Hello guys! Now that we are back after FA's downtime it came right back up just in time for this weeks debate (lucky us!)
Im not extending last weeks debate just because of this outage. i considered it but since a lot of folks were not following the rules last weeks and it became too much of a drama fest, i opted to just move along.
With that said, please PLEASE remember to follow the rules this week. I want to highlight a few i was having a problem with and remind those involved of the rules they must follow:

1) NO FOWL LANGUAGE!
2) DEBATE PROPERLY. NO COMPLAINING, NO WHINING, AND USE PROPER DEBATING TECHNIQUES!
3) CITE YOUR NUMBERS AND FACTS PLEASE!
4) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. THIS INCLUDES THE USE OF THE WORDS 'you', 'him', 'her' AND ANY VARIATIONS. exceptions can be accepted when in references to pointing out mis-quoted facts and when referring to a person in an example scenario.

I hope this clears things up and we can have a PROPER debate this week.

Thank you and please continue!

It Should be avaliable to those that Wish to have them. Rape,and others things such as that should be allowed. The goverment Should not have Any say to what a woman wishes to do to her body. As for just to keep the carefree lifestyle I would say its a choice. late terms I say again a choice made by the person. Adoptions and foster care are Ok But most children in Foster care Tend to be a little reckless. But All of this is my opinion on the subject.

Do women have a right to do to her own body what she wills? Yes, A woman does have the right to do with her body as she wills. We as individuals may not like it, but we have no say in stopping her.

Does the unborn child have a right to life? I say Yes, any child born or unborn does have a right to live. They also have a right to be raised in an environment that can best provide and love them.

Should there be exceptions in cases of rape and incest or an all out ban? Exceptions

Should the government be getting involved with such a sensitive issue? No

Taking into account the number of children who are in orphanages and foster care, is adoption a better choice or have an abortion? Adoption (definitely) Abortion should be a last resort.

thoughts on late term abortions? Only as Medically Necessary in saving the life of the mother.

Is aborting a child just a way some women weasel out of being a parent in order to live a care-free life style? Maybe, being a male I have no real grounds to comment.

Do women have a right to do to her own body what she wills? Of course. The thing is, I personally don't think the issue is, nor should it be, about telling a woman what to do with her body. This is because, A- the issue is not about her body, but the potential person inside it. And B- A fetus is not a woman's body, it is IN her body. Even before any formation whatsoever, at the moment of conception, it is still not exclusively her body- there is a sperm involved. And this comes from a man's body. Therefore, I have to question whether this issue be solely up to the woman in the first place? In my opinion, if the issue is important enough for her to

Does the unborn child have a right to life? I think we need to establish what is true life, once and for all. Of course an unborn child has a right to life- but at what point? When does this thing go from a mere collection of cells to being a child? Set the record straight on that and the rest of the issue essentially falls into place on it's own. Because once it is legitimately a person, then we are impinging upon the right to life of one person for the right to choice of another. And legitimate life should always trump mere choice. That much is a no-brainer.

Should there be exceptions in cases of rape and incest or an all out ban? I believe that the laws that govern should be the laws that govern, regardless of how the child was conceived. The reasons for the rape and incest issue are not biological, only moral and distaste. Neither is something that should have any bearing on the termination of a life. The exceptions I'd make would be in cases of under aged pregnancy or other whereby the pregnancy brought to full term would cause serious risk of death for the mother. An established life trumps one not yet begun.

Should the government be getting involved with such a sensitive issue? It is the government's job to secure the rights of life and to keep people safe from losing theirs due to the actions of others. If the issue is simply ignored, the ungoverned situation then forces a public safety risk for all involved, to any degree. The abortion debate is about right to life regardless of when the child becomes a person, if carried to full term, the reasonable conclusion is a child's LIFE- how would this not fall under the jurisdiction of the government?

Taking into account the number of children who are in orphanages and foster care, is adoption a better choice or have an abortion? Ask the children in the system if they would rather be dead and we shall know. In lieu of that, the regrettable situation with adoption shouldn't really have bearing on abortion law.. But perhaps, if we set legislation on the legality of babies, then people might take more care to not have accidental conception. Perhaps if there was a fine for both parties, for an unsanctioned pregnancy, there would be less of a need for abortion AND adoption. There would be fewer children in the system, and the ones who ended up in the system would be more easily cared for. Before I have my head bitten off, please consider this: if living isn't always a right (as the death penalty, and the very existence of this debate show)- why should creating new life be? There are people we have all seen who should NOT be parents. Some can not afford it financially, some are not suited to the task. If there were a system to test and determine the suitability of people to be parents, and if you haven't applied or have been turned down, a hefty fine should be levied. I am not talking about anything extreme that would make it impossible for whole classes of people to reproduce or anything, just simple common sense requirements, similar to those given to people who want their children back, after having them taken from them because they are shown to be unfit parents. Except instead of dealing with the problem only when a child is alive and has been suffering until someone noticed, we could be preventing it from becoming one in the first place.

Thoughts on late term abortions? Disgusting. Abhorrent. Irresponsible. Horrendous. Inexcusable as a choice, tragic as a recourse to save a life.

Is aborting a child just a way some women weasel out of being a parent in order to live a care-free life style? A woman has a right not to be a mother, if she so chooses- but as in the case with born children, she is not within her rights to kill her children to do so. There are other options that should be considered.Women who refuse to use contraceptives and instead use abortion as birth control should be sterilized. Even if they wanted children some day they do not deserve the option. What kind of mother could they possibly be? To allow such a person to raise another human being would be a dereliction on the part of society. Some women choose vanity and self absorption over life that they weren't careful enough to prevent. For, with adoption a viable option, what other excuse for abortion could there possibly be? They don't feel like it? Neither is a good enough reason to take a life. It isn't once the child is born, why should it be any different before? Once the fetus is a person it should have the rights of one that can not be trumped for something so insanely selfish.

Considering all the above, I have to admit being in favor of legal abortion to a degree. I do NOT believe life begins at conception, but that there is a point before which an embryo is not a person. After that point I believe adoption is the only morally acceptable option for unwanted children (of course not putting themselves at risk with unprotected sex would help a lot more. Supposedly, however this is the man's responsibility. Which raises the question in me- if the decision over the outcome is squarely women's, why does the responsibility to prevent it fall on men?). But the problem is that some people ultimately care more about their own selfish wants than anything, and they will risk their own lives, the professions of doctors and many other things to escape motherhood -they would assuredly be unfit mothers if they were forced to keep the child anyway- and so the only thing banning abortion would create is a black market. Black market abortions are undesirable no matter what side you're on.


Something you did not take into account (few seem to in this misandric country) What about the father? Shouldn't the male who impregnated her have just as much say in the issue? Or at least SOME? (I do not place non-consensual impregnation within this realm. A rapist has no rights to what he has forcibly caused simply because he helped create it, much as a thief has no rights over that which he steals simply because it is in his possession) If the fetus continues until full term, the man would have certain rights to the child- why then, shouldn't he have them in regards to his unborn child? Is it any less cruel for a man to be deprived of his child than a woman? When the situation is switched, the men get little regard as well. Women can not make a child on their own, and they should not have sole discretion over the something they did not create alone. This applies in every other arena, why not here?

Please excuse the length of this and any grammatical errors there may be.

for whatever reason my first paragraph was cut off:

Therefore, I have to question whether this issue be solely up to the woman in the first place? In my opinion, if the issue is important enough for her to consider undergoing surgery to correct it, perhaps she should have been at least as intent on preventing it from becoming an issue in the first place.

I completely think that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. I often, at times, cannot understand the logic behind people who are pro-life. What about in cases of rape and incest? Should the mother of that child just have the child anyways? Also, what if the mother cannot afford to have the child? Should she just put it in an adoption agency? Do you have any idea how devastating that is for both the mother and the child?

I think you should consider the fact that what get's labelled as "pro-life" is a very wide spectrum of opinions. Support for the outright banning of abortion 100% (no ifs ands or buts) is actually quite rare. Allowances for rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (while supporting varying degrees of restriction on contraceptive or sex-selective abortion, ranging from outright ban to gestational limits) are pretty common among all but the most hard-line, especially here in Canada.

*gets, sorry, tired.

I believe women should have the choice. What if a woman is pregnant and it is a danger to their health, and possibly their life? Condoms break, birth control is rendered ineffective...pregnancy is a highly unpredictable situation. HOWEVER...that doesn't mean I feel all warm and fuzzy about abortion. Its not exactly an appealing option...

I think it all depends on how far along the child is in development. Its better to do it early on, immediately after you discover you're pregnant. After that, is when I personally think it should have rights.

Whether or not to give it up for adoption or abort it is the woman's choice. Not everyone has the same morals.

I think abortion is a lot more ethical and safe than it used to be.

I definitely think some women just use abortion as a free pass out of parenthood. I think doing so is immoral, but again, not everyone has the same morals.

I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'm not one of those disgusting creeps who likes to compare a fetus to a tapeworm.

"Abortion-rights advocates rarely discuss any negative emotions surrounding pregnancy or pregnancy termination; the issue is presented as a consumer-style "choice", the selection of a life-style--enhancing brand name. ... The right-to-lifers, in their eagerness to enforce pregnancy as a kind of ideological punishment (and in its glaring lack of interest in child welfare after birth), reveal their own hidden hostility to children, who seem to be nothing but throwaway political weapons. From the extreme puritanical perspective, children are the penalty to be paid for sex, a scourge not much different than the "punishment" of AIDS. From a liberal perspective, children are socioeconomic baggage that can drag you down. Both sides consider the unborn warily, ..."
_ David Skal "The Monster Show"

I've also read Eike-Henner Kluge's "The Ethics of Deliberate Death"

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp

If our educational system remains under mostly local control, abortion should be a state-by-state matter
In other words, against Roe v. Wade

Remember, the courts can be wrong (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson)

Do women have a right to do to her own body what she wills? Yes, absolutely. No one - especially not the goverment - has the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, or anyone really for that matter. If a woman has made the decision to have an abortion, for whatever reason, that's her decision alone.

Does the unborn child have a right to life? No. An unborn child, early in the pregnancy, is barely more than a clump of cells. It has as much right to be there as a tape worm would and no one impedes the removal of a parasite because it has a 'right to life'. Also, children have the right to be brought up in a loving home, where they feel safe and are taken care of. If bringing a child into the world will throw the mother/parents into financial turmoil or lower their current standard of living, abortion should be an option for them. If a mother/parents will not be able to properly provide for the child, emotionally or physically, then abortion should be an available option. Now, bare in mind I don't believe in the use of abortions as birth control. If you don't want to be pregnant, take the proper precautions before having sex. Yes, I understand that sometimes things happen which are out of your control, but I also believe it is beneficial for women to be on some kind of contraception pill, whether she is sexually active or not. Its just good sense, and like I said, sometimes things happen, be they in the heat of the moment or something which is completely out of your control.

Should there be exceptions in cases of rape and incest or an all out ban? Absolutely there should be exceptions. I'm pro-choice no matter what, but especially in these cases.

Should the government be getting involved with such a sensitive issue? Not at all. The government is good for a lot of things, but occasionally I find they stick their noses in issues which they have no business to be in. Its kind of the same way a government has no right to dictate a persons spiritual/religious choice.

Taking into account the number of children who are in orphanages and foster care, is adoption a better choice or have an abortion? In the cases of someone who is considering having an abortion later in the term, I think adoption should be seriously considered has a better alternative. However, foster homes are over crowded ( and often epicenters for physical/emotional abuse) and finding someone who is willing to adopt your baby is harder than most realize.

thoughts on late term abortions? I'm against them, with the exception being if the mothers life is in danger. If you're going to abort an otherwise healthy fetus/pregnancy, there should be a specific time frame in which you have to do it. But, again, who am I to judge someone who has has a late term abortion? Where I live (Canada), late term abortions are not illegal, but I also know that its nearly impossible to find a doctor who will preform one without medical reason (as it should be, imho).

Is aborting a child just a way some women weasel out of being a parent in order to live a care-free life style? Well, it depends on your perspective I guess. I mean, yes, it could be, but again she might have a perfectly good reason to abort the fetus. Like I said before, a woman should be responsible for her own body, and that includes preventing unwanted pregnancy. If all the precautions were taken but still failed, it should be her choice to keep or to abort.


TLDR; CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE.

Just to throw it out, I'm going to take an opposite stance and say that the government should be there and should have the power to make them have an abortion, but different governments have different stances about it. It may be a sensitive issue but the government are there, as far as I can see, to ultimately protect us. If a woman is having a baby that could kill her they have as much right to make her have an abortion as the child has a right to life. As for whether or not to be pro life or choice, it all depends on the unique, individual circumstances of every woman's case. A raped 16 year old who grew up in foster care, that's evidently a case where abortion is needed. If you were pro life for that, the child would have a poor standard of living and a mother who probably couldn't provide. I think in the end it's best to be pro choice, because the soon-to-be mother must make the right choice for the child rather than herself.

If all of this is unintelligible gibberish, forgive me as I am unusually tired and dozy.

Everyone above has pretty much said what I have to say. It is a woman's choice, at the end of the day, and it should be. Thatsaid, I do believe the father should have some input. It just becomes difficult with the physical nature of the situation; carrying a baby for nine months is dangerous, exhausting and can permanently change the way a woman's body works and looks. So whilst I do believe the father should have a say... It has to be the woman's choice, in the end.

Does a foetus have a right to life? It's a difficult question. I don't believe it is a child or has a particular right to life until later in the pregnancy, when it develops senses and begins to be aware of its surroundings. But personally? I could never have an abortion. Knowing that there was the potential of life inside me, that there was the potential to have a child, and I threw it away? I don't think I could cope emotionally with knowing I had done that. But that is a personal response. It doesn't mean that I don't agree with abortion and it doesn't mean I would ever consider taking the choice away from other women.

So yeah. I am pro choice. I disagree with abortion used frivolously (such as for contraception) but I would never deny a woman her right to choose.

The problem with the train of logic that leads to the conclusion that people's choices are not the government's (or anyone else's) business, is that it doesn't work with regards to other issues such as crime. If one were to choose use one's body (arm, say) to commit an assault or a murder, I doubt that one would be justified in arguing that the law has no jurisdiction over what people's choices are and what people do with their bodies. The key there is not that choice in and of itself is bad, but that the choice that person has made has led to the detriment of someone else and infringed upon the rights of someone else. In that case, that choice is indefensible. Therefore, I believe that this argument should really be about at which point the right to make a choice does or does not lead to the detriment of another person (IE- at one point, if at all, a fetus is a person and at what point the fetus's right to life trumps the mother's right to choose).

Put shortly, in terms of contraceptive abortions (something like 95%+ of abortions), I would say that in early stages of pregnancy (maybe even most stages) the fetus is not developed enough physically and mentally to really constitute a person, and thus the mother's right to choose whether or not she wants to abort is nobody's business. However, in the latest stages of pregnancy, an unborn child is often more developed than one born at a survivable premature stage- hence it is quite arguable that it has reached a point at which its rights should have some consideration. I would therefore be in favour of having some sort of law regulating late-term abortions performed after a certain gestational period (such laws currently exist in the UK, for example).

As for abortion performed to save the mother's life due to medical complications when the mother's own life is in danger, a bird in the hand is worth two on the tree. I think that in that case, the already born (obviously!) mother's risk of death should take precedence and abortion should certainly be legal.