Goodthief “Thank you for asking so directly, as it forced me to confront my own discomfort.”

Belief in a view is often only tested by the discomfort it generates in us.

I, personally, have no desire to see any woman undergo an abortion. I wish they did not but I wish more that they be respected sufficiently to decide for themselves than be told by any authority that they cannot. Certainly if I were female, I would be as equally strident to defend my right of sovereignty over my body as I am here.

As for “I believe the foetus is a human being and entitled to live.” It is a potential human being and absolutely dependent upon the resources of one specific person, the mother. It is not dependent upon the resources of a group or range of different people, like a new born, This distinction of state, being dependent upon the resources of a range of people versus being exclusively dependent upon the resources of but one person significantly alters the dynamics of the relationship between the “potential human being” and the resource provider.

When the resource provider is exclusive, their body is put not only subject to permanent physical change and probable psychological change. That exclusive resource provider has pre-existing rights. Those pre-existing rights are pre-eminent and folk not so directly involved in the delivery of resources (= everyone else) should stand back and let the holder of those pre-eminent rights decide.

Celivia “all we have to do is agree at which point the life of an individual begins”

That event is already recognised. “Birth” and society’s recognition of the individual through the issue of a birth certificate. Prior to “birth” the embryo / feotus is not “individual” but part of the pregnant woman on whose bodily resources it has absolute reliance.

I must say, despite some rocky patches, I'm impressed that the topic has been so calmly discussed without the demeaning rhetoric that tends to haunt this topic.

I concur with R0bert in that pro-life and pro-choice aren't adequate terms - I'll go one further and say that the use of these terms only serves to polarise discussion further.

Nobody is arguing that abortions should take place of course - they're arguing that the option needs to be there.

Even those on the other side of the debate tend to agree abortions are necessary in some instances.

On the flip side, I dare say some are probably taken too lightly, though I dispute some of the statistics mentioned earlier and would be curious to see the source which indicates 90,000 odd abortions are for convenience. I also think that many abortions would be due to the failure of contraceptive devices, rather than a carefree attitude some posters have suggested.

The term 'convenience' is also a loaded one - it implies it's a carefree decision simply for ease, though I suspect that definition includes all manner of women in so many different situations that I don't think you can be too prescriptive. I think many of these abortions of 'convenience' are women in very trying situations.

I suppose I come back to the fact that if you do redefine a human to the point of conception, you then take a step toward the problems I outlined earlier - there will be some determined 'pro-lifers' (for want of a better word) that would want to take it to the next stage and force women to have the children of rape.

I just can't countenance a woman being commanded as to how to use her body. Those who feel that life begins at conception have a repugnance at abortions, probably akin to the repugnance I would feel knowing women are being made to have a life grow in their womb they don't want there - and puritan notions of abstinence aren't persuasive in implying they deserve it.

Life begins after the first cell successfully divides and replicates itself. After that it is all semantics, dividing the cellular replication into identifiable developmental progressive stages. A foetus is no more alive than an alive embryo should be considered less alive. It is just a stage in the process of human development. Like childhood and adulthood. Primarily all developmental cellular replication ends with adulthood. Human mental and physical development is on average a 20-25 year process. Picking a favoured moment to end a life does not mitigate the ending of that life. So it too becomes a matter of semantics to cover for our unease knowing we are taking a life. For many it seems, hiding this fact is their chief expression of abortion. They want their definition up held. It's the one that excuses them, and cost the least mental anxiety.

"Life begins after the first cell successfully divides and replicates itself."

No. As has been pointed out in the thread, life is a continuum. The fusion of gametes is just part of that continuum. I thought there was interest in getting away from axioms. Surely there are objective means for determining a transition from human organism to human being?

Goodchief,
“Do you accept that it is a human being whom it was necessary to kill, to save the woman?”
I don’t see an embryo as a human being; I regard abortion as ending the life of a human embryo, not of a human being.

Like RObert, I wish there were better names to describe our stance on abortion.
The term ‘anti-choice’ just conveys that women should have no choice, which is what anti-abortionists are saying.
Pro-choice vs. anti-choice sounds more clear and to the point than pro-life vs. pro-death.
Jehovah’s Witnesses regard themselves as pro-lifers while they would choose (their children’s) death over a blood transfusion. Anti-choice is a more suitable term.

Yabby, (aqvarivs),
Thanks for the article. Well, it’s true that religious people including leaders cherry-pick from the bible those quotes and passages which they can use to back up or reinforce their own beliefs and morals or that of their religious community. Any opinion at all could be backed up by quotes or verses from the bible; depending how good we are at cherry-picking them. Some leaders, like the Pope, are Master Cherry-Pickers and they’ll be the most powerful and respected members in their organisation of community.

A while ago, Boaz David told me I was cherry-picking when I presented him with not-so-favourable bible quotes. I suppose when atheists do the cherry-picking it becomes a sin.

All religions cherry-pick what they want to use, since no religion cherry-picks the whole bible.
As for the New Testament, it is, indeed, much less violent (more moral?)than the OT, but still, Jesus endorses slavery, the killing of innocent children of sinners and of disobedient children.

Aqvarivs,
“So to are there men and women who want to have sex with out having to face any responsibilities.”
I hear you- but taking responsibility about sex should include the use of contraception, which the Catholic Church condemns. It is natural for human beings to desire sex, and it would be unnatural to expect them to have sex only if they intend to reproduce.

May be continued

Goodthief, my resentment at the pro-choice vs pro-life names is that it infers that one side is not for life. And actually, pro-choice people have been called worse than pro-death. Murderer is bandied about quite freely by the anti-choice side. There isn’t quite as an emotionally laden comeback to that!

Aqvarivs’ opinion aside, I have yet to speak to a pro-choice person who actively advocates abortions. I’d say that a person who advocates an abortion is more likely to be the male who will be personally adversely affected by the birth of a baby, or parents, either concerned about what the neighbours might think or genuinely of the opinion this will ruin daughter’s life.

This is where deep emotional problems will arise. The choice MUST be the woman’s own.

Genuine, non-judgmental counselling is necessary, to help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy come to her own decision. She will need to be able to reflect on her own philosophical/spiritual beliefs. Though they will change and develop over time, that does not mean she cannot come to a decision that is the best at that time.

When life begins- I think life is a continuum, before and after death. When does a life become a human? I think of human in the sense of what makes us human, a being who feels joy, anger, fear, peace, hunger and thirst for starters. A being with a ‘soul’ for want of a better word, more than just a clump of cells in any which shape.

Aqvarivs, a man hating woman who sees herself, and by extension all women, as victims of men does not make her a feminist. Just like a male misogynist cannot be brushed off as probably being a homosexual. They’re both just irrational.

Are there abortions for ‘frivolous’ reasons? Well, none of us know. We may suspect, but simply cannot know. To undergo something as invasive as an abortion, which does entail risks, for ‘frivolous’ reasons sounds like a singularly uneducated thing to do.