i think in germany the rule is more like: abortion ok after counselling and within the first 12 weeks. by then every woman should

a) know she is pregnant

b) have made up her mind whether she wants the child

so its not: a mere couple of hours 

Considering under 2% of all abortions are done for saving the life of the mother........

I am pro-life. Theres no reason to allow mothers kill unborn children for social causes. Don't get knocked up if you don't want a kid. Carry it to full term and put it up for adoption.

It's absolutely amazing that you can goto a hospital, and they will give you warnings for oh-so much in the hospital if your pregnant - and tell you 50 ways to make sure you protect your unborn baby. Yet as soon as that woman decides for an abortion, that same unborn baby becomes an unfeeling, unimportant lump of whatever that can be destroyed like a dirty diaper.

And thats what makes this so hyprocritical. They are unborn kids in 99% of all circumstances, fully able to make it to term without damage to the child, or the mother. It's a social issue, NOT a medical one. Look at the statistics for abortion.

Are these children that deserve to be protected, or useless beings, that are souly to be destroyed under the discretion of the mother? Also, if abortion is purely legal and fine, why do people get extra sentences in jail for killing an unborn child in various crimes?

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

How about fetuses retrieved from dumpsters behind abortion clinics?

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/mm1.htm

Why are procedures like this legal?

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg
http://priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/de.jpg

Just a few faces to look at for pro-choice people. I'm not quite fully understanding why it should be legal to do such things to the 99% of children that are not medical neccessities.

Pro-choice: Does anybody have a right to tell someone else what to do with their body? Nothing is alive until it draws its first breath. A fetus has not breathed in air, so it does not count as a life.

ikilledkenny - I would tend to think the father might have some say, and I also tend to think that the kid that's getting killed deserves atleast some sort of chance to agree or disagree with getting killed.

How is it that the fetus is considered mere property, and not life? Care to explain?

I have an idea that 'would' resolve this problem: Disable all human beings from being able to procreate, from birth. Then, when they want to have children they must go through a series of studies and tests to assure that they are able to give a good life to the kid, then enable them to have children for that time being. Once the child is born, disable them again.

I know it's crazy and that it has many hypothetical flaws, but it would resolve both the population problems and the abortion... unless some crazy guy is in charge of the enable/disable, our species would die ;>

"Well, then choose yourself. You made the choice. What right do you have to tell another woman what she has to do?"

Well, what right do we have to tell people they can't end their child's life anytime. After all, if you're arguing humanity at self awareness, infants don't become self aware until sometime between the age of 1 and 3. What right does the government have telling me I can't kill a homeless guy with no family? He's has a shitty life already. Asking what right the government has telling you you can't kill a fetus is the same as asking what right the government has telling you you can't kill another person. Because your right to choose ends with the fetus's right to live. Do you honestly believe that CHOICE should trump LIFE? Death is a better choice than a temporary Inconvenience?

Also, what right does the government have telling you what substances you can put in your body? IF you're going from the angle of "nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my body", or the much more pithy "keep your laws off my body", then you'd better damn well be a libertarian, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Society imposes rules on its members. Thats what governments and societies do. If your society decides is unconscionable to perform an abortion, thats society's right and duty to set laws that match the moral code of the members of that society.

"There is a difference between an unborn child and one that has been born."

And what difference is that? Which side of the vagina they're on? A fetus is a separate entity from the mother from the moment of conception. The mother doesn't share blood with the fetus. They don't have the same DNA. It is a completely different entity. Its not a part of the mothers body. Its dependency on the mother for life doesn't make it a part of her, anymore than a nursing infant is part of the mother because it depends on her milk and care for life.

Abortion is the terminating of another human beings life. Plain and simple.

Maybe because a fetus is not capable of staying alive by itself until it is getting close to delivery? That moment more or less decides the period in the Netherlands until when an abortion is possible.

@jlauro: A few hours? How about you stick to reality instead of a changing it to suit your own argument.

 That's funny. Your name is "Mr. Killemgood".

fkusumot - We're discussing real, relevant life here, and not a random gamertag I use on XBL based off of my paintball career.

Koffieboon - what about a 5 week old infant? If it was left on it's own, it'd die without nutrition - just like an unborn child. Even then, we've seen through many many accounts that infants born 23 weeks and such have survived due to great medical advances.

At what point do we consider a fetus something worth caring about? When it has a 100% chance of living? 90%? 5%? When the mother deems so? When the baby can talk?