Originally Posted by Swiss Matthias
Ok, to be honest, this is something that makes my blood boil.
With my biggest respect to being tolerant with anybody's rights and freedom, and my
biggest respect for having good thoughts on women in very difficult situations, but:
I'm not sure if we really are to decide if an unborn child's future will be "sufficiently comfortable" or if abortion would be the better solution...?!
I'm pretty sure that an unborn child isn't a part of one's own body in that sense, nor a
function of it. Have you ever seen an sonogram of an unborn a few weeks old? Have
you seen what abortion does to the child?
I just wonder, we think about everybody and everything, but who actually thinks on the fetus?
The abortion debate isn't about women's rights, or "keeping laws off my body", or any of that. People are getting side-tracked. What it REALLY comes down to is an individual's definition of when it's "okay" to terminate a life. Some people become so disillusioned, or cloak themselves heavily in denial or propaganda, that they mask what they are actually doing or fighting for the rights to do, which is terminating a human life. Different people who support the practice draw the line at different points of the pregnancy, some even drawing the line right at the point of delivery, but it's all the same--ending a human life. I wish "pro-choice" supporters would just acknowledge this. They use different phrases, like abortion procedure, or pregnancy termination, etc. etc. etc. to divert attention away from the fact that they are terminating a human life. It's a means to help the individuals sweep the reality under a rug. If they would just call it like it is, like: "I support ending a human life up to ____ weeks/months gestation, because at that point the fetus isn't viable (or whatever justification...)." then we could actually get somewhere with the discussion/resolution of the debate. But, until that point, both sides will be side-tracking and endlessly dancing around the issue. When the sides come to common terms, THEN and only then can society weigh the pros and cons of what makes it justifiable, like health or socio-economic concerns (I'm speaking for America here, because that's where I see the debate happening...)
The same issue is at the core of assisted suicide and death penalty debates. At what point can we justify, in our own minds, ending a living human being's life?