Why does abortion scare so many in the US? (Page 5)

Dear Lord, what a nightmare scenario and a profoundly sad thing to contemplate. I admire your ability to forgive in these circumstances.

 Sources please?  It's not science if it's not peer reviewed...

You're creating a circular argument with no escape...not very polite :P

So then are you saying you think it IS ok to impose your moral beliefs on others?  By stating a lack of acceptance of a basically 'live and let live' philosophy, you're stating you believe your system to be perfect with no room for error.

When someone states "I won't impose my morals on you," they indicate acceptance and respect for your belief system, even if it's not a system they believe in.  This country was founded on that freedom.  To me the imposition of a 'stricter' or more religious moral value is worse than me saying 'I have a looser set of standards than you do, so I'm going to impose my loose standards on you by allowing you to practice your more strict moral values on yourself' (assuming, of course, that our rights to that freedom stop right before your fist hits my nose, if you get my point)

Pending argument back from Don about how someone performing an abortion if violating someone else's rights...there's no GOOD answer here because of the definition of conception and life.  Exactly as stated earlier, its a philosophical question, not a scientific question.  If a concensus is ever reached it will be when our feet are frozen to the gound from hell freezing over

that my friend in itself is a VERY debatable statement...

I didn't create the circular argument, I'm just pointing out that it is there.

I'm saying that it's impossible not to impose your moral beliefs on others, or attempt to, if you subscribe to living under the rule of law.  By their nature, laws impose morals on others.

Perhaps. But when someone says, "and nor should you", then they are attempting to impose their morals.

(and just to be clear, as I stated in my post to Dan, I don't want to put words in his mouth)

The question of human biological life has been answered by science. It begins at conception. The question of human personhood is philosophical, but it is knowable through reason.

I personally don't believe it violates the oath. For whatever reason, a woman has made the decision that it might not be the best idea for her to bring a child into the world at this time. To me, that is a far better choice than not being educated (and really - who is not educated these days on the subject?), or not caring enough about prevention and "accidentally" geting pregnant resulting in an unwanted child. Once the child is there, though, it becomes a completely different ballgame IMO.

I remember news stories, though, about pharmasists who refused to fill birth control perscriptions on an ethical basis. Can't remember the outcome...

I'd be interested in hearing some of the doctors or physician's (on this site) viewpoints on this.

Fred is a physician.

And I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole.

possibly the two smartest posts of the entire thread

Fred is a physician and has probably the highest exposure to this topic out of all who have posted with his choice of specialization.

And is HE isn't touchign this topic ...........

As for me???  I'll throw a whole separate argument into the mix to really stir things up!!

Okay, whether or not it is right or wrong from a morality standpoint is irrelevant to my discussion.  Because as of right now it is the law that a woman may have a legal abortion.  Can we all agree that it is the current law which means it is legal?

What about the men??  It was touched on earlier with a poster who had the unfortunate experience of having to be in a relationship where their partner wanted and got a DNC without a lot of consideration for their parnter's beliefs.

So I bring this into the puzzle ...........

The MEN have zero rights and are the one who are being discriminated against here.

Why is it that a woman's right to choose is protected and they have the opportunity to terminate their pregnancy but the men do not have that same right?  Why is it that if the male does not want to have a child that they cannot offer the same conclusion as a woman who does not?  When the mother wants to keep the child and the father doesn't, HE is the one that is saddled with the child support and such.  But if she doesn't want the baby and he does, he still has no say in the matter?  She can termintate with convenience and he can't?

Again, keeping all the morality part out of it, where is the same legal right for the man who creates the child?  There is none, because the entire system is designed around the rights of the woman.  In all seriousness, the men of the US are more discriminated against and have less rights than the woman and children in the US.

(Good enough to make people get riled up even more?? ).

I think marnvett?? brought this up on pg 2 or so,, this usually comes up and is promptly ignored each time the subject of abortion is mentioned, so I'm just giving ya, some love before the debate passes it by  

Daremo - 2009-01-16 1:11 PM That's what I get for not reading every single post in the thread ......

well... it sure is a damn good debate topic. i'd love to hear the women chime in on this one..

Daremo makes a good point.

I ain't arguing with that.

Ok I'll bite

It's because men do not have to physiologically undergo the pregnancy or the medical procedure of an abortion.  The same as you cannot compell a patient to have a medical procedure regardless of the reasons you or their loved ones may have for wanting them to undergo the procedure.

While that is true, the men still don't have a say for or against an abortion.  I think the point Rick and I are making is that on either side of the argument the men have no rights. 

Scenario A:  Abortion occurs and male has emotional trama
Scenario B:  Aboriton does not occur and male has monetary trama

If the man has to either live with the 'burden' (can't think of another word right now) of either having a child or not having a child, why does he have absolutley no say in it.

but what trinnas says is a given in every situation.

your scenarios are POSSIBLE outcomes.

you can't give someone the right to inflict physical stress on someone else cause they MIGHT have some consequence.  i've refused medical care several times in the past, no matter how it would have affected others, because its MY BODY.  (no never in an abortion situation) nobody should have had the right to make the final decision.  they can input their arguments, but I get to decide.

Would you want someone to be able to compel you to say donate bone marrow.  If you give men the right to decide then you are basically saying it os OK for men to use womens bodies as incubators, or it is OK to force them to undergo an unwanted medical procedure.

I 100% agree with you!  I am not saying it's ok, not at all.  I agree that if a woman decides that she wants to have an abortion, the man cannot stop her.  I see now way around that, nor should there be. BUT, I do think that if a woman makes the decision to have the baby the male should have no legal responsability if he doesn't want the child.

Moral...YES...Hells YES.  But not legal.  Yet, that is not the case. 

Just had a completely random though!

This assumes consentual (sp) sex btw.

What if:  Going into it (sex that is) each person knew if a pregancy occurs that to either abort or bear would have to be a joint decision?  Do you think that would change the way people think about having sex?  Both married and unmarried.

I know this is a phylisophical point because dumb things happen all of the time.  Just what if...