My next lecture will be on God and Country

Here is where I KILL BILL and engage in a little hypothetical hypocrisy, and somehow, get the last word.

I have to get the unfortunate Bill out of the way first. I will miss him, but he has to go. First off, its just not cricket to use your own, special, made-up scenario to make your point. If the unborn were given human rights, the government still wouldn't have the right to make you donate time and kidneys to the dying Bill because hardly anyone requires the use of someone else's organs to live whereas every human being who ever existed required the act of conception and the process of pregnancy to live. It is the one and ONLY way to achieve life. The luckless Bill had a chance at life already; in a way that millions of babies a year will never have.

I said in my last post: "Leaving aside one's personal feelings for the male gender in general, this cannot be viewed as fair or just, i.e one gender having to submit his reproductive will to the arbitrariness of the other's."

You said: "I agree, it's not fair. Life isn't fair. Nature isn't fair. But it is what it is. For a very, very long time now, women have had to submit their reproductive will to the arbitrariness of men's will - fathers, husbands, doctors - and it wasn't fair. But it was what it was, an accepted part of life, for hundreds of years. It is only because we have moved away from that forced dependency that these issues have surfaced and created friction. It is less about the viability of life or the rights of a fetus than it is about who has "control".

I take this to mean that since Life and Nature aren't fair, it sucks to be an unwanted fetus. You also seem to see the abortion issue as one of control, that somehow men would again gain some kind of control over women if abortion became illegal. It is hard to see it that way because women engage in sexual intercourse today without being married, without parental consent and pretty much on their own terms, barring any circumstantial displays of courtesy to their sperm donor. How would it be different if abortion were illegal? Men would only have as much say in the situation as a women and they would have to pay child support. Both men and women should have equal reproductive rights, and these should be utilized before pregnancy. Why should a baby be destroyed because his or her parents were careless, or selfish, or inebriated? We can't make up for the male oppression of women by becoming the opppressors of our own children.

The only thing that every human being on the face of the earth has in common is the fact of their conception and birth. This fundamental equality, from which all of our unalienable rights spring, is only visible at this time. Once we are born, we are susceptible to all the curses and blessings of the human race, but we can base all of our rights firmly in the fact that were were all created equal.

Achieving true equality is an ongoing process, but the one definitive fact is that you cannot have equality without life. Pregnant women have their life. Aborted babies do not.

You say something else that I have to take exception to which was that "abortion is not predicated on the idea of feti being "useless". Of course it is. If it were known that an incestuously raped, crackhead mother's severely handicapped baby was going to be born and cure AIDS upon his birth, you can bet your sweet candy that no one would allow that woman to have an abortion. If we, as a mob, had to keep that woman comotose so that baby could be born, don't you think we would? OK. I am a bad girl. I detest impossible hypotheticals and sure enough I used one shamelessly :-) This paragraph is far outside the realm of the equal rights debate, but I just wanted to point out that babies are aborted because they are not wanted for one reason or another. You can't say that a baby who is aborted because they are deformed is wanted. They might have been wanted if they were normal, but they are not wanted as they are. If their parents truly wanted them, they would have them deformities or no.

I have to say that the feminist, pro-choice movement is so rooted in ideology and organizations that they have forgotten what they were organized for. I feel that as long as abortion is legal, women ought to be better informed as to the decision they are making. Right now, the focus of the pro-choice movement is more about retention and less about actual choice. No feminist likes my opinion or wants to hear about it and I'm as good a candidate for political view as any of the hysterically rabid feminists out there. Probably more so because I haven't had a knee-jerk reaction to the pro-life argument. You can't win for trying in the feminist movement unless you are pro-choice. I have heard religious pro-life women castigated for their stand because they had never had to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. Well baby, I'm not religious, but boy have I had to deal.

Somehow, this doesn't resonate with feminists. I always get thrown scenarios that are designed to make me happy that women who've regretted their choice once it was done, chose an abortion, like: what if the baby were deformed? Or what if she weren't able to have a career? I got news: None of that matters if you feel like a murderer.

And here is her response where feminism clouds judgement:

"What then, would you base the legal question on? The legality of any issue, not just abortion, is based upon those first three questions."

Sorry, I may not have been clear enough - I meant the specifics as indicated in my examples, based upon what you had said previously. For example, it shouldn't be based upon the social question of abortion being an answer to overpopulation and poverty as you had stated previously. It IS a social issue, of course, but not the one previously cited. That was all I meant by those particular comments.

"The term "equal rights under the law".....why is this a reason for women to deny equal protection to another group of individuals, namely the unborn?"

My point was that only recently are all adult humans in the U.S. offered "equality" (on paper, of course, not yet in practice...but I digress), and that the threat of total autonomy with regards to women fully governing their own bodies, including their reproduction, is primarily what is creating this backlash anti-choice movement. Women themselves are not immune to this line of thinking. The nature of feti has not changed, but the prospect of changing the status of feti as possibly the only way to turn the tide is appealing.

"As to the issue of "reproductive rights," (and by this I'm assuming you mean the ability to determine whether you will have children or not), women are the only ones who have reproductive rights at this point. Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever."

Sadly, that's a misnomer. Men have total reproductive rights and are under no obligation to have sex with women without first discussing and understanding each others' intentions, nor are they required to use (or not use) birth control, such as vasectomies and condoms. For that matter, men are not required to have sex at all. If men want to have children, I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who want the same thing. If men don't want to have children, they can certainly take steps to prevent it.

I can't muster any sympathy for a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman whom he knows nothing about in regards to her feelings on becoming pregnant by him, then feeling he should have control over the issue when she becomes pregnant (e.g., "that's my child, it must be born", or "I didn't want a kid, you're on your own"). (As well as the reverse - women ought to be acquainted with the men they're having sex with as well)

"If a woman wants to abort his child and he doesn't, tough beans. And if she wants to have the baby and he doesn't, he is forced to pay child support."

Funny how nature has provided this. I think it's a shame that both sexes can't become pregnant. It would be wonderful if a man could conceive and endure pregnancy and childbirth; he could have complete control over what he does with his body. At that point, he might even understand a little bit about what that sort of autonomy means. Or, he might just think having a woman make his reproductive decisions for him is easier and safer. Who can tell?

I don't mean to sound flippant, but the point is, since men cannot conceive, it is not up to them. Good, bad or indifferent, only a woman is capable of being pregnant.

"Leaving aside one's personal feelings for the male gender in general, this cannot be viewed as fair or just, i.e one gender having to submit his reproductive will to the arbitrariness of the other's."

I agree, it's not fair. Life isn't fair. Nature isn't fair. But it is what it is. For a very, very long time now, women have had to submit their reproductive will to the arbitrariness of men's will - fathers, husbands, doctors - and it wasn't fair. But it was what it was, an accepted part of life, for hundreds of years. It is only because we have moved away from that forced dependency that these issues have surfaced and created friction. It is less about the viability of life or the rights of a fetus than it is about who has "control".

"The time to exercise one's reproductive rights is before pregnancy, when both procreating genders have a say."

If only... I really wish that people were simply more diligent about their actions, but unfortunately that is not the case.

"You also mentioned the birth control issue. It is extremely farfetched to suppose that if abortion were made illegal, we would go so far as to make birth control or penile ejaculation illegal."

I agree - that is totally farfetched. But there was a time when it seemed farfetched to try a juvenille as an adult, to make birth control available to women without a husband's consent, to pay women the same rate as a man for the same job, to allow blacks to vote, etc. My point is, as farfetched as anything may seem to you or me, anything is possible (although I doubt that ejaculation without intent to procreate will ever be deemed illegal - it is, after all, primarily men who make the laws).

"But while we are on the subject of religion, let is take in your argument..."The government doesn't have the right to tell me that my religion's tenets relative to abortion are outlawed..." In answer to the last part, yes it does. The law negates people's religious and personal beliefs all of the time because there is no legal establishment of any one religion or personal belief system. For example, under Islamic law, a man may kill any female family member for "dishonoring" the family. We don't allow that in America because we believe that human lives take precedence over religions. Therefore, these men are not free to practice their religion and murder their girls."

The government cannot dictate religious ideals (or prevent them) when it's personal - for example, certain Native Americans use peyote within their religious practices. I would not be afforded such an allowance of behavior - I would be arrested if found in possession of peyote. In other words, peyote is illegal, but it's ok for certain people who practice certain religions.

I wasn't referring to something that obviously affects another person, such as murder. You and I both agree that taking the life of my neighbor, for example, is "murder", as would the overwhelming majority of people. However, you and I do not agree that terminating a pregnancy is "murder". While neither of us is alone in our beliefs, neither of us is in the overwhelming majority of said beliefs either.

My point pertained to religious practices that don't infringe on others. If a religious practice includes cutting off the heads of all blond men under the age of 25, for example, that's not going to be allowed. But when it comes to the subject of abortion and one's religious beliefs on that, the government cannot say, "this religion is right - therefore you must have an abortion if you're not married,(or whatever)", nor can they say, "this religion is right - you can never have an abortion, regardless of the circumstances". If the government decided to base abortion legislation upon one or another religious belief, then all hell would break loose. It should be a choice issue.

"And speaking of men, let's move on to Bill the kidney guy. First off, I dislike this argument because it deals in an impossible hypothetical situation."

I'm glad you mentioned that. This argument is no more an impossible hypothetical situation than the idea that some other being must be afforded rights that supercede an entire group of people. By affording priority rights to feti, one is revoking priority rights to all women who become pregnant. If we must give the priority of rights to only one entity - and in the issue of abortion, this applies - then I've yet to hear why the rights of a being not yet fully formed, not yet born, are more important than the rights of a fully formed woman with a life, goals, etc.

"And Bill, even though he is not allowed to be hooked up to your kidneys, would still be given every other shot at remaining alive. We wouldn't just sit idly by and watch him die without medical intervention."

In my example, though, I explained that the ONLY way to keep Bill alive is by being hooked up to my kidneys (or use the concept of transplants, it doesn't matter). It won't kill me to "help" him, it won't even affect me. He will die without me, regardless of other medical intervention. Yet the law allows me to, in essence, "kill" him by refusing to help. Why is it not possible to view abortion as a refusal to help another being survive?

"An unborn baby whose mother has chosen to abort it is given no such consideration. No effort is made to save his or her life because there is no other way to sustain that life."

Amazing how modern technology provides so much, yet has done nothing on this front. We can have surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, pretty much anything we want...but we can't do a "fetus transplant"? Perhaps that would give women too much autonomy?

"Now despite my vigorous defense of the unborn, I am not immune to the plight of women in the situation. Does it suck to have to give birth to an unwanted baby? Yes it does."

I'm not really sure why so many people get focused on the idea that abortion is for women who think it would "suck" to have a baby. Sometimes abortions are performed on "wanted" babies. This "plight" you refer to is only one of many possible reasons for abortion.

"But it sucks more to be vacuumed out of your mother's womb, pureed, and dumped out with the garbage."

How can you truly "know" this? (just curious)

"Pregnancy is a temporary situation,"

You don't think pregnancy can affect a woman's body and mind permanently?

"Abortion is permanent."

I think that's the point.

"There is no bringing that baby back if you have second thoughts."

No one should have second thoughts, really, not about this issue. No one should make such serious decisions - e.g., having sex without proper precautions, terminating a pregnancy, continuing a pregnancy - without serious forethought. That being said, if someone later (post-abortion) decides they would have liked having a baby, they can make another one. Or adopt.

"Your best argument is: "The whole point of leaving abortion up to the individual involved (i.e., the pregnant person) supports that very question, that ALL opinions are weighed equally by allowing for the option of abortion." The problem I have with this is that the outcome is never equal. What happens is that some babies leave the womb alive, others are destroyed and the choice is still arbitrary."

I wasn't specific enough. The outcome wouldn't be equal anyway, even without considering the fetus. Someone else will be affected - perhaps the sperm donor, the woman's family members, a doctor, an employer who must allow the woman a couple of days off. Whatever way you look at it, the issue is solely up to the pregnant woman.

Again, life isn't "fair", things aren't always "equal". Some babies leave the womb alive, but are so plagued by physical and mental defects that they are miserable for decades. Others are "destroyed" through no deliberate intent of the pregnant woman. Life isn't fair.

"Our laws are based on moral absolutes (don't confuse morals with religion - completely different things). Why is murder illegal? NOT because it says so in the 10 Commandments, but because it is based on the idea that if there were no rule of society to govern, then we would have no security upon which to improve our lives."

Right, but abortion is not murder. That it is, is an opinion.

Seriously. My personal belief system says that the slaughter of any mammal is murder - that includes steer, pigs, etc. That's my belief (opinion) and I hold fast that it is murder. But I respect that other people don't embrace my belief system. (I would never throw paint on someone wearing fur, for example, nor move for legislation preventing people from consuming mammalian meat - that's just not right, no matter how disturbing it is to me)

"You see making abortion illegal as a slippery slope that will lead to the repeal of all the rights that have been granted to women. I see the legalization of abortion as a slippery slope that is already beginning to undermine the value of life in general. First we kill off the useless unborn,"

Abortion is not predicated on the idea of feti being "useless".

"then euthanasia, then assisted suicide, then the mentally handicapped, then the physically handicapped,"

Those are all individual, separate issues, that have nothing to do with abortion, as none of these issues requires inhabiting the body of another living being for a specific length of time for the sole purpose of survival.

"then before you know it we are clearing out the ghettos all in an effort to sanitize our society of the people who may cause us problems."

I can't see us ever rallying behind the cry of "kill the lawyers". ;^)

Those who may "cause us problems" are different to each of us. I might think the media causes problems, you might think right-wingers cause us problems.

Again, a woman may not seek an abortion because she feels the fetus causes problems. There can be any number of reasons.

"I sympathize with my fellow women in The Situation. I've been there myself. But I find myself sympathizing more with the babies who are not given any choice whatsoever in a situation that they had no part in no part in creating."


I think individually, women must ultimately make their own choices based not upon what is "popular" nor what someone else tells them, but upon their own gut instinct. It may happen that they change their minds, have regrets, further down the road, but that is what life is...a series of choices, some of which improve our lives, others of which haunt us.

My response:

I'll keep this one shorter (hopefully). You say: "In regards to the political issue, though, I don't believe it should involve the biological question (i.e., when does "life" begin? - for that involves a fully agreed-upon definition of "life" itself), the social question (i.e., usage in response to overpopulation/poverty - decades removed from today's mindset), or the third one (i.e., "everyone has a personal story" - and btw, I don't have such a story, neither about myself nor anyone else I've known)."

What then, would you base the legal question on? The legality of any issue, not just abortion, is based upon those first three questions. You are citing the feminist concern as a reason to keep abortion legal. This is a social question. You cite reproductive issues as a basis for keeping abortion legal. This is a biological question. Your analogy of the person, Bill, being hooked up to your kidneys is a personal question in that is designed to reduce the issue to a one-on-one basis, so that it is easier to get the point across.

You say: "First, the concept of "equal rights under the law" is entirely new and has only occurred within my lifetime. Prior to that, more than half the population did not have equal rights."

I am not understanding this point. The term "equal rights under the law" was first coined in 1868 in Amendment XIV of the Constitution. However, even if the concept had only occurred in your lifetime (I'm assuming the 1950s or later), why is this a reason for women to deny equal protection to another group of individuals, namely the unborn?

As to the issue of "reproductive rights," (and by this I'm assuming you mean the ability to determine whether you will have children or not), women are the only ones who have reproductive rights at this point. Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. If a woman wants to abort his child and he doesn't, tough beans. And if she wants to have the baby and he doesn't, he is forced to pay child support. Leaving aside one's personal feelings for the male gender in general, this cannot be viewed as fair or just, i.e one gender having to submit his reproductive will to the arbitrariness of the other's. The time to exercise one's reproductive rights is before pregnancy, when both procreating genders have a say. Once the baby is conceived, neither mother's nor father's will should interfere with the baby's right to live. Obviously the mother has it worse if she doesn't want the baby, but that is the fault of nature not the law.

You also mentioned the birth control issue. It is extremely farfetched to suppose that if abortion were made illegal, we would go so far as to make birth control or penile ejaculation illegal. There is a biological difference between sperm, egg, and embryo. The sperm's genetic code is that of the man's, the egg's is that of the woman's. The genetic code of the embryo is completely unique unto itself. That very individuality is the basis for all of our rights. I suppose you mean that religious extremists could try to make birth control illegal, but the only religion who feels that strongly about birth control is Catholicism. Even fundamentalist Protestants have no problem with it. But even if there were a possibility that people could take it to such an extreme, it is not the issue before the court (so to speak).

But while we are on the subject of religion, let is take in your argument that "the very idea that someone could designate an absolute about when life begins flies in the face of our protection under the first amendment - the freedom to pursue religion." Interesting point, but faulty. You use the example of Hinduism which believes that life begins at "quikening" and that to designate when life begins, "negates the belief systems of millions of individuals who believe that life begins at the point a fetus can sustain itself (breathing) outside the womb, as well as those who believe life begins the moment an egg drops from the tube or when sperm is ejaculated from the penis... The government doesn't have the right to tell me that my religion's tenets relative to abortion are outlawed..." In answer to the last part, yes it does. The law negates people's religious and personal beliefs all of the time because there is no legal establishment of any one religion or personal belief system. For example, under Islamic law, a man may kill any female family member for "dishonoring" the family. We don't allow that in America because we believe that human lives take precedence over religions. Therefore, these men are not free to practice their religion and murder their girls.

And speaking of men, let's move on to Bill the kidney guy. First off, I dislike this argument because it deals in an impossible hypothetical situation. There is no medical situation that compares to the One Process that each and every one of us must go through to be alive. And Bill, even though he is not allowed to be hooked up to your kidneys, would still be given every other shot at remaining alive. We wouldn't just sit idly by and watch him die without medical intervention. An unborn baby whose mother has chosen to abort it is given no such consideration. No effort is made to save his or her life because there is no other way to sustain that life.

Now despite my vigorous defense of the unborn, I am not immune to the plight of women in the situation. Does it suck to have to give birth to an unwanted baby? Yes it does. But it sucks more to be vacuumed out of your mother's womb, pureed, and dumped out with the garbage. Pregnancy is a temporary situation, after which a woman is free to exercise any right she wants. Abortion is permanent. There is no bringing that baby back if you have second thoughts.

Your best argument is: "The whole point of leaving abortion up to the individual involved (i.e., the pregnant person) supports that very question, that ALL opinions are weighed equally by allowing for the option of abortion." The problem I have with this is that the outcome is never equal. What happens is that some babies leave the womb alive, others are destroyed and the choice is still arbitrary.

Our laws are based on moral absolutes (don't confuse morals with religion - completely different things). Why is murder illegal? NOT because it says so in the 10 Commandments, but because it is based on the idea that if there were no rule of society to govern, then we would have no security upon which to improve our lives.

You see making abortion illegal as a slippery slope that will lead to the repeal of all the rights that have been granted to women. I see the legalization of abortion as a slippery slope that is already beginning to undermine the value of life in general. First we kill off the useless unborn, then euthanasia, then assisted suicide, then the mentally handicapped, then the physically handicapped, then before you know it we are clearing out the ghettos all in an effort to sanitize our society of the people who may cause us problems. No one can accuse me of being a conservative!!
:-)

I sympathize with my fellow women in The Situation. I've been there myself. But I find myself sympathizing more with the babies who are not given any choice whatsoever in a situation that they had no part in no part in creating.

Here she decides that legal questions should not be answered by scientific evidence, social impact, personal views, or logic of any kind.

You're correct about the various types of debates going on. In regards to the political issue, though, I don't believe it should involve the biological question (i.e., when does "life" begin? - for that involves a fully agreed-upon definition of "life" itself), the social question (i.e., usage in response to overpopulation/poverty - decades removed from today's mindset), or the third one (i.e., "everyone has a personal story" - and btw, I don't have such a story, neither about myself nor anyone else I've known).

But the legal one, about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a legitimate basis for legislative discussion. First, the concept of "equal rights under the law" is entirely new and has only occurred within my lifetime. Prior to that, more than half the population did not have equal rights. In some states today, women still don't have "equal" rights - for example, if they are victims of domestic violence, some states still do not have laws to protect them. Rather they extend rights to the husband - or "owner" of said woman - by not prosecuting him unless the battered partner has the courage to do so herself.

Keeping that in mind, you have to understand the implicit message to women by entertaining the idea of preventing abortion - "we've given you equal rights, just a few measly decades back, but this idea of total control over your reproduction is too much of a threat and we need a reason to forbid you to have an abortion...let's embrace this idea of extending equal rights to the fetus in your body and give them the power over you, not you the power over them".

The concept of women having "equal rights" automatically extends to their reproductive system, not just their minds. This is a such a "new" idea in this country (in this world) that subsequent generations are apparently still reeling from the idea that women don't have to rely on a man to make their decisions for them any longer. It's a huge social change, one we've been ill-prepared for I might add.

You said, "Since everyone who is alive was allowed the process of conception, this should not be denied to anyone else. The legal justification for this is the fact that everyone is entitled to equal rights under the law. This means that you can't allow some people to be born and others not to be."

This could literally be interpreted to include the use of birth control as a method of allowing "some people to be born and others not to be". Radical thought? Perhaps, but that doesn't guarantee there wouldn't at some point be laws against birth control, perhaps even masturbation, oral sex....any sexual contact that results in ejaculation without further resulting in conception.

I know that's "crazy", and I certainly don't feel that way, but I mention it because it's NOT all that far-fetched for some people to think that way, following that logic.

The very idea that someone could designate an absolute about when life begins flies in the face of our protection under the first amendment - the freedom to pursue religion. The Hindu believe that life begins at quickening, that is when life is "felt" by the mother - the fetus is moving and kicking, etc., at which point an abortion is deemed to be wrong. To be specific about "life" means to include all living organsims, which includes eggs and sperm, as they are "alive" as well. And this brings us back to the first point pertaining to "when life begins", the biological, not political, issue. That cannot be agreed upon.

The definition of "life" within the womb thus requires very specific language. If we say life begins at conception, and a woman exercises excessively, thus causing a spontaneous abortion - or miscarriage - would she then be guilty of ending that "life" due to her negligence? And do we then relegate all pregnant women to live within rigid guidelines in order to protect that "life", in a sense imprisoning women and removing THEIR rights because some other life is more deserving?

What is the difference between specifically seeking an abortion to end a pregnancy and being negligent about the life in your womb to the point of causing a spontaneous abortion, one that could have been prevented? Intent? Not really, because causing a thing and allowing the potential cause to occur both imply a guilt. A woman who rides a horse hard for four hours, thus causing a miscarriage, is no less guilty of "killing" the fetus than is a women who finds another method of inducing an abortion, such as the methods used by doctors.

These are the reasons we must be very careful in our language to describe things, as well as in our doling out of rights. As I mentioned before, abortion is the single issue that requires - not just suggests, but requires - one have rights over another. There is no such thing as equality in this regard. So we are forced to decide who deserves the priority in having rights - women, who only recently achieved what is loosely defined as "equality", or feti?

If we decide to afford the priority to feti, then we are making a social and biological statement as to when life begins and what "life" actually means. That negates the belief systems of millions of individuals who believe that life begins at the point a fetus can sustain itself (breathing) outside the womb, as well as those who believe life begins the moment an egg drops from the tube or when sperm is ejaculated from the penis. We cannot dictate these beliefs without jeopardising the foundation of our Constitution.

Further, we are setting an ugly precedent of "someone else's" life being more important than another's right to make choices. For example, if the only way for Bill to survive is by being hooked up to my kidneys for several hours a day because his don't work and no one else's kidneys can help him, would the law require me to allow this intrusion upon my person? Hell, Bill actually has a voice, something a fetus has been purported not to have, so Bill could actually say, "don't kill me, I have a right to live!" Why is it okay for me to allow Bill to die, but not a fetus inside my body? If we don't have laws that say I "have to" save Bill's life, how can we impose an arbitrary law that says I "have to" save anyone's life, fetus or otherwise?

You said, "A person is allowed to give up their own life to save another, but they are not legally obligated to save a life if it puts their own in danger." In the case I mentioned above, they are not legally obligated to save a life even if it DOESN'T put their own in danger. And if we decide to mandate one, we must mandate the other - why is Bill's life less important than any fetus? It's not as if Bill can make a choice here either (much like a fetus).

You said that all our laws are based on morals, but whose morals? We have laws that legitimize murder by allowing the death penalty - whose morals are those? They're not mine, yet I live in a society where such killing is legal. What is my choice? My choice is that I will not take someone's life, regardless of what our government allows. The same can apply to abortion.

Finally, you said, "The pro-life argument is completely legitimate simply for the reason that no political body has weighed in on when human life begins, so it has not been LEGALLY determined whether abortion is murder or not. Shouldn't all opinions be weighed equally especially when determining something that affects lives of every person?"

The whole point of leaving abortion up to the individual involved (i.e., the pregnant person) supports that very question, that ALL opinions are weighed equally by allowing for the option of abortion. It's not like the law is mandating that women MUST HAVE abortions; that would be as bad as NOT allowing abortion. That's the whole point behind individual autonomy and personal freedom. I may have an abortion if I want one, but I'm under no obligation to have one. By the same token, the government doesn't have the right to tell me that my religion's tenets relative to abortion are outlawed, nor have they the right to force anyone to follow those tenets.

Again, the concept of "when life begins" is just too open to interpretation for this to ever become the definitive answer to the question of abortion's legitimacy. If "life" means a living organism, then we could feasibly outlaw birth control, because the egg and sperm are both living organisms. If "life" means a being that can survive on its own outside the womb, then we could feasibly outlaw abortions after the 26th week (give or take) but not before. This issue will never have total consensus.

And the concept of one living being having rights over another when both must rely upon ONE body for survival brings us back to whether the law should require me to allow Bill to hook up to my kidneys so he doesn't die. When they do THAT, I will understand and accept the idea of outlawing abortion. And then I will move to another country, kidneys in tact.

(and thank you for one of the few real "discussions" about this topic I've had in decades - I enjoy such discourse without the name-calling and what-not that so many seem to need in order to make their points, and this so very rarely happens...so thanks!)

Here is where I come to my senses and try to organize things a little:

There are four separate debates central to the argument concerning abortion. We seem to be intertwining them which makes for a confusing debate, and usually ends up in both sides saying "fuck off." I, personally, do not believe that there can ever be too much debate on the subject as it concerns every American with the ability to procreate.

The first question is the biological one: When does human life begin? The second is the social one: What is the good/harm of abortion to society? The third is the individual/personal one which is two-fold: Woman: Why must I be forced to have a baby that I do not want; Voiceless Unborn: Why should I be denied my life because my mother does not want me? The fourth and perhaps the most ambiguous is the legal question which has not been even remotely decided: Based upon all of the evidence, biological, social and individual, whose right trumps the others'?

I believe the biological question can be answered best by the study of embryology. In order to study embryology, you must begin at conception which is the first stage of human development. Without conception no human life would exist. Regardless of whether the blastocyst implants or passes through, the first stage of human life has begun. I'll skip the legal implications to this until the end.

The social question is complicated. When the issue was first debated, abortion was looked at as a solution to overpopulation, poverty, illegitimacy and crime. I'll ignore the racist/genocidal undertones to this particular argument, but thirty years later all of these rates have gone up, the crime and illegitimacy rates in particular. Now while there are many reasons for the increases, we can be absolutely sure that legalized abortion has not improved the situation. The second part of the social debate is that most Americans support some form of legalized abortion. The flip side to this is that most Americans do not support abortion where a case can be made for the viability of the fetus, so the social debate over abortion has pretty much reached a stalemate.

The third question is the most highly charged, the most emotional, and the one that is most subject to irrationality on both sides. Everyone has a personal story about themselves or someone they know who was either been helped or hurt by abortion. While we may find them all to be disturbing or enlightening, they are not really relevant to the legal debate. There are instances where killing is justified, but that does not affect our legal view of murder in general.

This leads to the last argument - the legal one. Our laws are based upon the assumption that everyone is entitled to three basic human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The implicit understanding is that without the right to life, the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness would not be possible. The legal question therefore is whether the life of the unborn baby is protected under the law. Since the founding fathers didn't oblige us with the legal answer to the question of when life begins and the Roe v. Wade decision decided to skirt the issue all together, this is still wide open to legal debate. Since everyone who is alive was allowed the process of conception, this should not be denied to anyone else. The legal justification for this is the fact that everyone is entitled to equal rights under the law. This means that you can't allow some people to be born and others not to be. The idea flies in the face of the most basic of our laws. The pro-abortion argument is that a woman has rights over her own body. This is absolutely true EXCEPT when there is another body involved that will lose its right to life. The pro-abortion argument is flawed also in the fact that it assumes that a baby will ruin his or her mother's life before there is any proof that this will be the case. It basically says that a woman for any reason has the right to criminalize the unborn child for crimes not yet committed. A human being who had absolutely no say over his or her existence simply cannot be held accountable for the potential crimes that he or she MAY commit or the amount of misery he or she MAY inflict on their mother.

The only real debate as far as I can see it is whether a woman can legally have an abortion if her life is in danger. I think this is a choice that can and should be left up to the woman. A person is allowed to give up their own life to save another, but they are not legally obligated to save a life if it puts their own in danger. Abortion as it is practiced now is flawed because it operates without a ruling on when human life begins. If it is ever legally decided that human life begins at conception, we as a society are guilty of not protecting over 40 million babies.

You said in your previous post that "the "pro-life" stance is not a legitimate political stance, but a moral one." All of our laws are based on morals. Too often religion is confused with morals and that may cloud the issue. But our laws against killing are based on what if not morals? The pro-life argument is completely legitimate simply for the reason that no political body has weighed in on when human life begins, so it has not been LEGALLY determined whether abortion is murder or not. Shouldn't all opinions be weighed equally especially when determining something that affects lives of every person?

I've gone on far longer than intended, but nothing is ever gained or learned without debate. Both sides of this issue have been reduced to sound bites and I haven't read or heard a legitimate debate on the subject in years, if ever. Respond any time you may feel the urge.

Her Response:

"For me, not saying something would be like keeping silent on one's opinion of death camps for Jews. Maybe the general population didn't have a problem, but I certainly would."

If you speak out against abortion, our government wouldn't inter you in a death camp. In Nazi Germany, had you spoken out against the mistreatment of jews, that government would have interred you in such a camp. So...you don't have to be silent.

"...let me make it clear that I have no desire whatsoever to approach women on their way to a clinic."

My apologies for misunderstanding your original post. I had the feeling that you were lamenting that you felt you couldn't approach them, but wanted to.

"I must also emphatically insist that I have absolutely no social agenda. I don't have any opinion on pre-marital sex except that I think its bad for minors. I have no desire whatsoever to thrust a specific morality on anyone."

Wanting to get the word out that you believe abortion is murder, and wanting to encourage women who are considering abortion to examine other options IS having a social agenda. We all have one or we wouldn't be human. It's just that they all differ. My primary goal, for example, is to impart on all people that we're ALL equally important and our feelings and opinions are ALL equally important, but that we do not have any inherent human "rights" in attempting to impose our individual beliefs on others. In this case, for instance, my PERSONAL opinion about abortion is irrelevent when it comes to my LEGAL opinion, which honors all women - and their beliefs - equally. It is a belief that abortion equals murder, not a fact.

"I've attempted to be a part of the pro-life movement, but is very difficult for me personally."

You can be "pro-life" personally and still be "pro-choice" politically. The "pro-life" stance is not a legitimate political stance, but a moral one; one is either for (pro) or against (anti) choice in this regard.

"You say: "Here's the inherent problem with the subject of abortion. It is the only instance of an issue where one can never give equal rights to both parties, as one is completely dependent upon the other. To give rights to a fetus is to deny rights to the mother - and vice versa. One must make a choice here as to whether the living person deserves more or less rights to the not-yet-living person."

"Here is the problem I have with this argument. It is based on the assumption that an unborn baby is not living."

No, not at all. It is based on the assumption that one entity is fully dependent upon the other entity for survival. The question becomes one of whether the woman has the right to terminate the other's dependence upon her body to supply the required nutrients, etc., until that being can survive without physical attachment to that body - or whether that being has the right to superimpose its need for those nutrients without the woman's "permission" to do so. It's not about whether a fetus is "living", for in fact it IS a living organism, but whether the fetus' rights are greater than the woman's. They cannot be equal.

"Even the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade didn't have the courage to make that assumption. The court said that if it were found that the fetus was in fact a living human being, its right to life would supercede the mother's right to privacy."

That is, sadly, merely a reflection of our centuries-old tradition of misogyny. Keep in mind that women haven't even had the right to vote for all that long; it would be no surprise to find out that anyone within our government, in particular high-end positions such as SC judges, still don't view women as worthy of the right to control their own reproduction if said control might violate the "rights" of men (or potential men, considering a fetus has a 50/50 chance of being male).

"I believe that a fetus is living."

I'm glad you recognize that as a "belief".

"To deny them the same process that brought you and me and everyone we love into the world simply for convenience, is a horrific thought."

Sometimes it's just not about "convenience". Every individual has a different story.

"It is very hard for me to believe that our lives are less precious because we may have made our mother's lives difficult. And it is very hard to accept that all of our rights to exist are based on something so arbitrary as our convenience to our mothers."

As I said above, it's not always about "convenience"; but I have noticed that this is the "reason" for being anti-abortion that most anti-choice people seem to latch on to.

"Do you have less of a right to be born if you are a burden to your mother?"

Well, in a word, yes. As a fetus, lo these many years ago, I certainly had less rights than my mother, and rightfully so. And had she decided to abort me, so what? I simply wouldn't be here, I would not have existed.

"Can anyone honestly say that they would rather have been aborted than cause their mother misery?"

Sadly, I've heard this many times, and in many of those cases, it is probably true. The sadness of that thought aside, can you honestly say that it's "better" for a woman to go through with a pregnancy, only to have that baby grow up to commit suicide over this misery? I mean, which is really "worse"? IMO, I find the suicide much more disturbing.

"Can anyone honestly say that a baby shouldn't live because it could potentially ruin their mother's life?"

The ONLY one who can make that claim is the pregnant woman. I could no more assume what a woman should think or do, than she could assume what I should think or do with regards to my own body remaining pregnant.

"I just don't think my right to be happy is more important than my baby's right to his or her life."

I can appreciate your feelings on this and am glad to see you know yourself enough to recognize your own conviction in this regard. I think that's great! But there are plenty of other women in the world who believe their right to be happy IS important. As well, there are plenty of other women who believe they shouldn't give up their own lives in order to avoid an abortion.

Keep in mind that abortion is not just used when a pregnancy seems "inconvenient", which is the only reasoning you have provided in your post. There could be problems with the child being born severely deformed or handicapped, or the pregnancy could cause death to the woman if she goes through with it. And if those reasons are "good enough" to allow abortions, then any reason is "good enough"...for if the reasoning behind being against abortion is that "the child has the right to live", then ALL of them have that right to live, even if they'll be born deformed and in miserable pain for their entire lives, or even if it causes death to the pregnant woman. One cannot become selective and say, "Yes, all babies have the right to be born...except when...". Their lives are either important or not; you cannot treat THEM unequally, can you?