TheNewKid, please stop posting.

hmm... so, is that a +1 for pro-life or pro-choice?

personally i am all about the sith, so i guess its a +1 for pro choice...

+1 for Pro-Choice!

Poor vader was just a mislead crybaby, not an evil man!

The morning after pill doesn't prevent fertilization at all, it prevents implantation. That's pretty common knowledge, but I think less people know that several birth control methods (IUD's for example) are the same way - preventing implantation, but not fertilization.

That's why I was curious what people thought of them. Many think life begins at fertilization, so even those would be killing a potential child. I'm wondering where everyone is drawing that line.

Yeah that's the interesting thing, even pro-lifers have a line.
Abortion?
Morning after pill?
Regular pill?
Condom?

Everyone has a line there somewhere. Even pro-choice clearly states a line, third trimester. After that the fetus is considered to be life.
And I'm not saying I don't recognize the difference between wearing a condom and having an abortion, I'm just saying everyone has a line there somewhere (or maybe theres some extra things I missed?)

one could say i'm pro-choice but i'm more pro-don't give a ****

people who try to take the religious high ground... we're all going to hell anyway might as well enjoy the ride

i draw the line at, if you prevent the pregnancy from happening then cool, if you get pregnant then terminate, not cool. i also go by the medical definition where pregnancy begins at implantation.

you can make make the argument that if your going to draw the line at implantation why not fertilization, or even any contraception. but, that pendulum can swing right back the other direction. if you draw the line at 3rd trimester, then why not full term, or up until the instant the umbilical cord is cut.

I still don't see how people can consider what is literally a pair of cells to be a human, and thus capable of being murdered.

'life begins at conception' is stupid.

the fertilized egg is no different than the sperm or the egg.

Lowers crime rates.

Then one can make the argument, Freelancer, that each time a male ejaculates via masturbation, millions of lives are eventually lost. Right?

I wish I could reach across the internet to slap you right now. So bad.

I think everyone should see this documentary on abortion, its fairly even handed (you can see it on Netflix's Watch Instantly).

I'm pro-choice to a point. I don't think it should be used as a method of birth control (like women I've heard of having five abortions), but if the child would be a burden on society (creating another parent on welfare, becoming a child of the state), or be physically or mentally malformed (severely), then I think the choice should be made early on not to go through with the pregnancy. I also think it should be done in the early weeks of the pregnancy.

by the logic in latis's question even when a man ejeculates into a woman in an attempt to conceive millions of lives are still lost

Fertilization, and I don't really care if it's truly a "baby" yet at that point or not. Once it's reached that point, it has all the potential it needs to become a baby, that is, all the DNA.

I feel very strongly about this because of previously stated reasons: if it were legal to abort, I wouldn't be alive. That may not bother some of you, but it bothers the hell out of me.

I believe machine guns bring happiness.

Yeah, but if you were never born, you wouldn't care if you were never born.

I do understand where you're coming from though...that's why I say my opinion is probably only because I have never had an emotional investment in any relating situation.

there will never be a resolution to this conflict, and so i refuse to argue about it. ever. i hold my position, you hold yours, no point making noise at each other.

i wasnt aware you were over 30 years old or were born somewhere other than the US, CM, because abortion has been legal since 1973.

if neither is the case, your mother CHOSE not to abort, and so, here you are.

I should rephrase: not legal, but allowed. My grandparents would have probably aborted HER had she tried to abort me.

That doesn't sound very good to the baby.

Pro life = Freddy Krueger.

If my mother had known about abortion, or could have affored it, I wouldn't be here. I'm an accident baby.

Think about that.

lol a lot of mistakes here...

That's an idiotic argument. You could use the exact same logic to support the roman right of paterfamilias, at least over the children. Your entire point is predicated on the assumption that fetuses are not human life, which is also what we happen to be discussing.



So does fire bombing crime ridden neighborhoods.

Hey, I'm an accident too. Still doesn't change my stance. Just because a child isn't planned or even wanted doesn't mean it's going to be aborted even if it's legal.

I'm pro-choice.

True enough, I'll definatly give you that

Oh I bet you'd love to roll down to west end and fire bomb the eval heathen dark peoples, wouldn't you?

I think it's a matter of sameness (also called identity). The person that was Axis several years ago consisted of different cells. Our bodies are constantly rebuilding/replacing old worn down parts, etc. That doesn't mean that I did not exist several years ago. I was still me.

And so a baby, even before it has left the womb, is still that baby. I just take that all the way down to conception, saying that whoever that person is, that's who they were even when they only existed in the form of a handful of cells.

It's a difficult thing to research, but it's pretty clear that infants are not fully self aware in the first year of their life.

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Plain_English_Summaries/LLH/lifecourse/index592.aspx?ComponentId=13752&SourcePageId=11751
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a743786470~db=all~order=page
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/4/2/9/p94297_index.html

Maybe it's because pro-life jerks guilt them into thinking that they are sinful baby-killing whores who will burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

You're adorable. The study was released by John Hopkins University, one of the premier research institutions of the world. BUT YEAH, ITS PROLLY BIASED PRO ABORTION BLAH BLAH BLAH.

This.

Also, I take a moral stance and an enacted stance. Morally, I think abortion is escapism for irresponsible people and I think they should be forced to learn that they have to accept what they've done. I don't think the argument that we have a very sex-ridden society excuses people from having to take responsibility for the INTENDED CONSEQUENCES of sex. Now, I also support abortion morally in circumstances where it's logical, IE: one or both parties are endangered, you know the child is going to be born with severe defects that prevent it from living a normal life, rape, etc.

But in real life, I can't live based on that idea because I know that making abortion illegal is not a good solution to the problem. I had this discussion with JediKirby I think a year ago, and I remember it very well. All the hardcore anti-abortion groups would be better off spending their money and time on trying to get some kind of "pregnant assistance" program going for providing psychological and physical assistance to women carrying a child that don't take a stance on either pro or anti abortion. It's a more effective, kinder approach to take that would probably make everyone happier in the end. Perhaps even the assistance programs could get women to forget the abortion and instead have the child because their circumstances are more stable.

Give everyone the choice whether to get an abortion or not. Let the individual decide what is morally right or wrong. Enough moral imposing by other people goes on enough in the world.

And everyone should understand that this thread was simply created to start a flame war. Look at the second option, "Kill!", which implies that people that are pro-choice are anti-life, which is certainly not the case.

Hmm... general root of these type of problems are lack of morals in sex. So people apparently are making good decisions.

We give people morals, to help them in life to get into bad situations. It won't work 100% because we are imperfect. It will however help you not get into trouble so often.

Trouble such as unwanted pregnancies or STD's.

Sure enough, these can happen even if you are careful, but improving your odds isn't a bad thing.

Maybe some of us don't think the government should be the one to decide what's moral and what's not for us.

Maybe some of us like the idea that the majority decides what the government can and cannot do.

Veto?

What do you mean lack of morals in sex? Well there's really no point in even answering that question because the only road you can travel here would end in me saying your morals are yours, no one elses.

But other than your first paragraph I don't really follow ya.

Maybe that is exactly what the american form of government was designed to prevent.