(May 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm)tavarish Wrote: but I won't condemn others for choosing something, as they're not in my shoes, nor am I in theirs.

Woah

That's how I feel about it. I would not choose an abortion myself, but I don't feel that gives me the right to choose for anyone else. Of course, I am a man, so that choice will never be mine to make. If my wife wanted to choose to abort a pregnancy... I would feel she has that right... but I would also try to dissuade her.

But why? I understand your position on abortion's legality, but why wouldn't you choose abortion?

I say that I wouldn't choose abortion, because that is my gut feeling when I ask myself whether I would or not. But... in all honesty, I have no way of knowing what I would do. Every situation is different. I have a son and the pregnancy (first marriage) was an accident and we were only 19 years old... and we mistakenly got married because of it. We did not choose abortion and, 25 years later, I am very, very glad that we didn't (can't say the same for the marriage, though!).

If that were to happen to me now... at the age of 45? I might choose differently. I can't know and will never find out (my wife cannot have children). I think I might try to dissuade her, because I have had the amazing experience of creating a child and would wish her to experience that. It is an amazing thing.

I support a person's right to choose to have an abortion. The reasons for that choice don't matter to me. Choices are wholly personal. I do think that a time limit should be applied, however. I do not think abortions should be performed beyond the first trimester, as that is an easy mark to enforce, and is approximately the time that a fetus begins to become an unborn baby.

So the answer to the question is... I don't know. Heheh. Sorry.

Good answer tho' *nods involuntarily*

(May 21, 2010 at 2:57 pm)Meatball Wrote:

(May 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(May 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm)Meatball Wrote: To those that declaire themselves "ProChoice/Anti-Abortion"

Why don't you approve of abortions?

The potential for life is also an important factor, just like the medical complications that could arise with an abortion later in the pregnancy, not to mention the mental toll it can take on the would-be parents

What do you mean by "the potential for life"?

If there was a 100% complication free abortion at any stage, would you change your mind?

Potential for life is the potential for the developing fetus to become an independent entity ex utero. The potential for the organism to be born to experience life independent of the mother.

Perhaps I would, but still I'd have to weigh the options. However, it wouldn't be my decision, as I physically can't have one.

It is the woman's body at stake here yes. AND the foetus/babies body, and I say the more consciousness/sensation/pain experienced by the foetus the closer to a "Baby" it is.... if the baby can feel pain (and the more it can feel the more human) - then there are two at stake, if not, then it's just the woman.

I agree with Leo and Tavrish that it should be a last resort thing. And I also think that the earlier the better. A baby that is a week from being born should obviously not be aborted in my mind, and a baby that was only conceived a week AGO is obviously no problem at all. To treat this as a black and white issue is retarded IMO. I am not full pro-choice or full pro-life... it depends on the development and such and such.

EvF

(May 21, 2010 at 8:22 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(May 21, 2010 at 2:57 pm)Meatball Wrote: What do you mean by "the potential for life"?

Potential for life is the potential for the developing fetus to become an independent entity ex utero. The potential for the organism to be born to experience life independent of the mother.

I don't consider that a valid argument to carry a fetus to birth. At what point does a fertilized egg have enough potential for life to warrant these rights? Why?

(May 22, 2010 at 3:12 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: To treat this as a black and white issue is retarded IMO. I am not full pro-choice or full pro-life... it depends on the development and such and such.

So you believe there is a point at which the government can tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body?

(May 24, 2010 at 3:38 pm)Meatball Wrote:

(May 21, 2010 at 8:22 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(May 21, 2010 at 2:57 pm)Meatball Wrote: What do you mean by "the potential for life"?

Potential for life is the potential for the developing fetus to become an independent entity ex utero. The potential for the organism to be born to experience life independent of the mother.

I don't consider that a valid argument to carry a fetus to birth. At what point does a fertilized egg have enough potential for life to warrant these rights? Why?

I didn't say anything about rights - I don't think the unborn has any.

(May 24, 2010 at 3:38 pm)Meatball Wrote: So you believe there is a point at which the government can tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body?

There is a point when it becomes two bodies. The question is... when is that point? I certainly think that shortly before birth the foetus is obviously a baby, and shortly after conception it is obviously NOT baby, for instance.

EvF