In the debate surrounding abortion, it is hard to believe we will ever make progress, because it just seems impossible to discuss the topic in some manner other than defensively. And when people are defensive, they aren't really listening for understanding, so much as listening for opportunity to defend.

I am pro life, for instance. But I do not demonize pro choicers or frame their perspective as being 'murderers' and such. I think that is a problem on both sides, this false narrative that to be pro something you have to be ant something else.

So, instead of pro choicers having a noble intention of wanting to protect the female's 'control' over the process of pregnancy, they are framed too often as 'anti lifers' who dont care about human life.

And instead of pro lifers having the noble intention of wanting to protect the most helpless of human life, they are framed too often as being 'anti choicers' who want to oppress or control women.

I am hoping to see a different national framing of this debate, one where both sides consider the truly noble things that both side is standing FOR, instead of dismissing either side for what they are falsely accused of being AGAINST. Maybe one day we can be less divided on the issue, stop dismissing or demonizing either side, and start thinking of solutions that truly consider the concerns of both sides.

The abortion debate is a hugely emotional issue. Basically one side sees it as murder, and the other as a way to reduce the amount of unwanted children born every day. The two sides are never going to come to a solution that's agreeable to both.

I will listen to and give respect to the anitabortion/ "right to life" people when they start walking their talk..
They are all about getting the baby born, but then, it's tough luck Jr....
They are the *same* people that cut WIC, and other programs to actually HELP children once they are born...

My stance is this.
I am both pro-life and pro-choice.

The beginning of life is not when someone is born.
Life starts at conception.
The moment sperm fertilizes egg.
If there is a zygote at all, it is alive.

The choice exists up to the moment the egg is fertilized.
We all know steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Anything that blocks the sperm from fertilizing the egg.
No fertilization, no life created.

The argument, the heated debate exists considering a state in which life already has been created.
The 'choice/life' stance after conception is a debate on 'murder/death' of the lifeform that already exists.

Since I believe the human race is already past its population tipping point, I see no issue with abortion for any circumstances. I do however, believe that a pro-choice should be made before conception occurs. Thus, I believe all mating couples should use contraceptives and good judgement when having sex.

Why do I not have a pet?
I know with my health and my income I can't properly care for a pet.
At my age, I pursue women that are around my age.
I know I am no longer able to care for a child and raise it properly so I am not driven to have sex with fertile women. Luckily, the women at my age are already past menopause and the chances are very slim that a pregnancy could happen by accident.

They tell women that if they don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex..
Well, since a woman can't get pregnant without a guy..why aren't they telling MEN who oppose abortion to just stop having sex?

Because if MEN stopped having sex unless it was with someone they wanted to raise a family with and were prepared to support said child....I dare say they're be WAY less need for abortions.

P.S...also, Tom4U here....people can use birth control for years, faithfully...and sometimes it still happens.
That's why when I had my ubes tied...I didn't want the removable clips used..sometimes they loosen and you can still get pregnant..I said cauterize the ends...make sure it's *permanant*.

Also, what about the people like the many girls under age 15 who got pregnant by a neighbor, uncle, or some boy who told her she couldn't get pregnant her "first time"...???
I have numerous links and facts if you'd like them...it happens more tha n you think...it's just not talked about because of the girl being a minor...or the family shame.

There are always circumstances of random chance.
There are always exceptions to the rule.

While each person is responsible for their own actions there are some things that are reality based that must be considered.

In general:
Women have a limited number of eggs for a limited time.
Men produce billions of sperm.
Yet it take one egg and one sperm to create life.

In a protection sense, men should be careful where they put their sperm but women, having a limited supply and duration of fertility should also be careful of how they expose their eggs to sperm. A man can make sperm throughout his lifetime.

While I am still able to fertilize an egg, I "Choose" not to allow that to happen because I can't properly care for the life I could create.
My father was 51 when I was born. He retired at 55 and died at 72.
He was unable to raise me as I raised my children. It wasn't fair so I made it a point not to repeat his mistake.

We have the technology and understanding to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Yes, accidents can happen. Yes some people are twisted. However, if an adult is having sex, as adults, they can pretty much understand that sex can lead to a child.

The debate is not about whether or not someone should have sex. The debate is whether or not it is 'right' to kill something that is already alive for selfish reasons.

How that woman ended up growing a human lifeform inside is not the issue. If its in there growing, its already alive. We argue on whether or not we can kill it.

That lifeform is parasitic. As far as I am concerned, its her body and whether or not she kills it is her decision. She is the one that gives of herself so it can mature and birth. She is the one that has to live or die from her choice to kill or nurture that lifeform.
The man can make more, potentially, millions more but she only has a limited numbers of tries before the bank is empty.

Reproduction is an attempt at immortality by passing on an individual's genetic code to their offspring. There are only so many eggs with a woman's genetic code available. There are millions of sperm with the man's genetic code available.
The math itself points at who should have the decision.

Im not sure about other people. I am pro life, in all its human forms, as are those i know. I support pro life, because I value human life. I similarly support assistance programs and oppose death penalty, because I value human life.

I agree. I personally think a man that doesnt want children should take precautions directly like condoms. And a woman that doesnt want children should take precautions directly like contraception or iud. We cant control what other people will do, but can control our own actions, so that is where responsibility starts , in my opinion.

BUT I also think that once life is conceived, it is part of BOTH the man and the woman, and Both of their responsibility.

However, until that life is born the responsibility is not equal. Once it hits the air it is bt until that happens the woman carrying it pays in ways a man never does.

Name one man who has died from actually birthing a child?
However, there are examples of men who have sired multiple children from multiple women at the same time. All without a physical tax on their personal health.

While I do understand the moral responsibility I also know that morals can change but pregnancy remains the physical responsibility of the woman.
Its not equal so the choice is not equal.

What's more, its not anyone else's choice either. She's the ONE with a lifeform growing inside her. She's the ONE that goes thru the physical changes needed for that zygote to mature, INSIDE her. She's the ONE that gives birth.

Its her choice, its always been her choice.
Just like any personal choice, she needs to choose wisely.
She needs to choose while both understanding the reality of the choice and her moral fortitude.
While others can advise and present the facts, its still ultimately remains her own choice to kill or not to kill.

I disagree, although I understand the logic. The sense of more responsibility is inevitable because responsibility, in the sense of risks or effort to be taken, is rarely equal.

If I have primary custody, and I am taking responsibility for the housing and the schooling of the child, to me, it does not negate that the child is also their fathers, and that he should have some input into important decisions.

As far as death in childbirth, there are symptoms to monitor for that risk and it can then be considered, in my opinion, an exception, since there is no way to save BOTH lives and there really needs to be a choice to risk both dying or one surviving.

So us humans shouldn't be allowed to destroy an embryo? But yet we are so far above every other species that we can kill and eat animals and plants? And then there is the Military, the USA wouldn't be what it is today if they hadn't killed men, women, children, and yes even babies! And yet many think it is very acceptable to create embryos in a test tube and then plant them into the womb. Its a bunch of bible thumpers that have brought many to believe that we can not sacrifice any humans for any reason. I say nonsense, in order make the human population stronger we should be allowed to act as other species in nature and take out the weak to keep us from becoming extinct.

Abortion shoudn't be allowed..because it's against God's law???

You mean, the same God that ordered babies to be slaughtered, killed all the first born in Egypt, and caused the entire human race (*including* pregnant women and babies) to drown?
That God?

P.S And, Alabama wasn't very "Pro-life" whe they were lynching black men.....

Abortion is Murder.

I understand but are you considering the actual topic at hand or are you imposing a result as a consideration?

The abortion debate is to decide if it is okay to kill another life (for whatever reason).
The debate is restricted to the time a life is created (sperm invades egg) and birth.
The entire subject of time is when it is in a woman's body.
Not before and not after.

While after the birth it is the responsibility of both the father and the mother, that is not the issue subject.
The issue is restricted to the incubation period where the lifeform is INSIDE the mother.
Its asking...Can We Kill It?
Do we have permission of society to kill it?
Is it morally acceptable to permit the killing?

However, what the debate fails to consider is the will of the one that is incubating it.
If abortion becomes legal, we are saying its okay by society standards to kill a life.
Sanctioned murder.

It doesn't matter how it got there.
It doesn't matter after it is born.
It does matter while it is in a person.

Since the person hosting it also has a commitment and contribution the only rational decision is in favor of the mother's decision.
Its really not society's decision.

And yes, I also find abortion as murder.
I also find it is not really my decision but the decision of the woman carrying the life.

us humans shouldnt be allowed to destroy an embryo? I dont think so unless in its development it will be causing death.

We are so far above other species we can kill and eat animals and plants? I dont think so. I am sure that we are not the only species that eats animals or plants.

The military. Killing of babies is not the point or the intention and it is tragic when it happens. It is otherwise, as crazy a notion as it seems, a matter of those involved knowing risks and CONSENTING to them.

Many think it is acceptable to create embryos in a test tube. I dont think it is okay. The only temptation to support it is that it might lead to us needing no one's body to support the development of life, and the argument of 'my body' will no longer be a 'viable' one.

I say I doubt that is only 'bible thumpers' that believe in the intrinsic value of human life, and who believe there are too many ways to not create the 'weak' in the first place, rather than 'take them out' after they have been created.

I do not wish to be just like every other species. I have a consciousness that holds myself to moral and ethical standards, and much more than just impulse and survival instincts.

Who said that? Many things are against Gods law that are also not 'allowed'. Murder and theft and bearing false witness (under oath) being just a few. The reason they shouldnt be allowed is not because its in the Bible though. They are a result of which standards a society chooses. People forget that even before a book called The Bible existed, people lived in a society in which those laws existed in order for them to BE included in a Bible.

I dont speak for God or Alabama, but this is what I believe regarding the issue.

While I can see your reasoning and you do have a valid issue concerning the weak and malformed, our current civilization values strong in higher values different from the uncivilized world.
Humans are now an intellectual species.
We value intellectual potential in our offspring.
Physical limitation are rendered a non-issue with our technology.
We tend to make allowances for physical defect in favor of intellectual potential.
So, the reality is not as simple as maintaining a physical superiority in our offspring.
While it is a wonderful discussion point, it is not within the scope of the issue being debated.

Again, the abortion debate is focused on the period of time from conception to birth. It focuses on the mother and the child during the incubation period.
While our technology allows us to predict physical deformities has no significance on the issue at hand.

Consider what would happen if the state grabbed your mother, your wife or another woman that is pregnant and forced her to kill it before it is born.
Try to imagine what the woman would feel if she were forced to kill the life she has been nurturing with her body.

A lot of people focus on the the potential but forget the current reality.
They ignore the possible ramifications of their decision.
Should the state have the power to kill your child?
No matter whether the actual mother wants it or not?

It is a matter of what the state wants and what the mother wants.
I don't think its any of my business and it shouldn't be the business of the state.
Its a personal decision that rests solely on the one carrying the life inside.
Its nobody's business but hers.

If the pregnancy poses a threat to the life
of the mother, I can see abortion as justified.


If, some trailerpark whore can't keep her legs
together, she should really consider sterilization
or a less drastic form of birth control.
I'm sure the V.D. clinic she gets her antibiotics from,
also provides rubbers and birth control pills.

If push comes to shove, the sperm can't reach her egg,
if it has to pass her tonsils first.

I think making either side villains is not working for us here in the USA. Just my opinion though.

If we could come to a conclusion that it TAKES TWO, maybe we could stop putting the creation of life all at the woman's feet, either with blaming them for it, or giving them all the power because of it.

While it is true that the pregnancy is only going to tax the BODY of the woman. I dont believe that makes that life only an issue of only the woman's body. Number one, because like I said, it is a separate life that is made up of DNA of BOTH Father and mother. And second, because it is not reasonable to assume a child, when it comes out of the womb crying, was only a 'clump of cells' only minute, hours, days, or even months prior. I shudder to think that we could argue for a woman to abort pregnancy at eight months, simply because it is still taxing her body. AT some point, I think most people will face that it is a LIFE that feels pain, that needs love, et cetera, and that point does not WAIT Until it no longer is taxing the mother's body to do so.

And, who exactly is the "tralerpark whore" HAVING sex with?
Certainly not herself..
Again...where is the uproar about the GUYS who are out there having *unprotected*
sex???

Oh, you say....the woman is the one that gets pregnant...not the guys..

Oh, really?

Then the guy has zero, zip, nada to say about what she does with the resulting pregnanct.

A message should be just as loud to the men....
If you are against abotrtion DO NOT HAVE UNPOROTECTED SEX....period.