To me it's less about the "life" of the fetus but more about the right of the woman to choose what happens to her body, especially in cases of rape and incest. I am pro-choice, which doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion. In my case though, I 100% think that it should be a legal option for anyone who needs or wants one. All the stuff people say about how the father or whatever should have to give permission is total BS. A woman can, and should, make her own damn decision.

I agree pretty fully with lucifer the cat, I think abortion should be allowed to women. They alone deserve to make their own decision about what is or is not going to happen to their body for the next 9 months. I personally that it's a bit silly that there's so much focus on abortion but not truly on the child. Yes the saving the child argument, but If someone is to demand that you bring a child into the world, who's going to take care of it? If a woman/& her spouse want an abortion then they probably don't have the financial states for it, don't want children, or are just not likely to be good parents. Not to mention that adoption and foster care is still a bit dodgy on quality.

There is no way to logically justify abortion. It is the murder of another human being who has committed no violent against another. People have tried for millennia to justify why killing an innocent person for any reason is acceptable and have always and everywhere failed. The same mentality that allows for abortion really knows no limits to the evil that can be justified. It is in no way a coincidence that the modern abortion movements was spawned from the mid-19th to early 20th century eugenics movement which saw tens of thousands of forced sterilizations (the United States was a pioneer in this movement by the way), and the murder tens of millions throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

Whether one argues age, convenience, biology, philosophy, or theology, is irrelevant. The only justifiable argument for abortion that can justify abortion is to claim that the child is not in fact a human being. This flies in the face of biology and philosophy. It spawns endless and pointless debates on the subjective measurement of life and again opens doors to the very mentality that spawned the holocaust. If it can be successfully argued that someone is not human for x reason (age, mental development, social status, sexual orientation, etc.) and whose life is “not worth living,” you now have a society that accepts murder as not only acceptable but a moral good. Such a society is utterly doomed to barbarism and ruin. The ultimate irony is that those in favor of abortion eventually die out because the only ones sustaining the population are those who value the right to life over all other rights (for without the right to life itself, every other right you claim is meaningless and worthless). - C&K

I am a strong supporter of abortion rights for ALL women. Having children is a choice and I choose not to have children. Should I accidentally become pregnant -- as in birth control fails and/or I am impregnated without my consent (rape), the very first thing I will do (and have done) is find the nearest reputable abortion clinic.

It is ironic that those who oppose the murder of the most innocent are told that it is simply their opinion while those who support murder of children act as though their view is anything more than that. Ultimately, this issua has nothing whatsoever to do with opinion. Opinion is by definition a thought about something else, not thought in and of itself. Abortion is by every definition (biological, philosophical, theological, etc.) murder. People can do try as hard as they might to justify it but that does not change the nature of the act.

Lucifer, abortion is the murder of a person not only innocent of any and all possible offense but forced on the person being murdered. No one who is even remotely familiar with the eugenics movement, past and present, even questions the relationship between abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, and such horrifying atrocities as the Holocaust. Since the Supreme Criminals created a law that murder is allowable dependent on age (Roe v. Wade) over 55 millions people have been murdered via abortion in this country alone. That alone makes me question whether it is even worth defending such a damnable place as the United States.

Again, people who claim that this is simply an opinion are stuck in the logical contradiction that they are simply expounding their opinion which, if they are logically consistant, holds no more weight that that which they are denouncing. Nothing justifies murder of the innocent. Not age, inconvenience, self-indulgent hedonism, “lifestyles,” finances, race, gender, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Nothing is more barbaric than to murder a child. Whether that child is in the womb or out is irrelevant. - C&K

There are several things that need to be addressed in your above question.

First, you quotations sorrounding logic implies that you disagree with the logic I’ve used but in now way have offered any logical counter-argument. Logic is beautiful in it’s simplicity and, paradoxically, it’s complexity. Ultimately, it is as simple as “If...,then...”. Conclusions follow from premises using both induction and deduction. Whether you like the conclusion or not doesn’t matter, if you can’t refute it using logic, you either accept it and change your view or admit your own irrationality. Like I said, logic is both simple and complex but wonderful through and through.

Secondly, I would never wish or want to control “our” legal system. Speaking as an anarchist of the Rothbardian school, I reject any and all states as the most destructive and vile of all human institutions. That includes the so-called "legal system” under which we are forced to live since it is based on both theft and threat of violence against person and property. To want to be in charge or control such a thing makes my skin crawl.

Thirdly, your questions concerning animal cruelty implies that human being and base animals are analogous and are of the same moral and lawful value. To be perfectly honest, at my first glance at your response, I thought you must be joking. Maybe you were trying to lighten up the conversation. But then I recalled that I have had discussions like this before and decided to answer seriously. I’ll answer your questions in several steps.

First, a human being has an inherent dignity as well as intrinsic rights due to what Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas referred to as our being “rational animals.” This places us over and above base animals that live soley on appetite and nothing else. We are able to not only feel, which all animals can do, but to think and contemplate and create. If one were to argue that human beings were no different than base animals, one falls into many absurdities as well as horrifying conclusions. For example, if a human being is nothing more than a base animal, and many base animals eat their own kind, then it is allowable for humans to eat other humans. Another example is in order as well. If human beings are no more than base animals, and base animals are routinely “put down” when sick or in pain, then human beings can “put down” other human beings when sick or in pain. Again, logic is beautiful.

Secondly, human beings being both capable of rational thought and having the right to own property (which does not include other human beings), has the right and the responsibility to care for that which is under his care. If I own a dog, it is wrong for me to starve the dog to death. But if that dog, which does not have the same rights or inherent dignity of human beings, is suffering a debilitating terminal inllness, it is my responsibility to put the animal down. This is fundamentally different from how one treats a human being. In fact, ironically in today’s morally bankrupt and doomed society, base animals are often treated better than people and usually by those who claim to be the most compassionate towards others.

As a side note concerning the right of all people to private property and the full control thereof, other human beings may never be considered as property otherwise one has argued for slavery. If a person owns their self or has stewardship over their self (depending on whether one is religious or not, same effect), then that person has the right to do with their body what they wish as long as it does not violate the rights of any other person. Abortion, by definition, ends the life of another human being who has committed no offense against another persons self or property. The other human being, while dependent on the mother, is still a whole other person who has the same rights as the mother and any violation of those rights, is wrong. Most especially to forcibly end the child’s life which violates the most fundamental of all rights and the basis for all other rights, is the gravest offense a person can commit against another.

Lucifer, I’ll let Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, speak to the relationship between the eugenics movement and abortion. link

That previous post aside, I support women having the option of abortion, but only early on - definitely before the child is viable and preferably far before then. In my heart, I'm against it, but in my head I know that it should be allowed. The stupidest belief that the prolife movement makes is that banning abortions will stop them; nope, mothers will just poison and harm themselves to get the child out. The children will still die. Don't get me wrong - I'm not prodeath. I'm prochoice.

Contraception should be free and available to all. It's ridiculous how many abortions take place that could have been preventable had the couple had access to quality birth control. This, in my opinion, is the biggest problem.

her body, her choice.

I would never do it myself but I also wouldn't stop someone else. Its there right for a certain amount of time. I can't say that I know what they are going through or what is going on in their lives. There might actually be a good reason for it.

I could go on long rant, but in short, I am pro-choice.

In my opinion I don't believe that I could ever do it but who am I to say others shouldn't. I do believe if it is to be done that it be done as early as possible to prevent any pain the "baby" inside might feel. I think that adoption is a better solution but as I said above, it isn't my choice to make.

The only opinion that I hold on this matter is that another persons choice to end a pregnancy is not mine to make. That is a choice that should I ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy I would not want another making for me.

Now I do have the belief that people could spend less time and money protesting abortion clinics and focus that energy on education and preventing unplanned pregnancies. Easiest way to prevent an abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

It saddens me knowing than many of todays youth are so ignorant when it comes to basic sexual education. I seriously have met females in their twenties who still think that only sluts use the pill and condoms. These same girls then are shocked as hell when they end up pregnant or contracting an STD. Hell I had to educate a female co-worker of mine and she is 24. She seriously thought that you could only contract an STD through vaginal sex. She actually thought that anal sex was perfectly fine and the safest thing to do when you lacked a condom.

My body my choice, your body your choice. (That extends to abortion, adoption and parenting)
What I do personally with my uterus shouldn't hurt, offend or even have anything to do with anyone else besides my partner and I.