Great comment.

Out of curiosity, do you think people should be allowed to sell parts of their body? (i.e. Is their reason damn good?)

There may be a damn good reason to not allow this -- it'll lead to poor people selling their organs, sometimes even fatally, for the benefit of the wealthy. I'm not clear on how much or how far this would be useful to the wealthy recipient, and therefore on how widespread this practice would be, so I'm "undecided" on that point for now.

Cannibalism of body parts is now know and hard to get people to stop begging for them. And if one does do it, it should be consensual. Disgustingly, it has led to poor people selling organs for money. And how often do they get what was promised?

The line quoted below tells me everything; I don't see a point in discussing this subject with you any longer:
""Like it or not, you ARE killing a baby if you have an abortion..."

I used to share good Atheist time with Polly Roinstein; she was the head of the Westchester Coalition for legal abortion. Polly always mentioned her chat on abortion with a very well known local senator; he told her "We don't care about the fetus...but we don't want to give women so much power and, at the same time, to lose a campaign issue.

@DUCHESSA What, one of them actually admitted the truth? That it's about power and control? Photos or it didn't happen

@RobAnybody That answer was given to Polly -who passed recently- in 2004.

@DUCHESSA Not disbelieving it, stunned that he'd be so blatant.

@RobAnybody And he said so to Polly about 35 years ago. See, it was very difficult to fool / shut up Polly. great lady.

Not being born at all sounds way easier than all this.

Don't you think it has to do with no believing in "A child is a God's gift"?

@DUCHESSA That, or the fact that we all agree??

Maturity finally has arrived.

You were part of what many years before, in Puerto Rico, was known as "La operación" (the surgery)

If only more felt that way. Taking care of eachother should be a higher priority than degrading someone in a position to need one.

Since you seem to be the only even marginally dissenting opinion here, can you please tell us more? Why are you against it? Are there time constraints on if or how wrong you think it is?

I am against it as a personal choice. Thus "I" would not seek one. It is none of my business if others want to however.

@SCOTT63 I know, I was asking why though. Is it because you think it's a person, because you think it has a soul, etc.

Oh, sorry. I am not sure I buy that souls exist. Otherwise I probably wouldn't be here I guess. Nor do I believe that life begins at birth. But, the part of me that believes a potential life begins at conception makes me not fond of the practice of abortion. I also know there are many legitimate reasons for abortion. My ultimate view is that abortion is a medical decision and the only people ultimately involved are the woman and her Dr. Politicians absolutely have zero authority to get involved in my worldview.

If only that were true. There are TONS of restrictions, and in some parts of the country for certain individuals a complete ban on abortion.

@JeffMurray ?! Yikes; really Jeff? A complete ban? For whom?

@BobFenner In 26 states there are laws that require that permission be granted by one or both parents or some other authority figure for any woman that's not of a certain age. If any of these young ladies happen to be in a family that doesn't believe in abortion, they are essentially banned from having one. There are 5 states that have only one abortion clinic in the entire state, and 24 states have less than 5 in the entire state. For the young and/or financially disadvantaged this is essentially also a ban, especially when you couple it with time restrictions and "fake" clinics that are set up by pro-life groups with the sole purpose of prolonging the time before a woman gets her appointment to make it extend past legal constraints. Seriously look up TRAP laws. This is a seriously fucked up country in this regard for how first-world and progressive we claim to be.

@JeffMurray Ah yes; the under-aged. Chronologically but not physiologically, behaviorally...

@BobFenner Not all of them are under age. I mentioned how many types of women can be robbed of their autonomy. Regardless, how does it possibly matter what avenue someone uses to take away a woman's access to abortion?

@JeffMurray Ugh... "If you would be free, help others be free"... Oh yes, including the half of the population that are female.

@BobFenner I don't understand your point...

@JeffMurray The finer at times balance... paradox of individual freedom and the desires of society. This line/balance is in need of periodic review; with women of "age" being shortchanged currently. I would have all be freer.

@BobFenner Okay, I'm not understanding you. It's reading like an ancient proverb or something. You seemed to take issue with me claiming some women have had their autonomy taken away because of the way it was taken away. I asked why that mattered, and I haven't been able to glean a response out of anything you've said since.

@JeffMurray I don't dispute your claim; the fact of lost autonomy. "It"matters as all deserve self determination.

You realize that the beginning of your comment and the end appear to have been written by two different people? You completely contradicted yourself...

Fair enough JeffMurray though I don't believe I contradict myself. There are limitations on all freedoms that we have.

But, I failed to properly explain my point of view. At 21 weeks, I don't see it as an abortion. It would be a birth if the fetus could survive outside the womb. At that point we're no longer talking about a cluster of cells or a zygote the size of an acorn but rather an organism that could potentially live on its own.

There HAS to be some cut-off point or am I wrong? Should an abortion be allowed at 9 months while the mother is going into labor? What about once the baby is outside the mother but still connected by the umbilical cord? Logically, there must be a point that we can agree it would be wrong to terminate the pregnancy. I chose 21 weeks based on current medical advances that give a fetus born at that point a reasonable likelihood of survival.

@Charles1971 "I don't believe that I nor anyone else, including the government or religion, has any say in the medical decisions of another person."
"I do think that abortions should only take place before a point in which the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb"

Those two statements are contradictory. Either no one should have a say in another person's medical decisions, or there is a time when one can be told they can't make the medical decision they wish. They cannot coexist. So when you say there are limitations on freedoms (like how you can't scream fire in a crowded building) because your freedom will infringe on the freedoms of others, you are essentially saying that taking away the freedom for a woman to abort after 21 weeks is to protect the freedom of the person inside her? I believe the legal cutoff is when the offspring takes a breath. The laws may be location dependant, I'm not sure. But once there is no more additional risk to the mother to carry than to abort, like if the baby is already out of her just connected by the cord, and the cord has to be cut either way, killing the baby on the table would be an obvious over-stepping of the argument for a woman's right to choose.

But let's use your 21 week rule for argument's sake. What steps as a society are we willing to take to protect a fetus a woman wants to abort that we won't let her because it's after the cut off? Can we stop her from riding rollercoasters? How about smoking, drinking, or taking fetotoxic (legal) drugs? Can we lock her in a padded room? Force her to get, or stop her from getting a c-section whenever she wants? (I mean, if she's told she can't have an abortion because the fetus could survive on its own, can she just say, "Well, then, cut it out of me." ) If she goes on a hunger strike, can we tie her down and feed her through a tube?

@JeffMurray... I answered your question. I didn't come here to argue abortion. I've done this before and it's an exhausting and fruitless debate. I told you my view. You don't have to like it.

@Charles1971 Is not that I don't like your view it's that you are not supporting it. If you want to have opinions that are contradictory and ill supported, that's fine. Lots of people do. But if you wish to actually examine your beliefs the way you probably did regarding religion, I'd be more than happy to bounce ideas back and forth and challenge you on some things. Good luck either way.

@JeffMurray My point is that although I support the freedom of choice, as with all freedoms, there are limitations. I strongly support 1st Amendment rights, but freedom of speech and expression have limitations. And yes, if those limitations are violated then it will be the government and the law that will be the authority that will step in put a halt to such violations.

And thus, even with the freedom of choice over abortion, there should be limitations. You stated "I believe the legal cutoff is when the offspring takes a breath." My view is that the cutoff is when the offspring CAN take a breath (even with assistance) and live.

@Charles1971 That's fine that that's your position, but you should definitely not describe yourself pro-choice, as you are actively advocating a partial ban on abortion.

@Charles1971 Also, it's disingenuous to try to compare my definition of when the baby takes a breath with yours as if they're just different points on the same scale, they are not. To claim that they are is like saying you can abort an air strike after you've already dropped the bombs.

@JeffMurray... Then I suppose I don't believe in free speech since I think there should be limitations on what is allowed. I do not think that I should be legally allowed to put up a billboard near your house that says "Jeff Murray is a rapist and a child molester."

Personally, it just seems like you are trying to be argumentative. And your air strike/bomb analogy is silly and makes no sense. And I think breathing is actually important. It tends to be one of the hallmarks that distinguishes the living from the dead.

@Charles1971 Correct, you don't believe in free speech. Neither do I. And if you want to not believe in a woman's freedom to choose as well, that's up to you. And you can call it argumentative, but I have a problem seeing someone label himself as one thing when he's clearly not. Furthermore, because there are other people and factors in the 'obtaining an abortion' freedom, it is not on the same footing as the freedom of speech. By putting the 21-week restriction on it, you necessarily also put other restrictions in place as well. If you don't know what TRAP laws are, I beg you to go read about them. Seriously, if you read about them and don't agree that if legislators were doing shit like that to subvert your rights you'd be outraged, I will shut the fuck up after this post. They use what rational people like you feel are fair, common-sense restrictions to completely deny a woman her rights. One example is when pro-life organizations set up "abortion clinics" in areas that have 21-week laws on the books, only to lure women in and lie to them about the reason they need to postpone their procedure (most often they "have a fever" ). They string them along until their 21-week mark and then the woman is no longer legally allowed to get an abortion. So no, restrictions on free speech are not the same as restrictions on abortion. Not allowing you to scream "fire" in a crowded building doesn't get parlayed into you not being allowed to scream "fire" while playing Call of Duty.

And yes, my analogy was correlative. You comparing 'baby took a breath' with 'fetus could potentially breathe and live outside of the womb' as points on a 'when you can abort scale' is analogous to comparing 'bombs could drop' and 'bombs already dropped' as both being on a 'when you can abort scale'.

So you do not believe in a woman's right to choose?

@JeffMurray Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes she does have the choice. Maybe she's want to keep it, maybe she wouldn't want to, could be a permanent reminder of the ordeal she's been through. Totally her decision.

The morning after pill doesn't work in the second and third trimester. So, who determines if the woman's reason is a good reason? You're basically saying you do not believe in a woman's right to choose.

Of course prevention is the way....but if we "select" no to educate the people we will never see the end of this problem.

whatever.

I'm coming back as a ham on rye; hold the mayo.

I will never understand a person saying "To abort is a difficult decision for a woman." Is not.

@DUCHESSA - it is a difficult decision, if only from a medical perspective - no one wants to undergo surgery.

@Agnostic1 Medical is just about the only reason....and compared with pregnancy / delivery said surgery is nothing.