If it makes you feel any better, though I disagree with conception as the point where human life begins, I consider it a more defensible position than putting that threshhold at birth; if forced between the two extreme postions, I would have to choose conception.
But, I see no reason to not compromise.
Me too, for what it’s worth.
I think compromise is the best thing, too, because it is the only way to get the US to work as such a diverse country. I recognize that there are plenty of folks like you who want a workable solution, and who recognize that nothing in the world is black & white.
This is probably the most reasoned debate I have ever had with pro-choice people, and it has really been good for me, not only in seeing the other side, but in sharpening my own opinion & arguments, so thank you! 
I always try to state my point of view in a way that I think is logical and shows that I have tried very hard to think this through and decide what my own position is, avoiding emotional rhetoric. I have other reasons for being pro-life, that are more personal. For instance, I am Catholic, although as I mentioned before, not all that religious. But I did grow up with Catholic morals taught to me, which may have something to do with it. In addition, I am adopted, as are several family members, and I am eternally grateful that the mothers in these cases did not choose abortion, but chose to give life, especially in the cases that happened after Roe v. Wade. That sacrifice is supreme, and IMO qualifies these women for immediate sainthood. Although the legal stuff is another matter, I certainly intend to raise my daughter to understand that HER existence was only possible due to the unselfishness of the woman who chose to give me life.
Anyway, I’m not sure all my arguments have been found by all of you to be completely logical, but this is what I have strived for, and I encourage all of you with a like mind towards this kind of discourse to continue to do the same. It is the only way we can ever find a middle ground on this contentious issue.
On the other hand, if someone throws inflamatory rhetoric at me, I am more than capable of winging some back! 
I do think your stance on cenception as being an identifiable moment of change is logical. You worded it much better than any pro-life person ever has to me. As a matter of fact, you are persuasive enough that I did, literally, go back over my beliefs and arguments in my head to see if they are still valid for me in consideration of that new point of view. (And they do, simply because I don’t equate “moment of becoming human” with “moment of attaining personhood and the rights of a human being.”)
But you make me think, lady, and that’s more than any other pro-lifer has ever really done!
Me too, and I’ve done it in other threads. I’m happy I haven’t felt the need to do so here.
Wow…that is one of the best complements I have ever received…thank you so much! You guys have made me think, too…it’s a great gift.
It seems to me that this whole debate would mute if women were allowed open access to sex education, birth control, morning after pills and even medical miscarriage. If given the choice, all might choose to terminate their pregnancy as early as possible; as humanely as possible.
r~
I think the access to sex education & birth control is pretty amazingly good. Anyone can walk into a Walgreens and buy condoms.
I wouldn’t completely disagree with you regarding the morning-after pill & medical miscarriage. One thing pro-lifers worry about a lot, though, is that the easier it is to get an abortion, the less of a big deal it is…the less a person will think about it, consider their options, and have a chance to decide if it is right. It’s too casual of a action to take when you are doing something so monumental. Again, I just wanted to try to explain some of the thinking behind why pro-lifers fight these kinds of things.
Certainly I do, because I find the alternative to be worse.
Suffice it to say that I don’t see the need to create legislation to cover the incredibly rare situation in which a doctor terminates a pregnancy which is very close to an otherwise uncomplicated delivery (seriously, how often does this actually happen?) I can imagine, easily, a delivery that goes horribly wrong and a doctor being under pressure to choose to try to save the mother or fetus. A difficult decision, to be sure, and I don’t want the doctor prosecuted because they chose to save the mother in a manner that ended up costing the life of the fetus/baby.
It’s simple enough - I’m opposed to introducing feel-good legislation that would serve no purpose except to create possible precedent for more restrictive laws down the road.
The question about viability of life is only pars of the discussion. When you have made a reasoned decision then be prepared to take care of the child. The choice made because they dont want another child, can’t affford another child No father around, no money .too young and immature. Once the kid comes it is here for a long time. Who pays for it and raises it. Very often its the kid,born to parents who dont want him and can not afford him.
If that’s your criteria, why doesn’t apply to newborns?
I would think instead that bringing a child into the world is a monumental decision; one that should be made by choice, not accident. I understand and agree there is a moral dilemma, but the sooner the pregnancy is prevented/terminated, the less of a deal there is.
Unfortunately, the anti-choice people also tend to equate any termination of pregnancy with abortion and even murder. The inalienable rights of the pregnant must be vigorously defended so that “elective” late term abortions are not even a consideration.
Peace
r~
I find that hard to believe. Can a mother ask a doctor to perform an in utero operation to render the child deaf, provided it could be safely conducted? Would it be ethical to prohibit such a request? If not, why? If so, then you concede the mother’s right to choose anything at all with regard to the fetus is not absolute. And if that’s the case–why? Is it because the child has certain rights?
Please see if you can reply without some variation of, “Come now, how likely is that?” The question is whether or not the mother’s preferences must take absolute priority. I am honestly trying to see where, if anywhere, you’d draw the line.
The question isn’t about the efficacy of a particular piece of legislation. The question is, what is ethically supportable?
Bringing a child into the world IS a monumental decision…that is my point. Women need to THINK about what they are doing before they do it. Think about what it means to have an abortion, and think about what it means to have a baby. And there are options women have for after the birth, believe me.
Regarding your second paragraph, I want you to try to put yourself in my shoes. You do not believe the fetus is a real human life. I, on the other hand, do. This is my actual belief, down deep in my heart…that these babies are human beings…no different than YOU and ME. To me, that baby is JUST LIKE YOU. Is there ANY part of you that can understand why I consider this to be murder? And if you can, can you then understand why I would love for all abortions to be illegal, in the SAME WAY as any other murder? That I see no moral difference? What would you actually think of me as a person, as a human being, if I stood by in silence and allowed all these actions that I believe to be murders to take place?
Because I understand that not everyone believes as I do, I accept that my wishes are secondary to whatever compromise there may be. But I can assure you that I am as steadfast in my feelings as you are in yours. And as obvious as you think it is that women have an unalienable right to terminate a pregnancy, I think it is just as obvious that babies have a right to be born.
Incidentally, I have been referring to your side of the debate as “pro-choice,” which is YOUR preferred term. It would be very nice if you would give me the same respect, and use the term “pro-life,” which I’m sure you know is our preferred term. My feelings on this matter have nothing to do with taking away choice, and also extend way, way beyond the abortion debate.
Of course she can. And I can reasonably expect that no doctor would perform such a procedure.
Because it would be in violation of (in the U.S.) constitutional protections of free speech.
No, it’s because I have sufficient trust in medical ethics to keep screwball requests like the above from being carried out. More trust than I have, in fact, in vote-seeking legislators.
Well, please come up with a less ridiculous hypothetical. What next, a situation where a woman seeks a surgical blinding and spinal severing of a 8.9-month fetus because her psychic told her she’d be cursed if she delivered a healthy baby in the bad-luck month of July?
I don’t expect there’s any such line beyond which legislation will do a better job than medical ethics. What conditions do you want to impose and how many babies do you expect such legislation will save?
It’s not really that ridiculous a hypothetical. There’s plenty of debate in the deaf communities about selective insemination or abortion so that deaf parents raise only deaf children. Three years ago, two lesbians made the news for their efforts to create a deaf child.
And by “three years”, of course, I meant four. Sorry. :smack:
And did they find a medical professional willing to play along? As for selective insemination, a woman does that every time she chooses to have sex with a particular man (as opposed to, say, a different man). And assume there was some prenatal test that would show deafness and a woman elected to abort any child who could hear. I think it’s a stupid, selfish decision, but I support abortion rights for women and don’t feel the need for them to give their reasons.
Yes, if you read the article, their previous child was similarly engineered to be deaf.
So where do we draw the line?
Under what conditions are the line drawn?
Sure a couple 22 week old preemies have survived but you’re talking 1-2% chances. Bring it up to 24-25 weeks and you are looking at 50% or so. Of course this assumes the availability of advanced NICU facilities that are often hours away.
Do we base it on the availability of advanced care? The abilities of the delivering hospital? Would paramedics delivering in the feild an hour from any kind of real hospital be expected to consistently successfuly support such frail patients that require care currently outside of their scope of practice?
Who bears the burden for the cost of this care?