I was very uncomfortable in 1971 when the  Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down. I was 16 years old at  the time and living in the State of Maine. I knew that the U.S. congress had  500 + members  and 99% were male and I wondered how I would feel if the congress was 99% female and were deciding which men could be allowed to reproduce.

       I want to ask all other men on this site what they think if congress gets to decide if you have children or not.

       Except Vastet  who hasn't reported back from Maury Povich & 3 paternity tests yet.

Firstly: what Natural said.

Secondly, you don't have to like abortion to accept it. I don't much like the idea of abortion, because I like people, and I like new born children especially, so I think on a personal level that another human in the world shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

But personal feelings on my part are pretty irrelevant in this instance. There are lots of things I don't much like, that I still accept as part of being human: I don't like irresponsability, but everyone, including myself are irresponsible at times, and I have to accept that it happens, and then take it from there.

I don't much like greed and envy, but they too are part of being human, and I succomb to both at times as well.

The argument FOR abortion that I use is that the alternative would be much much worse.

If you can sell me on the idea that this need not be the case then you'll have shot down the main argument I have for abortion.

And so I'll just ask you this Alison: do you think abortion ought to be illegal? If so, then what do you think the punishment should be, and who should be punished; the woman, the man, the doctor, or all three?

If it were illegal, do you believe that would put and end to abortion, or are you willing to assume that illegal clinics and the old coathanger would have a comeback?

What would you think of a society where such things took place, and what measures would you implement to deter such practices if you didn't want it in society?

Or do you pressume it possible that I society could exist where people would only ever get pregnant when they wanted to, and if so, please descripe how such a society would work.

Or do you accept a society where unwanted pregnacies are always brought to term, with possible bad outcomes for unready parents and their children, not to mention further strain on global resources as population grows? If so, please defend this stance to me.

On a final note: here in Denmark where I live, abortion is legal, sex is socially acceptable, both outside of marriage, among teens, and as one night stands. Contraseption is also socially accepted, and part of almost all Danes' sex-lives.

Abortion is still not considered a casual and simple decision by most people here. No girl I know wants to have an abortion, and most people, myself included, find the idea a very serious and emotionally uncomfortable last resort.

Luckily, since contraseption is so common, unwanted pregnancy is pretty rare, so when it does happen to an unfortunate young couple abortion may be a common choice for many, but even so, that still makes it pretty rare.

I suggest you hold on to your strong emotional opposition to abortion, and you are even welcome to tell other people of your thoughts on the matter. I know I do. Perhaps you can have an influence for good among your peers, but only if you make an honest attempt at understanding them and putting yourself in their shoes. Harsh judgement of their actions will only serve to alienate them, and rightly so if you ask me. YOU may not want to have sex, but then, YOU'RE not the one that's pregnant either.

MY view on abortion: I use contraseption every time I have sex, and have always done so. So whatever pregnancy I might cause right now will be unwanted, or at least accidental. But I'm 28 now and not in any way afraid of having children, so if I made a girl pregnant today, I would probably personally want the pregnancy brought to term, and I would make that position clear, but I'd certainly let the woman involved have her say also. When I was 18 I felt differently, and that was a good thing too, because I wouldn't have made a good father back then. But then again, because I've always used contraseption and been responsible, that is now a moot point anyway.

What I'm trying to say is, abortion is an option. It may not be the prettiest option, nor the most emotionally satisfying, but removing that option cannot be a positive influence on society. And, what with coathangers and backroom clinics, removing that option is probably not even possible, however much legislation you throw at it.

But what you CAN do is stear society in a direction where that option is hardly ever, if ever, used, and then that just leaves the question of how best to do that.

One could try to stear society in a direction where everybody is as scared of sex as you. I can only say, good luck with that, if that's what you want to do. Sex has been thoroughly deamonized in many many human societies for thousands of years, and yet, even in the American bible belt there are still lots and lots of unwanted pregnancies.

Alot more than here in Denmark by the way, where sex is not deamonized, and everybody fucks like rabits.

And I did:

It's spelled "favor."

Oh, yeah... and how many times do I have to say it?  Your argument wants to take away rights.  You have the burden of proof.  You haven't met it.

Because no one should be raised in a place that is either neglectful or cannot support them.

Orphanages are overflowing. No one adopts. There are already too many unwanted kids, that grow up in the system never having parents.

I myself only had a mom, who worked as a nurse. I never saw her in my early childhood, but for maybe an hour or so of the day when she was exhausted.

And she CARED about me. How much worse would it have been if I was simply an unwanted cost?

Would you want to inflict more unwanted children on the world, to suffer in homes where they were being mentally abused by the sheer fact of being unneeded drains on people that can't afford or support them?

It's not a pretty issue, but it is one nonetheless. Have you ever read A Modest Proposal?

How is getting an abortion any different than getting a tumor removed?

Just imagine there's a religious group that objects to people getting tumors removed. They claim, "But those cells are human cells! They deserve life too, just as much as any adult! You have no right to have a tumor removed from your own body!" They have picket signs with slogans like "Life begins at metastasis!"

Sounds stupid, right? That's the same thing as people who protest against abortion.

And how dare you scratch your nose! Doncha know you're killing hundreds of human cells every time you scratch your nose? Those cells could conceivably be turned into clones. Therefore scratching your nose is the equivalent of murder!

Could you imagine someone trying to pass laws saying you can't scratch your nose?

If you don't see how these scenarios are equivalent, ask yourself Precisely what makes them different? Be especially careful to clearly define terms like 'life', 'potential', 'innocent', 'kill', 'baby', etc.

Oh Thomathy, you know those Americans with their favors and their colors and there anchors... no wait...

As the real foreigner in this group, perhaps I can clear this up:

Just in case somebody doesn't actually know (I suspect both Hamby and Thomathy know the difference and are just being tongue-in-cheek) but favour (and colour) is the correct British spelling (and Canadian, I pressume), while favor and color is the correct American spelling.

Something I've learned because English is not my first language anyway, so at University we learn both British and American spelling and pronunciation. There's the typical tin/can and lift/elevator things, and the different pronunciations of "either" and "can't", but there are also many spelling differences that I'm not sure all Americans and Brits are aware of.

Sometimes being the non-native speaker gives you more knowlegde than the natives, much like Craig Ferguson has discovered he knows more U.S geography and History than some of his fellow Americans, because he actually had to take a test to become a citizen.

Whoops, sorry, the language-nerd in me took over for a moment there. Back to the topic at hand: abortion.

Carry on everyone.

If you asked Margaret Sanger she'd probably say that it can help reduce the population of less favored races, or less favoured races.

Iain Banks Hamby! Iain Banks. I think you'll love him, if you're not familiar with him allready.

Anyway, enough derailing...

Weird that they say that. I imagine it'd be rather difficult for a human to be pregnant with something that wasn't human. I think they don't consider it a person, and therefore doesn't get rights. But it's most certainly human.

That is bad misusage of words. Of course they are human from the very beginning. They are just not 'persons'. Human just means your genetic inheritance. Being a person is more about the quality of your mind, consciousness, ability to make choices, etc. Theoretically, you don't have to be human to be a person. Similarly, not all human tissue is a person.

Again, that's shifting the debate from abortion to the significant features of personhood. It's a different debate.

Currently, the most common medical/legal definition of the person boundary is around the second trimester. I think the main ethical concern is the ability to cause suffering, due to its conscious awareness of pain.

Personally, I don't think there is as yet a clear boundary. There's a grey area.

However, if you go back to the question of abortion itself, and you consider an early fetus, or even a clump of embryonic cells, then there is no fuzziness. These are clearly not people (they cannot suffer, for instance), and it is clear that abortion is an ethical option.

That's why it's so important to realize that they are two separate questions: Is abortion ethical?, and When does a fetus become a person? The answer to the first question is a clear Yes. The answer to the second is not so clear, although we have decent working definitions, based on medical, legal, and ethical ideas.

Personally, I would like to see Great Apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas given the status of a limited form of personhood, for the purposes of protecting their 'rights' against poaching and mistreatment by zoos and animal trainers. This is a legal question, and one that would need to be debated to make the distinctions clear. All I'm saying is that the question of personhood is different than the question of abortion.

(Another example of personhood I'd like to see changed is that I don't think corporations should be considered 'persons' under legal definitions, although they are in most Western countries.)

I think that's the most common boundary used in various countries. It is in Canada, for instance.

I wasn't aware there was no law about abortion. I was going by what I'd heard about the state of practice from a nurse. It is generally not available to have a third-term abortion in Canada, except in special cases. In other words, the consensus is that the second term is the limit, even if this is not specified by law. Thus it's more of an ethical definition than a legal one.

The fetus does not have rights until it is born and fully outside of the woman's body (R. vs Sullivian Canadian court case back in 1991). With that said third term abortions cannot be done in Canada unless there is a significate health risk to the mother or the child will not survive child birth.

My personal opinion is that abortion is a very personal choice, and is both the moral and conscious decision of the woman making the decision to have an abortion, and not a decision of the state.

My reasons for allowing legal abortions ranges from medical reasons of course, to the reality that some people simply do not want to be pregnant and they have the right to terminate it, however with that said they should also be practicing safe sex. That may not always be possible due to financial/educational backgrounds (this really shouldn't be the case in Canada but alas I have met some really daft women/men regarding sex). Although condoms are widely available in Canada, they still can break (I have had over the years probably about 5 or 6 condoms break, which really isn't that bad considering how many I have used), which at this point even though the condoms were used to prevent pregnancy they did fail (thankfully no pregnancy). Fianancial reasons are another reason for terminating a pregancy.  Some people say that women can give the baby to adoption, there are pros and cons for that as well (for another topic really). The woman may not be able to emotionally deal with giving up a baby to be adopted, or being able to go through the entire pregnancy.

I doubt if there are any positive arguments for abortion, in the sense you seem to be talking about.

I think it is only considered when judged to be the option with the least overall harmful outcome to all concerned, as has already been described by most of the people responding here. It is typically going to be a matter with some significant degree of subjective value judgement.

And the adoption system in the United States is ridiculously complicated for the most part.

You can argue for and against abortion all you want. But both sides can agree that it would be better if abortions weren't needed. So it's interesting to note that the same people who are anti-abortion are also the ones who prefer abstinence-only sex education - which we of course know is horribly unrealistic. The solution for preventing most unwanted pregnancies is better sex education that begins earlier.

The fact is this: Abortions happen.

They always have, and they always will.

Making it illegal would do nothing but put the women who would attempt it by themselves at a dangerous risk.

It would not be "stopping" abortions, it would simply be saying "Now you can't go to a clinic for it, you have to go into the bathroom with a rusty coat hanger."

Rights of the fetus boring, not a fetus don't care

Rights of a woman, not a woman so don't care

Pisses god of, god don't exist don't care

Unwanted kids generally get paid for out of my taxes as their parents (or more normally their parent) cant cope with them, grow up to be far more likely to become unemployed and criminals. These criminals steal from my house and generally try to kill me. This I DO care greatly about.

Actually I'm not some right wing nutter and do care about other people to some extent beyond myself  (there is some parody in the above statements) but it amazes me why people never use economic arguments in favour of abortion. Unwanted kids make everyone lives a misery including themselves.

And no this isnt an argument to bump off old people either , I'm very much against euthanasia as it damages society but just as importantly could have unforseen economic consquences