I didn't get the chain Email, saw it at school, but doesn't it change anything? It is what it is, shouldn't matter who you got it from, unless you are saying it is fake.

I think that once a fetus has a heartbeat, and there is no reason to end its life, as mentioned above a good reason to me is if the mothers life is in danger, then it should be her choice, and I am on the fence if it was rape.

Something I hate about politics, is the words they use to put a spin on something, instead of calling it what it is. Some call Torture "interrogation techniques", some call killing fetuses "woman's right to choose". Things are what they are, call them what they are. I think abortion is wrong, now, its not because I am a Catholic (although I haven't gone to church in like a year). I do believe in god, and all that good stuff, but there are a lot of things I disagree with when it comes to the church's views on things, i.e. condoms being a bad thing, I seriously think that is a very old fashion belief, and I can understand the belief about not wanting people to have sex before marriage, but the situation in the current world is bigger then that. In my opinion, and the way I see it, aborting/terminating a fetus with a heart beat, is murder. It is a living person. To me it is as simple as that. I am in no way sexist, I don't think the issue is a sexist issue. I mean, if there really are people on the anti-abortion side that don't think abortions should be allowed simply because they don't think women are capable of making the decision or shouldn't be allowed to make decisions, then said person is just retarded, and makes anti-abortion people all look bad.

I do think that the father should have some say, however, I know that is tricky. How can we delicate which father is actually going to be responsible and which one wants the kid around just so the mother can raise it on her own? I don't think we can't. However, I know if I was in high school, and got a girl pregnant, I would be extremely sad if she aborted it.

Yes, it is fake. The photo itself is real, what it purports to show is not.



I don't understand the significance of the heartbeat. Why is it OK for a mother to murder her baby within the first month of pregnancy but not after when it has developed a heartbeat?
Why are you on the fence about rape? Abortion is murder, right? How does rape justify a mother murdering her baby?

It's good that you don't argue for abortion of a healthy baby prior to delivery, but you're wrong that there aren't plenty of people (including some on this board) that do. They see any restriction on abortion as a rightwing stepping stone to banning it entirely, so better to break a few eggs and draw the line at birth itself.

But away from that, the meaningful discussion should be in when life begins and when the fetus/child gains rights. Because while I agree with your refusal to force your own morality on anyone else, one legitimate function of government is law enforcement against the infringing on a person's rights. And as fundamental rights go, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness don't mean much of anything without the first one -- life. Presumably you'd expect the state to intervene if a mother kills her infant or newborn. Based on what you said, it sounds like you'd expect the state to intervene if a mother "aborts" a healthy child at delivery. The right to be alive attaches to the child himself, not the mother's system of morality. One person might say he's alive at a heartbeat, another might say it's a function of brain development, but that's not a moral code, that's using a biological function to define when a human being gains the fundamental right to life. If the law was that flexible as to allow individuals to decide for themselves when they've violated it, what would be the justification for objecting if someone truly believed the child wasn't alive until he was actually BORN, and thus could morally abort him minutes before delivery? Really, if that were the standard, then the entire criminal system would break down.

Obviously, that's not how laws work; at the end of the day they're always firm codifications prohibiting or mandating something, whether you individually agree with it or not. It's a good reason why I say the government should have its hands in as little as possible, but establishing a person's right to continue living and proscribing the taking of it is definitely one of them. If a child in the womb has rights, then the state should not allow someone to violate them, even if the individual may thing it's okay to do so. What I hear from the "pro-choice" crowd in general is that they'd much rather see all abortion legalized than take the chance that any restriction might prevent a pregnant woman from removing a not-yet-alive child. My view is that if the science is in dispute and errors are GOING to be made, they should be in favor of a child's right to live rather than the woman's right to choose, since the former is the more fundamental. Hence why I call myself "pro-life" (though in truth I'm staunchly pro-choice when the rights in question are equal or the child isn't yet viable).

The picture is not of a fetus grabbing the hand of a doctor.




Ok, so at one extreme are the antichoice people who believe that as soon as sperm and egg come together that's it, from then on it is murder (and I have met people who claimed that all "potential life" not allowed to become life has been murdered, i.e. masturbation is mass murder).
At the other end are those who allegedly believe that as long as the fetus is inside the woman it is up to her if she wants to terminate her pregnancy.
Where is the middle ground that you have found?




Have you ever heard of the "morning after pill"? If you take it within 48 hours of impregnation it will end the pregnancy. You probably won't know definitively that you are pregnant, but if ending a pregnancy is murdering a baby what difference would it make to know? The baby is still murdered.
One of the current tactics of the antichoice movement is to deny women access to these pills, either through pharmacists who refuse to dispense the medicine or through pharmacy owners who refuse to allow pharmacists they employ dispense it.



I don't understand what I am being asked. I asked you why you thought rape could justify murdering a baby, i.e. why should a woman impregnated through rape have the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy when all other women are denied this right? Obviously I don't think abortion is murder and thus can't answer the question.



Instead of telling me I can't prove you wrong could you explain why you can't be wrong? What is it about a heartbeat that turns ending a pregnancy into murder?
I don't think murder is just, but it sounds like you think it might be? I don't understand how else you can be on the fence about it in any circumstance if you believe it is murder.



How big of a question must the mother's life be to justify murdering her fetus?
Your ignorance of the reasons women choose to terminate their pregnancies doesn't mean they don't have one. Or that it is because they can't provide the child "a good life". For example, many pregnancies are terminated because the baby is deformed, or will have severe health issues if it survives to birth.