For the logic impaired...

[Joel]

If you truly believe abortion is killing a living human being then I don’t see how you can also justify the above statement. How is it any different than someone in the 19th Century saying, “I personally do not support slavery, but since it affects the well-being of the slave owner I support their right to own slaves” ?

I don't believe abortion is killing a human being. I believe it is stopping a potential life. I believe it should be done within a certain timeframe, also. Note that this may only be to make me feel more comfortable with abortion because most people will say that it remains just a fetus until the moment of birth: that's not how I see it.

Also, I see it differently to slavery because a slave is an individual person whilst a fetus is an in-development life. It doesn't have feelings, a mind (to my knowledge) or a sensory system.

According to whom is it morally wrong? I do not believe there is a moral right for a mother to kill any child she decides she doesn’t want. Additionally, how do you even measure quality of life? That seems to assume we have knowledge of future events that we simply cannot possess; interesting discussion though Joel.

According to me, it's morally wrong... As in, I view that as an immoral act. I believe that morality is subjective and that's my view.
I don't believe it's moral for a mother to kill any child she doesn't want, either, that's why I specified in brackets that it's a child forced on her - with an example of rape. Nor would it be fair on the child, if it were to be born, to have no loving family.
Quality of life is a difficult topic, but a child with a paralysing terminal illness will live a life of lesser quality to that of a child with no disease.

I’d be interested in hearing sometime where your notion of rights and morality are coming from; but I am curious…would you support making abortion illegal unless it is permitted by a legal court or legal proceeding because a rape has occurred?

I think that's a step in the right direction for countries in which abortion is already illegal.
I think if abortion were to be legal; it should be 'regulated' in a sense. Legalise the choice; not the act. That is to say that there should be a choice and from there it should be looked into; I'm not completely sure how, though. Not just hand out abortions to everyone who asks for one.

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't believe abortion is killing a human being. I believe it is stopping a potential life. I believe it should be done within a certain timeframe, also. Note that this may only be to make me feel more comfortable with abortion because most people will say that it remains just a fetus until the moment of birth: that's not how I see it.

That’s interesting, only a potential life? Which of the functions of life does a fetus not meet? I am not aware of any defensible way to argue that a fetus is not alive or not human.

Also, I see it differently to slavery because a slave is an individual person whilst a fetus is an in-development life. It doesn't have feelings, a mind (to my knowledge) or a sensory system.

So as long as the slave owners don’t view their slaves as people then they are justified in owning them?
How do you know a fetus doesn’t possess feelings, a mind, or a sensory system? That doesn’t seem to be something that is provable or knowable. Additionally, why are those things required in order to be a person? That seems to be a rather arbitrary standard of person-hood.

According to me, it's morally wrong... As in, I view that as an immoral act. I believe that morality is subjective and that's my view.

So my view that it is not morally wrong is equally valid as yours?

I don't believe it's moral for a mother to kill any child she doesn't want, either, that's why I specified in brackets that it's a child forced on her - with an example of rape. Nor would it be fair on the child, if it were to be born, to have no loving family.

Since you have already established that you believe morality is individually subjective, then if a mother believes it is morally acceptable to kill her 5 year old child simply because she doesn’t want it anymore is this act therefore morally acceptable? I think there is some inconsistency between the way you are acting and your claimed view of morality; you seem to act like there are moral laws that apply to all of us regardless of what we think but you claim that morality is individually subjective at the same time, how do you reconcile the two?

Quality of life is a difficult topic, but a child with a paralysing terminal illness will live a life of lesser quality to that of a child with no disease.

Possibly (even though I know several people who are disabled that live better lives than many people who are not), but how do you move from your above statement to the position that the first child therefore should not be allowed to live that life? Where does the right to make that decision for the child come from?

I think that's a step in the right direction for countries in which abortion is already illegal.

I think it’s a step in the right direction for countries where the act is already legal

[Joel]

That’s interesting, only a potential life? Which of the functions of life does a fetus not meet? I am not aware of any defensible way to argue that a fetus is not alive or not human.

A fetus is alive and human: but not a person.

So as long as the slave owners don’t view their slaves as people then they are justified in owning them?
How do you know a fetus doesn’t possess feelings, a mind, or a sensory system? That doesn’t seem to be something that is provable or knowable. Additionally, why are those things required in order to be a person? That seems to be a rather arbitrary standard of person-hood.

No, because they are people. The owner's view doesn't matter when it conflicts with reality. So far I have seen nothing to show that a fetus has a mind/feelings or a working sensory system. If a flower a person? If not, why? It has life, so why not?

So my view that it is not morally wrong is equally valid as yours?

Yes, in a sense. The sense that it should be taken into account and compared with other views on morality. As it's subjective, I don't believe any one person's view on morality holds a greater meaning; but one can be better than the other.

Since you have already established that you believe morality is individually subjective, then if a mother believes it is morally acceptable to kill her 5 year old child simply because she doesn’t want it anymore is this act therefore morally acceptable? I think there is some inconsistency between the way you are acting and your claimed view of morality; you seem to act like there are moral laws that apply to all of us regardless of what we think but you claim that morality is individually subjective at the same time, how do you reconcile the two?

I don't think that's morally acceptable. At five years old, it does not need her to survive and it is its own individual person. At that stage it has a mind/feelings and a sensory system.
My moral views don't apply to everybody and I don't force them on anybody. Because there is an ongoing conflict between pro life/abortion, I feel that my views should be heard; just as other people's should. If there was no dispute, I would probably not get involved - though if brought up, I would state my position.

Possibly (even though I know several people who are disabled that live better lives than many people who are not), but how do you move from your above statement to the position that the first child therefore should not be allowed to live that life? Where does the right to make that decision for the child come from?

I don't think that the child should not be allowed to live. I think that the mother should have a choice on whether or not she allows it to live. She will have to care for it for many years of its life, as its mother.

[Mystical]

A fetus is alive and human: but not a person.

I wonder when being a person is being a person in the scientific field? Is it when genetic information is transferred in nuclear fission? Because in that case, perhaps we'd all realize that the second those sperm hits those eggs that would be a considered a person.

Oh and Hi Joel (jesusface

[fr0d0]

Precisely Ms cluckie. That is the scientific position, in my understanding.

[Joel]

A fetus is alive and human: but not a person.

I wonder when being a person is being a person in the scientific field? Is it when genetic information is transferred in nuclear fission? Because in that case, perhaps we'd all realize that the second those sperm hits those eggs that would be a considered a person.

Oh and Hi Joel (jesusface

Well after some research, it seems there's no universal agreement. Apparently by law, a fetus is not actually a human being until it leaves the woman's body. I guess I feel that's wrong on a personal level; just as I feel that a fetus isn't an individual person, on a personal level.

[fr0d0]

I think the science there is impersonal. You're not going to feel a person until it interacts with you maybe.

We (my wife) miscarried after a few weeks. I feel the pain of that some 13 years on. Our subsequent successful pregnancies were marred by it. We couldn't be as happy. A friend of ours naturally aborted a late pregnancy in hospital. The body was placed exposed on a bed next to her and she was left alone and unattended... so the trauma there was excessive... but I still think the person I grieve was just as much a person as what was recognisably human.

[Whateverist]

I think the science there is impersonal. You're not going to feel a person until it interacts with you maybe.

We (my wife) miscarried after a few weeks. I feel the pain of that some 13 years on.

So very sorry for your loss. Obviously abortions, natural or otherwise are complicated and sad. However, I fully support the right of the person in whose body the would-be person is growing to choose what is right and what they can endure.

[Kayenneh]

We (my wife) miscarried after a few weeks. I feel the pain of that some 13 years on.

I'm sorry for your loss too. That's the hardest part of it all, isn't it? Technically it might not be a person, or just a lump of cells, but to the parents it's their potential child. I can't imagine how much it must hurt. This is partly why I myself wouldn't have an abortion.

[pocaracas]

And here lies the crux of the matter.
- wanted child - so sorry for your loss.
- Unwanted child - good riddance.

It is always sad to lose a wanted child, but what about the unwanted case?
Is it fair, to the child, to bring it up when it is unwanted?
How many unwanted children end up having a normal childhood, where they feel motherly love and all that?
And how many are treated like yesterday's newspaper and just manage to barely survive?

I've said it before: abortion is a very tricky case to legislate...