response 136 of 216:

Oct 12 17:47 UTC 2000

re: # 134 Okay... Make it four.  I would seriously have personal issues 
with the people listed- but I would still think they should legally be 
able to have abortions.  I could never be friends with them, but then 
again, I probably wouldn't have been anyhow for other reasons.

response 138 of 216:

Oct 12 18:07 UTC 2000

Shall we hold a vote on whether the sentences in #s 121 and 123 were
clear, or not. ( 8^} - for brighn). 

Evidence that defies logic for acceptance is not very good evidence. By
definition, evidence supports logical conclusions. This is not just in
science, but also in law and most thought systems. Illogical "evidence"
is only a hypothesis. 

response 140 of 216:

Oct 12 19:34 UTC 2000

Maybe I should clarify.  I am not pro-choice because I think everyone should
be able to go and have one.  And the examples I gave were just as biast to
have people think "Wow, that's a no brainer" just like the other posted
questions were.  I looked at them and said, what shallow people, but they can
do what they want with their bodies.

I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

I give others the right to CHOOSE what THEY will do.  And as long as it is
legal, and it is, then they can choose.

response 142 of 216:

Oct 12 20:26 UTC 2000

While people in the "pro-choice" & "anti-abortion" movements would have
you believe it's an either/or situation, the reality is that in history
it has usually been treated somewhere in the middle.  In fact, it forms
a continuum, even today, and there are people who occupy every
conceivable niche in that continuum.  The distribution of beliefs is
probably actually a bell curve.

At one end of the curve, you can find people who are willing to advocate
infantcide and in fact this procedure is routinely carried out even
today by most american hosipitals in the case of certain major birth
defects (the excuse is "it wouldn't survive anyways", and the method
used is to deny food & water).  A bit past this in the continuum, you
will find people who believe 3rd trimester abortions at the mother's
whim is perfectly ok.  A bit past this, there are people who believe 1st
trimester abortions should be carried out this way, but 3rd term
abortions should only be done in the case of medical necessity.  Then
there are people who believe abortions should be hard to get, and
require increasing amounts of involvement from the father, courts, and
other 3rd parties.  Then there are people who believe only a 1st
trimestery abortion is acceptable, and then only in the case of rape,
incest, or medical necessity.  And then there are people who believe
abortion is a mortal sin and never justifiable, but if someone else
decides to commit that mortal sin it's not their business to interfer.
And then, at the extreme end, there are people who not only believe it's
their business to interfer, but are willing to heckle people and murder
people.

Historically speaking, a "day after" pill in herbal form has existed at
least since the medieval period, and what they used then was probably
one of the safer and more effective medical treatments then available.
The concept that human life became sacred and worth of protection
sometime after the 1st trimester can be traced back to english common
law in the 1700s, and back before that at least into the early medieval
ages.  Since medicine was not a science back then and a scientific
understanding of human conception was not wide-spread, the usual
argument was over when did the "soul" become attached to the body.

response 144 of 216:

Oct 12 22:29 UTC 2000

Fake.

response 146 of 216:

Oct 13 06:47 UTC 2000

Actually, this is better than anyt other abortion discussions on here, too.
I think part of that is  that we're not getting the mindless one stance or
the other arguments which completely eliminate any hope of real discussion.
We're bringing up valid points that both sides can contribute to.  It's rather
enjoyable, as these things go.  

As a point of correction, not every pro-lifer (though I suspect most of them
do) supports a woman's right to abortion in the case of rape.  Some of them
are stupid, remember? :)

response 148 of 216:

Oct 13 21:43 UTC 2000

  I've never understood how unusual circumstances surround the conception
  (e.g. rape or incest) were supposed to justify performing an abortion
  which would otherwise be morally unacceptable.  

  I have always been convinced that people who otherwise advocate a ban on
  abortion but make an exception for rape or incest are making a tacit
  admission that either (a) they recognize that their hard-line values are
  too extreme to be accepted by the mainstream and are willing to sacrifice
  a few fetuses to soften their message enough to achieve the majority of
  their goals, or (b) their reasons for lobbying against abortion are 
  complicated by factors considerably less pure and more prurient than 
  simple concern for the life of the "unborn child".

  I'm open to the possibility of honest disagreement on many levels when
  people are discussing their positions on abortion but rape/incest exemptions
  strike me as particularly repugnant examples of politically expedient
  hypocrisy.

response 150 of 216:

Oct 14 00:35 UTC 2000

  Could you elaborate on that?

  If someone really believe that a fetus is a defenseless human being and that
  abortion is the same thing as murdering a child, how can they *possibly*
  agree that it's OK to permit an exception because of the circumstances
  of the conception?

response 152 of 216:

Oct 14 03:48 UTC 2000

I think it's mostly a pragmatic stance.  Pro-life would be hard to sell if
they kept encouraging rape victims to have kids they didn't want.  Thankfully,
extreme situations like that are rare.

response 154 of 216:

Oct 14 04:39 UTC 2000

As to md's abortion quiz, I completely agree with those who have observed
that the examples cited are "not okay" but "should continue to be legal."

response 156 of 216:

Oct 14 13:49 UTC 2000

In the case of md's questions all three women would be making
the right decision to abort their pregnancies.  They don't
want these children.  It's their womb.

response 158 of 216:

Oct 14 13:50 UTC 2000

They could also be interesting friends.  I don't have enough
information to rule that out. ;-)