Why does abortion scare so many in the US? (Page 2)

I am also a libertarian, and feel as such on the subject.

Where does "abortion" begin?  With the morning after pill? or with Birth control medicines or other contraceptives?  Is conception really the start, or are the sperm and egg not living cells/organisms?

Yes, that's her. I didn't watch your link but there have been a good number of TV commercials with her recently expressing that sentiment.

As big as the problem is in the US, worldwide there are between 40-50 million abortions every year. Very sad.

Depends on what state you live in.

There is pending legislation in my state that would have a pregnant woman's killer be charged with two murders.

Ah...so now we are at "when life begins" and whether or not THAT is a government issue.

VERY good point.  As goes my sustainability argument...appeals to both sides.  But there again, that should be a state issue and it should have never seen the federal court system.  SO the best thing for the Supreme court to do would be to place it back in the hands of the states. 

There is no "measuring rod" for when life begins.  If you set it at sustainability then the court would have a place at which to charge for one or both.  See....this whole sustainability thing kinda makes sense....no?! 

just got back from a swim and then read through the responses. lisa, you sound passionate about this subject...let me ask you this:

what if someone does not believe or (gasp) does not care that life begins at conception. "it's just a bunch of cells at that point". not saying that's me, but what if? 

my opinion on abortion has changed over the years, but i still believe it should be the choice of the mother...up to a certain point. 3rd trimester is too late to decide, imo

 That is how it is in WI also.

that simple, huh?

The 'sack of cells' point of view is a completely different subject than what I'm asking for clarification on. I haven't even said my opinion on abortion (not directly). I'm simply asking for clarification on a pretty illogical post (not yours).

why make it more complicated?

Thanks for sharing this.  I think for many people, the issue is so black and white, because there's a level of "detachment" there that makes what you described seem nothing more than a simple inconvenience.  Yet what you described adds a facet to the picture that is not often considered.

not necessarily so....the county hospitals and health departments here address issues for pregnant women and even offer birth control at a very discounted rate...so that argument is a stretch...

but yes....the gov't has their grimy hands in WAY too much. My paycheck being one of those.  Remember...the goverment does not make any money...it ONLY spends. 

it IS left up to the states, isn't it? Supreme Court only ruled whether abortion is legal or not... states issue individual legislation regarding abortion but just can't outright ban it, correct?

many conservative states pass legislation to make it more difficult to get an abortion...

because see that guy on your shoulder in your avatar? 

At what point did his "human rights" begin?! 

Then why not let the mom decide whether she wants to follow through with the "terrible twos"?!?

as we can see... because it is more complicated...

that argument is like a pro-lifer saying it's murder plain and simple... (and it is...)

the fact that it can be "illegal" in their state is not left up to the states now is it?! the feds have ruled on that...

Lisa...yes your logic would have to be correct. If someone believes life is at conception then any abortion would be murder.  

no but they can make it more difficult... i.e, parental consent, mandatory pre-abortion education...

the government had to rule on it one way or the other... a citizen(s) filed a civil complaint... that's the process...

 In some countries abortions are performed when ultrasounds or other tests show babies to be female or retarded, among other things.  See this link by the BBC .  So you aren't too far from the truth!  African American babies are disproportionately aborted as well (at least in the US.)  Perhaps it's because they would be born into "substandard living conditions?"  I have yet to meet a person that wishes they were aborted because of their substandard living conditions.

First, human biological life begins at conception. That's simply a scientific fact. A chicken's life begins at conception, a dog's life begins at conception, a human life begins at conception.

Second, what I think is being argued by the pro-choice side is the question of when human personhood begins. Personhood is a philosophical concept.  It is the basis for the notion that we are are endowed by a creator with unalianable rights.

Lacking empirical evidence for when this endowment takes place, I'd argue that we must assume the possibility that it happens at conception.

From there flows the answer to your other questions.

Direct abortion, that being abortion where the primary act is to kill the offspring, as opposed to procedures in which the primary act is to protect the mother's life, is any act that kills the offspring from the point of conception onward.

Your second question addresses abortifacients, those forms of birth control in which there is a mechanism to prevent offspring from implanting in their mother's uterus. The purpose of this mechanism is to effectively kill the offspring. The effect of the mechanism can be a primary effect of the "birth control", but is often secondary or tertiary.

I'd argue that the intent here is the same as direct abortion, that being the killing of the offspring in the event that there is conception.  I'd say that it holds the same moral weight on balance.

Your last question has to do with sperm and eggs. Before conception, sperm and eggs are merely cells that are part of the man or the woman.  They are not persons, which only happens at the point of conception.