When is abortion acceptable?

[Redefeatbush04]

Hmm.......I accidentally voted "Never" and "After birth". I meant to vote only Never. A life is lost either way.....whether it is the first trimester, the second, ect. That individual will never have a chance to enjoy life, to see the world, to walk their first steps, to fall in love, to raise a family. All hope has been terminated. That individual could have been you. If that "fetus" which grew to be you had been aborted its ok right because it "wasn't living". Yet think about it, if that "fetus" had been aborted you wouldn't be alive.  Aren't you - who was once a fetus - a living thing. Democrats - if it isn't living - does that mean that it is dead. If it is dead why are you even bothering with it. If it is living surely you are taking a life. I think life trumps choice. I don't believe a mother should have a right to choose to kill her kids. You have to draw the line somewhere. Sometimes it is necessary to take away liberty in order to secure order, and to protect lives. This is one issue you must give up. It is a struggle which you will not win. It WILL cost you elections. It WILL cost you votes. #!!$*

[Beet]

1st trimester. After that, only in cases for the life of the mother. But in reality, prior to first consciousness (in a form distilled to its subjective essence), it is acceptable for any reason at any time, and with no immutable requirements for notification or other specious requirements; in other words completely on demand.

[Frodo]

Options 1 and 2.  Exceptions in the 3rd as duly noted above.

[Richard]

Those that vote in trimesters...  Question: So there exists a day that you can get an abortion, and the next day you can't?  There exists a second that you can get an abortion, and the next second you can't?  What changes in the baby during that time between time?

[Beet]

Those that vote in trimesters...  Question: So there exists a day that you can get an abortion, and the next day you can't?  There exists a second that you can get an abortion, and the next second you can't?  What changes in the baby during that time between time?

Experienced pleasure or pain.

[Gabu]

Those that vote in trimesters...  Question: So there exists a day that you can get an abortion, and the next day you can't?  There exists a second that you can get an abortion, and the next second you can't?  What changes in the baby during that time between time?

Well, for one, a heart and a brain develop and it stops being simply a lump of flesh no more animate than a tree.  I'm not exactly sure of the exact time at which it can be considered a human life, but for much of the first trimester I think it's very debatable for reasons that I've posted before.  I make the cut-off point the first trimester simply because after that time period we begin to enter a much more grey area where there certainly can be a substantial scientific argument made for there being the existence of human life.  I'm not claiming that at one second it's not a human life and at the next it is, but this is government, and in government, you need specific guidelines, so that's what I've chosen to go with.

[Ebowed]

I'm not claiming that at one second it's not a human life and at the next it is, but this is government, and in government, you need specific guidelines, so that's what I've chosen to go with.

You're absolutely right on specific guidelines.  I suggest everyone figures out what second the embryo becomes human life, because that's a lot more specific than trimesters.  Unfortunately, that would be a lot of poll options.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Never.  Not even for rape (why murder a kid for the sin of the father) or to save the mother's life (why murder a kid to save someone else).  In reality, the chance of the latter being required with modern medicine is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% or less.

You are a fascist.  You do realize that some women would rather kill themselves then go through with a 9 month preganancy for a rapist? And why do you favor allowing rapists to spread their genes? You might as well not be against rape.

You're so "pro-life" you'd rather the mother and the fetus die than just the mother?

[angus]

I've noticed a lot of Democrats oppose abortion in the latter two trimesters, especially the third, so I want to see how wide the divide is here between abortion on demand and limited abortion.  I know many people make exceptions for rape, incest, and/or the mother's health, so if you do make those exceptions, post it here.

Option 5 for me (with no exceptions).

I think this is an exellent question as well.  You have boldly challenged the Pro-Life crowd with respect to capital punishment and abortion in two other threads.  Well done, by the way.  Now you challenge the abortion-rights crowd with this one.  I'll take you up on the challenge.  I say trimesters 1, 2, and 3.  We spend so much time arguing over the silliest of notion:  When does life begin?  I say a human fetus, well cared for, will develop into a human child, and this development starts at the moment of conception.  Anyone who's not trying to be cute and politically expedient will agree.  So that's the end of that silliness.  Why not just put it out there?  If you allow 1st semester, then why not 2nd?  And if 2nd, then why not 3rd?  I agree in spirit with your question.  Clearly you and I are on different sides of this issue, but it's nice to have someone cut through the fog of bullsh**t and political expedience for a change.  Make no mistake:  abortion is the snuffing out of what will become a living human, and that really isn't contingent on what stage you snuff that life out.  Saying "Oh, well, the thing isn't viable at this stage or that stage or whatever ..." is total mental masturbation.  Because if you really believe that, then you might as well say we should be allowed to off the little toddlers, as they clearly can't hunt the mammoth or build houses by themselves, so we must, along this philosophical line, concede that they aren't yet "viable."  I agree with you completely on that fine point.  In fact, from your prescient posts, I can say that I think we are in fundamental agreement on every aspect regarding the abortion debate except one thing.  That is, of course, whether the law should allow it.  RightWingNut, a very intelligent poster who doesn't come around much anymore, used to have a great way to put it.  I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it was something like, "Of course abortion is killing.  But the real question is whether it should be legal."  Clearly, we, as a society, do not assume that one implies the other, as you have so cleverly alluded to in your posting of hitler/abortion and osama/execution threads.  So we can admit that killing is allowed by our society.  Now, whether it should be allowed becomes the issue.  Not some assinine argument about "fetal viability" or some other mind-numbing touchy, feely, yuppie description of what passes for political debate these days. 

I say all abortions are allowed, by whatever means are available, and at whatever point in the pregnancy.  As long as you pay for it.  Don't ask me for a nickel for an abortion, nosejob, handjob, any of that theraputic stuff.  As long as we're not talking socialized medicine, I'm fine with all medical procedures.  Especially the kind that prevent the brutal inhumane feat of bringing an unwanted, unloved child into a cold, overpopulated world.

[Peter]

Bit complex:

My personal view:
First Trimester without restriction
All other times is permissible if mother's health is at serious risk or if carrying the child to term would be pointless (i.e. it would die either before end of pregnancy or shortly thereafter due to complications - this does happen)

What I would be prepared to legislate:
Restrictions on the third trimester, and maybe a month into the second, though still allowing for the exceptions I outline above.

[phk]

All three trimesters.

Opposed to post-birth abortion, but would likely be okay if child had major birth defects.

[Cashcow]

I've noticed a lot of Democrats oppose abortion in the latter two trimesters, especially the third, so I want to see how wide the divide is here between abortion on demand and limited abortion.  I know many people make exceptions for rape, incest, and/or the mother's health, so if you do make those exceptions, post it here.

Option 5 for me (with no exceptions).

I think this is an exellent question as well.  You have boldly challenged the Pro-Life crowd with respect to capital punishment and abortion in two other threads.  Well done, by the way.  Now you challenge the abortion-rights crowd with this one.  I'll take you up on the challenge.  I say trimesters 1, 2, and 3.  We spend so much time arguing over the silliest of notion:  When does life begin?  I say a human fetus, well cared for, will develop into a human child, and this development starts at the moment of conception.  Anyone who's not trying to be cute and politically expedient will agree.  So that's the end of that silliness.  Why not just put it out there?  If you allow 1st semester, then why not 2nd?  And if 2nd, then why not 3rd?  I agree in spirit with your question.  Clearly you and I are on different sides of this issue, but it's nice to have someone cut through the fog of bullsh**t and political expedience for a change.  Make no mistake:  abortion is the snuffing out of what will become a living human, and that really isn't contingent on what stage you snuff that life out.  Saying "Oh, well, the thing isn't viable at this stage or that stage or whatever ..." is total mental masturbation.  Because if you really believe that, then you might as well say we should be allowed to off the little toddlers, as they clearly can't hunt the mammoth or build houses by themselves, so we must, along this philosophical line, concede that they aren't yet "viable."  I agree with you completely on that fine point.  In fact, from your prescient posts, I can say that I think we are in fundamental agreement on every aspect regarding the abortion debate except one thing.  That is, of course, whether the law should allow it.  RightWingNut, a very intelligent poster who doesn't come around much anymore, used to have a great way to put it.  I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it was something like, "Of course abortion is killing.  But the real question is whether it should be legal."  Clearly, we, as a society, do not assume that one implies the other, as you have so cleverly alluded to in your posting of hitler/abortion and osama/execution threads.  So we can admit that killing is allowed by our society.  Now, whether it should be allowed becomes the issue.  Not some assinine argument about "fetal viability" or some other mind-numbing touchy, feely, yuppie description of what passes for political debate these days. 

I say all abortions are allowed, by whatever means are available, and at whatever point in the pregnancy.  As long as you pay for it.  Don't ask me for a nickel for an abortion, nosejob, handjob, any of that theraputic stuff.  As long as we're not talking socialized medicine, I'm fine with all medical procedures.  Especially the kind that prevent the brutal inhumane feat of bringing an unwanted, unloved child into a cold, overpopulated world.

angus, I couldn't agree more.

[angus]

Yeah, but I think Ebowed',s a true Pro-Life person.  He's one in a million  and I admire it.  Folks like me, and say A18, feel one way about terminating a pregnancy and a different way about capital punishment.  Ebowed is that rare true Pro-Lifer.  I admire the internal consistency.  I think it is a noble sentiment.  Not one that I share, as my own worldview is far too Darwinistic to think Humans any more special than any other life form.  If you can't get the  out of the way of my boot before I march over your sorry ass, then it's probably better for humanity that you die anyway, scumbag.  That's my game.  But clearly it's not Ebowed',s.  But unlike a lot of anti-abortion types, Ebowed is also anti-capital punishment.  Though I don't agree with him that abortion should never happen, I do admire the fact that he doesn't resort to the illogic of saying it should be allowed under certain conditions and not in others.  He is the same way about capital punishment, as far as I can tell.  No one, not Osama, not hitler, not Genghis Khan, should be executed.  I'm only pro-life as regards capital punishment, so I admit to trying to have it both ways, as do many posters, but not Ebowed.  Not sure I can hold up in a debate with him.  Not sure any of you can, quite frankly, without resorting to being honest.  And that's a hard thing to do.  Wake up one day and realize that you'll be worm-food and there's nothing you can do about it.  So start living.  Or, go back to your mind-numbing politically correct worldview in which the fairy-tale notions of "human rights" and "fetal viability" form the lexicon of debate.  You are here today because someone in your line of heredity had the balls to kill and to take.  It's quite simple, really.  Don't sell out your ancestors so cheaply.

I see two valid viewpoints:

1.  always
2.  never

get with one side or the other.  otherwise you're wasting my time and yours.  Compromise is for old ladies and little girls.  Which one are you?