Of course I believe all stakeholders have a say. It’s just some become so vicious over the topic. Pro-lifers don’t seem to understand extenuating circumstances. That’s somewhat troublesome to me. There is a grey area in most thoughts and beliefs with individuals, I believe(or at least would like to, anyways).

Unwanted pregnancies are very preventable at minimal or no cost at all to females/males a like.

I can see your concern for the fetus. I think for those who are concerned about that issue greatly. They should work on getting laws for the fetus.

The bottom line is things are not always cut and dry. Clearly, I think you see this. Again, there are many that say NO, and that’s their final answer. Not taking the woman into consideration of what she may have been through seems cold and heartless to me.

Thanks for thought provoking post.

However, when the issue comes to pro-life or pro-choice, I guess I’d have to say that the fetus is a fairly significant stakeholder in the argument…but like a deaf-mute on trial, has no voice in the issue whatsoever.

There are all kinds of arguments on the issue…rape, incest, and life of the mother being a few…those are the grey areas that need to be discussed separately. The fact remains though, for the vast majority of those wishing not to become parents, there are plenty of real, inexpensive, and viable options to prevent contraception. Should all of those fail, there are plenty of inexpensive and viable options to “mothering.”

For the totally dependent fetus however, there are no choices; they rely entirely upon the decision of others. In a land of law and order, where we strive so hard to guarantee the individual rights of everyone, not one fetus has granted proxy for that decision.

I had a good holiday, and I hope you did the same.
Thanks for open-minded exchanges.

Compassion is lacking often when some can’t put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Oh, I have my flaws too. I just don’t feel the need to banter about religion.

I agree. Caring for these women is far more Chrisitan like.
Thanks again.

I have much more respect for people involved in organizations that help pregnant women, or who provide counseling and services to women who might suffer from the emotional consequences of abortion–healing them rather than condemning them. That is much more Christian, IMHO.

Hope you had a pleasant holiday.

I agree that far along and no risk to the mother. Late term babies would certainly loved by those who are wanting to adopt. I do accept the human factor. I am far from heartless and understanding of others views and needs.

I don’t think our opinions vary too much. I sure not approve of being called Godless by the pro-lifers because I am pro-choice. I guess they all just have perfect lives and have never had to face some of things others have. Then have no compassion for someone who may have to make the choice of abortion. That’s not very Christian like.IMHO. See we are able to have civilized discussion without agreeing a 100%. I don’t see that same civility when this comes up for debate. I believe in respecting others, even those with varying opinions. We are individuals afterall.

It might have helped the debate if the Supreme Court accepted medical panels such as those used for transplants as a safeguard when determine medical necessity.

It just seems to me that there are many in the “pro-choice” crowd who want abortion available at any stage, so they will deny the existence of human life at any stage of pregnancy in order to have the whole pie.

No, I am not Bob Marshall

Amen to the birth control. Keep it zipped up in the first place, and fewer people will have to face these heartbreaking decisions down the road.

I certainly hope the abortions happening late are for life saving measures. I think they are rare. A big thing for me is by abortion being legal, there’s a safe way to have it done. I don’t want women to be going in “back alleys” if you will.

I do consider a well developed fetus a human, FYI. I am looking at the mother’s health and life first. I want these procedures to be kept at a minimum.

“Frat Boys” my goodness, you aren’t Bob Marshall are you? lol
I think birth control is not always used properly if at all. This is the key to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Ladies, lock up those “love canals”.
Men, consider taking control of birth control, and your body snipped at. It takes two to tango.

I don’t disagree with a you. I am not defending ‘partial birth abortion’ which is a political word, not a medical one. It is usually used to describe D & X procedure. I just believe it is disingenuous to quarrel or debate this issue.

I think most folks are very ill at ease, if not down right repulsed by late term abortions. However, I am realist enough to accept that there are times that they are medically necessary either because of maternal health or severe fetal anomaly. These situations should be rare.

I believe in safe-guards for those times when this procedure, or those that achieve the same end result, are medically necessary. I do not like using emotional terms to make a case for or against abortion based on this procedure. To do so is disingenuous at best and really doesn’t address the issues that bother most people anyway.

I am politically comfortable with the schematics and time tables used in the Roe v Wade decision. My politics and my personal choices are not necessarily simpatico.

Some of the frat boys here need to accept the natural sequelae of sexual activity. Devaluing human life in the very late stage of pregnancy makes it awfully convenient to do what feels good and never have to feel any sort of responsibility, especially if you don’t consider that the fetus is a human being at ANY stage of pregnancy. With that attitude, perhaps it would serve society best to do everything possible to keep onself out of the gene pool entirely.

To view this simply as a moral choice means that you must also agree that murder should not be against the law but a moral one that the person will only answer to God. Do you believe it also of robbery or other crimes? It is a moral choice if someone murders, or steals so government has no role? To me that is suggestive of anarchy.

How would you determine when that self-awareness occurs, Michael? I have a nephew who was born prematurely on March 10 and was kept in the hospital until July…when he would have normally been born (come to term). Today he is a brilliant student, believed to have a photographic memory, quite an adequate soccer player, and under YOUR rules he would not have been considered a human being and should have been thrown in the trashcan.

I happen to be personally opposed to abortion at any time (under no circumstances would I want a single one of MY tax dollars used to abort a child), but FIRMLY believe that the government has no business in the debate, either for or against it. The issue is a personal, religious, and ethical matter, HOWEVER, abortion in the third trimester is blatant murder in my opinion. It’s a fact (and you can check it out with medical experts) that a preemie born in the seventh month (even at the beginning of it) has a greater chance of survival than one born in the eighth month (it actually has to do with the ability of the heart and lungs to sustain the child at its smaller size in the 7th month). Partial birth abortions in the third trimester SHOULD be banned in a civilized society…it’s murder.

I would be interested to hear what your stands are on the death penalty. There is often a good deal of hypocrisy there among the “pro-choice” crowd–can’t kill a serial killer, but ok to kill a human that has all of its parts by 26 weeks in utero.

Meanwhile, I am going to stick to my mantra which simply is the refusal to give government the right to make deeply personal and religious decisions for me. That is not to say I wouldn’t arrive at the same conclusion, but it would be MY conclusion. Interesting that some of the people who do not trust the government with other decisions like immigration want to empower the government even further with personal decisions. Go figure.

I agree, Lafayette. Three cheers to Josh, Jeff, and Michael on this one.

The spiritual consequence is up to each individual and God alone to punish if we are looking at this entirely from a religious perspective. As I said before, and some of you may not believe this, God will not prevent entry into heaven for either decision, only for a decision to not believe in him or to fail to have a personal relationship with him.

Now if you want to discuss “man-made” doctrine that is a different ethics entirely and changes with social advocacy opinion, or what “man-made” church doctrine or period of history you belong to.

I know that the only unforgivable sin is a “failure to believe”. I know it is frowned on to kill anything, including animals, or to kill a mother of a child in childbirth, or a child in childbirth, but not frowned on to kill a soldier, but I do not believe it is an “unforgivable” sin.

What I see is a scripture from the old testament that says “thou shall not kill”.

That scripture applies equally to killing soldiers, criminals, innocent people, old people, young people, people of other religions, and babies.

I do not see a scripture that says “thou shall not kill egg cells, stem cells, or partial-term fetus’s that are neither born, nor prevent the death of a mother in a life threatening situation, nor to prevent the taking of a non-born fetus to save a mother’s life.

I think God addresses each on the merit each situation warrents, but will prevent no-one from getting into heaven for either decision made.

I agree with Lafeyette, it is not a religious group’s decision to make. It is a decision each woman, or man who has a direct entitlement to the decision to make it each according to their need, and their personal relationship with God.

I firmly believe God gives permission to some and not to others. Who is anyone to say what that personal permission is. I side with the rights of the individual to not be oppressed by other, even religious opression in this case.

I do not believe God prevents killing when deemed necessary, nor encourages it when it is not. The old testament simply states “thou shall not kill”. It is applied to everything equally. God and God alone dtermine entry into heaven based entirely on his one “unforgivable” rule. The rest he leave up to each indovidual to discern what they should or should not do. The individual is the only one in that personal relationship with God who can determine the consequence and reasons for making the decision one way or the other.

God himself does not prevent death, nor murder, nor justified killing of soldiers, nor mis-carriages at any part of the birth term.

I believe he leaves it up to personal and individual choice based on that person’s need and level of misery.