Anti-abortionists don't believe that life begins at conception.

[Brenus]

“The right on abortion is feminism gone wrong imho,” So you want to impose on women unwanted children? Doesn’t matter their feeling, will and circumstances, if they want it or not, they have to have the baby…. Err, what about the father? Will he be obliged to pay all his life for a baby he didn’t want… Will he share the night watch, nappies and others mild (hum hum) inconveniences when a baby is born. Will he be forced to assist the mother for the giving birth exercises, and watch the baby poping out (thx Mass Effect 3)?

“Abortion is homicide”: Nope. Abortion is a sane decision when you are not apt to raise a baby for whatever reason. The cells are not baby, they are just cells. Otherwise, why not complain of the holocaust of spermatozoids (they are half humans and alive) that fail to reach the egg (and I don’t even want to think of the one used when the woman/men are not fertile, or without any female involvement except in pictures and imagination), and all these egg unfertilised and wasted…

“It's not his fantasy, it's his daughter” Nope, until the baby is born it is a potential baby. It becomes a foetus at 10 weeks. A foetus is viable (with heavy machinery) at around 7 months. You know the sex of the baby about the 16th to 18th week of pregnancy.
So at 3 months, his baby girl/daughter is a fantasy.
At 2 or 3 month it is an agglomerate of cell, dividing themselves in process called meiosis, and as you know, it is not how human reproduce. So the cells are not human, they are cells.

[Fragony]

If you would see him looking at the pictures of his soon to be daughter,and that is what it is to him. How cynical can you be to consider an unborn child to be just disposable. As far as I am concerned our stance on this should be subject to change. But that is just my opinion,doesn't have to be yours

[Greyblades]

How cynical can you be to consider an unborn child to be just disposable.

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

[Husar]

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

But if you take all of that, we might as well euthanize orphans to relieve them of the horrible mental pain they must be in.
And I'm not sure whether all the bad parents actually go for abortions, in many cases it may be parents who just worry too much and would be really good parents once they have the baby. And then there are probably babies which are never born due to pure financial/convenience reasons. I can somehow see abortions being okay relatively early on, while the lump of cells thing is still relatively valid, but especially late abortions seem unnecessary unless there are serious medical complications.

[HoreTore]

All late term abortions are due to medical reasons, Husar.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is easy when you consider how infinitely replacable we are and how often nature (or god if you're so inclined, the blame can go either way) kills us at the slightest provocation.

Not to mention that bringing a child into the world when it is unwanted by it's parent is one of the worst fates you could inflict upon both parent and child.

The world has enough orphans and broken homes without forcing parenthood on the unready and unwilling just to soothe unaffected consciences.

Grey':

This has been an abortion/morality discussion. Those who oppose abortion do not automatically seek to force parentage (after the act of birthing at least) on others, nor would many of them argue that orphans and broken homes are a desirable outcome. Many (most?) of those opposing abortion are also proponents of birth control and the adoption of children who are born to a parent who does not want and/or cannot effectively parent that child.

The Pro-life crew is adamant against the use of abortion as birth control -- many of them are staunch proponents of other forms of birth control that prevent conception.

The proponents of the "Well, you got yourself knocked up you slut, so now you have to marry the no good jerk you have come to hate and parent this currently bastard child-to-be and your life is now decreed for you" approach to the situation are pretty thin on the ground.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Changed it slightly to answer your question.

The second one actually illustrates the point I'm trying to make in this thread; the dangers of absolutes. To answer it:

20 ready-to-be-born babies? The ready-to-be-born babies, no doubt.
20 babies conceived the day before? The 10 already born ones, without question.

Moving from the point of conception up to the birth, the fetus will demand more and more value. The trouble starts when you try to assert one of the extremes on the entire scale.

OK. I am surprised you give the same answers I would. But I'm not sure your position here is compatible with your comments in the past, where you said that (again, apologies if I'm wrong here) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their baby at any time of the pregnancy. If you say that a soon-to-be-born baby is just as human as a recently born one, how can that baby's humanity and all that comes with that (right to life etc) be less important that the mothers right to choose?

“The right on abortion is feminism gone wrong imho,” So you want to impose on women unwanted children? Doesn’t matter their feeling, will and circumstances, if they want it or not, they have to have the baby…. Err, what about the father? Will he be obliged to pay all his life for a baby he didn’t want… Will he share the night watch, nappies and others mild (hum hum) inconveniences when a baby is born. Will he be forced to assist the mother for the giving birth exercises, and watch the baby poping out (thx Mass Effect 3)?

Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.

“Abortion is homicide”: Nope. Abortion is a sane decision when you are not apt to raise a baby for whatever reason. The cells are not baby, they are just cells. Otherwise, why not complain of the holocaust of spermatozoids (they are half humans and alive) that fail to reach the egg (and I don’t even want to think of the one used when the woman/men are not fertile, or without any female involvement except in pictures and imagination), and all these egg unfertilised and wasted…

The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.

[HoreTore]

OK. I am surprised you give the same answers I would. But I'm not sure your position here is compatible with your comments in the past, where you said that (again, apologies if I'm wrong here) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their baby at any time of the pregnancy. If you say that a soon-to-be-born baby is just as human as a recently born one, how can that baby's humanity and all that comes with that (right to life etc) be less important that the mothers right to choose?

I believe you have missed some nuance here.

I do support abortion right up to the moment of birth. I also support a ban on abortion starting around 3 months, with a hard ban after 4 or so.

The reason is the mothers health. Abortions carried out after week 12 carries substantially increased risk, which gets even higher after 16 and 20 weeks. Drawing a line makes sure that almost all abortions are carried out when the procedure involves little more than taking a pill, with the few stragglers lagging a few weeks behind due to exceptional circumstances covering virtually all of the remained. The very late abortions are all due to severe risk of death to the mother if she gives birth, and when given the choice between the mothers life and the baby, I choose the mother.

EDIT: I realize I may be a little hazy on the exact weeks various stuff happens, but you get the main point nonetheless.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe you have missed some nuance here.

I do support abortion right up to the moment of birth. I also support a ban on abortion starting around 3 months, with a hard ban after 4 or so.

The reason is the mothers health. Abortions carried out after week 12 carries substantially increased risk, which gets even higher after 16 and 20 weeks. Drawing a line makes sure that almost all abortions are carried out when the procedure involves little more than taking a pill, with the few stragglers lagging a few weeks behind due to exceptional circumstances covering virtually all of the remained. The very late abortions are all due to severe risk of death to the mother if she gives birth, and when given the choice between the mothers life and the baby, I choose the mother.

EDIT: I realize I may be a little hazy on the exact weeks various stuff happens, but you get the main point nonetheless.

If your position were adopted in the US I would rabidly sign a petition to support the limits mentioned

[Brenus]

“an unborn child to be just disposable” Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

“The Pro-life crew” The anti-abortion crew. They are not in favour of life, they are against abortion.

“Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.” Explain how to have the freedom to choose your life becomes a case for infanticide?

“The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.” Anti-abortion argument is not valid as spermatozoids and eggs are alive as well. If a baby is human when the cells start to separate, I don’t see why it can’t be even before, as they are all “unborn (potential) babies”.

[Fragony]

"Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born."

That is where we disagree, it will become a child if you don't terminate the pregnancy, it will become a person if you let it. I can accept that it is sometimes the best thing to do, for very good reasons, but you just don't get accidently pregnant, it's out of your hands when you do imho. If it's bad for your carreer you shouldn't have taken an unprotected meat injection or should have taken other totaly available alternativex, if you just got horney you shouldn't have gotten drunk and be shoved up a dick in a toilet, deal with it. The whole mindset is wrong when it comes to abortion, I blame feminism.

[Husar]

Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

What exactly changes at birth other than what we call the lump of cells and its relative location to the mother's body?
The brain is already active inside the womb but if it's not developed enough, I might as well mention that it cannot even recognize itself in a mirror until many months after birth, so maybe we can still abort new borns as they are not really developed humans anyway. Hell, they only learn to understand sarcasm around age 12 or so.

That late abortions are 100% for medical reasons was news to me, @HoreTore. Are you sure that's the case in all countries?

Must I clarify every time I make such a statement that I am not taking the imaginings of a SS interrigator into account? Orphans are not in pain but it is sheer ignorance to think that they are as likely to prosper as one in a loving family. You have few options to hamper a child's development further without entering the realms of abuse or neglect.

Yes, Dr. Greymengele, but my point was more that they may still be better off alive than if we kill them off before birth. Preventing birth in a very early (actual lump of cells) stage I can somewhat agree with depending on the circumstances, just like I do not mind contraceptives, which often work in a similar way (e.g. prevent lump of egg cell to dock in womb).

Generally our planet would be better off with fewer people though, just imagine how long the oil would last for 7 million instead of 7 billion people. Not that we should reduce ourselves that drastically though.

[HoreTore]

That late abortions are 100% for medical reasons was news to me, @HoreTore. Are you sure that's the case in all countries?

If you don't want a baby, would you:

1. Take a small pill and be done with it.
2. Suffer the pains of a long pregnancy before doing an expensive and very dangerous medical procedure that carries a risk of severe health effects or just outright kill you.

I'm pretty sure I'll go with 1...

Late term abortions(late second and all of third trimester) are always done because something has gone terribly wrong, either to the fetus or the mother. There are some anecdotes about a tiny number of abortions being performed where the mother was unaware of her pregnancy for quite a few months, but I am unsure of the truth in that claim.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“an unborn child to be just disposable” Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

In terms of denotative meaning, you are of course correct. In terms of connotative use of the term "unborn-child" you are quite well aware of the intent of the writer -- no need to parse the individual words to make a counter point. I will note that the Catholic Church tends to refer to them as "The Unborn" in our prayer intentions, in part to avoid just this sort of "hair-splitting."

“The Pro-life crew” The anti-abortion crew. They are not in favour of life, they are against abortion.

True of some. It is somewhat difficult in moral/ethical terms to be an ardent supporter of the judicial use of the death penalty while avidly opposing abortion -- but there are quite a few who take just that stance.

The Catholic Church opposes both, arguing for life to be respected "from conception to natural death."

“Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.” Explain how to have the freedom to choose your life becomes a case for infanticide?

This is a classic differend regarding the issue. If you view the unborn as possessing nothing of the infinite/spiritual, then the termination of an unborn for the health or convenience of the mother is nothing more than another medical decision for her regarding a tissue mass in her body. If you view the unborn as having, from the moment of conception, some spark of the immortal/spiritual, then you start to consider the lives of BOTH persons in the pregnancy to be of innate value and worthy of preservation.

NOTE: With modern medicine, the number of instances where the life of the mother is at stake and the foetus must be terminated to preserve that life is vanishingly small.

“The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.” Anti-abortion argument is not valid as spermatozoids and eggs are alive as well. If a baby is human when the cells start to separate, I don’t see why it can’t be even before, as they are all “unborn (potential) babies”.

The argument is not, ultimately, based on biology. The vast bulk of those who oppose abortion believe that, humans being sentient creatures, conception is not merely the union of chromosomal packages, but that in that instant some spark of the spiritual -- the divine to believers -- makes that life special and unique. This is, of course, not quantifiable by any know measure (I have not seen enough reliable work on the "weight of the soul" experiments to have faith in them, nor are such measures available for the unborn even if they ARE credible).

If you truly do not believe in the spiritual -- that our existence is nothing more nor less than a high end nervous system and whatever we fabricate therewith -- then your views on life would be vastly different.

[Fragony]

Don't claim objejections, I don't need any religion to be against abortion, I just think it's wrong.

[HoreTore]

NOTE: With modern medicine, the number of instances where the life of the mother is at stake and the foetus must be terminated to preserve that life is vanishingly small.

Perhaps that would explain the extremely rare instances of late term abortions, then?

[HoreTore]

If your position were adopted in the US I would rabidly sign a petition to support the limits mentioned

This is the current state of affairs in the US, though.

[Greyblades]

But if you take all of that, we might as well euthanize orphans to relieve them of the horrible mental pain they must be in.

Must I clarify every time I make such a statement that I am not taking the imaginings of a SS interrigator into account? Orphans are not in pain but it is sheer ignorance to think that they are as likely to prosper as one in a loving family. You have few options to hamper a child's development further without entering the realms of abuse or neglect.

This has been an abortion/morality discussion. Those who oppose abortion do not automatically seek to force parentage (after the act of birthing at least) on others, nor would many of them argue that orphans and broken homes are a desirable outcome.
Many (most?) of those opposing abortion are also proponents of birth control and the adoption of children who are born to a parent who does not want and/or cannot effectively parent that child.
The Pro-life crew is adamant against the use of abortion as birth control -- many of them are staunch proponents of other forms of birth control that prevent conception.

People are stupid when it comes to sex and unwanted pregancies can only be reduced not eliminated by birthcontrol. Also, society does not need to force parents to keep an unplanned child when their own hormones are very capable of doing that.

Here's the thing: an unplanned child is by its very nature not likely to be born into a family unit capable of caring for it to the extent it deserves and there have never been nor ever will be enough adopting parents for all orphans produced. Now taking the fact that sperm, eggs, fetuses, babies and children on this world are dying left and right without our input I do not see why protecting a mindless lump of cells is a priority soley due to the potential of it becoming a person.

I believe that the priority should not be saving every fetus we can, we are enthusiastically making plenty as it is, but instead expending our efforts in making sure the children that are born are raised with the greatest of care. Thus I say women should be allowed to abort and accept that loss of life for the high probability that many of them will go on to choose to have children, later in life when they are more able of giving thier children the upbringing they deserve.