There is no difference in abortion and killing both stop a beating heart

I agree..Im just curious where people stand.

For foetal handicap and maternal health problems I fully support abortion up until birth.

For "social" abortions I think they should be done as quickly as possible and before there is a better than average chance of survival outside of the uterus. That being said, it's only my opinion from an objective standpoint - unless in the position (thankfully I found out early in my pregnancy) I couldn't possibly give a full opinion.

I think it is already rather difficult to get an abortion at 21 weeks?

I do think there is a line where abortion should be severely curtailed. I also think it's important to have exceptions, like moo already outlined.

Firstly, just because the 21-week micro-preemie seems to have no problems now doesn't mean symptoms won't manifest later. An underdeveloped body combined with a brain hemorrhage is no recipe for a healthy baby. I'd safely bet, in about five years' time, that kid will have a plethora of problems (if it lives that long anyway).

Honestly, I would support abortion for social reasons up until birth if it was made legal. Some women change their minds about having kids, some women may not know they're pregnant until late in the pregnancy due to their body weight or carrying low, and there's the rare instances where early abortions get botched and the woman remains pregnant. As long as it's still in the woman's body, she should be able to do with it what she pleases. It shouldn't matter that the part in question is alive or not - cancer cells and disease-causing bacteria are also alive once inside the body, but does that mean the afflicted individual should not be allowed to seek treatment because antibiotics, chemotherapy, or other medications would make that life cease to exist?

I support abortion up to birth in cases where the baby has severe disabilities that will mean it will have no quality of life. I don't think abortion should be used in cases where the baby has a cleft lip/palate and other minor 'imperfections' as a normal life can be pursued.

There shouldn't be a limit. A foetus is parasitic in nature and denied legal rights as a person from the first day of a pregnancy right up until the last. I believe that a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her own body, which is one of the reasons I am pro-choice, therefore it is contradictive for people who agree with that to say it is OK for somebody to abort at eight weeks but not at eight months. And finally, legally (ethics aside) abortion should be completely unrestricted because, although you may disagree with late-term terminations, some people don't, and you certainly don't have the right to enforce your humble opinion as law, which is why law should be so women have the right left open to make their decision.

The argument of when a foetus is viable outside of the womb is totally pointless, in my view, since the foetus, whatever the gestation stage, occupies the body of a breathing, thinking, cognitive, functioning person protected by human rights.

Kypros.

I agree with most current laws in america, in which social abortions are hard/illegal to obtain after about 20-22 weeks. I feel this because during the 20's weeks, a fetus begins to be able to feel pain, and it is also first viable during this time period. I feel that once the fetus is viable, it can no longer be considered a parasite. A parasite cannot survive without a host; but a viable fetus can survive. That's why I draw my line there.

For medically needed abortions or those done because of fetal deformation, I approve up to birth.

But, eiri, it is still parasitic in nature until birth because it is living, feeding, and surviving only from its host's body, just as a non-viable foetus. And, as you've pointed out before several times, the unborn are not individual people, and nor are they protected so legally, therefore, they do not have the right to inhabit another person's womb. So to restrict this (from a pro-choice point of view) is self-contradictive. I see nothing wrong with personally feeling that late abortions are unethical or 'wrong', but as long as you advocate an unlimited period to obtain a termination legally, so you are not forcing your own view on all women, I don't have a problem.

If your pro-choice you support the choice that was made even if you feel that it is morally wrong.

I can't personally think of any reason that a 32 (just throwing a number out there) week old fetus that is perfectly healthy and isn't endangering anyone life could be aborted and I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with it.

However, it's not my thing to lay a blanket statement over everyone about something so personal like this. I wouldn't dream of making anyone follow my morals; you have to live with your own choices, not me.

I would strongly discourage anyone in this situation to avoid abortion. On the other hand, I sure as hell am not adopting your kid.

It's a hard dilemna.

Well yes, that is the final point

But my point is that you could remove that fetus via c-section and it would survive with a little medical help and be a perfectly healthy child. I'm talking 30 here. I am seriously against social abortions over 30 weeks.

Yes, very true.



Yes, but the argument is practically pointless: the foetus is parasitic in nature until birth and whether or not it is viable after a Caesarian section is totally unrelated - the woman has a right to do as she pleases with her own body. I, therefore, can't see why you are against social abortions after 30 weeks gestation, if not ethically, then at least legally. As diamondsz said, we, as pro-choicers, must support any decision made by a female regarding her own womb. We, as pro-choicers, must be advocates of legally unlimited abortions (in number and in gestational period) so we can allow women to make their decisions, without forcing our morals down their throats (not that I see late abortions as morally wrong anyway). A foetus is a foetus is a foetus. A parasite containing human DNA which is not protected by law as an established person. End of. I really don't see the big hoo-ha about late-term terminations: an abortion is still the same whatever the reason, the logic, the morals, and, of course, the gestational period.

It's not as though women will purposely leave an abortion right up until the last minute; certainly they should be encouraged to make a decision as early as possible, perhaps due to the medical complications of a late abortion (and only that). If a woman only discovers a pregnancy at seven months gestational period, why should she have to carry the baby to term? If a woman changes her mind (obviously for a serious reason), why should she carry the baby to term.

This whole "abortions should be illegal after six months of pregnancy" is definitely anti-reproductive rights and anti-choice. If you personally find late abortions morally wrong, fair enough, I will debateit because I believe my stance is correct, but don't enforce it as a law. That is wear pro-choice very easily crosses the line to pro-life.

Kypros.

I am, for some reason, unable to view a 38 week fetus as a pure parasite, because I know it feels pain; I know it is capable of being a healthy baby. Viability is what matters to me as far as this goes.

I should amend something. Up to 20, I don't care. 20-30, you need a good reason like, you couldn't get the money until now, or you didn't know until now, you needed to wait to travel to another country, etc. After 30 weeks, that fetus had better be horribly disfigured, you must have been raped, or the fetus is about to kill you if you want to abort it. Why the hell did you wait this long? There is no excuse at that point.

You have a right to your own body, you have the right to do what you want... but only up until the point where it starts overriding the rights of another viable human being.



I support it, in the very base sense that a woman has the right to her body. But I cannot ignore the viability of the fetus!!!!!



The hoo-ha comes from the viability factor. I know viability means absolutely nothing to you, but it does mean a lot to other pro-choicers, and I think you need to remember that. Some of us do actually care about the fetus, and we feel that at some point, it becomes as worthy of life as the mother has the right to her body, and when this point is reached, then it is, to me at least, wrong to kill the fetus.



As you will see above, I'm "okay" with later-term abortions for the reason of "I didn't know". But by 30 weeks, unless you're really fat already, you're gonna freaking know. Yes, there have been freak-cases where women didn't know until suddenly a baby popped out, but most of us will bloat up quite obviously during a pregnancy.

And as I already said, if there is a very serious reason for a woman to suddenly not want the pregnancy, then I'm also fine with it.

I think my point here is that I'm not against all late-term abortions. Just those done for purely social - and might I add lazy - reason. The woman knew she was pregnant, and she waited anyway, even though she had money.

Now the point it, that situation almost never ever happens. If a woman is aborting late-term, there is normally already a damned good reason for it; which is why I'm perfectly fine with 90% of late-term abortions. I am against "social" late term abortions that have no backing as to why they are so late.



Why? Extreemism is wrong on both ends. No abortion is bad, and aborting at 39 weeks - for no reason aside from "I just didn't feel like getting one until now - is also bad. That is a waste of a life. Only a horrible person would do that.



So you believe that anyone at all who is against abortion at any time and for any reason, no matter how logical, is automatically a pro-lifer? I'm a pro-lifer because I don't approve of killing a fetus the day before it is born? That is a very very close-minded view of the pro-choice movement.

Please read what I have written; I think you'll see that I'm not against anything that isn't already illegal. I'm more a fan of maintaining the status-quo. I would honestly define you as more pro-abortion than pro-choice.

I do comprehend your stance on late-term abortions, though certain things are still unclear to me which I will explain at the end of this post.



Eiri, there are people who identify as both pro-choice and pro-life (I don't believe there is a single term for somebody who advocates a mix of both antithetical views), and I would describe you as one of them, since there are cases in which you disagree with abortion. It's as simple as that.



Yeah, I have nothing against you at all, eiri; I like you and I think you're a great debater and you always maintain your calm whatever the argument and you've handled bad situations well, so don't think I'm angry or anything because I do think I portray myself that way sometimes when I'm just stressing my opinions. Of course I am pro-abortion: 'pro' means 'for', in the sense of 'supporting', and since I support abortions, I am thus pro-abortion, just like you and a good many of people on these forums. 'Pro-choice' is a euphemism for pro-abortion: it uses 'pro' to suggest something positive (its negative equivalent being 'anti-life', if you will) and 'choice' to agree with 'pro'. I guess it tries to emphasise a woman's 'choice' factor. It's all a matter of semantics, but 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' are exactly the same. The reason I identify myself as pro-choice (rather than pro-abortion) is because, to be frank, it sounds better and it is a very established term vis-a-vis the abortion debate. If it makes things any clearer, I would actually struggle emotionally to have a termination, and I can honestly say I don't think I would ever obtain one. I think, to a degree, you misunderstood me: I take a very literal attitude to things and describe myself as realistically-thinking. I love debates on hot topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and other arguments of ethics so I can weigh up the two differing rows and shape my own view. Down to the nitty-gritty, what I'm getting at is, I think the answers to debates such as this are much easier than what people tend to think them to be since they are blow out of proportion into sub-arguments which, in reality, bear no significance to the original debate. I think the abortion debate revolves around the main question "Does a woman have the right to control what lives in her uterus?", which can be interpreted using different words, although retaining the same meaning, i.e. "Does a woman's right to control her body override that of a foetus to live?" etc. Summing up the arguments, philosophy and science has brought me to the conclusion, after a long time of pro-life extremism, that a woman, a breathing, thinking, self-aware, cognitive, legally-protected person, has more rights and worth than that of a non-breathing, non-thinking, non-self-aware, non-cognitive, non-legally protected foetus containing human DNA. Right, bear with me now, so you've got that. Now, since a woman has the superior right, who am I, or anybody, to place limits, restrictions, and God forbid legal intervention on that right? When it is said that a person has more rights than a foetus (which actually has none at all), it isn't emphasised that the foetus has to be eight weeks, eleven weeks, or up to thirty weeks, as you say, old. A woman has more rights that a foetus. Period. It is illogical to look any further than that. If you personally think it is immoral and unethical to abort a foetus after thirty weeks for social reasons, then I grant your your right to a view, although you still cannot enforce it as law. You need to leave law open in a way that women can make their choices. That is where it becomes anti-reproductive rights. Just as you can be both pro-choice and pro-life, you can be pro- and anti-reproductive rights. Restricting rights to abortion is anti-choice. That's just fact by placing words to meaning, not an opinion. So, eiri, whereas I don't doubt at all that you are pro-reproductive rights and pro-female liberty, you should recognise you are also anti- those things if you believe in legal boundaries on abortion. That's reality by the meaning of these words.

I remember you once saying before that you didn't care whether the foetus was a person or not - you still have the right to abort since it's your body. So, if you don't care about the foetus's status of personhood, how can you care what stage in the pregnancy someone chooses to abort? Also, what my general argument about late-term abortions is, is that a foetus is still a foetus anytime after the first eight weeks of pregnancy and legally is not a person until it is born. So, despite your personal feelings on late-term abortions for social reasons, you also must never forget that foetuses are not legally protected - at all - and are not identified as people until birth.

To juxtapose your ideas of a parasite with the dictionary's entry:

Thus, a parasite can also be something which is viable. Parasitic status ends when the foetus ceases to use its host's bodily functions and nutrients - birth!

_________________

Sorry for that terribly long post, and again, I'm not nagging at you, I'm just putting forward my beliefs because I believe they are 'correct'. To sum up what I'm trying to get at: I accept your opinions, although I disagree with them, and I am simply stating my views to compare them with your own and challenging the areas where my opinions are contrary to yours. The problem I have is the belief that legally abortion should restricted. That belief, per se (regardless of whether or not this person's other beliefs are pro-rights), is anti-rights (note I say the belief, not the person). If the person also has pro-rights views, then s/he is a mixture of both pro- and anti-rights. My final question to you is: do you believe that disallowing late-term abortions for social reasons should be law?

Kypros.

What kind of logic are you using? "If it's inside my body---it's mine." How simplistic and childlike is that? That's something my 3 year old might say.

You're drawing connections between cancer cells and a fetus because they are both "living" and are using *that* to back up your argument? So WHAT that cancer cells are living? Worms are living creatures too and we find it perfectly acceptable to stick them through hooks as bait. There are plenty of "living" things that are "acceptable" to kill---- no semi-intelligent person would argue that. Your point is silly and trite and does nothing to further your argument.

The question is: IS a fetus' life worth something more than a cancer cell? They both exist in someone's body---- so is one worth saving more than the other? I would argue that the fetus that is a HUMAN BEING with a heartbeat, it's own unique personality, DNA, etc. would be WORTH more than a cancer cell. Duh. Good God--get off the boards, you're making the pro-choicers look stupid.

it might be simplistic but it is intrinsically true.



What about the fetus without a heartbeat? I honestly think brain function is what makes us human. Many species have hearts.

Like eiri said its the truth.....

Now to go on the other subject, we are all animals remember that we evolved from apes to homo sapiens, thing is everyone has different morals on abortion and the thing is I feel a woman has a right to her body.

How would you feel if someone told you what to wear, what to do and what to wear? I think you would feel controlled..

If a fetus could be born in a tube great, but its not going to happen and if the could pull that egg out and donate to someone else even better but until our technology gets better abortion is a choice that should be left open. Not everyone is fit for parenting or adoption remeber that.