Your Religious Views on Abortion

[Charles Anthony]

Again: the point is the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother.

Why should biologic dependence be the criteria for determining what is right or wrong?

[Black Dog]

Why should biologic dependence be the criteria for determining what is right or wrong?

It needn't. I was simply responding to the assertion that a 1 year-old infant is dependent on the mother in the same way as a 3 month old fetus.

As far as right or wrong, I don't think abortion is necessarily right. But I do think its necessary.

[myata]

Again: the point is the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother.

Why should biologic dependence be the criteria for determining what is right or wrong?

My point exactly. If there's any justification at all (religious or otherwise) to imposing your will over my body, then corpuscular democracy is the way to go.

In other words, it's a conflict but not between definitions of what is dependendent or not, but between the rigth of some to impose their views on others and the right of those others to control their own bodies.

[Riverwind]

Again: the point is the fetus is biologically dependent on the mother.

Why should biologic dependence be the criteria for determining what is right or wrong?

I find it extremely ironic that people who resent almost every social institution designed to ease the burden of raising children (e.g. a free education system) would even consider using the power of the state to coherse people into having children that they don't want. I thought individual freedom was the only thing that was important in libertarianism and what is "right" or "wrong" from society's perspective is never a consideration.

[Black Dog]

I find it extremely ironic that people who resent almost every social institution designed to ease the burden of raising children (e.g. a free education system) would even consider using the power of the state to coherse people into having children that they don't want. I thought individual freedom was the only thing that was important in libertarianism and what is "right" or "wrong" from society's perspective is never a consideration.

To be fair, RW, I don't know of many anti-abortion libertarians. In fact, it seems to me that if one believes in using the coercive power of the state to compell women to have kids they don't want, you are de facto not a libertarian.

[Riverwind]

To be fair, RW, I don't know of many anti-abortion libertarians. In fact, it seems to me that if one believes in using the coercive power of the state to compell women to have kids they don't want, you are de facto not a libertarian.

I made the comment because two of our resident libertarians seem to be in a favour of forcing woman to have children they don't want/can't afford, however, in other threads they have said they are in favour of denying these unwanted children access to education and healthcare if their mother can't afford it. In other words, from their perspective, having unwanted children living in squalor and dying in the streets is perfectly acceptable. However, allowing a woman to abort a fetus is not acceptable.

[Rue]

If directly asked (and I will never raise it or discuss it unless spefically asked to) I would say from a spiritual perspective I don't feel comfortable at all with the concept of abortion if it is deliberately induced by a human. But that is simply my opinion. I also happen to believe what a woman does with her body is strictly her business, so ideally I would like her to know she has options other then an abortion, but what she does with her body is none of my friggin business unless of course she is my mate/wife and even if it is my sperm that created the child I believe my rights are limited to simply stating my preference but no more then that. Sorry boys, we don't have the responsibility that comes with carrying the child so we don't get the final word, and if you don't like it, then park that magic wand and stay out of trouble in the first place. My spiritual beliefs begin and end with me and most importantly I do not have a womb so its easy for me to say what I say, I do not have the responsibility to carry a child. Sure I do not like the idea of a deliberately induced abortion but what about a woman raped by her father or some sob on the street or what about a woman carrying a seriously deformed child or a child she knows will be born with down's syndrome or huntington's korea, etc. You think I would dare pontificate to a woman in suchs ituations that she must carry a product of incest etc., to full term? Nope. With medical ethics and medical care as advanced as it is today, its too complicated an issue for we people to start shoving religion in each other's face and imposing what we want on other peoples' bodies- rape is bad enough, please don't ask me to force my beliefs on them either-decisions as to the womb and what is in it rest with the woman, her doctor, and who-ever else she wants to confide in and trisy-if she asked me for advise I would definitelykeep my spiritual views to myself and remain strictly neutral and simply be non-judgemental and help them know what all the options are BUT THAT IS AS FAR AS I WOULD GO. Yes from a spiritual point of view I worry when life actually starts and so abortion makes me very nervous but on the other hand there is an issue as to the sanctity and control of a woman's body so for me, I feel I have to qualify and contain my opinions. I think am an example of many people who support a woman's right to control their body but still do not necessarily completely agree with abortion but see the two issues as distinct. I do not have a rigid belief that makes me feel I can impose it on others.

[Charles Anthony]

I find it extremely ironic that people who resent almost every social institution designed to ease the burden of raising children (e.g. a free education system) would even consider using the power of the state to coherse people into having children that they don't want.

Out of what hat did you pull that conclusion???

I thought individual freedom was the only thing that was important in libertarianism

In general, that is correct. It is usually put more specifically in terms of aggression and non-aggression between people.

and what is "right" or "wrong" from society's perspective is never a consideration.

That is correct. You are getting "society's perspective" with "inalienable rights" confused.

The common analogy is slavery. Regardless of what society's perspective happens to be, slavery violates an inalienable right to freedom. The pregnant woman's right to control over her own body naturally supercedes any rights of her non-aborted-thing.

Applying inalienable rights to a non-aborted-thing is impractical. However, eventually they must be applied if the thing survives the pregnancy.

[Riverwind]

Applying inalienable rights to a non-aborted-thing is impractical. However, eventually they must be applied if the thing survives the pregnancy.

Ok. I agree. Then why did you appear to be arguing against abortion? Were you just playing devil's advocate?

[Charles Anthony]

Applying inalienable rights to a non-aborted-thing is impractical. However, eventually they must be applied if the thing survives the pregnancy.

Ok. I agree. Then why did you appear to be arguing against abortion?

I have a few answers to that question and I am not ashamed to present them. Some are simple and some are a little complicated. However, in all fairness, your question is not playing the ball but rather playing the person.

Granted, I am certainly not one to point fingers. I am very guilty of not playing the ball in several instances. Nevertheless, my question truly goes to the heart of reconciling "Your Religious Views on Abortion" as they have been addressed in this thread by various people.

Forgive me, but I believe that your question above demonstrates a loss of objectivity.

Were you just playing devil's advocate?

Interesting question... I will answer your follow-up question only after you objectively answer mine:

When does a person acquire the inalienable right to life and why that time?

[Let us assume that we all agree that each living person has the right to life. We can argue that principle or conditions of when they lose that right or whatever later.]

I realize that it comes across as a baited or a trick question. Trick questions are ones that usually have no answer or only one answer: the one you do not want to hear. Nevertheless, I would like to think that people do have the right to life at some point.

[Riverwind]

When does a person acquire the inalienable right to life and why that time?[Let us assume that we all agree that each living person has the right to life. We can argue that principle or conditions of when they lose that right or whatever later.]

When does a person acquire the inalienable right to life even if that means imposing hardship on other people? It is one thing to say a person like Terry Schiavo has a right to life - it is another to say that other people have an absolute moral obligation to pay whatever cost is necessary to keep a person alive.

When it comes to abortion one could argue that the mother has a right to refuse the burden of caring for another person just like the state/society has the right to refuse the burden of caring for person with severe medical difficulties because the 'cost is too high'. If the fetus/person happens to die as a result of the mother exercising her right to refuse to care for another person then that is unfortunate but unavoidable.

[Charles Anthony]

You are refusing to be objective. Your objective is supporting abortion.

Your support veers you away from examining the various implications of abortion objectively.

Supporting abortion is part of YOUR religion.

Your question above examines valid points pertaining to abortion but I must point out that:

1) your question is a spin

2) you do not even answer your own diverted question

3) your insistance on spinning away suggests a fervent lack of objectivity

My question related to applying rights if the non-aborted-thing survives pregnancy. You know that. My question is valid because each person to whom the right to life is applied must survive a pregnancy.

[Riverwind]

Your support veers you away from examining the various implications of abortion objectively.

Not at all. Abortion is not something that can be examined in isolation - a discussion of whether a fetus is a person must include a discussion of the broader morals regarding life in society.

Supporting abortion is part of YOUR religion.

My position is that any opinion on when life begins or whether people have an inalienable right to life is a religious opinion. There is no such thing as a purely objective or scientific definition of life.

The answer to the question about the rights of the "non-aborted-thing that survives pregnancy" is "it depends".

[ClearWest]

I made the comment because two of our resident libertarians seem to be in a favour of forcing woman to have children they don't want/can't afford, however, in other threads they have said they are in favour of denying these unwanted children access to education and healthcare if their mother can't afford it. In other words, from their perspective, having unwanted children living in squalor and dying in the streets is perfectly acceptable. However, allowing a woman to abort a fetus is not acceptable.

It is a divisive issue even among Libertarians. Some would argue that the child has a right to life (as a part of life, liberty, and property). On the other hand, others would argue that the woman has a right to the property that is her body--the unborn child being part of it. (As you many of you on this thread have argued, very well too, I might add!)

However, my Religious view is to not abort a child. Just as it is my religious view to want to help and give aide to 'unwanted children living in squalor and dying in the streets'.

Should the state step in to prevent this abortion? I'm actually leaning towards no--due to the fact that the underground alternative would be much worse than such practices being done in a hospital.

Politically in this thread though, I already had this to say:

But should there be a time frame in which the mother gets a chance to opt-out of the pregnancy in the circumstances of rape? It's such a touchy issue that I don't think we should ban abortion, but we should certainly discourage it, just as much as we discourage the slaughtering of helpless baby chicks, and the slaughtering of civillians in a war situation.

I'm sorry if earlier I sounded like I was presenting a double standard--saying that the state should allow one travesty and prevent another. Religiously, I feel that individuals should do their part to prevent or assist in any travesty. Politically, the state often makes situations worse when they attempt to do such damage repair/prevention.

Example, I would rather discourage a person from getting an abortion, and suggest adoption--rather than imposing legislation which bans the practice.

Still, if abortion is indeed killing a human being--should it be banned in the same manner as murder? The debate goes on...

[Charles Anthony]

Still, if abortion is indeed killing a human being--should it be banned in the same manner as murder?

Just a practical (and smart-aleck) question: banned by whom? Who has the authority to ban an abortion?

The debate goes on...

Quite the contrary: the debate stops.

The debate stops in front of a brick wall created by diversions: deliberately incompatible but equally "religious" definitions of human being or when life begins and the debate goes nowhere.

[ClearWest]

Ooh, here's where the line is drawn between anarchist and miniarchist.

Still, if abortion is indeed killing a human being--should it be banned in the same manner as murder?

Just a practical (and smart-aleck) question: banned by whom? Who has the authority to ban an abortion?

The same people who ban murder--if any. I know where you're coming from here--our ideologies are quite similar afterall. If your question is should someone have the authority to ban abortion--my answer is almost definitely no. Now, a rhetorical question for you along the same lines. Should someone have the authority to perform an abortion? Conflicting rights. Which one wins?

The debate goes on...

Quite the contrary: the debate stops.

The debate stops in front of a brick wall created by diversions: deliberately incompatible but equally "religious" definitions of human being or when life begins and the debate goes nowhere.

What I meant was that I was leaving the topic open to further discussion rather than stating a conclusive opinion.

Charles, may I ask you to please clarify your stance on the issue of abortion a little more clearly? You've asked a lot of rhetorical questions, and stated a lot of philosophy, but perhaps you could share your feelings on the policy aspect of abortion. Would you favour the rights of the mother over the rights of the child? Should the child's rights even be considered while it is inside the womb of the mother? In the earlier posts of this thread it appeared as though you were opposed to the idea of abortion--But it seems as though you're (like me) even moreso opposed to the banning of abortion.

[Charles Anthony]

Ooh, here's where the line is drawn between anarchist and miniarchist.

Indeed! and I will fight your little government with as much fervor as I would fight any other tyranny! En garde!

Now, a rhetorical question for you along the same lines. Should someone have the authority to perform an abortion? Conflicting rights. Which one wins?

I am not sure I understand your question because my answer is obvious and simple: whoever a pregnant woman asks to perform the abortion has the authority. Is that what you are getting at???

What I meant was that I was leaving the topic open to further discussion rather than stating a conclusive opinion.

What I meant was that the topic gets side-tracked by both sides of the debate with discussions of things other than the right to one's own body.

perhaps you could share your feelings on the policy aspect of abortion. Would you favour the rights of the mother over the rights of the child?

I must preface my answer with the following: I am presuming that you say "policy" to mean something that is enforced by a state. Unlike some morally-flexible or confused anarchists, I will not give the state any legitimacy. Nevertheless, I will bend and choose the lesser of the evils to answer your question.

As a policy, I can only let the pregnant woman control the rights of her non-aborted-thing. Similarly, I would only let the parents control the upbringing of their children. Likewise, I would see the parents as being responsible for the upbringing of their children. Finally, I would make parents responsible for the actions of their children.

CAVEAT: In the event of child abuse or neglect or parents wanting to give up a child, it makes sense to have a "policy" whereby children are adopted.

Should the child's rights even be considered while it is inside the womb of the mother?

As policy, no. For various practical reasons:

1) the non-aborted-thing technically qualifies as a parasite inside the pregnant woman, the woman's right to control her body takes precedence

2) too many people believe abortion is right

3) people will do it anyway, possibly escaping detection

4) forcing people to believe something never works

Therefore, it makes no sense to consider the rights of a non-aborted-thing at all in policy unless it is more convenient to do so. Most of what we have as "policy" is just the result of a balance of competing forces. Currently, abortionists win. It is as simple as a war of ten non-abortionists against a thousand abortionists. The non-abortionists should just give up.

In the earlier posts of this thread it appeared as though you were opposed to the idea of abortion--But it seems as though you're (like me) even moreso opposed to the banning of abortion.

I will be frank: banning abortion or abortion policy poses a dilemma because it implicitly requires a state.

It is physically impossible for me to say that I believe in restricting abortion unless I have the power of a state. Therefore, I do not believe in such a policy.

I have a religious belief in respecting freedom to the extreme -- or at least as much as my intelligence can manage. (I admit that I am not the smartest nor am I infallible at making decisions of how to choose freedom.)

Part of respecting freedom involves accepting people doing things that do not affect other people.

In the case of abortion and reproduction, the concept of respecting freedom between the woman and non-aborted-thing does not apply because the woman's complete freedom does not exist or her freedom to NOT be pregnant has already been lost. To put it in common anarchist terms: one person's right to swing his fist does NOT stop in front of the other person's nose because not only has it already struck the other person's nose but the swinger can not be faulted for having struck the other person. It is comparable to determining punishment after an arsonist burns down a house and asking for the lost collection of rare art to be returned.

Outside of policy (and here is where I will shamelessly create the most vehement enemies possible):

I abhor abortion more than any other crime against humanity that has ever been perpetrated or can be imagined.

[Riverwind]

Outside of policy (and here is where I will shamelessly create the most vehement enemies possible):I abhor abortion more than any other crime against humanity that has ever been perpetrated or can be imagined.

So in your world which is the worse crime deserving of the greatest punishment:

1) The violant rape of a woman.

2) Aborting the pregancy that occurred because of that rape.

If your answer is 1) then you may want to qualify your previous statement.

[yam]

"Part of respecting freedom involves accepting people doing things that do not affect other people.

In the case of abortion and reproduction, the concept of respecting freedom between the woman and non-aborted-thing does not apply because the woman's complete freedom does not exist or her freedom to NOT be pregnant has already been lost."

The thing is that it would be the mother's freedom that is effected by being forced to give birth and rear that child for the rest of her life. Her freedom here would be taken away by either the church or state, relations etc. And what if that mother was forming a 'thing' later to develop into a child that was violently forced upon her by a rapist?

And even though she may be pregnant her freedom does exist and has not been lost. Morality and ideology from others may take it away from her - only if she allows it or is pressured that much by them. As for the 'thingy' losing its freedom - all faetuses never choose to exist. Further, they are nowhere near in the developed stage of a human that understands the mental concept of freedom.

I dont like abortion - (who does) but i think it is very necessary at times. I rather hope that people are aware the sooner one has an abortion the better it is for it as not developed.

[ClearWest]

Ooh, here's where the line is drawn between anarchist and miniarchist.

Indeed! and I will fight your little government with as much fervor as I would fight any other tyranny! En garde!

Lol, Fair enough.

Now, a rhetorical question for you along the same lines. Should someone have the authority to perform an abortion? Conflicting rights. Which one wins?

I am not sure I understand your question because my answer is obvious and simple: whoever a pregnant woman asks to perform the abortion has the authority. Is that what you are getting at???

Now that I look back at the question I realize that it is inapplicable in Anarchist terms--because I was asking "Should someone be sanctioned with the authority to perform an abortion", sanctioned by whom--the government. Perhaps I should have addressed the question to the general group rather than specifically to you.

Well, assuming that there is a government which has the means to impose its will upon individuals, should someone be sanctioned with the authority to perform an abortion? The point I was making with that statement is that you're pretty much sanctioning someone to kill. If a pregnant woman can ask someone to perform an abortion, theoretically you could also ask someone to assassinate another person.

Of course, I was thinking under the terms of law and legality--whereas in an anarchist system there would be no such thing. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I was thinking differently. In fact I totally see that you have a point.

CAVEAT: In the event of child abuse or neglect or parents wanting to give up a child, it makes sense to have a "policy" whereby children are adopted.

Maybe you just through this out as a fair compromise, but that opens up another can of worms. People might have different definitions for abuse or neglect. I might consider abortion to be neglectful, perhaps even abusive.

Part of respecting freedom involves accepting people doing things that do not affect other people.

In the case of abortion and reproduction, the concept of respecting freedom between the woman and non-aborted-thing does not apply because the woman's complete freedom does not exist or her freedom to NOT be pregnant has already been lost. To put it in common anarchist terms: one person's right to swing his fist does NOT stop in front of the other person's nose because not only has it already struck the other person's nose but the swinger can not be faulted for having struck the other person. It is comparable to determining punishment after an arsonist burns down a house and asking for the lost collection of rare art to be returned.

Here's where I tend to disagree the most. I'm going to state my differing opinion, however I will keep an opened mind for your responses because I am interested in the philosophy of pure anarchism.

Firstly, the woman's freedom to have an abortion does affect other people--the unborn child being the main one.

Secondly, it seems to me that there should be an imposed consequence for violent behaviour. If someone steals from me, I should be able to demand to have it returned, even in a court of law.

Like I say though, I'm quite interested in your non-government ideas concerning such matters. Maybe we can save it for another thread though because we would surely stray from the topic of abortion.

[Charles Anthony]

which is the worse crime deserving of the greatest punishment:

Punishment? Worse crime? Who is talking about punishment?? Justice is a bizarre thing.

The anwser to such a hypothetically coercive dilemma is simple: it depends on what makes the individuals involved happy. It also depends on how cruel or unusual their peers happen to be.

Implicit in your question is the assumption that both individuals should be punished. Can you explain why you suggest that the post-abortion-rape-victime should be punished?

And even though she may be pregnant her freedom does exist and has not been lost.

You are missing the point. I suspect that I may not have been clear at all -- too many long sentences.

With respect to the balance of freedom between the non-aborted-thing and the pregnant mother, the mother's freedom is being limited already. She is not free.

It is analogous to me tying a wounded man to your hip and telling you to drag him to the nearest hospital otherwise he will die. You are not free. To free yourself, you either have to cut him off and let him die or drag him to the hospital. Either way, there is an imposition upon you.

Interestingly in the case of the abortion, the mother is physiologically responsible for the creation of the imposition but it is not always wilfull.

Well, assuming that there is a government which has the means to impose its will upon individuals, should someone be sanctioned with the authority to perform an abortion?

I do not see why not. It only makes sense.

Why should it be treated differently from building a house? I can hire one carpenter. He can do it all himself or hire subcontractors. I can build the house myself.

Are you asking if it should have state regulation? or should the state stay out of it like the running-shoe industry?

The point I was making with that statement is that you're pretty much sanctioning someone to kill.

Correct and it is only out of practicality: there are is no choice.

The only way that you can oppose abortion in reality is through the use of violence and that is a fight that can not be won. If such a fight could be won, I would still object because I do not trust The Watchmen.

I know where you are coming from. Imagine three buckets: good, bad and neutral. In my own mind and how I judge my peers, I would toss both abortion and murder and suicide in the same bucket. I would also toss American sit-coms in that same bucket however, I would not act upon it. It reminds me of a Muslim friend of my mine who explained that not only is it wrong for him to eat non-halal food but it is also wrong to sell it. However, he is not required to go to war against all of the non-halal food merchants.

The point I was making with that statement is that you're pretty much sanctioning someone to kill. If a pregnant woman can ask someone to perform an abortion, theoretically you could also ask someone to assassinate another person.

There are two ways of looking at this dilemma.

1) make an exception: sanction someone to kill ONLY in an abortion

2) Who cares? we sanction killing all of the time now anyway.

Of course, I was thinking under the terms of law and legality--whereas in an anarchist system there would be no such thing. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I was thinking differently. In fact I totally see that you have a point.

That is the problem with conventional minarchism: you accept some level of coersion. You are stuck with a further dilemma of justify why that small level of coersion and why not more/less coersion. In fact, I can turn the issue around and identify our current political set up here in Canada as minarchism anyway. For you, we might have too much government wheraas raging-freeloading-socialists, they say that we have too little government.

Maybe you just through this out as a fair compromise, but that opens up another can of worms. People might have different definitions for abuse or neglect. I might consider abortion to be neglectful, perhaps even abusive.

People do have different definitions of child abuse. Such a problem is inevitable regardless of the political set-up or balance of power. I would venture to say that the mechanics of how we deal with child-abuse today would resemble closely what anarchists would do: ganging up and overpowering the abusive parent.

Firstly, the woman's freedom to have an abortion does affect other people--the unborn child being the main one.

I agree but not through anarchist justification.

My belief is metaphysical (as is the belief by abortionists that it does NOT affect other people) and thus I do not bother defending it.

Secondly, it seems to me that there should be an imposed consequence for violent behaviour. If someone steals from me, I should be able to demand to have it returned, even in a court of law.

What if that person consumes what he stole? You can never get it back.

What if the thief pays you compensation? You can still never get it back.

In my example above, you are asking for the burned up rare art to be replaced after a fire: you can be compensated financially, but it is still gone. Any aesthetic value of the loss is gone and can not be replaced. Forgive me but this is where you are gravely missing the point with respect to rights over one's body. True justice does not happen in abortion regardless of what side of the fence you sit.

You must understand that it is fair to say that HAVING AN ABORTION is still an imposition upon the woman (both physically and mentally) as is GOING THROUGH THE PREGNANCY happens to be. In my example above, you are asking for the burned up rare art to be replaced after a fire: you can be compensated financially, but it is still gone. Any aesthetic value of the loss is gone and can not be replaced.

Like I say though, I'm quite interested in your non-government ideas concerning such matters. Maybe we can save it for another thread though because we would surely stray from the topic of abortion.

Yeah, most of my beliefs are un-original particularly with the history of the MapleLeafWeb forum or illogical. Generally, my beliefs are a complement of anarchy and a belief in the super-natural. Abortion is easy: I treat it as if it were a decision to go to battle with only ten men against a thousand men. The choices are limited:

1) give up

2) die fighting

3) let your ten men mutiny and join the opposing side

Stopping abortion is impossible. It (or at least its demand) has always existed in some form or an other. The only power you have to change world views on abortion comes from how you raise your children (and being arrogant in discussions!). Personally, I am comfortable with only that.

The neat thing about abortion is that it cuts to the very core of identifying human rights and the right to life. I think it forces adopting a "religious" (in other words, a subjective or blind-faith-based or illogical) stand point from both sides. Pro-abortionists ultimately take a religious but opposing view too. The issue of abortion makes it impossible to objectively determine exactly when and how a non-aborted-pregnancy-survived-thing acquires a right to life. It becomes a subjective choice.

[Riverwind]

Implicit in your question is the assumption that both individuals should be punished. Can you explain why you suggest that the post-abortion-rape-victime should be punished?

You made the comment:

I abhor abortion more than any other crime against humanity that has ever been perpetrated or can be imagined.

I would say you are the one making the assertion that a rape victim should be punished. Your contradictory words about how you don't believe a gov't should punish anyone does not negate the fact that you said you believe that abortion is a crime deserving of punishment. If a crime does not deserve punishment then why bother even calling it a crime.

[Charles Anthony]

Sure! I will go for a spin! This is starting to get fun!

I would say you are the one making the assertion that a rape victim should be punished.

No. I am stating that the act of abortion is a crime against humanity.

I am also saying that I loathe it more than any other crime against humanity.

If a crime does not deserve punishment then why bother even calling it a crime.

Easy. A crime against humanity is not a violation against a specific person. I could call the destruction of the Buddhist shrines by the Taliban a crime against humanity too. In my opinion, both acts are disgusting.

Do you want me to explain to you how "war on terror" is not the same as war?

You also spun and still have not answered my question: When does a person acquire the inalienable right to life and why that time?

I have a challenge to you: do you believe that people have a right to life?

[Drea]

s=&showtopic=6408&view=findpost&p=130611]have not answered[/url] my question: When does a person acquire the inalienable right to life and why that time?

A person aquires the right to life when they are born. In some cultures a child's age begins at conception and they are considered "1" when they come out of the womb. Our culture states that a child's age begins when they exit the womb. So for us, at least, life begins at birth.

That being said, I believe abortion should be available on demand up to and including the 3rd month of pregnancy. If a woman can't make the decision before then she should be stuck being pregnant.

I've had 2 abortions in my life -- once when I was 15 and once when I was 32. When I was 15 the doctor refused to give me birth control -- we used a condom but the condom fell off... When I was 32... the man in question was genetically messed up and the chances of the child having his problems was 80% so I decided not to have the child. (Ok it was a pity **ck, the poor guy was a virgin at age 30)

So hate me if you will but the son I do have has a great life. Imagine if I would have had that first child -- I would not have gone to college, I probably would've had to marry the boy who was a loser. Imagine if I would have had that other child. Genetically deficient, probably in need of major heart operations for the rest of its life. As a single mom of one already I really could not have dealt with a.) marrying the pitiful guy or b.) raising a handicapped child on my own.

By the way, both abortions were performed at less than 8 weeks of pregnancy and the decision was instant. I knew exactly the right thing to do in the beginning and never waffled even once. Also, I have no guilt to this day. I know I did the right thing -- twice.

[Charles Anthony]

Thank you for having the courage to examine the question.

A person aquires the right to life when they are born.

In your opinion, what does that inalienable right entail?

The way I see the dilemma is in the context of me saying that "I have the right to freedom!" and "I have the right to food, clothing and shelter!" and "I have the right to universal health-care!" while being stuck alone on a desert islan.