No one claims that abortion is supposed to be a pleasant experience. I doubt there's a single woman on earth who, all other things being equal, would rather have had an abortion than not gotten pregnant in the first place. What's your point?

It's the law to wear a seat belt "But is my own body I can do what I want"
It's illegal to do drugs "But It's my own body..."
It's illegal to be publicly intoxicated "But...."
It's illegal to buy un-pasteurized milk in most states!!

Item 1 is significant because failing to wear seat belts imposes a severe cost in several on the families of those killed or crippled by car accidents and on society as a whole. Item 4 I believe is a mangling of the fact that it's illegal to sell unpasteurized milk, again because such tends to harm real, live, functioning people. Items 2 and 3 are motivated mainly by the prejudices of the religious. This helps your argument how?

It's scary that you do not care about the next generation of people in this world.

It's scary that you are willing to destroy at least two times any number of lives (both the woman and the unwanted child) just to ensure that more people will exist (until they die of neglect, malnutrition, disease, etc.). Not every prohibited abortion has this result, but you clearly wouldn't care if it did.

Also, what you seem to be too thick to absorb as it is repeatedly pointed out to you is that even if, as you claim, doctors would cease to perform abortions if it were outlawed, abortions would not cease. This is exactly what happened before they were legalized. The law does not effect whether or not women have abortions, but rather whether or not their abortions will be performed with sterile tools in a clean environment by people who know what they're doing - or, to put it more bluntly, how likely the woman is to survive.

Oh, right. Your concern is killing people. Clearly, killing women is perfectly acceptable to you. (Isn't it annoying when people argue by insulting insinuation rather than with evidence? Although, this is a bad example since I don't think that way and am having a hard time coming up with something to accuse you of that really, truly doesn't follow from your statements.)

Again, the only difference between Ebon's morality on abortion, and mine as a catholic is Timing

Liar. I know from previous discussions that you also oppose contraception. Additionally, however, there is a very important difference; Ebon's position allows a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with certain time restrictions; yours does not allow her to do so at all. The dishonesty of pretending that these are equivalent is beneath contempt.

There's nothing different biologically between a baby that is born, and a fetus 2 secs. before (didn't you learn this is your college Bio. class)

Are you sure?

As for your slanderous insinuations about Planned Parenthood, how much of its "total assets" are in a form other than the buildings they own and the equipment they use? Got any data on that?

If you uphold that a woman is more free after having an abortion then you are mistaken on this issue.

They are more free if they have the option to; try as you might you cannot bypass that simple point.

Abortion is absolutely terrible for women physically and emotionally.

a) no one is arguing that point, though there's plenty of variation in terms of the emotional and phyiscal discomfort, most likely relevant to the timing.
b) so is having to carry and give birth to and raise unwanted children

Our society needs to stop lying to women in telling them that abortion is a healthy procedure.

When does our society push abortions as being pleasant and easy? When has anyone here said that? Of course, if carried out properly, it is safe.
The risk of abortion complications is minimal when the procedure is performed by a trained professional in a hygienic setting: Fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. The risk of death associated with abortion in the United States is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, which is less than one-tenth as large as the risk associated with childbirth. (40) However, 68,000 women in countries where abortion is illegal die each year of abortion complications, and many times this number are injured by unsafe procedures. (5)
Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html

Abortion truly does equal one dead and one wounded.

One dead, but not one person dead. Truly, in this case, seems to mean "because I said so". I'd also like to see you reconile that point with the above data where illegal abortion can now mean (in your mind at least) two dead.

I hope so truly that women who have had an abortion are able to find healing and that their voice might be able to help others know the truth about this issue

Truth here also meaning "what I think about it". From your site
The campaign, a joint project of Priests for Life and Anglicans for Life, has three main goals:

* Make the public aware that abortion is harmful emotionally, physically and spiritually to women and others;
* Reach out to women who are hurting from an abortion, let them know help is available;
* Invite women to join us in speaking the truth about abortion's negative consequences.

I noticed nothing on that list about remaining objective, or taking information from women who had abortions early, and how they consider that effected their life positively (like not having give birth in their teens, or not have more children they can't afford or don't want to have to care for, or how they had the option to have a child when they felt prepared). That's basically a statement of their bias and what information they feel like presenting.

It couldn't possibly be because the founders of the pro-choice movement had seen the devastation, suffering and loss of human life that always occurs when women's bodies were treated as the property of the state. It couldn't possibly be because anyone involved in this movement was legitimately concerned with sexual freedom or bodily autonomy. It couldn't possibly be because anyone felt compassion for women who were raped, or who suffered a contraceptive failure, or whose lives were threatened by enforced pregnancy. It couldn't possibly be because anyone recognized the widespread positive effects on society that result when women can control the size of their families, or because they have an honest difference of opinion as to whether a fetus has the moral status of an adult person.

If you uphold that a woman is more free after having an abortion then you are mistaken on this issue. Abortion is absolutely terrible for women physically and emotionally. Our society needs to stop lying to women in telling them that abortion is a healthy procedure. Abortion truly does equal one dead and one wounded. I hope so truly that women who have had an abortion are able to find healing and that their voice might be able to help others know the truth about this issue. Many women are already speaking out:

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

Peace.

I would argue that we are allowed to kill our fetus' because of money.

Anyone who reads my site regularly knows that I don't use words like this often, but sometimes their appropriateness is inarguable.

This is a stupid position - deeply, profoundly stupid. There's just no other way to describe it.

Let's start with Adam's evidence for this position. It consists of a single unsourced quote from an anti-choice website. He starts with this quote and dismisses out of hand the possibility that it was invented, exaggerated or taken out of context in any way. From this, he draws a sweeping conclusion not just about one person or one clinic, but about the entire pro-choice movement as a whole. This extrapolation demonstrates an astonishing lack of good sense and rational thinking skills. This would be like me taking the account of one person who claims they were raped or molested by a priest, and concluding from this that the entire Catholic church was founded by a group of sex predators for the sole purpose of facilitating their access to children.

Next, let's talk about the position itself. Abortion providers operate solely for the money? Really? It couldn't possibly be because the founders of the pro-choice movement had seen the devastation, suffering and loss of human life that always occurs when women's bodies were treated as the property of the state. It couldn't possibly be because anyone involved in this movement was legitimately concerned with sexual freedom or bodily autonomy. It couldn't possibly be because anyone felt compassion for women who were raped, or who suffered a contraceptive failure, or whose lives were threatened by enforced pregnancy. It couldn't possibly be because anyone recognized the widespread positive effects on society that result when women can control the size of their families, or because they have an honest difference of opinion as to whether a fetus has the moral status of an adult person. Nope, according to Adam, the pro-choice movement is motivated solely by the desire to make money by killing children.

I can't even fathom the sheer lack of intelligence and common sense that would cause someone to make a statement like that. This is stupider than Michael Medved saying we need to elect Christian presidents so the terrorists will leave us alone; this is like the Jack Chick level of stupidity where you believe that playing Dungeons & Dragons teaches you how to cast actual black magic spells. It's the fundamentalist's cartoon view of the world which assumes that everyone who disagrees with you is a cackling, black-caped supervillain. Most people grow out of this view of the world by, let's say, age 5. Any adult who still believes such things ought to be humiliated to express them in front of rational people.

If Adam seriously thinks that people work for Planned Parenthood to get rich, he's beyond hope. (I laughed at this page, which notes breathlessly that "90 people who work at PPFA's national headquarters make over $50,000 per year". The horror!) As long as we're going to jump to irrational conclusions, why hasn't this money-making scheme been extended to other sectors? Why aren't there clinics that get rich by charging people to cut off their arms or to infect them with TB? Do conspiracy theorists like Adam give even that much thought to their delusions?

Ironically, this charge could be levelled with far more justice at the Catholic church - which is, by any measure, an enormously wealthy organization far larger than Planned Parenthood, whose leaders enjoy almost unimaginable luxury, and which owns tax-exempt property all around the world. And, of course, one can conclude that the Catholic church's opposition to abortion serves a financial purpose - raising the next generation of faithful donors, which they'd naturally want to be as large as possible. This is not a glass house that Catholic apologists want to go throwing stones around in.

Wow, fun quotes. I mean, I could point out that they have nothing to do with the woman's rights, or that there's absolutely no context to imply that those cases are not the vast minority, or as was mentioned, that they aren't really recent either. I could also mention that the quotes give no indication they come from planned parenthood, and not some private company, in which case you'd expect them to push what makes them money.

But I think that all might undermine your crushing appeal to emotion in an attempt to bypass actually having to talk about rights or answer questions, so I won't.

Arch,

No doctor goes to med school aspiring to work for an abortion clinic. Clinics create an atmosphere very open to degradation of the human person in multiple ways; the child and mother both included. If taking innocent life is accepted, other acts of abuse, manipulation, or violence are likely to occur as well.

Here, you're confusing doctor with abortion provider; while there may be some overlap (I would hope all of those who perform abortions are doctors), not all doctors working in these clinics are abortionists. Not all these clinics are public and non-profit, in which case you'd likely see the private clinic pushing what makes it the most money; if that happened to be adoption you'd see them pushing adoption, if it happened to be the pill, you'd see them pushing that. The anti-abortion crowd keeps trying to appeal to the "it's not a pleasant procedure so therefore it should be outright banned and that will solve the problem I see". Because as we well know, once you make things illegal they become safer and stop happening all together, just like drugs.

All of which still does not address rights.

hrd2imagin,

Rather, we must also promote a secular respect for life.

Respect for life is going to cast your net a little wide; life includes animals we eat and parasites that eat us, as well as all the bugs killed by pesticides, and all the plants we consume. Respect here is also the wrong word in my mind; respect is something earned, not something given automatically. Some life will earn our respect and love, some of it won't.

As many have previously said, I'm happy my parents didn't abort me. I'm sure I wouldn't have known or cared if they did, but knowing what I do now, then yes, I'm ecstatic that I'm experiencing, as Carl Sagan says, my "momentary glimpse of the universe."

Most living things don't really enjoy getting killed. I'm sure most of us (except maybe those really really depressed ones) are glad they didn't get aborted, but what many haven't taken into the equation is that many of them also wouldn't have been born if their parents hadn't aborted previous fetuses; many of them also wouldn't have been born if contraceptives like condoms or the pill had been used.

When you abort a pregnancy at any stage, you are robbing someone of their life, of their momentary glimpse, their chance to be a kid, to ride a roller coaster, to become educated, to contribute to society, to fall in love, to raise their own children. So this secular respect for life must be taught, must be embedded in our children and teens.

When you use birth control you do the same thing. You're making the mistake I pointed out not to long ago of confusing "total number of people" with "quality of life". More does not equal better, especially not for those people already living. You say it's not that simple then promptly make your point that it is that simple, except simple in the sense that we need to make as many new people as possible.

While I don't advocate robbing a woman her right to terminate her pregnancy, I also don't think we should champion that right as one of the great achievements of humanity.

The right to bodily autonomy isn't worthy of recognition? I would think it's one of our more basic rights.

Ebon,

That may well be true, but I didn't say I was drawing the boundary line based on what was most politically expedient. I'm drawing it based on where I think humanity begins. For what it's worth, this is the same boundary line we've had for thirty-five years, and the anti-choice forces haven't succeeded in moving it any further back yet.

I understand you drew the line where you feel personhood begins, but you also said you never pictured the law being used. If it's not going to be used, there's no point to have it.
But if it truly is a person at that point, how can you justify a manslaughter charge instead of homicide and merely probation rather than jail time (as would be the case for if any actual person had been killed)? It has intent and pre-planning, and unless you don't consider them equals, as you should if they're actual people at that point, that lowered charge shouldn't have even come up.

Irrelevant.

Why?

I am concerned with real developing humans. I will leave the mourning of those precious bodily fluids to you and General Jack D. Ripper.

If you mean "human" in the sense of "human rights" then the statement is a circular argument.

Sure - because I place myself above a potato, you have therefore established that I place myself above all this other life. That makes sense.

You certainly seem to place yourself above your mother.

And, what, specifically do you have against clinics? Is it all clinics, or just those that perform abortions? And, what evidence do you have for your slippery slope argument that is predicated on you projecting your personal beliefs onto others? I could just as easily say that crisis centers create an atmosphere very open to degradation of human rights. If denying the rights of an innocent woman is accepted, other acts of abuse, manipulation, or violence are likely to occur as well.

And for the last two posters, no one is going to the abortion clinic happy as a clam. No one hopes they can get pregnant so that they'll get to go and abort the fetus.

As humanists, we can't just sit back and say it's okay to abort a fetus if it's in the first or second trimester. Rather, we must also promote a secular respect for life.

As many have previously said, I'm happy my parents didn't abort me. I'm sure I wouldn't have known or cared if they did, but knowing what I do now, then yes, I'm ecstatic that I'm experiencing, as Carl Sagan says, my "momentary glimpse of the universe."

When you abort a pregnancy at any stage, you are robbing someone of their life, of their momentary glimpse, their chance to be a kid, to ride a roller coaster, to become educated, to contribute to society, to fall in love, to raise their own children. So this secular respect for life must be taught, must be embedded in our children and teens. This should be coupled with realistic sex-education, one that teaches how to handle sex responsibly, and how to handle the consequences should any arise. America, especially, needs to get realistic when it comes to sex, and treat it with respect.

While I don't advocate robbing a woman her right to terminate her pregnancy, I also don't think we should champion that right as one of the great achievements of humanity.

Am I a dreamer? Am I the only one?