Pro Lifer Idiots...

Yeah, that makes me mad too... Lifers claim to be pro-life, but they're not. They don't want to make contraceptives including plan B available, even in cases of rape or where the mother can't afford them. They don't want healthcare for low-income families. They don't care if the mother can't afford the bills. A lot of them now don't even care if the mother's life is in danger. I'm telling you, we're on a slippery slope with every new restriction we put in place.

Keep fighting!I live in a horribly conservative area full of ignoramuses and it can be challenging.I so appreciate you,your sisters and brothers who are fighting the good fight.I wish you well.

But I never said ALL pro-lifers are Christians... It is very typical, but I never said anything about ALL. I was speaking in the case of my mother.
I'm sure some pro-choicers also use loaded words, but I do not.
I'm not sure where you got a rape scenario?? If a woman is raped, she has every right not to be forced to give birth, just like any other person, but I'm not really using that for any argument's sake.
It's a tricky issue... But the way I see it, nobody should be forced to give birth. If you look at the number of unwanted children that are already here, it's very sad. Birth control is not 100%. Sterilization is extremely difficult to get. Abstinence itself is such a ridiculous topic, I'm not even going into that. Until there is a 100% fool-proof birth control that every woman can obtain, abortions will happen, legal or not. Back door abortions are very dangerous, but that will not stop desperate women from getting them.
A fetus does not have rights because it is not viable outside the womb, unless in the NICU unit and even then, chances of survival are very low. It is a developing person with the potential to live an independent life, but it's not quite there yet. I think late-term abortions are terrible and once you're far enough along, it would be safer to go ahead with it, I will give you that. However, ultimately, it is on a choice by choice basis. Maybe you wouldn't get an abortion, but that's your choice. If your friend got pregnant, it's your friend's pregnancy, and her decision what to do with it, not yours, because it would not be your child and your responsibility nine months later. You cannot impose your moral values on others. That is not how this country works. That's why I'm pro-choice.

I apologize in advance if this is dense, the formatting won't let me put line breaks in so it winds up all packed into a tight wad on the screen and I fear many of my posts wind up tl;dr unfortunately. What you mentioned with "Product of conception" is completely true, I think the stages of development are tough to deal with, ideally I'd like to use the legit name, Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo, Fetus...I suppose the general scientific word that would fit all through pregnancy would be "Conceptus". The trouble is each one needs dealt with on it's own, I view partial birth abortion (which is basically delivering a fully developed infant, flipping it around so it's feet first and then before the head pops out sucking the brains out) as a much different procedure than taking the morning after pill. Both do the same thing, kill the "conceptus"...but one is something I'd support any girls right to whenever she wanted, the other is something I'd only support if it was an absolute necessity to prevent unimaginable suffering in the infant (say due to defect) or death in the mother. Both are "abortion", but I have to treat them differently because they deal with such distinct points in development. For Singer, I've only read a couple of his books, one was called "Animal Liberation" an ex-girlfriend had that was this extremist animal rights thing so I can't say I've seen anything new. As I remember his arguments I found a bit contemptible, they seemed more focused on oddity and novelty than rational discourse. Ideally what I think all of us would like to see is a stop to abortion, for we pro-choicers we'd like that to be due to widespread, effective, responsible use of birth control for people uninterested in concieving. For pro-lifers, due to it being abolished (or in some cases through abstinence...which is about as likely as worldwide, responsible use of birth control). What we end up with is an imperfect situation, one that we (as imperfect beings) have to do our best to deal with...imperfectly. :) My general position is less black and white than shades of grey, the laws as they are where I am now fit pretty well for me. Abortion is legal and readily available through the first trimester, less readily available unless there some reason through the second and not possible unless there's some medical reason through the third. Since we're in a situation where I feel like there need be some give and take on both sides (because let's face it, there will never be a consensus), the process I acknowledged above seems fair. Any time prior to about 4 months I have little issue with it, I've even sat with a friend through one...that seems a perfectly reasonable period for almost every woman to realize she's pregnant and take the steps necessary. We can't go in extremes either way or it becomes a horror show, when abortion was illegal we had tens of thousands of women ramming rods into themselves and bleeding to death in the back seats of cars, just like when they tried to make alcohol illegal the simple fact is if the government won't, another will...you would be handing organized crime syndicates a potential multi-billion dollar industry just like the drug industry is today. At the same time you can't allow some woman to wantonly decide during labor "screw it, just kill the thing now", that's no less irresponsible. So the question becomes realistically, not "what way is better" but "which way confers the most respect, legally and morally, on both the womans right to control what goes on inside her own body and on the sanctity of the life (potential or realized) involved?"

To crazykitten...This is rather nitpicking, but you did mention the alien rape with the last four sentences in the post prior to mine.
******** My reply for both Charos and Crazykitten. I
know that this issue is a tough one morally and that there is an idealism that exists on paper and a reality that exists in the real world. However, I feel that to continue to evolve as humans and to think about where we want our world to be for the future we HAVE to examine our beliefs and how we live our lives now. I'm in the minority in the US to be pro-life. Because I'm a woman it involves my rights directly. Both of you mention what the law states now and what I am questioning are my feelings and beliefs on that law. Really, everyone should take a very close look at this issue because it involves human life.
**
To crazykitten...you mention that we have to take a look at the number of unwanted children in the world already. This is certainly valid, however, I do not think that anyone with an ounce of sanity or compassion would say that the solution to their problem is death. Also you say that a fetus does not have rights because it is not viable outside the womb. What I say is that there hasn't been enough argument to convince me that this is ok. You state that the fetus is a developing human which is correct, but so is a newborn. The differences that you point out to grant one rights and exclude the other rights are not logical to me. Also, if this is a respectful debate on abortion (which I really want it to remain,) then you can't just say that "you cannot impose your moral values on others." I could just argue back that YOU and any who choose abortion are imposing their own moral view on the fetus.

To Charos, I think you grasp a little better the whats and hows of what I am arguing (no offense to crazykitten or anyone else).
The thing with this issue that is different from illegal/legal booze and drugs is that it directly involves the death of a human being and so it has to have more weight and consideration that those pleasures/vices (depending on your pov) I mean, I haven't really given much consideration to the law/debate on legalizing marijuana or other drugs even though they also have to potential to cause much suffering.
Your last statement hits the nail on the head for me on what the issue is. There is a right for a woman to control her own body if it involves no one and I mean no one else. But that isn't what abortion is. It does involve another human being, and what I am saying is that that fetus is denied rights on grounds that do not seem logical to me. We deny those rights mostly based on what is only vaguely defined as personhood when that is so arbitrary that at one time I wasn't a legal person. Some also say that it's based on the level of dependence or both. This also doesn't seem logical as we would hold neglectful parents liable for failing to feed their newborns. (sorry if you responded on another post to this same scenario I havent' read all replies yet.) There is no winning on this issue. Either way one set of humans is going to lose something. The more severe loss and certainly the only one that is irrevocable is the the loss of life. That is why I am pro-life and feel I have to defend that standing.

#1: I would never presume to say that, my mother is pro-life...my issue is in the way people twist the terms around, "pro-death" or "anti-choice"...people who are pro-life are anyone, secularist or otherwise who believes that a proper person exists early on in pregnancy. The truth is here, if I honestly thought you people DID believe there was human babies being mass slaughtered and WEREN'T speaking out about it, I'd be extremely disturbed. We're not perfect and we're struggling imperfectly to do what we think is best given the circumstances. For the most part, this is people of good conscience and standing who have a difference of opinion. Don't paint me as some painted baby eviscerating monster because I'm pro-choice :)

2. It's a matter of degree of development. You're right, there are those who go past birth, the Ethicist Peter Singer goes so far as to basically state that if a couple should have an undesirable (say mentally handicapped) child they would be justifiable in killing it up to one year. I don't quite proscribe to that extreme a view, but the question does keep arising "what is the core seat of humanity?" Where does all our instincts, our thoughts, feelings, loves, everything that makes us, us sit? In the brain...in the "mind" of a functioning, cohesive, human central nervous system. This is the difference I look for, it's the defining factor for me as to when the mothers right to control her body begins to become inexorably entangled in the actual EXISTING (rather than potential) human being involved. There are extreme cases, but in the vast majority 4 months is plenty of time to discover a pregnancy and deal with it medically if so desired. We tried making abortion illegal already, thousands of women died from septicemia or just flat out bleeding to death. There has to be some cut off date, not everyone who's 21 is ready to drink, and some who are 15 are but the government HAD to pick an age. Same here, they HAD to pick some factor by which to hold the woman's right to control what goes on in her own body sacred.

3: You asked in number 1 to not generalize all pro-life people as bible bashers and yet here you are, "if you're having an abortion you must be a godless atheist!! Atheist scumm HUURR HURUURR!!1!one" what the hell? We're all human beings, all looking for the best method in a brutally difficult subject. Resorting to Ad Hominems isn't helping anything, not all women who abort are atheist, just as most PEOPLE believe in a God, so do most people who have an abortion. Have some dignity man...

Your comment is absolutely loaded with propaganda and subtle personal attacks about me, a person that you do NOT KNOW. Any person with ANY knowledge of debating knows that if you are to have a debate, you do not open with assumptions.
Firstly, I never said anything about all pro-lifers being Christians, although your last paragraph indicated you believe in Hell, and are offended by atheists. I was simply stating my mother is turning into a hardcore conservative Christian, and religion is her reason for turning so.
Secondly, I disagree with your lucid use of the word "baby". It's all about loaded words if you call it an "unborn", "a baby", or a "child". The best thing to do is call it by its scientific word, fetus, so as not to get into the name debate. It would be a baby to me when it's born, but it's more of a personal thing, so you've no argument there pal.
Lastly, I haven't had an abortion, but as I've said, if my birth control failed, I would. I don't want children and would kill myself before I was forced to have one. Yes, I have been pregnant, so I know what it feels like (ended in miscarriage). Lastly, you're making the assumption that I'm an atheist. I'm not. I'm a spiritual Christian. Don't assume I'm some spoiled brat with an easy life! I have been tortured and abused by my CHRISTIAN PARENTS AND FAMILY all my life! Does that sound easy to you?? I do value human life, which is why I think women should choose. Lemme give you a scenario. You're kidnapped and probed by aliens, and are forced to stay on this planet until you give birth, against your will. This "alien baby" will destroy you from the inside out. But you don't agree with abortion, so you can't have one.
Oh and I hate feminists. I just don't want kids, so until I get sterilized, I withhold the right to have an abortion if BC fails.

Your point 3 directly clashes against your request in point 1, does it not?

>Say that using "THERE IS NO GOD HURRR HURR!11" to get out of everything isn't ethical.
>I am now a bible basher
>I put on my robe and wizard hat and go around using my god magics!
>I am now so holy that the toilet paper I use has bible verses on it.

That's basically what I said.. It's the mother's choice to do whatever with it, but it's not anybody else's and because the fetus is not yet recognized as a separate entity unless the mother chooses for it to be (ridiculous), it has no rights.

I think those aren't necessarily the rights that the fetus has to life; more so the rights of the mother to decide whether the fetus continues its existence or not...

what of the woman who, far into her third-trimester, shot herself in the stomach, effectively giving herself a self-inflicted wound which happened to cause an abortion?

Someone who would do that is already mentally ill, you don't shoot yourself in the stomach just to enact an abortion, there are far safer and easier ways like abortifacient herbs and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient

Any woman who shoots themselves in the stomach is, by definition, a danger to themselves and the community...they should be placed in a mental health ward and treated for whatever psychological disorder caused them to attempt suicide.