Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

(Sorry if this ends up jumbled and confusing - I had to write it quickly. Will delve deeper into the aspects my view later if anyone wishes me to do so; as it is now, I'll just summarize.)gene90:Although I do agree with a few of your points, it seems to me that your arguments are not in any way aided by the use of such attacks as in Message 155, or more especially Message 187. In fact, they only really serve to distract from what people might consider your more valid points. If you have issues with a poster, it seems that it would better serve your purposes to contact them outside of a debate on the issue, rather than incorporating opponents' characters into your argument and thus painting your argument as evasive, argumentative, and fallacious (ad hominem).Not that gene is the only one - only the most noticeable. Both sides have been guilty of it several times in this post. It just seems to me that whenever you have to resort to attacking your opponent rather than his or her views, it makes it appear that you've lost sight of the issue whether that be the case or not.***That being said, in the actual debate I take a view quite similar to what I think Lam was saying. I'm personally against abortion but I recognize that it's not a black and white issue and that the right to it should be preserved, even despite those who abuse it.Note that the following is all simply opinion - as in much of the abortion debate, such as when humans first become humans, there's no clear-cut facts that can explain it. That's probably why it's so unusual for anyone to change their mind on the issue in such debates - neither side can simply be proved wrong. ..Not that it always (or even usually) stops people when they are. To understand my view, you must first understand one simple principle of mine: I don't believe in taking the easy way out in cases where it is not the best choice (in other words, I follow my conscience; consequently, it bothers me to no end when people characterize atheists as by definition immoral). The whole issue is one of responsibility to me. I believe that men and women who have made the choice to have sex should be ready to face the consequences, or else abstain until they are. This is a simple aspect of the issue for me; man+woman-clothes=baby, or a chance of one. It disappoints me that so many would take the easy way out and use abortion to end such a pregnancy; after all, they made the choice, they should be willing to face the consequences. (Inversely, in the case of rape, I don't believe that a woman should have to face the consequences of that which she had no power over in the first place.)...Or so I would feel about it if the world were more ideal. But that view only goes so far in the real world. What about those who don't understand the consequences, those who have had inadequate education, those that don't have access to birth control? To me the latter are still responsible for their actions, but I can sympathize more with the first two. Likewise, I can understand that people make mistakes and have reasons, financial or psychological, to wish to avoid having to have a baby. In such cases I strongly encourage adoption - and if I were to ever get someone pregnant under such circumstances, I would do all I could to at least convince her to carry it, if not raise it together. Unless there is an actual danger to the life of the mother or the child, adoption is the ideal choice to me.The only time I see abortion as completely detestable is for people who know better but still have sex freely just to fit their lifestyles, people like those mentioned earlier who have had four or five abortions and never change. (Perhaps a form of "Limit one per customer" would be fitting. ) For me, if an abortion can be avoided, it should be.However, I'm not going to be the one to limit the rights of many just because of a few bad apples. Even if I oppose abortion in all but a few rare cases, it is for those cases that I am pro-choice.

quote:

---

I fail to understand how you can go against what you concede to be "common sense" and what you "feel in your heart" about abortion because of logic that I personally find questionable.

---

The closest thing I can think of to explain it is the view on gay marriage of many Christians whom I would consider enlightened: even if they oppose it personally, they recognize that not everyone feels the same way, and that the rights of many should not be restricted by the opinions of few.(For the record, I don't have a clear definition of when I believe a fetus becomes human; I simply see both sides in such arguments and so often have conflicting feelings on the issue. In the end, though, either way, I still am pro-choice just for that percentage of women, no matter how small, who really need the option.)

quote:

---

There is no line.

---

Thank you! That's exactly what was trying to say in the last paragraph, just couldn't quite find the right words. Even though abortion is undesirable to many (most?) in so many cases, there is no definitive line where it becomes wrong to me. In most cases I listed before as undesirable, there are still always exceptions - there are simply too many factors of the woman's life to sweepingly declare all abortions wrong.The problem I personally have with the pro-life position is that it assumes that there is a line, and that it doesn't provide for exceptions. My view is not so much based on right and wrong as it is on those exceptions and ensuring that their rights, at least, is provided for.

Just to clarify, I don't believe that the soul/humanity is implanted immediately at conception. What I meant when I said pro-life or anti-choice is the position that it is, and therefore that any abortion is murder; this, as far as I can tell, is what gene has been trying to say all along - that since the fetus has the potential to become human/perhaps is human already, it should be treated as human.So when I say that the pro-life position assumes there is a line, I mean that based on the assumption that its proponents do take this position, which isn't necessarily true. Sorry for the confusion.

quote:

---

I don't like things is complex and contentious any more than anyone else.

---

Neither do I, really - I like my own views to be consistent, clear, and decisive, and in this issue they simply aren't; I really do see both sides, at different times. The upside is that I may reply to myself in a couple of days refuting something I've said, which would make for an amusing debate. ***At the risk of going off-topic, I am very curious as to what people thought of the Woman's Right to Know Act passed by Texas (and perhaps a few other states - I didn't follow the issue very closely) a few months ago. It can be seen here and some of the common protests against it can be seen here. (Should I make another topic for this?)