GREAT POST! I couldn't agree more!

Unfortunately, we are talking about this issue because abortion is on a political agenda. - Mostly due to political candidates (who started rallying for or against it as a means to get government funding years ago). And now abortions are mostly funded by taxpayers - you and I. That is why we are talking about it. Really, it should not be an issue. It is an issue of choice like many other controversial topics.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. I don’t think anyone would force one of you who doesn’t believe in abortion to have one. So, if you turn the situation around, why would those opposed want to take that right away from those who support abortion? There is a great bumper sticker out:

"Keep your laws off of my body"

Also; I think most pro-choice people believe in that- choice. I personally, at this point in my life, would not have an abortion. However that does not give me the right to tell someone else what to do with their body.

Abortion, as with most regulated things, stems from a bigger issue that most Americans are not willing to address. Education can do wonders, if only we would concentrate our energy toward that...

hickchick: Great post!

Mabeval:not true,even in "early stages "the nervous system is there as are the organs,they're just underdeveloped.And as hickchick said,many are aborted at 5 0r 6 months(I had a friend born at 6 months,with plenty of energy and NO problems;now she'd the top of our class-of 1800 students!at college;what if they's decided to rip her apart then?)

Caliblu:so what if there are so many kids so poor in the US or in bad conditions?Most of the world suffers far worse than that!!!Should they just not have any children so they won't be in "bad " conditions or abort them?As for the 12-year old's baby the mother was just criminally careless-if she'd asked anywhere she'd have known how to take care of it.And if she shouldn't have had that baby(she shouldn't have had sex-at least not so young!),then shouldn't my maid have had a child either?Because,even in her 20's,her baby daughter caught a serious infection because the stupid woman didn't have the sense to sterilize the bottle-*** as well as boiling the bottle!Luckily,her baby's okay now,but she should've died.So,bad or careless parenting can happen anywhere at any time.And despite all that,some kids rise up against all odds.So a woman shouldn't kill the fetus just so it won't be abused-because SHE can prevent that!And bad conditions or not,faith,care and hard work are generall what make someone end up well or badly.I read a book by Helen Forrester about her life in England when her family was thrown into extreme poverty becuse her parents spent too much and she was expected to be a nanny for her younger siblings and prevented from going to school.And despite all that and being malnourished,unhealthy and extremely poor,she still ended up a best-selling author.See?And her own parents tried for a while to keep her down.In the end it's ambition that got her through.

BirdyGirl: No,I don't think less of you for believing in New Age stuff,I was just arguing my point;also I just believe people should be careful with what they buy into and do more research;f'rinstance,I don't see how this person came up with the whole "not born,torn" thing because I don't know how the procedure's carried out,so I won't necessarily think of it as higher intelligence because I don't see anything to suggest that the English language was carefully formulated,nor do I know how lexigramming works so I can't consider this a s a point in the arguement because it's based on a belief and not something objective,see? That being said,it was interesting to read about it,so thanks for introducing me to it.By the way,I still don't know who the word druids are.I couldn't find them in the encyclopedia.Are they people?"higher intelligence"?spirits?How did they form the English language?(and I know you know English origiated from Latin,I was just saying Anyway,it's nice talking to you.I hope you don't take any of this as an offense or anything,I'm just curious.

I personally believe that the woman should have the choice. Abortion is a choice. If the fetus cannot survive outside my body than I have a choice of whether or not I want to host it to maturity.

It's not fair to the woman to have to be forced to have a child she can't support. It's not fair to the child to be rasied in poverty, fatherless, in a unwanted home, in a abusive home, or in bad foster care. I've seen a show where they had many families living at Garbage dump Sites. They show children picking threw garbage to find clothes and food. They didn't asked to be born in such a unsanitary situation. They are more likely to grow up in the dumps and have their own family to do the same. It's sad that children all across the world die before the ages of 10 from poverty and sickness. They too didn't ask to be in such a ****ed up situation. Do you think it's fair to force a woman to have a child knowing that the child will be born into a horrible situaiton? That's like setting the child up for the downfall. People are going to have sex reguardless and Birth Control does fail at times. SO you can't just say if you don't want to child don't have sex. There's no getting around the sex, everyone is going to do it reguardless. If their was a mother who was living a bad life( ie prostitution, she has a husband that beats her, or she's strung out on crack or heroin) and got pregnant would you tell her to keep it knowing that she would be bringing a child into a ****ed up world that is no where near good for that child? I found an article about a 12 yr old who took her baby to the doctors. They unwraped the bundle and found a tiny, decomposed corpse. The baby was a month old: She had died of infections around her private area. The flesh was corroded. She had never changed the baby. So first of all she could have been forced to have the baby for whatever reason( couldn't afford the abortion or was against it) just for the baby to die a month later. That baby never had a chance. I'm sure it hurt more to die in such a way then to be aborted before it even gets to that point of where the baby can feel the pain and have emotion. That's worse then an abortion in my eyes. And yes there is adpotion for an option but as a mother myself, I could never fathom the thought of carrying a child for 9 months just to give it up. Others may be able to do it but The mother's bond is always there. Plus there's no promise that the child will be adpoted. foster homes are overcrowded as is. There are a lot of bad foster homes. So adpotion is not always an option. Besides if you make it illegal then what? Mothers would be dying for trying to abort themselves or find someone unsterile and illegal to do it. Think about it.

*Some Definitions*

fe·tus - In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

It just so happens that science is the only truth *for me*, and, with this being a scientific definition and all, this is the way things are:

When the egg is first fertilized, it is classified as an embryo. After the eighth week, it is classified as a fetus. It remains classified thus until it is born.

This is where the grey area is. A child is first and foremost classified thus, however:

child - A person between birth and puberty.

So, technically, the fetus is now classified as a child. The fetus is not a child, because it has not yet been born.

Throughout these stages, however, the embryo/fetus/child is decidedly human:

Human - Belonging to man or mankind; having the qualities or attributes of a man; of or pertaining to man or to the race of man

It's always a human, but it's not always a child. Naturally, some people will fuss about this because of their own personal opinions and whatnot, but those are scientifically factual terms. I just think that there is so much fuss over whether or not it's a child or a fetus or a human or a life or whatever... it's human, but it's not a child. Is it alive?

alive - having life, in opposition to dead; living; being in a state in which the organs perform their functions.

Sure is.

Human, alive, not a child, though. It's destroying a human life, but it's still a fetus... so... yeah. The super thing here is that it all depends on your morals. Personally, I think that people should leave other people alone. If a person goes and gets pregnant and gets an abortion... sucks to be her. She shouldn't have done it, she now knows she shouldn't have done it, she's going to have to live with it, la-dee-da.

I think people should focus more on educating young people about sex, abortion, etc before they somehow manage to stumble into it themselves. Abortion should always be there, just in case, but people should be more aware and more prepared to prevent themselves from being put into that situation.

Another thing... adoption. I only have about one or two adopted friends, but their stories have really made me think. The US adoption system isn't so great as you might be led to believe. Of course, there are exceptions: good adoption agencies that do thorough and strict background checks, but as a whole, the system SUCKS. Kids switch from home to home, and are often abused, raped, mistreated, neglected, etc. Putting your kid up for adoption doesn't necessarily guarantee them the best future - it just gets them out of your life, just like abortion. Only difference is that your accident is alive, has emotional and mental development, and can suffer trauma in both departments... feel unloved, unwanted, etc. No choice is really better than the other, I think... it just depends on what the mother thinks. Best bet is to not get into the situation in the first place. I know very well that it cannot be helped sometimes, but all in all, there could be a lot of improvements in educating people about sex, abortion, parenthood, etc.

~These are just my opinions. I welcome all opinions, but just don't call me a murder cause I'm not and if you actually believe that about me then you would be lying to yourself~

~*~CaliBlu~*~

Whoah. I never new they like tore apart the fetus in abortion. I always thought they... I dunno... like poisoned it or something. Thats not right. Errrr... And thats really pretty interesting about the 'its not born its torn' thing

Kahira

Word druids are supposedly the reasons the English words ended up as they did; the spelling, pronunciation and everything. Yes, I know it came from Latin; I'm not an idiot. You can believe this or not, but I think it makes an excellent, if somewhat different, argument. I mean, who would have thought to put the words "It Is Not Born. It Is Torn" into the word abortions? It Is Torn refers to what hickchick said about abortions. That is certainly not a coincidence; a higher intelligence had to have done this. It Is Not Born refers to the obvious result of an abortion. You see what I mean, everyone? I'm not banging on you personally, Kahira, but it seems like you think less of me now because I do tend to take supposedly "New Age" stuff seriously.

I know that if I were raped at this point in my life and got pregnant, I would have an abortion. Yes, an embryo is alive, but in early stages it doesn't even have a brain. I think that hardly counts as human. Also, if I did not choose to become pregnant, how is it my responsibility to give up nine months of my life (assuming that I'd give it up for adoption) to take care of it and feed it and risk my life for it? It's not that I'd particularly want to kill it, it's that I value my own life over an embryo's. If I became pregnant because I condom broke or something, I might feel slightly more responsibility, but I'm really not sure.

Revolution:

You are right in saying that millions of children are starving everywhere, and that I don't have a solution thus far, but the solution, (something I think is obvious), is not abortion, aka murder! Yes of course there is suffering! And overpopulation! There are irresponsible mothers, and millions of children and foster homes! And it's wonderful that we want to solve these issues, but the solution is not to prevent the suffering from the only thing they may have left, which is life! Do you not view that as a privilege? Who are you to deny that right? You aren't that sufferer, and you don't have the right to decide their choice to live.

First of all, my mom is a doctor so i know all about this stuff. There are many books written about this case. Abortion is definitely the killing of one person. This is what is the most common abortion:

while the baby is in it's womb (5-6 months) and very much alive like you and me, the doctors take pliers and tear apart the body, head, arms, legs. Then put it back together once it is outside the womb if requested by the mother or guardian for proper burial. If not it is thrown away.

Do you know where the babies go once they die? Some get dumped in the ocean and others burned. Is that really what you want? I mean this baby i alive and "breathing" (fluids) and it has a life. It has had a life since the sperm entered the cell it developed into a human being. i think you all need to read up on this. Go to www.abortion.com or something.

Liberalchic
Regarding "they're not out of the wombs therefore they don't count" or whatever you said that meant that,I think you couldn't be more wrong.First of all the womb is merely a place for the child to grow-a shelter;the fact that they're not strong or equipped enough to deal with the outside world does not mean they are not humans and don't have the right to live,or that their existence should depend on mommy's whim-whatever her reasons.The baby is a pool of both the father's and the mother's genes,which should be enough to prove that it is NOT a part of the mother's body,that it's a separate entity;it's merely being protected and nourished in her womb,just as it's nourished at her breast and in its cot or incubator when it's born.I don't care how happy or unhappy it might be because that depends on a lot of things,not just mom's financial or emotional circumstances-like environment,the rest of the family and most importantly:how determined the child is to be happy or successful.Some of the people who most made a difference came from hard beginnings;and some of the people who were born in loving privelaged families turned to drugs or stealing or killing.Besides,there's no doubt that fetuses Do have emotions:they responded to music within the womb in many scientific experiments,and on a more daily basis,fetuses have different temperaments ,like,my brother was perfectly quiet in Mom's womb,while I caused her no end of trouble,turning and kicking.So they are very distinctive,you just can't see it.

Revolutionary(name?)
No,no,no!!!How can you say women are "tools for reproduction or pleasure"?I mean,some view them as such,but I have to say that motherhood is one of the noblest of all jobs and the most important because it shapes generations to come(a view supported by my religion,and maybe THE noblest of all proffessions;as we say "Heaven's beneath the feet ot mothers".)And it's one job that men can't do,so women have to do it-it doesn't make them "tools"-at least not in the derogatory sense you use!And I said this before and I'll say it again:the fact that many children are suffering does not mean you should just finish them off to begin with.How do you know those suffering kids won't do something wonderful to alleviate the suffering of others when they're older?And how do you know so-called happy kids won't turn into psychotic killers?Or spend the rest of their lives unhappier than the previously abused kids?It's not unusual to rise upon pain and make things better.Plus,maybe more efforts should be made and donations contributed to help those kids,rather than helping women who shouldnt've had sex in the first place!

Futhermore,I strongly believe sex should take place within the boundaries of marriage,when you're with someone you love ,respect,and know is far less likely to leave when the going gets rough-and if they do,they can be legally penalised for it,and when you're emotionally responsible enough to raise a family with two parents.See,that's the problem with "Western society",with the pleasure of sex taking precedence over obligation,there is so much promiscuity(and worse still,no defined term for promiscuity:would 4 or 40 partners make someone promiscuous?),so little stability when partners come and go,which reflects on why there sre so many divorces when partners don't want to make every effort possible,and sooo many pregnancies when there's only the Mom invilved,or dad's invilved too but doesn't want to stay with mom,or they just want to abort and be done with it.So little respect(sorry).And the father SHOULD be blamed or take as much responsibility as the mother because he had as big a part to play in conception-and the sex-within-marriage should go for both sexes,equally.Then maybe there's be fewer STD's ,children given up for adopton when they shouldn't be unless they literally couldn't be fed,less emotional pain,and stronger families.
Also,what about the rest of the family?Grandparents?It's their genes too,y'know.And it'd be sooo much better if the parents gave their kids to family members if they absolutely couldn't raise them-but no,they often give them to potentially evil strangers so the kids might not show up later and demand an explanation.Or why not kill them?No questions asked .Convenient.This is a Human rights issue.The women wouldn't have this problem if they and their partners had abstained a little(oh yeah;so what if women's or men's sex drives have to go on hold?It's not like eating,it won't kill them and giving in may cause more pain than pleasure...and to their offspring.We're not animals,we should put precedence of mind over basal instincts when necessary).

That being said,if the mother's in danger or the baby couldn't survive-then I think an abortion should be done.

BIRDYGIRL
Then who are the druids?Oh,and actually,English isn't the only language that has bits of other languages.It originated from Latin,like many others and had the same influences as,say ,French,because both countries occupied other countries and absorbed words.Arabic,likewise uses many non-Arabic term,like "telephone","telefesione"(TV),mobile,etc...Oh well,this probably wasn't the point to start with...

Oh,God,this is why I don't come on this site so often anymore..it takes HOURS replying!!Or maybe I'm juat too talkative..

Ok...my opinion is...it's a woman's choice. I've known women who, if they hadn't had an abortion, would have died. So in those cases I think it's good to have the option. I could never have an abortion but that's me, if you feel like it's your only way out then God bless you. I don't support it or negate it...I'm pro-choice. Whether you like it or not you have to respect a woman's right to choose. It's not up to you until your in their shoes.

Youngmama, your name is very ironic, because if you were a young mother, you would understand the meaning of abortion. If my mother wanted to have had an abortion, I would rather never had lived than had been an unwanted child. I truly believe that.

P.S. Youngmama, thanks for sending me an e-mail I couldn't respond to, that was very mature of you.

I would like to reply to youngmama and Heaven021 about their arguments against abortion and set some things straight. First, I would like to respond to you Heaven021. This is indeed a women's right issue for the reasons that I gave in a previous response and for the one's I am about to reiterate. Think about this for a moment. There are thousand of children who go hungry on a regular basis, who have no home, or who are neglected by their parents. Do you have a solution for their problems? Will you take those children in, even if you could? The elimination of abortion gives women two options: either sexually deprive themselves and only participate in sexual intercourse when they want to reproduce, or die of lack of nutrition or pregnacy complications after having six or seven children. This again makes women's whole purpose in society to not function like a normal human being but a tool of reproduction.

As for you youngmama. My mother was 17 when she had my brother and my grandmother was 13 when she had my mother. I am one of eleven children between my mother and father (my mother only had three children, my father the rest). Just because I am a pro-abortionist does not mean that I believe every women should be obligated to have at least one abortion. That is for her to decide. Even though my mother had my brothers and I, she still had four abortions. Why? Because she could barely handle three on her own. Again, a women should not have to deprive herself of any other activities that other people participate in. Why is it that men are not told that if they do not want to have a child they should not have sex? No one expects for men to sexually deprive themselves. This is because they will not have to deal with being in labor and are believed to have less responsibility because of that reason. And if people want children so much how come there are so many foster children? As far as foster centers go, many of those children are subjected to some of the most deplorable conditions no one should go through.

I wish to have children one day myself. However, if my wife (I am a boy even though my profiles say different) decides that she is not ready to take on such trying physical and mental conditions then who am I to force her. Abortion is for women who plan to have children but are not ready at that particular time. I do not believe that having a huge amount of abortions is healthy.

Again, just because I am for abortion does not mean I am against pregnant women. If you do not wish to have an abortion or do not like the thought of it, do not have one

I just wanted to say to everyone that abortion is wrong. The only way abortion should be legal is if the pregnancy will cause harm to the baby or the mother. If you don't want children you shouldn't be sexually active. Anyone whose says its a woman's chose to carrying the baby to term should take a good hard look at themselves. What if your mother believed that? If you cannot take care of the child you could always give it up for adoption. There are plenty of people out there who want to have children but cannot. It is not the child's fault that you got pregnant it is your own. You can not blame anyone but yourself for being pregnant. A lot of women say it is the man's fault but it is not, if you really did not want to have children you could have been on birth control. It is now readily available to anyone who wants it but the thing is you have to get up off your bum and get it. If you do not have the money for it then go to your local planned parenthood, they will examine you and give it to you for little or no cost. And this thing about slandering teens because they are pregnant or have children is ridiculous. Most teens who are parents are more responsible than the adults that do. I am pregnant with my first child and I am 18 yrs old, I can't wait till I have this baby. The people who say bad things about us girls are probably the people who got pregnant when they were young and had an abortion, now they regret it and take it out on us. Well it is not fair, we are trying the best we can to raise our children right. We work hard, go to school, take care of our children, and still find time to be with friends. How many adults can say they do that? Not to many, so give credit where credit is due.

I could not disagree with you more Revolution. Women should have rights over their body, who to sleep with, how to take care of it etc... Women and men should not have the right over what happens to anyone else's body! There might be a woman inside of her, and what about her rights? This is a human rights issue, not women's.

I could not agree with you more, Revolution.

If people looked at why abortion has been an alternative I think everyone would not have a problem with it. First of all it is not mass murder or genocide. It is not like there is a threat of a low human population rate, or that every women who is pregnant will not want their baby. Abortion was fought and made legal for medical and social reasons. Before abortions women were dying left and right after having seven or more children. These women (mostly belonging to a working class family) lacked proper nutrition as is, and the babies they had took most of that nutrition. Besides, women should have a right to do what they want with their bodies anyway. Throughout society women traditional roles consist of two things: serving as a means of reproduction and as a tool of pleasure. Forcing women to do anything they do not is just degrading.
Another thing to look at is the number of children who live in foster homes and are abused. I would rather see a woman have an abortion then a child being neglected or abused

Liberalchic, do you KNOW that a fetus doesn't have emotions? If so, then I'll shutup, but chances are that you don't know, and so you are forming a positive opinion on abortion based on this one ambiguous theory.

The "word druids" are NOT the same as the druids we think of. And, sad to say, English is the only language in which the process of lexigramming works, since English combines words from almost every language in the world. Both of these claims are backed up by fact. Thanks!

Kahira, that is very different, that person is out of the womb, living a life, having had two children a loving husband, a career where she helped many people, this is not a fetus who is in the womb, has no emotions, and has not established a life. I am simply saying that the person who is not really alive doesn't have a higher priority than a person who has a life, a life where they matter. That fetus is not really alive. Sure it may be human, but so is a body six feet under. By the way, everybody missed the part in Birdygirl's message that says

Robot: a machine that looks like a human being, and performs various acts of a human being, but is without human emotions. A mechanism guided by automatic controls.

...Does the Webster definition of "robot" relate to the fetus in the womb? Yes, it does. The fetus looks like a human, and performs various acts of a human while immersed in fluid in the uterus, but is yet without human emotions, and is guided, most definitely, by automatic controls,those controls being in the hands of a particular Spirit or Higher S-elf, who has decided to build this house, this flesh temple (the body is the Temple of the soul---and Spirit---and Mind), and to take up residence when it's completed."

Isn't that really the point of the post