@Montana. I agree about the conservatives thing =P we have so many conservatives and libertarians on this site that the odd liberal kind of stands out XD

Pro-choice by the way.

Edit: Esmoreit is probably right. I should probably say vocal liberal =P

(and yes, I am drunk)

Well... after all the debates we have had concerning legal softdrugs, abortion, gay rights etc. I'd say that the majority on this site would lean more towards liberal. This thread seems to confirm this given the amount of people going pro-choice. The conservatives seem to be a bit more vocal.

But then again, this is an international board with mostly younger people who are more akin to change and various world-views anyway. It skewers the position and view anyone from a single country might get from only their country-men.

pro-choice

I think this thread should have been aborted ...

On an aside, the terms pro-life and pro-choice are examples of psychological framing;
an attempt to evoke an emotional response or cue emotional triggers.

Logically, the antithesis of pro-life is: pro-death.
Adversely , the antithesis of pro-choice: anti-choice.

Both arguments, compelling as they may seem to the public, are really pety in my eyes.

Get over it Christians, just get over it.

@topic:

Abortions up to week ~16 I'm fine with, after that I think the preponderance of evidence indicates there is a ample reason to classify it as human life and grant it rights accordingly.  My view is we have no way to discern when, exactly, it becomes human life so we are morally obligated to err on the side of caution.  My best estimate is around week 18-22 (it is a range b/c not all pregnancies are exactly the same) is when this change in classification happens so I give 2 weeks benefit of the doubt on the earliest estimate and say week 16 (I go back and forth on the amount of leeway time constantly but the basic principle remains the same). Obviously this is for routine pregnancy only, other facters in rare situations change some of this, but I think anyone who argues about such an issue over the facts of rare cases to support a general view of the issue is already making a good case against their position so I generally don't go into those issues unless a debate shows signs of being substantively focused (ie very rarely).

So, in short by 16 weeks it's been around three months for the mother who should have discovered she is pregnant and had ample time to make a choice and still have plenty of time to setup the details as needed.  By most standards this is pro-choice.

With that said I personally find late second and third trimester abortions to be sick, and am of the opinion that this is in fact murdering a human life.  

I furthermore believe that anyone who takes a pro-choice stance of any sort without having done the kind of research necessary to be informed about what type of life they are supporting the destruction of is morally bankrupt.  That anyone could put their support behind the destruction of any form of conscious life (or what is potentially a conscious life), particularly one that is arguably human, without at least some effort to be certain of their classification of that life is beyond contemptible. 

I don't consider myself fully pro-choice for this reason actually...because I find the casual way in which most pro-choice advocates throw their support behind ending life, whether they view it as human or not, to be disturbing.  People who are pro-choice need to consider that at some point it's not just an issue of a woman's rights anymore, at some point the child gets its rights as well.  Recognizing that part of the debate is the issue of when that happens is an important step towards a positive discussion - some pro-choicers are there already and I have little or no issues with those who are.  

At the same time I am also put off by pro-lifers for a similar reason, they only tend to see the rights of the fetus and rarely consider the rights of the mother or how they factor into the situation.  A reasoned position has to fairly consider all of these factors even if they are later ruled out, and I don't think many consider it at all (Similarly to pro-choicers not all are this way).

That's my view on the issue pretty much in one post. 

I don't expect everyone to agree but hopefully most will see the reason behind my conclusion, even in disagreement.

@tehsage: I'll admit that I worded that poorly; I guess that I meant the entity exists as a seperate being, not directly physically bonded to the host; does that make more sense? So... from when the umbilical cord is cut? That's where I define it, assuming that it is alive at said point.

@Sqrl: Excellent points, and I do respect your view. We differ on where life starts, but other than that, it sounds reasonable to me.

REDRUM...

So I have your permission to kill a child 1 minute prior to its birth since it's still dependent on his/her mother?

Pro-choice, none of my business what a woman wants to do with her body.

I always have a problem with the conservative view (particularly Republicans in America) on this. The Republican line is supposed to be "small government, stay out of my affairs", but they a lot of times want the government to interject into the MOST private of places, the bedroom with homosexuals and a woman's body with abortion. I've always found that to be such a weird, seemingly hypocritical viewpoint but it's pretty universally accepted idea. Is it just a money thing? The government can intervene if it's just undesirable people's rights, but not if it costs desirable people money?

You guys... unless the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother, put the kid up for ADOPTION.

There are plenty of couples who are unable to have kids and would love nothing more than to raise one. Adopted kids are statistically more likely to succeed than their biological counterparts, because their parents planned for them and absolutely wanted to have them. It's a no-brainer. Just have the kid, and put it up for ADOPTION.

It costs nothing to the mother, whose pregnancy-related costs are all taken care of by the adoption agency and/or adopting couple, compared to an abortion which can cost anywhere between $500 and $2000, depending on how far along you are. Plus, having an abortion can cause health problems for a mother, such as her being less likely to be able to get pregnant in the future, or even cause some certain kinds of infections down there. Abortions can also cause psychological trauma for the mother and often does... because the mother has caused a DEATH.

If the mother might die from having the kid, then YES, of course the mother should make that call. But you can't go around having sex and not expect there to be some serious consequences if you do. Cases of rape? Absolutely terrible situations. But have the kid, put it up for adoption, and get it away from yourself so it can live its life and you can live yours. Cases of incest? Likewise. Do I seem like I'm being ridiculous? Probably to many. But I don't care. You have to draw the line somewhere when you're protecting those who are unable to speak for themselves.

Let's not be selfish here. Give the kid a chance with another set of parents. If you keep in touch, your child will probably thank you someday for giving them a chance at the life you couldn't offer. That's the gift of all gifts: a chance at a good life.