I dislike abortion and try to avoid it, but I vote pro-choice.

There are probably countless individuals who are better able to argue for this position than I, but I want to take a shot at it anyway: Why should we be ashamed? Because lives are being ended? Humanity has ended countless lives within every currently-existing species, and likely several that we never had a chance to discover. Countless life forms are probably being killed by humans as I type this very sentence. Because [i]human[/i] lives are being ended, then? Okay, then. But what makes a human life more significant than that of a dog, a chicken, an ant, or a bacteria? Not the human form: we do not assign inherent moral value to clumps of skin cells or tufts of hair, nor do we consider the removal of such to be inherently and without exception a moral transgression. No -- the thing that sets us apart from other species, as moral entities, is a functional human mind. Something that unborn children younger than a certain threshold do not have: they have the potential to become mentally human, but are currently only human in physical form. You could argue, then, that the question is a matter of potentialities, but the problem is that potentialities are just that -- potential, not certain, outcomes. Even if a pregnancy is left untampered with, you cannot guarantee that that will result in an outcome that is as positive as, or more positive than, the outcome that would result were the pregnancy terminated. You can't guarantee that a teenage mother-to-be will raise a safe, healthy, happy, and successful child that will actually enjoy and want its life. You can't guarantee that a -blam!- victim won't abuse the accomplice-to-her-trauma that is developing within her body. You can't guarantee that an ordinary woman, who just isn't ready for motherhood, will be able to effectively raise a child that is well-prepared for life, and that will have adequate opportunities. The future is far too unpredictable for any attempts at a prediction -- for potentialities -- to be of any value in making this moral judgment. So we focus on present values in the present moment. From this viewpoint, abortion is little more than the termination of a group of cells that are not mentally or morally human.

Still think it's funny that the people who are against pro-choice mass hid the thread that proposed the counter argument in order to hide the thread from the public while the people who are against the "pro-life" position allow the viewpoint of the other side to remain visible to everyone.

what about hunting OP? why is it justified to kill animals, who are more alive than fetuses are, for food, and why is it not justified to kill a fetus for stem cell research? I'd take an alive dog over a fetus any day of the week

People born into a situation where a mother would rather abort are probably going to have a bad living situation anyway, as shown by statistics that show that crime rates drop in areas where abortions are possible, let alone easier to get. Also, they're not children. They're not even fetuses most of the time. They're embryos. They are not people. If I showed you a picture of a human embryo at the stage it typically gets aborted and compared it to a frog embryo, dog embryo, and chicken embryo you would probably not be able to tell the difference. The only human-like characteristics it has are its chromosomes. Also, do you have any citations for either of the "facts" you presented in the last paragraph? Please and thank you.

Though I agree with late-stage abortions being wrong, underdeveloped foetuses and embryos don't have rights. The are not conscious persons. There's no such thing as a "right to life," (murder is covered by the right to physical autonomy, a right that demonstrably benefits the societies that accept it.) How does a mother being forced to spend time, energy, and money on a pregnancy and creating a child (even putting it up for adoption doesn't solve these issues), create a better society? Especially since she may not be ready, willing, or capable of supporting that child? Humans aren't exactly in an underpopulation crisis, here.

muted.

I risk sounding like a moron here, but how many people do you think would [i]really[/i] abort their unborn child? Honest question here. It's morally unacceptable to a lot of people, and a lot of people would make you feel really guilty. I guess that would be a deterrent.

Why are there so many people wanting to start flame wars recently?

Troll harder.

>Is not ashamed Ever think OP that an unwanted child might ruin ones Life, destroy whatever sense of Liberty still hold, and maybe even shatter any Happiness they might have? I don't condone it, I myself would never give that baby up, but I can recognize that people on every level have a reasons for why they might do something like this. Either away, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, someone is going to end up unhappy and I would rather that the baby might not have to suffer because of it.

op is mad bcos he was neerly aborted

If it were my child, I would choose not to abort. However, I am not one to make choices in other people's lives. If they need to, they should have the option to abort.

I don't see anything wrong about it; morally it is horrible but a needed evil.

I'm starting to think that everyone that argues over this issue is really stupid.

OP, abortion is a good thing. The world already has more than enough people that are threatening its stability. Slowing down overpopulation is [i]good[/i] and necessary. Plus, a fetus is not sentient, and thus has no rights. It has the potential to become a person, and thus has no rights.

I bet most peoples opinions on abortion would change if they actually experienced the scenario.

I love it when people that are obviously wrong continue to argue, Its cute. Like a little kid trying to open a locked door. Seriously this isn't hard. I don't even have to argue trimesters with pro lifers, all i have to do is point at the word birth in the 14th amendment.