I'm not here to espouse or demonize the concept of abortion, but, rather, to characterize the debate that seems to rage about it in the United States. I reckon there are many on this site who are not situated here and likely have differing perpsectives; I welcome you to share as you feel comfortable. It's unfortunate I don't see many forums available to discuss this in a logical fashion, so I'd like to try here.

Thus far, I see the debate rage between two sides: the liberal 'pro-abortion' side and the conservative 'anti-abortion' side. A principal problem I notice is that both sides aren't arguing on the same topics. That is to say pro-abortionists assert it is about women's rights while anti-abortionists conversely argue it's about murder. My perspective is that these two sides aren't on the same levels; you need to get through one issue before you can get to the other.

Does it make sense to forgo the argument for sanctity of life in favor of a woman's right to her own body? Notice in the video below that the DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schulz, that she keeps circumventing the questions by Megyn Kelly about when life begins by asserting that the decision is between a woman and her doctor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXETxtVjrTI

This is clearly political positioning because she knows that coming out directly saying "I believe it is appropriate for an abortion to occur up to birth" is hugely frowned upon by a majority of the US public. It was this video that actually got me thinking about how the pro-abortionists have circumvented the discussion from where - I think, at least - it should start. That is, "Is human life sacred?"

Their opinions seem to suggest that they think the answer is 'no'. Like I inferred about Debbie's comments above, they are afraid to admit it, though. Meaningful discussion and discourse cannot proceed on the subject until everyone is on the same page. I think that after the above question is appropriately answered, can the discussion about it being women's rights proceed.

Thus it comes down to my final question to you all: Does it make sense to continue having the debate about abortion center around two different points like this? As a bonus, could the reverse of my opined order be valid, as well?

It should be characterzied by our pension system and demographics, the US should have lose abortian laws. Germany should ban it

What if they made abortion illegal for specific races but legal for others. I'm sure the republicans might be on board for that. Birth rates among whites are way down and minorities groups are high. Just think of it almost like the forced sterilization programs they did on blacks a long time ago but in a more positive light.

There's window of opportunity where the the fetus still isn't really alive and (I think it was up to 20 weeks). Up until that point, abortion really shouldn't be a problem. After that period though, I think we can and should be more strict (ex. only allow abortions if the pregnancy starts posing significant health risk to the pregnant woman).

I'm pretty annoyed by conservative anti-abortion nonsense where "life is sacred", but every time a school shooting seems to occur, it looks like guns are more sacred then human beings to them. Same counts for their defense against social security.

This thread isn't intended to say whether one is right over the other; it's meant to address the disparity of arguments between the two opposing sides.

Also, please don't disregard an argument just because you hear some people associated with "that side" being contradictory. Not every 'conservative' - and for that matter, 'liberal' - share the same exact beliefs.

I hate when abortion is viewed as a "woman's issue". It's a reproductive issue, but reproduction is a human issue, not a woman's issue. Essentially, what I mean is that on one side we push for men to be equally responsible for the birth and raising of a child. They must pay child support if they are not present raising a child. But yet when it comes to deciding if the child will be born or not, only the woman has a say. It's a major legal inconsistency. Either men should have a say in whether a child is aborted/adopted and also have to pay child support, or it should be entirely a woman's decision and financial responsibility. I personally feel it should be the former, but it should definitely be one or the other, and that's the end of the "woman's issue" aspect.

Once you deal with that side, you get the fundamental abortion issue of whether it's murder or not, and whether murder is wrong or not. It's tough. Personally, I lean to the idea that it's human life and should be preserved at all costs. At the same time I understand the trauma of a parent who isn't ready to care for a child, or a rape victim being forced to nurture the spawn of an evil person. It's a very challenging issue that people can only find answers to in their hearts.

The one thing I'm certain on, is that it should never be called a "woman's issue".

+Thumbs_Up

That's a good point, I think. It's another consideration that there's an inequality of choice between man and woman (according to society) and yet full equality outside of the pregnancy.

However, I would argue that the 'sanctity of life' discussion must come first. This is due to the fact that if we think human life is sacred, it shuts down any further discussion on the matter. If human life is not, then further discussion can be had.

What it's really about is the question "When does a fetus become a person".

If you think it's when the sperm meets the egg, then you're wrong and stupid and probably a religious zealot.
If you think it's when the fetus leaves the mother then you're also wrong and stupid because the baby clearly has a functioning brain the day before birth.

It's a biological debate at it's heart, and you have to look at how the brain develops in the human fetus to even begin to make an educated guess at what point it becomes sentient life.

Here's an interesting factoid for you. Most places in Europe that are held up as being "Liberal" (by the US use of the word, which is painfully wrong, but whatever) like Sweden and the Netherlands actually have shorter periods where it's legal to abort than the US.

The US time limit was decided on in the supreme court by the fact that the fetus is not viable outside the mother after a certain time (20 weeks? I don't remember). I think putting the limit there is a bit misguided because they didn't look at what matters which is the development of the brain. But I get that there was a lot of legal ju-jutsu and stuff in that court case so it was probably the best they could do.
I don't think it's worth revisiting to re-adjust because the debate in the US is so poisoned by religious nonsense.

I am in no way religious, nonetheless, I have much difficulty answering the question clearly.

People usually assume that one can close out the debate by saying that one has not at that point developed the neural network to make us human.

However, people agree upon that killing a newborn baby is a full case of murder, but rarely hesitate to eat a pig, who both has a higher intelligence and a less ambiguous consciousness.

Thus, one has to come to the conclusion that there is another characteristic that makes the murder of a young child as significant (if not more) as the murder of an adult.

What distinguishes murder as a crime worse than simple violence, in our morality, is taking away potential lifetime from the victim, taking away to develop himself further, erasing his futur self. This independently of actual capability of worrying about such a subject, as the case of infants or small children reminds us.

Already at the stage of a fetus, much of what defines the person that is to be is established - genetic material, of course, but also some environmental influence, passing through the mother. An abortion most definitely takes away the right of said futur individual to exist, in lack or absence of a fully developed brain.

Yeah, look at my post. The big problem is that a baby, newborn, most definately has inferior intellectual capacity to many animals we treat as livestock.