Abortion questions...?

Buzsaw writes:The problem I have with that is that it's not her body that's in question. It's that other person's body which she and it's father caused to become a live human being and perhaps a living soul as some of us agree is the case.

Do you honestly believe that the main reason for protesting abortion is to make the mother feel like shit because of dislike?

Oh come on. I realize you hate everything christian, but you don't have to be such a jerk and smear people.

I am advocating that we should encourage a solid moral foundations, which I think is christianity, in which the illegal aspect of abortion would be a natural outflow, as would the joyful aspect of giving life, even if not in the best circumstances.

Wiki writes:Many of the terms used in the debate are seen as political framing: terms used to validate one's own stance while invalidating the opposition's. For example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty and freedom, while suggesting that the opposition must be "anti-choice" or "anti-life" (alternatively "pro-coercion" or "pro-death").[9] Such terms gloss over the underlying issue of which choice or life is being considered and whose choice or what kind of life is deemed most important.[10]Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the rights of the fetus, pregnant woman, or other parties. Such appeals can generate confusion if the type of rights is not specified (whether civil, natural, or otherwise) or if it is simply assumed that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of begging the question).The appropriate terms with which to designate the human organism prior to birth are also debated. The medical terms "embryo" and "fetus" are seen by pro-life advocates as dehumanizing.[11][12] The terms "baby" and "unborn child" are seen by pro-choice advocates as emotionalized. Similarly, there is debate between use of the terms "woman" and "mother".With each successive generation of abortion debate, the terminologies employed often evolve to give a fresh appearance to a particular opinion, even if the underlying viewpoints have not changed, especially after the failure of a previous campaign to lawmakers. Newer labels used include; "pro-abort", employed by the "pro-life" movement to imply that pro-choice advocates actually encourage abortion, and "pro-love", employed by some "pro-choice" advocates to imply they support families born out of love and not religious necessity. Many other "pro-"labels exist, often created by individuals impromptu, to dodge a political debate or criticism from their peers when an abortion topic comes up.

Well your quote seems to be saying that the weighted terms in this debate are actually ''pro-choice'' and ''pro-life'' .... not pro-abortion.

I would be just as offended to be called anti-choice as you would be to be called ''anti-life'' I guess.

Merriam-Webster writes:antagonistic or antithetical to life or to normal human values

However, in some cases c-section plus incubation can save the foetus.

No, she would not have to live her life raising the child.

Monetary reasons should never be the reason a human life isn't saved.

Foster family.

Orphanage.

Of course, as I said, none of them are ideal situations, but I think that if we really wanted to, a lot of progress could be made into this.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb.

So when you can save that life, and the mother's life, you should. No matter what the differences in costs. That's what I'm saying.

I would certainly be for easier adoption procedures, particularly for children within your own country.

We are discussing the situation where the pregnancy would kill the mother,...

So the ''savable point'' is right now around 25 weeks.

I personnally identify the line at the 100th cell division, but as others have said this isn't the issue. We all put the line somewhere, the question is, what should be done to those who we think are human lifes ?

Another subject, but no I would not.