Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done. Hell, we have out done Communist darned Russia when it comes to exterminating unwanted yet innocent life. As a people, as a society, we are disgusting. We really aught to be ashamed of ourselves.
Years from now, if we ever straighten out, our Great⁸ Grandchildren will look back at us and wonder "How? How could so many people be so evil? Could they really be that ignorant, or did they just want to believe it because it was easy? How could everyone else just stand back and not say anything?"
I am truly ashamed to be part of a society that holds human life so cheap. It is even worse than the Roman Colosseum...at least they were not throwing their babies into the arena...

I am sorry if I worded that a little too strongly, but I've went 41 hours without sleep and am currently jacked up on Oxycodone and Oxycotin, and I don't feel like sugar-coating things.

Actually, abortion was the prefered method of birth control in Russia, so I read.

As to "necessary evil", there is a simple litmus test for this:

Which is worse, murdering Hitler or letting him rule Europe and try to exterminate the Jews? Murdering Hitler is an evil act, but if your alternative is to allow him go on a murderous rampage then you have an even worse option; necessary evil works like that, but it is still evil and "necessary" does not really apply to elective abortion as a form of contraception/birth control.

[Vuk]

Actually, abortion was the prefered method of birth control in Russia, so I read.

As to "necessary evil", there is a simple litmus test for this:

Which is worse, murdering Hitler or letting him rule Europe and try to exterminate the Jews? Murdering Hitler is an evil act, but if your alternative is to allow him go on a murderous rampage then you have an even worse option; necessary evil works like that, but it is still evil and "necessary" does not really apply to elective abortion as a form of contraception/birth control.

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

I dissagree, homocide is a deadly sin, you are not excused simply because the person you slay is evil, especially as there are no "innocent" people in the world. The "right" thing to do with Hitler would be to make him see the error of his thinking stop him wanting to kill other people.

[Vuk]

I dissagree, homocide is a deadly sin, you are not excused simply because the person you slay is evil, especially as there are no "innocent" people in the world. The "right" thing to do with Hitler would be to make him see the error of his thinking stop him wanting to kill other people.

It is only homocide if he is gay. Sorry, couldn't resist that.
Seriously though, I have a fundamental disagreement with you on just what homicide is. An innocent person is one who is not trying to harm or murder his fellow-human beings.
Homicide is unjustly killing a person. A bullet in Hitler's head would be nothing but just. You can talk people out of mistakes, but you cannot talk them out of evil. Hitler wanted power. I seriously doubt he even believed half of what he said...he just knew it would help him control people.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are confusing homicide with murder.

[Major Robert Dump]

A lot of people argue that this is a womens-only debate, but I understand why men have such a high stake in the abortion argument, because our role in the process is not one to be taken lightly. Putting your penis inside of a vagina and moving it around for a few seconds is not something that is easy to bring ourselves to do. To think of all that work we do to make the baby, and then all the work we do to avoid paying child support because we didn't want to marry her because she got fat (GROSS!), I mean I am appalled that women think they only have the right to argue this topic.

In a perfect word, Art Garfunkel would be the father of all pregnancies, and us men would not have to waste our precious time arguing this topic.

[Ironside]

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

Since Vuk is evil, is it an evil act to kill Vuk?

Now Vuk might disagree with that he's evil, but he's obviously biased and have already chosen such an evil name villingly (it means wolf --> A metaphor for evil men with a lust for power and dishonest gain, as well as a metaphor for Satan preying on innocent God-fearing Christians), that the guilt of his evilness cannot be denied.

Or it other words: Your method gives the person who defines evil all the power.

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done.

Humans. Killing their own children since the dawn of time.

Did you know that the number of abortions were similar in 1930 (when it was completely illegal. It became fully legal in 1975) compared to today in Sweden? Now, I don't know the data for other countries but it's most likely similar there.
Or to summarise, legal abortion is an acceptance of something that's already happening, not some new idea.
Perhaps the future will indeed be different. But don't expect anything during your lifetime.

For the record, I am not utterly convinced that it is an "ensouled", to use the Christian term, human being at conception, but as we don't know I would much rather err on the side of extreme caution.

I'm curious about that. What happens who those who dies unborn according to the ensoulment theory? It's common naturally, so it's has to have answer outside an abortion debate.

[Beskar]

I'm curious about that. What happens who those who dies unborn according to the ensoulment theory? It's common naturally, so it's has to have answer outside an abortion debate.

Well, they used to go straight to hell as they were not baptised and had the mothers original sin. To 'solve' this, the concept of purgatory came into play, allowing them to enter Heaven afterall.

[Scienter]

*rolls up sleeves* I have a lot to say about this topic. Imagine that.

I got auto logged out and most of my post got eaten. I'm limiting my discussion to the US because I'm well read in that area and not so much with the rest of the world. To summarize the part that I lost, I'm pro-choice. Not pro-abortion. But, I agree with a lot of what BG said in his initial post. I don't believe in late-term abortions. But, I also don't believe that life begins at conception. I think that BG was right when he said "There should be very few cases where the choice to abort the foetus cannot be made within that early period of time..." I don't agree with him re: judicial intervention following viability simply because I know how long a judicial proceeding can be dragged out. I don't know what the right answer to the problem is. But I do think that the US needs a framework that would both help prevent as many unintended pregnancies as realistically possible *and* provide support to those women who become pregnant anyway and make the decision to terminate an early pregnancy.

I think that abortion should be the last resort. As a result, I think that contraception in all its varying forms should be made available and affordable (or free) to everyone. I think that there should be proper education on how to use contraception. I know that there is no way to prevent all unwanted pregnancies. Birth control fails. Sometimes the back up method fails too. But, for those who above argued that people should just not have sex, that is a naive and unrealistic view. Regardless of one's personal views on abstinence, the reality of life is that most people do not. There are lots of anecdotes about people who chose to abstain until marriage, but statistically the average age for a first sexual encounter is 17 for a teenage girl in the US. A little younger for a boy. Even among people who abstain into their 20s, a significant majority of people in the US have had sex prior to marriage. This isn't me making a moral argument, it's just a fact. People have sex and making contraception hard to get is just going to cause unwanted pregnancies. And it's not just the woman's responsibility. Every sexually active person is responsible for preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. It's common sense.

2. The woman has already made the decision to have sex, if she cannot bear to be pregnant she should not have had sex.

Preventing pregnancy is not just the woman's responsibility because she's got the womb. It takes two people for a pregnancy to happen. So by your logic is it safe to assume that you believe that all men who choose to have sex should be prepared to pay child support for 18+ years and be active in their hypothetical unwanted child's upbringing?

Abortion isn't just a single woman issue. A lot of women who have abortions are married and already have children. Sometimes, it's a very painful decision.

Also, some women who get pregnant don't choose to have sex. What about rape? 1 in 4 women could definitely tell you all about it. How about reproductive coercion? This form of abuse doesn't get much press because it generally happens among low income families.

Take a look at who has abortions. Some people in this debate seem to think that us lazy sluts just run around having sex with tons of men and stop by the Abortion Store and get our uteri vacuumed out before our next romp in the sack. Because we're too lazy or stupid to take the Pill or use a condom. Feckless? Really? Let's have some biology 101: if a man chooses to have sex with a woman who for some reason is too negligent to use birth control, he is just as responsible for the pregnancy as she is if he also chooses not to use birth control.

Further, the morning after pill is not an abortion. It's contraception. It works the same way as the Pill. In theory it could prevent a fertilized egg from attaching by thinning the uterine lining. But its common function is to suppress ovulation and thicken cervical mucus to make it harder for the sperm to get to the egg in case ovulation has already occurred.

I think that people who argue in favor of legislation against abortion and contraception are somewhat hypocritical because contraception, when used correctly, can prevent unwanted pregnancies. If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, then supporting use of contraception is a huge step in that direction. Just telling women that they need to not have sex until they are ready to become mothers is a religiously based moral argument that is not representative of the majority of Americans.

Legally, I think that BG is right and there is a place for abortion when it is done early, before viability. But, I don't want a bunch of politicians telling me that I deserve to die if I get a serious medical condition while I'm pregnant and need an abortion to get treatment. I find it terrifying that some people see me as a walking baby incubator who loses bodily autonomy and agency as soon as sperm meets egg. The laws that some extreme anti-abortion and I go so far as to say anti-woman politicians dream up under the guise of being 'pro-life' diminish their own movement's legitimacy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Preventing pregnancy is not just the woman's responsibility because she's got the womb. It takes two people for a pregnancy to happen. So by your logic is it safe to assume that you believe that all men who choose to have sex should be prepared to pay child support for 18+ years and be active in their hypothetical unwanted child's upbringing?

Maybe you think I have a low opinion of women who have casual sex, well I have alower opinion of men. Contrary to popular belief it wasn't in most men's interests to marry, historically, it has always been in the woman's interest, especially in the more sexist societies.

For the record, child support until 18 is getting away with it, child support until your child finishes education. Son wants to do a PhD, needs dad to pay for his flat? Dad should pay. If dad refused I suppose you could lock him up until his child is finished, and make said child a ward of the state and have the state pay in the father's stead. You can even confiscate all said father's assets to pay for it too. Extreme and unworkable, yes, but I have no moral qualms about such a punishment.

Abortion isn't just a single woman issue. A lot of women who have abortions are married and already have children. Sometimes, it's a very painful decision.

As far as I am concerned, if the decision is made for economic reasons, it it obviously wrong. If you genuinely cannot afford to raise said child, you can certainly put it up for adoption, or you can tighten your belt. I refuse to reduce a pregnancy to the status of a luxury commodity like a second car.

Also, some women who get pregnant don't choose to have sex. What about rape? 1 in 4 women could definitely tell you all about it. How about reproductive coercion? This form of abuse doesn't get much press because it generally happens among low income families.

1 in 4? I've heard 1 in 6, and I can just about believe that. I could be persuaded that 1 in 4 were sexually assaulted, but even that brings us back to the old question (which we have argued over before) of how many accusations are malicious or an attempt to save face. Regardless, both Banquo and I covered this in our initial posts. While a woman being denied the initial choice to have sex should not be ignored that does not give her carte blanche to act against the resulting fetus. She should not be allowed, for example, to go through the first six months of a pregnancy and then decide she wants an abortion.

[Scienter]

1 in 4? I've heard 1 in 6, and I can just about believe that. I could be persuaded that 1 in 4 were sexually assaulted, but even that brings us back to the old question (which we have argued over before) of how many accusations are malicious or an attempt to save face. Regardless, both Banquo and I covered this in our initial posts. While a woman being denied the initial choice to have sex should not be ignored that does not give her carte blanche to act against the resulting fetus. She should not be allowed, for example, to go through the first six months of a pregnancy and then decide she wants an abortion.

Without getting into the debate about sexual assault, I agree with you about the six month decision. If someone can't sort out what they want to do before then, an abortion at six months shouldn't be an option.

That said, state and Federal governments shouldn't employ delaying tactics like giving legitimacy to "crisis pregnancy centers" or requiring that state-mandated, scientifically inaccurate scripts be read by doctors to patients seeking abortion, or using zoning regulations to force abortion clinics to close. In some really conservative states like the Dakotas, there are no places where a woman to go to get an abortion. Sometimes, Planned Parenthood will fly one in for a few days, but that's it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My 2 cents.

This is an issue where people tend to be very entrenched in their opinions. However, I have also noticed in this thread that there hasn't been a huge gap between those on each side.

Abortion appears to be something that makes both pro-life/pro-choice folk (very?) uncomfortable.* Any attempt to create a cut-off point where a foetus is deemed sufficiently "human" and thus granted the right to life is always going to be arbitrary. As such, there's not a whole lot of point arguing about whether you draw the lines at 12 or 24 weeks etc. Obviously it is a debate that needs to be had, but it might be more productive to focus on other things.

Like, for example, how to prevent abortions from needing to occur in the first place.

My opposition to abortion isn't religious (genuinely, it is not). I oppose it simply because the idea of it really makes me uncomfortable. In this respect I'm no different from any of the pro-choice folk here it seems. As I said its not something where either science (or indeed scripture) gives a clear answer so we know when it is OK, and so the idea of ending any sort of (proto?)human life makes me queasy.

At least though, I will say that pro-life people (and in the past me) have been unhelpful and very unsympathetic in screaming "murder" when women have had abortions under extremely difficult circumstances. I can't pretend to have the slightest clue what its like when a woman has been raped or her life is threatened by the foetus, or if the baby itself has major health complications.

Although I can imagine that if I ever got a girl pregnant and she aborted, that would haunt me for the rest of my life, I honestly think it would be like loosing a child.

So I'm not sure if my views have changed a lot as such, but I recognise now that its not a case of black and white and its maybe time to sit down and talk about things.

In that respect, thanks to BQ for setting the tone so well for this debate. I think people by nature tend to look for clear-cut answers to things and when you have a subject where the controversy lies in the fact that there is apparently no clear-cut answer, it can lead to people making up their own ones (eg Bible doesn't actually say life begins at conception) and then losing all meaningful dialogue with the other side.

Although at the same time I'm wary of temptation to abandon principles and going for compromise for the sake of compromise.

I honestly just don't know with this issue.

*That might change if HoreTore appears since IIRC he makes the point of calling himself "pro-abortion"