Pro-choicers, Effective agruement against Abortion?

Honestly, I don't think the question or the answer in the other post make sense in relation to the pro choice/anti choice argument. And Yes, I read ALLLLL of it.

Personally, I like to sit with "Ain't my place to judge another person's choices". Then, I combine that with my love of freedom.

From there, I come up with the fact that whether or not "I" would choose abortion doesn't matter, it is a procedure that is available, and it should be available for those who need it/want it/find it medically necessary/personally necessary/whatever.

Its not for me to judge the person or the procedure.

Here's the debate as I see it reframed in another situation.

Guns kill people, but every day people lobby and advocate for Guns to be available to everyone. And guns actually kill people that don't require another human body to live (ie there is debate about when LIFE starts w/ regard to abortion). There is no debate about the viability of a human life that is on the planet, and guns, with one pull of a trigger can take that life away.

I don't choose to own guns, but I don't want to take that right away from others just because guns can take life.

The same is true for abortion.

Nothing new was presented there, so it does not change my beliefs on the topic.

I do, however, agree that abortion is abortion, whether rape was involved or not. I think it's ludicrous to be against abortion, except in the case of rape/incest. Those circumstances don't change what abortion is, and the child is not guilty for the sins of it's father. Either abortion is wrong, or it's not.

Everybody has different life circumstances, and it is dangerous to get government involved in their reproductive choices. So as much as I disagree with the vast majority of abortions that are performed, I would never advocate legislation to bar them. So from a legal standpoint, I am firmly pro-choice.

What it boils down to for me is at what point does the new life outweigh the freedoms of the existing lives. Are we going with the "every sperm is sacred" route where even birth control is semi-abortive? You are wasting potential life when you use birth control or when men masturbate. Is that allowed? Say that is fine. So the egg and the sperm are expendable, but as soon as they meet, we declare that to be a point of no return? What does that egg know? Nothing. It knows nothing. It feels nothing. And that continues for quite some time. Where it really turns into moral ground for me is when the fetus can feel pain and be self-aware. Feeling pain does not occur until the third trimester. Sentience does not occur until the third trimester at the earliest. Of course, you won't be able to find a doctor here in the states to perform a third trimester abortion unless your life/health is at risk.

Add: I also agree with Ginny. It is a slippery slope when we seek to take away things we disagree with from others. Sooner or later, the government will take something away from you. I value my freedom.

Add: "Potential live isn't equal to life." There is no such thing as a "potential life." Either there's life or there isn't--there's nothing in between."

She is actually saying that when people say that potential life isn't equal to life, they are wrong. Of course, biologically speaking (as she brought up biology), the unborn child is life. So is a plant. So is bacteria. I agree that the unborn child is alive. I'm just arguing that that is not the deciding factor.

No, I don't think that the question in that post, or the answer for that matter, are effective arguments against abortion.

I actually don't think it makes much sense period - but especially if you were going to attempt to use it as a way to support your position against the right to choose.

To try and compare trying to choose between keeping and terminating a pregnancy to a woman on an island with a 4 mo old baby with broken limbs is just plain - well - you're simply comparing apples to oranges.

That doesn't change anything.

The original question wasn't even about abortion - that situation is murder. The baby had already been born. Killing a baby is illegal. I don't care if she wouldn't get in trouble or not - it's still murdering a child that has already been born. So you can't even bring up the abortion argument with that situation. Murder and abortion are 2 different things.

So no - the answer has not destroyed the Pro-Choice argument in any way.

What would I do?

1. Leave the Child / kill the child

2. Take care of the child until the ship comes X

* Yeah, I would take care of the child, he's only 4 months old, and very much

unable to care for himself.

* What does this have to do with abortion? The child had already been born.

My ONLY argument against abortion is that nobody should have to be pushed into it. You shouldn't make your decision based on what your family or bf or even friends think. You SHOULD base your decision on what is important to you, whether you can support your child and what support is available.

That's not about abortion. So the whole issue is moot.

All the best.