When it comes to very politically and emotionally and morally charged issues such as abortion, the very first thing that I think people need to do is make sure they are not talking past one another. 

PART ONE

I recently saw a video where someone said, "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.  If you don't like abortion, don't have an abortion."  This may be a reasonable argument when it comes to gay marriage, but it completely misses the point, in my opinion, when it comes to abortion. 

At the core of the debate over whether abortion should be allowed, in my view, is the issue of what a human person is.  Is a freshly fertilized egg—a zygote—a person?  Is a blastocyst a few days old that hasn't even implanted in the uterus a person?  Is a ten week old fetus, with no practical brain function, a person?  Most pro-choice say no, no, no, and that personhood develops in the fetus later, perhaps around 26 weeks.  Pro-lifers say yes to the third one at least, and many say yes to all three. 

That's why the quote is such nonsense.  To the speaker, of course, it seems fine:  if abortion is simply a distasteful action that doesn't affect a human person's life (except the potential mother), then it's reasonable.  "I don't like eating peanut butter and I don't want to have an abortion."  But to a pro-lifer, it's like saying, "If you don't like murder, don't murder people; why are you telling me that I can't murder someone for being inside my body?"

On the flip side, if a pro-life advocate says to a pro-choce person "abortion is murder", the answer isn't going to be shocked realization; it's going to be "no it's not".  Because they don't see the fetus as an actual person until way later in the development cycle.  It's a potential person.  Killing a potential person may be regrettable, but it's not horrific. 

At least, this is how I see it as a pro-choice person and how I have seen the pro-life position and its proponents' arguments from where I stand. 

PART TWO

So the debate over abortion is really a debate over personhood.  This, as I see it as I write this post, is a question that can really only be settled three ways: 
1.  Scientifically
2.  Religiously
3.  Democratically

Now, here in the great nation of the United States of America, we have freedom of religion, which in my mind rules out a religiously-based definition of personhood as the basis for a legal ban on abortion.  (Feel free to rebut this claim.) 

To be continued.  I have to go, but I'd like to post this anyway to see people's thoughts on this much.

[edit:  Some good discussion below!  A lot more pro-choice than pro-life, but also showing that neither side is totally monolithic.  I hope no one was waiting for me to make a book out of Part 2.  Basically, though a thing like this will definitely be influenced by the democratic process, I do think this is a policy question that deserves to be settled by more than a simple head count.  Science has informed policy and should continue to do so.  And if enough people don't like it, well that's the other side of things.] 

I tend to back evidence based policy, and the majority of the evidence based arguments I have seen suggest that legalized abortion is a net-positive. While I am morally pro-life, I believe that legalized abortion is better for the country.

If the cell is the smallest functional unit of life, then the smallest functional unit of human existence would be at the moment of fertilization. From that point on, the life form is biologically human and independent of its parental donors of genetic material and it does not meet the criteria to be classified symbiotic or a parasite.

Medically speaking, there is no question of its humanity--the notion of personhood is besides the point. Whatever criteria of personhood you believe an early-stage human lacks, there are individuals lacking those same traits well after birth.

For these reasons, I personally am Pro-Life: I believe that all human life has value and my sig sums up the reason why. However, when it comes to legislation/the Law, I am Pro-Choice. I do not believe that my values should be enforced upon the general population. I understand that my position may be morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligatory, and there are plenty of practical reasons to offer all women the option to decide for themselves where they stand on this issue.

It is certainly obvious, but there is a problem if that is one of the requirements as a legal route for the procedure.  If all other acceptable reasons are unavailable for whatever reason (child poses no threat to the mother, mother can afford the procedure, etc), the system incentivizes false claims or accusations of rape.  In cases of actual sexual assault, since the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the act may not even be accurately determined as rape until well after the child is born.

Therein lies the paradox.  Actual rape victims do not get their procedures while non-victims do.  For that reason (for this particular argument anyways), I believe that no such requirement should exist.

This pretty much sums up my position as well.
And also, abortions happen and will continue to occur regardless of its legal status, so at least they should occur in proper/safe facilities. 

Quite the opposite.  Because it would encourage people to game the system and systemic injustice be an unwanted by-product, I believe there should not be any legal requirement to undergo the procedure.  It would be the only sure way to guarantee access to the procedure for those we both admit are rightly deserving.

My problem with the current debate is the fact that it's not really a debate, and that's because it seems that many of the vocal people on either side completely fail to see the opposing side's argument. I'm a college student, and I'm actually afraid to say that I'm pro-life because I know I'm probably going to get labelled as a misogynist, bigot, who just wants to limit women's freedom. And on the other side, many pro-life people think that a pro-choice person is just a baby killer because being pregnant is an inconvenience. Both are incredibly wrong. I'm not pro-life because I think woman shouldn't be able to do what they want with their bodies, I just believe that ending a human life is wrong unless it's necessary. Most prochoice people simply don't see it as a human life yet, and that's why they don't see it as a big deal. The problem is that we won't reach a compromise until people can actually have a civilized discussion about the issue.

Get it. Get it. Get this shit off the front page. Get it. Get it. Get this shit out of my face.

User was banned for this post - Starcraft

I've seen you post in a good number of threads lately that you don't think they belong in VGCharts (to be fair at least in this post you are saying front page - which in my mind is more reasonable).  If you don't like non-video game discussions why bother visiting the threads themselves? Some people here like to discuss politics, religion, ect.  Besides 90% of the threads are speculation threads about the NS, and we rarely see good discussions about numbers (for various reasons).  Why should your taste dictate what everyone else talks about on this site?

If you want to discuss that shit, go ahead. All I want is it to be removed from the front page.