's kidneys were damaged.  Despite precautions she became pregnant again.  Survival for both herself and the fetus were questionable - definitely her health would be severely compromised.  Presumably she talked it over with Dad.  And a compassionate doctor had her admitted to the hospital for some type of 'female problems' that he was able to fix.

How do I feel about losing a potential brother or sister?  I never even knew they might have been.  But I sure was glad to have a mother to raise me to my teens and that my little sister had her until she was eleven and could remember a mother's love in the difficult years to follow.

But that doctor committed a crime.  Abortion was against the law in Canada at that time.  Legally my mother should have continued the pregnancy which probably wouldn't have resulted in a living child, risk her life at the time, damaged her health, and left four small children orphaned. 

Yet people here would condemn her and her doctor. 

We must protect our hard won rights for a woman to make her own choice.  No one has the right make it for her.   Whether you would agree to an abortion under any circumstances is your choice, but please do not condemn anyone else with a blanket statement that abortion is wrong.  Sometimes abortion is the wisest, kindest, most loving, and most difficult choice a woman has to make.

RoseofMay; If abortion is illegal because it is immoral or it is considered to be murder, any exception to abortion laws, including for the case of rape or incest, does not make the abortion moral nor can it not be considered to be murder.

I believe this to be a tempest in a tea pot.

That being said....................With proper guidance........each and every one of us SHOULD have the right to choose.  No ones subjective beliefs SHOULD be allowed to DICTATE our freedom of choice.

I believe this is how people were murdered in the not to distant past for having a different belief system than what SOME judged and forced upon us as the ONLY belief system.....

I also believe in separating church and state.

I thank you.

Like I said, women DO have a choice - she can choose to get pregnant or choose not to get pregnant.  She cannot, however, choose to kill her baby or to use abortion as a means of birth control. 

And what ever happened to  "self" control, by the way?

well, sharney... what are you doing to uphold the rights of the child AFTER they are born, if i may be so bold as to ask??? 

cause so far, you are all about childrens rights before birth, i'm curious as to how you defend their rights after they are born....

1.) What's your problem? Fish asked for our opinion, so I gave mine. Life begins at conception.

2.) As I've stated in another thread, I believe abortion to be murder.

You have a real love affair with that fallacy of false dichotomy. Too bad it's so transparent.

Fortunatly any reasonable person can see that there are a multitude of choices available, not just the two you insist on.

Well after removing the emotionally charged religious blackmail phrase "kill her baby", which you still have to show is the case BTW (are you ever going to attempt to substantiate that, or just continue to play the fallacy?), we see that you are still sadly mistaken.

You can use abortion as a methof of birth control. It is, in fact, legal to do so.

That's 3 for three you've gotten completely wrong Sharney. it's almost like you strive for ultimate wrongness.

Oh, and BTW, the idea that most women who have abortions do so as a method of birth control is another fallacy used by the religious reich. It simply isn't the case. But then I know you people don't really value honesty all that much. Weird, considering "thou shalt not bear falsee witness" is supposed to be one of your core tenets....

You mean like the self-control one needs to stop lying about things that aren't 'facts"? You mean like the self-control one needs to stop bearing false witness? You mean like the self-control one needs to stop judging others? You mean that kind of self-control?

Yes indeed, Sharney, what did happen to your self-control? I mean it's not like you stayed a virgin until marriage. It's not like you used birth control every time you had sex outside of marriage. Really it's just luck of the draw that you didn't find yourself in a position to have to make the choice. So really you have to business placing your hammer of jugement on others.

Which is probably why Jesus made sure to tell you explicity to judge not, lest ye be judged.

You might want to try listening to Jesus once in a while, Sharney. He was a pretty smart guy, all things considered.

Sharney - I presume that you mean that all married couples who consider their families complete or for any reason do not want children or any more children - possibly for health reason - should practice abstenance.  After all that is the only sure proof method ot birth control even in this day and age. 

You, and some others state that abortion is murder.  What about a situation where the couple very much want to be parents, who after some time discover that the wife is indeed pregnant.  They are overjoyed.  But things don't seem quite right.  Sure enough, there is a problem.  The fertilized egg is growing in a fallopian tube.   It is presently living and thriving - dividing from a few cells to a clump of cells.  But it can't continue this way.  Sometime, probably between the second and third month, the tube will rupture.  The clump of cells will of course die.  So might the mother, unless she has immediate medical intervention.  Would it be ethical and moral for the mother and her doctor to schedule surgury and remove the fetus before the emergency happens.  Remember that the fetus is alive.  Removing it will kill it.  Will that be murder?  Are they sinners?  Will they burn in hell?

1. Well, I have a problem with self-righteous religious bigots... is that what you're referring to? The problem is not when you folks give your opinion, but wheen you try to portray your opnion as fact. Especially if your opinion, if it were to be treated as fact, would serve to abrogate the rights of others.

2. Well at least this time you stated it as a belief. Good for you M3F, the first step is always the hardest. You may very well be on the road to recovery from prejusice. Please keep it up.

The quality of life is the issue, obviously, and not one that the religious right is experienced in dealing with in that their compassionate philosophy depends upon the apocalypse.

sperm is alive.  don`t let  them die

eggs are alive, then we shouldn't let them die either but should find a way to put them on life support so that they can``t be shed each month!

IN such a way it is just as silly to establish the sacred being of a zygote, in a froglike state, or a foetus, which is not yet a viable human, nor even  yet, a necessarily potentially viable human.  

Anthropologically, infantacide was carried out when the tribe - clan couldn`t support another infant.  Infants are a material aspect of out society - yes they have adult potential but to establish that they are not dependent for many many many many long hours and years, is to live in a fantasy world - such a fantasy world where bologna is thought to be meat or all human life considered to have equal potential  and choice. 

Having established that, it is important that we not get carried away into imagining that a $ means people have the wherewithall to raise a child.  Nothing is more irrelevant to good parenting than the $.

Pro life can not convince me that they have the ability or desire  to protect the rights of the human being they wish to come into existence. 

Wow ... touchy subject!  Best to keep thoughts to self, I guess.  Oh well.

Oh what? What? Anyone who's po-life must be a "self-ighteous eligious bigot" while, I suppose, anyone who's po-choice must be enlightene? Gimme a beak. Thee ae intelligent, caing people on both sies of this issue.

(My son spille juice on the compute keyboa toay an shote out some of the lettes.)

well, i work on the front lines of the child welfare system, so i am very passionate about the rights of children in our society, sharney.

i would hope that rather than keep your thoughts to yourself, that you feel open enough to discuss them and perhaps even learn enough to even change your point of view.  thats why we are all here.  

however, if you just came here to tell everyone why you are right and they are wrong, then yes, you should probably just keep your thoughts to yourself. 

ROTFLMAO!!  i've been reading your posts on other threads and thinking 'man, somethings up with your keyboard...'  LOL!!! 

the only sure fired way to not get pregnant is to not have sex.

that isn't too realistic for most of man kind.

All the birth control in the world is not fool proof.  Whether you are single or married, there is a risk.

and lets get really specific here.  most married couples don't use condoms.  the birth control methods for women have issues often too.

should a woman , not in a commited relationship be careful.  Of course.  No one is wishing to have the challenge of a pregnancy they don't want.  But to then say   "well too bad, so sad, your fault, have a nice life"  is ridiculous.

Women throughout all history have judged when they can safely carry a pregnancy.  this is not new to our century or time.