response 76 of 216:

Oct 10 12:05 UTC 2000

are you serious?  are you telling me that pro-lifers have no problem with
abortion?  that they accept either choice with equal acceptance?  what planet
do you guys live on?

if you are a pro-lifer that considers abortion a choice, you are not a
pro-lifer you are a pro-choicer.

response 78 of 216:

Oct 10 15:06 UTC 2000

Is it really that difficult to accept that somebody can see the rationale and
sagacity of your arguments and still come to a different conclusion than you
do? Is it really that difficult to accept that somebody coudl say, "Yes, you
have some really excellent points, and I could see how somebody could come
to the conclusions you have come to, but I feel I also have some valid points,
and, having weighed all of the points together, I have come to a different
conclusion"?

#76 indicates that, no, you DON'T respect the pro-life stance, because if you
did, you'd see that it also has some valid arguments. Whether you like it or
not, abortion *is* killing a living being... what makes it different than
killing a child is, in my view, viability: While an infant may be cared for
by any adult, a fetus (before the third trimester) is *entirely* dependent
upon its host uterus for survival. 

Others don't see it that way. They see a living being, regardless of its
dependence on another, and they see killing a living human for no reason as
murder. 

they have reached a reasonable moral conclusion based on the data; I have
reached a reasonable moral conclusion based on the data. Since we live in a
democratic state, it is then up to the government -- all three branches --
to decide (with input from its citizenry, and based on constitutional
foundation) which of the equally valid moral conclusions to accept.

The government has done so. Abortion is legal. In a mature society, the
remaining issue would be then to decide what, if any, modifications to make
on the general statement... should the gov't pay for it? Should minors have
to tell their parents? Should the gov't require that women considering
abortion be educated on the severity and ramifications of the decision?

But, honestly, just because somebody doesn't embrace your opinion and make
it their own doesn't mean they don't respect it. Grow up.

response 80 of 216:

Oct 10 15:30 UTC 2000

        Ah, but the pro-life side doesn't tend to think of it any differently
than removing the "freedom to murder", and I can see their point.

response 82 of 216:

Oct 10 15:55 UTC 2000

It's pretty sick if you think folks have a desire for abortion.
What we're really talking about is that some stranger wants to take
a 5 second glimpse into the life of a woman and made a broad decision
on what she does with her life/body. It's not about what you want
me not to do, it's about what you don't want to allow anyone to ahve
the choice in their life should they have the traumatic fork in the
road that they should figure out on their own. A broad decision from
a stranger regarding this issue is insulting beyond belief.

response 84 of 216:

Oct 10 16:00 UTC 2000

I'm just curious why these same pro-lifers aren't so staunchly
protesting the military's existence.

response 86 of 216:

Oct 10 16:13 UTC 2000

Which brings me back to a point that I think is important. The pro-lifers
like to wave the "murder" flag, really for effect, since killing humans
has long been sanctioned in our society. There is the execution of
criminals (or at least, declared criminals); there is war, in which most
of the soldiers killed have killed no one else, and are guilty of no
offence; there is the recent surgical separation of conjoined twins, in
which one had to be killed; there are life-and-death decisions made in
medical procedures; there are 'mercy deaths' practiced on the terminally
ill; there are thousands killed on the highways in order to facilitate
rapid transit for the convenience or profit of others....the list goes
on and on. Society makes explicit or implicit decisions on killing
other people - and in this case, we have given a human being the right
to kill their own fetus, up to a certain period of time. This is just
one among that vast number of justifications used for killing humans,
which serve societal purposes. There is an awful lot of hypocrisy about
this.

response 88 of 216:

Oct 10 17:30 UTC 2000

Soldiers can choose to go into the army or not (the Draft notwithstanding).
Murderers have done something that warrants execution.
The terminally ill can indicate their desires about whether to go on or not.
A fetus has no say in the matter.

I'm pro-choice, as well, but I don't think "Adults who do things which they
know or suspect will lead to their deaths" is a valid response to "It's wrong
to kill a human that has done nothing wrong."

response 90 of 216:

Oct 10 17:37 UTC 2000

how simply can i put it...ok... let's try this.  i am pro-choice.  choice.
being pro-life is against choice.  anyone that argues differently is consuming
spiked pablum.  i support women who refuse abortion.  i support women who
chose abortion.  no pro-lifer worth their salt as a pro-lifer will support
abortion.   do you ever hear of pro-choice advocates killing doctors because
they refuse to perform abortions?  i think not.  what you do hear about are
the wack jobs that believe that killing abortionists is saving unborn
children's lives.  yeah, respect.  uh huh.   no. not all pro-lifers buy into
that, but the overwhelming majority of them do not respect or condone
abortion.  to say otherwise is just plain silly.  if it isn't silly, then
everyone would be pro-choice, right?  and you know that's not true.

response 92 of 216:

Oct 10 17:48 UTC 2000

I walked in a Pro-Life rally when I was in college. Right before the rally,
they read a letter from Ronald Reagan applauding their commitment.
I was doing all of this to experience the thoughts and opinions as I hadn't
made up my mind yet where I stood.  During this rally..a walk down the
main avenue of this town..they filmed us and I was broadcast on TV.
My composition teacher saw me..she was a staunch left wingnut and promptly
began trumping all my grades down a notch or two.
I've seen disrespect on both sides of the house.
Personally, I think the guys should keep their hands off the women unless
invited. That includes legislating a woman's body.

response 94 of 216:

Oct 10 18:47 UTC 2000

What about men who want to get abortions?
Why must the laws be so sexist?

response 96 of 216:

Oct 10 19:31 UTC 2000

        Rane, you're using a faulty argument;  the issue is not whether
killing is sanctioned under certain circumstances, as clearly it is, and only
a subset of the pro-life movement (or other movements) would argue that there
should be no sanction under any circumstances.  The issue is about whether
a given killing is sanctionable, and morally acceptable, or not.

        The argument that "it's her body", though it touches some important
psychological issues, doesn't really answer the question - if it's morally
and ethically unacceptable for a woman to give birth to a child and then
kill it, what is it about the earlier stage of development, or about it's
location in her body, that makes it acceptable?

        For the record, I'm strongly pro-choice, but it's a complicated issue,
and I recognize and respect a variety of opinions.

response 98 of 216:

Oct 10 22:28 UTC 2000

The Supreme Court worked out the justifications (literally) that answer
jazz's questions in 96. All I would do is repeat their ruling. I believe
that some of the considerations that made abortion acceptable to the SC
was the non-viability of a fetus in the first two trimesters, and a
reading of the Constitution of what constitues a "person" in law. 

I don't think "recognizable features" can be considered as a logical
basis.