@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

@ReverendTed
Many issues to address here, but first, some clarifications. My analogies (wonky as they are) were to point out the immorality of the “you’ve got to live with the consequences” stance, they were not about who’s harmed. But speaking of harm, it would be more ethical to let the two analogical characters “suck it up” than to demand of a woman she bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. In the first cases, there is only one victim, but in the latter there are two. When I say abortion is “punishment enough”, what I mean is that it is already a disagreeable outcome of mistake-making/poor-choice-making, while obliging a woman to give birth to (and raise) an unwanted child not only negatively affects the mother’s life, but that of the child as well; it is a disproportionate price to pay for the former and completely unfair for the latter. Hence, imo, abortion is by far the lesser of two “evils”.

Adoption instead of abortion is “a non-solution and worse” for several reasons. First, there are already more than enough children already alive who need parents, and you know very well that most people prefer making their own than adopting, so many of these will never have a family (not to mention the often inferior care-giving in foster homes and social centres). Now imagine that every abortion is replaced with a child given up for adoption; can you not see the horror? It’s that many more neglected lives, not to mention the overall problem of overpopulation.

I’m going to go on a slight tangent, but a relevant one. I have a certain amount of experience with humanitarian aid in Africa, and one thing that causes me no end of despair is the idiotic, selfish way much of it is performed. Leaving aside corruption, proselytization, etc., the “West” pours food and medicine into Africa with that whole “life is sacred” “feed the poor” mentality – good intentions of course – but with disastrous results because education and contraception (not to mention abortion) are almost always left out, even discouraged, with the support of the usual religious suspects (remember the pope on condoms causing aids?). The result is simple, and simply appalling: despite aid and funds increasing globally every year, starvation and child mortality continue to rise. Why? Because the people being barely maintained keep making kids who grow up to starve and die in turn, instead of focusing on the education of one or two children to get them out of the vicious cycle (there is another argument to be made about the education of women, but I’m ranting enough as is).

The point of this digression is to show that the non-pragmatic “all life is sacred” stance is terribly counter-productive, and the same holds for abortion (viz: on adoption above). As for lack of pragmatism, the same goes for your comment on abstinence:
I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.
What you’re saying basically is “people shouldn’t have sex unless they’re ready for childbearing/-raising”, which is absurd when one considers human nature and human relations.

All of the above arguments weigh into the question of the “ball of cells” vs “human being/identity”. The “sacred life” stance is one of quantity over quality, and in the long run devalues human life altogether. To quote Isaac Asimov on overpopulation: “The more people there are the less one individual matters”. In the abortion debate, what we have is one side so intent on protecting the abstract “life” that they disregard the lives of the two individuals in question, namely the “individual who is” (the mother) and the “individual who might be” (the child). The former is already a human individual, with memories, relationships, a personality, etc. The latter is not. The abortion question takes into account the future quality of life not only of the mother but of the would-be child as well, something the anti-abortion stance does not. Abortion doesn’t end an individual’s life, it prevents a ball of cells from becoming one. Here is where the religious aspect is crucial, because while embryologists see a complex mass of cells with no capacity for cognition/sensation, superstitious people assign an individual “consciousness” or “soul” to it, thus making abortion feel like murder instead of like the removal of a tumour. The question of potential is an emotionally manipulative one that does not hold up to criticism, because as @packo sarcastically (and the Monty Python brilliantly ) point out, you can go a long ways up the stream of potential.

I like the first half of @gorillaman’s tomato analogy for that reason (the second half is hyperbolic absurdity), that it underlines what is important in the debate: the living “thing”’s capacity for sensation/cognition/interaction. If you grew up with a tumour on your body which giggled when you tickled it and cried when you hit it, you would probably think twice before getting rid of it. That does not mean I’m categorically against late-term abortions, but for me the scale seriously tips between the 20-25th weeks when the nervous system of the foetus centralises. Of course, it is preferable that should an abortion take place it would be before the foetal stage, for the sake of medical and psychological comfort, but unfortunately one cannot always know so soon that one is pregnant.

Millions of real children with real feelings are killed by wars and sanctions the same "pro-lifers" can't seem get enough of not to mention an attitude to the environment which will see most life on Earth extinct in a few hundred years. I have to admit abortion is a tricky moral issue but that's just the point, it's a moral issue not a legislative one. So where you say abortions are immoral and I say carpet bombings are immoral. I guess we all have different ideas on morality and thank Christ for that otherwise I might think like you. >> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.


i err soo far on the side of caution, i convince pro-life women have sex with me by saying that if they don't, they are aborting the child i have conceived of having with them

its a human life they are ending if they don't

better to err on the side of caution

the real hypocrisy of the pro-life forces out there, is once the kids born, that kid is someone else's problem... yeah, we'll fight to make sure you are born, but if they parent's can't afford to raise you in the first place... or are unfit... well that's their fault... and we should in NO way be responsible for that (y'know, even though our movement forced them to have you in the first place)

better for you, the uncared for, under educated, malnurished child to suffer and us to feel righteous
than
not create this suffering (on both your parents and your behalf) and us to not feel so accomplished

support you!?! give you a hand up? that sounds like a hand out! stay outta my wallet you socialist!

prolife is supported by Christianity!!! abortion is attacking God! because desert dwelling sheep herders knew more about life, dna, the reproductive process than we do today!
of course, we'll ignore all the socialist themes in the Bible while saying this
we'll ignore things like charity for the poor and sick
we'll ignore things like throwing the money lenders out of the church
etc etc

compassion just doesn't feel genuine if $ makes it go away

@gorillaman
Crass, but valid.
Certainly relevant, but not particularly practical.

The discussion was already about "human life", which we tend to hold with pretty high regard on an individual basis, if (as has been mentioned) not institutionally. I think it's semantics to debate "Mind" vs "human life" in this context.
But what's the utility? You proudly and triumphantly plant your flag and proclaim "HERE, HERE IS THE SPOT", and I applaud you for having the courage and conviction to do so, but you've planted your flag in a cloud.
Now you're stuck defining consciousness, an illusive and scarcely understood construct that we can acknowledge exists, but which currently has no explanation in our understanding of the universe.
Where does that leave you? (Here's hoping this doesn't turn into A Modest Proposal.)

@VoodooV
It may (or may not) surprise you that I agree with almost everything you said.

Killing is a necessary part of our society, yes.
The hypocrisy of killing (as you said, distinguished from "murder") in our modern culture is glaring.
I also agree that lots of very unpleasant things happen in a sufficiently-free society. People will kill people. People will take advantage of people. Terrorist acts will be perpetrated. People will make terrible movies and terrible art that is offensive to my sensibilities. Nothing bad will happen only when no one is allowed to choose anything for themselves.

But we do set boundaries, laws, for the precise reason you stated: "Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa."

That's what makes us a civilization, right? We give up certain freedoms with the knowledge that others will be compelled to give up those freedoms as well, and we will all be able to pursue happiness more comfortably as a result. For instance, we agree not to kill our neighbors on a whim and take their stuff, knowing that others will be compelled to avoid doing the same to us. We agree not to drive while intoxicated (even if we're really good at it) knowing that others (many of whom aren't as good at it as we totally are) will be compelled not to do so, and we'll all be less likely to get flattened.

Many of these laws imply some intrinsic value to a human life. Murder is illegal because that seriously infringes on the rights of another human. Sure, we stratify killing - murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, but the band across which individual (as opposed to institutional) killing is NOT murder is pretty narrow, especially if it's intentional. Self defense, mental illness...
This is where the abortion debate diverges from analogy and requires that we define when a fetus can be considered a human, because after that point, we're killing a human.

I also disagree with the "especially with their own body" argument. Sure, a fetus could not survive without the mother (up to a point), but if you cut that fetus, the mother will bear no scar. The child will bear that scar. Once we say there is a human there, that is no longer her body. Parents are held responsible for care of their children, and consequences are dictated for negligence. Because of my understanding of fetal development, I believe this responsibility extends into the womb.

I think the deferral of the question of "when" to "those far more educated" may nullify the entire argument. If you can accept that there's a point beyond which abortion should no longer be an option, but we don't know when it is, then we have to accept that it might be "before pregnancy can even be recognized".
The process of fetal development is fairly well-understood and documented, and you're obviously intelligent enough to appreciate the process. Maybe trying to pinpoint the "OK-NOT OK" boundry for yourself might change the way you think about the issue, or maybe not, but I believe it would make you better able to argue your point effectively. Arguing for killing a human in order to increase the quality of life of someone else strikes me as being a very difficult position to defend. Arguing for removing a mass of tissue with the potential for becoming a human seems much more defensible. But again, we obviously see this issue with differing perspectives.

@hpqp
Sadly, I think you're spot-on about the other failing of the firearm analogy; some people are just itching for an opportunity to shoot someone. And yes, some of those people will try to raise children in their image.

In my view, my answer to "The Big Question" is "Only before implantation, if at all. Because I know that a child is demonstrably human well prior to delivery, and tracing back I cannot rationally distinguish a point where the line is crossed after implantation. I would rather err on the side of caution when human life is involved." In light of this, it should be obvious why I am opposed to even early abortion. I'm curious about your almost offhand dismissal of adoption as a non-solution and "worse". It sounds like this is a topic you have discussed previously at length. To me, even a grievously flawed system of adoption is preferable to abortion.
I do think you raise a potent point with respect to sex through coercion as distinguished from rape.
Even so, I do not see carrying and delivering a child to be "punishment". It is a substantial burden, to be sure, but in my perspective the alternative is abhorrent to the point as to be unacceptable.

I think analogies in general fail when discussing abortion because it is such a unique situation.
Note: In discussing your analogies, I'm going to use the term "kill" with respect to abortion. Going back to "the Big Question", whether or not this is an accurate term is probably going to depend on your perspective relative to the wad of cells we term a fetus. (Which I see you're searching for.)
The helmet analogy fails because efforts to save the life of the helmet-shunner do not necessarily harm someone else as directly as in abortion. You can find harm, sure: saving feckless may divert resources from saving the life of burning-nun-bus-rescue-hero, but you aren't necessarily killing someone else to save him.
Same for the STDs. Treating an STD kills bacteria, or uses up anti-viral medication, but there's no direct harm to another individual in the process. For me, living with the consequences of getting an STD means living with one of the incurable ones or living with a curable one until it gets managed, and dealing with the social stigma of informing other partners of your status.

I disagree with the assessment that the procedure is "punishment enough", primarily because I don't think that punishment is due. Again, it's not a woman's "fault" that she's pregnant, and sex is not some grievous crime to be prosecuted. Sex is a wonderful experience that can be a carnal pleasure, an act of intimacy, or both, but one that carries consequences. The initiation of a new human life is a possible outcome. (Yes, the procedure is unpleasant, often painful, and some women will experience regret or other emotional disturbances afterwards, but those are, again, possible consequences of a choice.)

I agree wholeheartedly that more education is essential. Increased access to contraceptives (and hopefully more effective contraceptives) will (almost) certainly lessen the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.

I look forward to your followup on the "ball of cells" issue.

I also disagree with @VoodooV's gun analogy, but for a different reason: some people would really, really like to be in a situation where they'd get to "use" their gun, whereas I challenge anyone to find me a single woman who would want to have an abortion. Abortions are a necessary "evil": not "evil" in the conservative-religious sense, but in the sense that no-one wants to have one, but sometimes it is the only ethical choice to make.

In a perfect world, everyone would be able to turn on and off the reproductive aspect of sex at will, and maybe medicine will allow us that one day. But until then abortion is a necessity, and not only for cases of rape, incest or ripped condoms. I won't address the troll, but @ReverendTed, do you truly think a woman who - because of emotional manipulation/coercion (e.g. "I don't feel anything with a condom"), or for lack of education, intelligence, or presence of spirit (e.g. drunk) - has unprotected sex, should be "punished" (so to speak) with a life-long responsibility of a human life, despite being perhaps emotionally, financially and/or psychologically incapable of raising it properly? A fate which would moreover punish an innocent child for its whole life (something the non-solution of adoption only makes worse btw)?

When a biker who was not wearing a helmet falls and opens his forehead, do you tell him "tough luck, should've worn a helmet, no doctors for you"? Or, closer to the subject at hand, shouldn't STDs be left untreated? You chose to have sex, you didn't take all the precautions, now live with the itchy consequences! Seriously, having to get an abortion because you were not careful is ample punishment enough. Not because you're "murdering" a human being or other such manipulative BS (although many are pressured into feeling that guilt) but because it is an invasive and disagreeable medical procedure (not to mention the psychological aspects, e.g. the possibility of regret).

This has been said ad nauseam before: if you want there to be less abortions, there needs to be more education (including sex ed, but not only) and easy access to contraception. Speaking of contraception, I look forward to the day they invent a version of the pill for men (soon?); why should women bear all the birth control responsibility?

_{As for the question of when a ball of cells becomes a human being, I've addressed the subject elsewhere on the Sift (whose search function is effin' up on me right now; I'll post link when I find it).}

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.

"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."

That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.

We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?

A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.

To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.

Samantha Bee demonstrated the republican hypocrisy perfectly. It's ok for THEM to make a choice, but it's not ok for YOU to make a choice.

Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate) Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.

Standard selective logic. We care about those lives, but not THOSE lives. Even when someone chooses to have the kid, Republicans seem to stop giving a shit since they propose cutting support for pregnant mothers and medical exams. Adequate education for those potential lives?..yeah fuck that. More hypocrisy we've come to expect from the right.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.

I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

Even socialist USSR celebrated their athletes and competition. Today we have something worse than socialism...political correctness that says no one must be allowed to shine brighter than any other person. These curmudgeons want to remove any pleasure from human life. In fact, they prefer that human life stop so that 'we can save the planet!'.

They want to turn us into 'the masses'.

Imagine, actual human beings allowing this to happen.

Hey it looks like Hinduism might be the way to go! Apparently in Hinduism seeking sensual pleasures is one of the four objectives of human life! Now we're talking!! I always knew they had to be happier wearing all that colourful clothing and everything. Leave it to wikipedia to have whole entry on masturbation and religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Hinduism>> ^Fletch:
>> ^PalmliX:
That's because 99% of religions are all about denying things that are natural.>> ^fritzo9602:
Is masturbation OK with Scientology? I'm having a problem finding a religion that's OK with it.


Hear that, @fritzo9602? There's still a 1% chance. Now, chin up! Keep searching (and PM me when you find one).

>> ^chingalera:

snuff


No human fatalities occur in this video. Therefore, per the videosift guidelines, it is not considered as "snuff".

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."