Something to keep in mind

Furthermore, everyone should have the OPTION. Their body, their life, their decisions. Politics shouldn't make a difference. If you feel strongly against it, that's fine, that's still your decision, but let others who are pro choice make the decision without being judged.

But it's still killing a baby because it inconveniences you. The baby cannot help it if someone gets pregnant, but the baby has to pay for it with his or her life... It makes me so sad

And I am not trying to start a hateful, name calling argument here, simply stating an opposing viewpoint. And I have one request, can you point out to me the difference in an abortion and killing a 6 month old baby for the same reason? The reason being that the mother cannot care for the child and the child is also ruining the mother's life because she is not ready to be responsible and care for another human being. What is the difference in killing an unborn baby, and a 6 month old? Honest question.

I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not the foetus counts as a life, so therefore opinions are fundamentally divided as to whether abortion is just the removal of a foetus or murder.

Ahh... I still do not believe that people actually do not consider the fetus to be alive until it is born. I think it's a subconscious way of justifying their actions. The fetus has it's own heartbeat, it's own blood, and all it's own body parts. Now you're telling me that this is a matter or opinion? That is rubbish.

98% of all abortions happen in the first trimester, when the fetus has no developed nervous system and is about the size of a pencil eraser. Just to put that in perspective, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end up as a miscarriage by the time the 8th week hits. Why aren't more women having funerals for those? Because it's not considered to have autonomy or personhood.

Would you save a 6 month old baby from a burning building or a 6 week old embryo in a Petri dish? You tell me the difference- seriously, don't ask ridiculous questions.

Consciousness is a factor you haven't considered - the foetus is not aware for quite some time, and so this affects some people's opinions as to when a foetus becomes an actual baby, a life. THIS concept of awareness and life is what could be argued as the difference between abortion and the murder of a six-month-old child. You also have to take into account the sometimes religiously-associated concept of a soul - for example, some more liberal Muslims believe 'ensoulment' occurs when the foetus is 120 days old, and before this abortion does not count as killing as there is no soul so no life. (And please don't call other people's opinions 'rubbish' - it is disrespectful as no one has rubbished yours).
{sorry guest, my comment is directed at jjohnson21 - I'm not arguing against you :) }

So basically what you're saying is a fetus having life is determined by your opinion of when life starts?

Isn't that exactly what you are arguing? When the rights and personhood of a woman are trumped by that of her pregnancy? You need permission to collect organs from a cadaver, to use their body- and you are saying a woman has less rights to her body than a cadaver.

*snap snap snap snap snap*

Exactly! You'll never have everyone agree that an abortion is the "right" thing to do, but each person should be allowed to choose whether they do or don't

Okay, been a while since I've been on, and this is directed to whome. The question of whether or not having a baby could ruin somebody's life is , to say the least, trivial. There is always the option of letting another couple who can't conceive, or perhaps a gay couple, adopt the baby. And consciousness shouldn't matter either, specialgentjesus, as the fetus is still a living thing. It still contains homo sapien DNA, and living cells and tissue. The fact that it doesn't know what's around it or that it's being killed shouldn't matter, because it is still a living thing that a person is ending the life of because it is inconvenient for them. You wanna know the answer to this? Proper use of birth control. Accidental pregnancies occur way more often than they should. It's because people are inconsistent with birth control.

Would you rather see a baby starve to death, or die of illness, or live in a home where he is disgraced for that fact that if it wasn't for them they'd be in a better situation, than have a person make the hard decision to wait until they are physically, mentally, and financially stable until they bring a child into their lives where they can properly care for them.

That's why I mentioned ADOPTION! Seriously, don't comment until you read what's been posted previously.

Why should a woman be forced to carry a baby for 9 months that she cannot keep?

Have you considered the mental hardship the woman would go though?

Also, 15baughman, I'm guessing you're a man as you haven't considered the females situation. What if she was raped? What f her husband / boyfriend just separate from her? Would you want to keep the baby of someone who hates you/ hurts you? What about people in absolve relationships?
Why should a woman have to keep a 9 month reminder of a horrible mistake?
Why should a woman be forced to leave her job (even if you aren't takin maternity leave you need 1-4 weeks to recover from a normal birth and up to 6 months for a c-section).
Please tell me why YOU have the right to tell someone what to do with their body and if it makes sense you'll have me convinced.

Because while true, it is her body, her body won't be killed by the baby's existence. The minute the baby was conceived, her body became its body too. Until the day she gives birth and the baby leaves to live on its own, they share a joint body, and she has no right to claim it all to be hers.

So if she was raped it's her fault?

If her partner decided to poke holes in the condoms to get hr pregnant without discussing it, it's her fault?

15, your argument hasn't convinced me of anything other than you aren't considering the woman in this. It's HER body and HER choice if she wants I be a mother.
Also no birth control is 100% effective, so how about if there's an accident and the condom breaks the man has to carry the baby to term (for the sake of the argument, imagine this were possible)

There is no way I could explain this to make you believe it, but say I had to carry the baby, there is no way in the world that I would ever choose to end that baby's life. There is no possible way you will believe me, but I am being completely sincere here. If this is met with a condescending and closed-minded reply, I swear I'm just gonna stop trying.

15jbaughman: Pregnancy has it's dangers. This is fact. There is always a chance of complications that could permanently damage, or even kill, the mother. I feel this gives her a greater claim to the body than a growing collection of cells incapable of thought; it also considerably dampens your argument that "her body won't be killed by the baby's existence", as an unwanted pregnancy is at least a threat.

Where does the man fit in your argument? Say there's an accident, birth control fails and the woman HAS to keep the baby as per your argument. Where does the man fit in this? He's just as much a party as the woman, does he need to stay with her for 9 months? Because she HAS to have the baby for 9 months, so shouldn't he also be disadvantaged for 9 months? Have his choices and options taken away? Just because he doesn't end up pregnant doesn't mean he's any less a party to the conception
I'm asking this to raise a point that everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions, not to be a smart ass.

Okay, forget I was ever here. I'm to fucking tired of trying to convince some dipshits I don't even care about anyway. Go ahead, kill all the fetuses you like, just don't whine to me.

Can I say something? And if you're sensitive, I guess, might want to skip this.
I was frequently raped by my uncle until I hit puberty, then I got pregnant and wound up telling my parents, despite constant death threats. I miscarried due to stress, but would have aborted anyway. Would it have been wrong, then? No, having that baby wouldn't have inconvenienced me; it would've shattered me beyond repair. This is my fucking body, and only mine. I shouldn't have to share it with anyone or anything if I don't want to.

I've just re-read your comment and has misunderstood it, but I'm going to leave that reply up because I still think it's a valid point.
And I'm not saying everyone has to get an abortion, I just want for it to be an option that any woman can choose.
I like that you would keep the baby no matter what, that's a sign of strength to me but just because you wouldn't want one, doesn't mean others don't.

Sorry snopes, my last comment was to 15, not you.
That's a rough start to life but I'm proud of you and your attitude because it's never your fault.
Hope things have gotten better for you X

Okay, again, it's not about not wanting an abortion or not. I wouldn't want to carry a baby, but I would anyway because it is my belief that no matter how hard you try to make it sound for yourself, it would still be ending a life.

15jbaughman: What a polite way to remove yourself from a debate/argument. Stay classy.
Snopes: I'm so sorry you had to go through that. I just wanted to say that, while I have not met you and probably never will, I am proud of you and support you. What you did was incredibly brave, and I can only admire what a strong person you are.

And 15 I understand (and respect) that you would chose to keep a baby in a situation like that, but that doesn't mean everyone should have to.

Agreed. This is a very touchy subject, and it's hard to convey a viewpoint without being misunderstood. Sorry for any confusion, I'm just pointing out what I see as immorality.

I can't stand this debate anymore, but can I just chime in and say that nobody is saying that abortion shouldn't be an option in the case of rape. (I'm sure some are, but they're stupid, so we usually just get a good laugh at their expense and tune them out.)
In the case you're "not ready" or would be "inconvenienced" or it was an "accident", I can't say I have any sympathy for you. If you didn't know pregnancy was a possibility when having sex, too bad. If you had sex with someone just for kicks, and don't want to be with them or think they'd be a good father, too bad.
That said, I think that women should have the right to have an abortion. I also think that it would be nice to live in a perfect world, where everyone was responsible about having sex, so at least when they got a surprise (like I did) they'd at least share it with someone they love and care about so they can face this major life change together.

I think, as 'immoral' as it is to cancel a fetus, it is far more immoral to refuse women the right to dictate what happens to her body.
Thank you for the support guys, and yeah, my life has since improved dramatically :)

Thank you for sharing your story, snopes, you are very brave to offer a personal understanding. I am glad things are better for you and I agree with your viewpoints.

Abortion is useful if the baby is disabled as well.

that's disgusting.

Some might say the same about a 14 y/o telling someone not to breed based on a single comment on the internet.

Now, if everybody followed abstinence, we wouldn't have problems like this.

Saviourself have you ever heard of confirmation bias? That's how you build a straw man. You go and look for the worst or most ridiculous of your opponents and you tell yourself and others that that example is representative of the whole. That's not an argument, it's a psychological defense.
I don't like that guy any more than you do. He's a politician, he probably just opposes abortion because that's what he thinks his constituents want. That's how politics work, and that's why that guy isn't remotely representative of the pro-life movement.

Dude, can you -at least- have the common courtesy to actually READ this thread before continuing to make rhetoric filled repeat comments over and over? It's really annoying to come in at the end and be like "I have original things to say! Let me repeat EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT ALREADY." It's annoying and makes you look lazy. Thanks.

You've confused me, guest. Were you talking to me? I don't see where what I said has been said already...
But I like how people are downvoting me even when I didn't actually say anything against abortion. That's a psychological defense, too. "I don't like this guy's platform, so he most be wrong." Well done everyone...

.....*can't tell whether user is super trolling or really is that completely unaware.....*

I agree, I am definitely starting to repeat myself as new people are coming to the thread, and that's tedious. So one more time- by telling Mgoveia I knew what clip he was referring to wasn't close to making a 'straw man' argument. But in retrospect, there are dozens of anti-choice leaders he could have been referring too, like so: http://liberal-agenda.com/most-ignorant-and-sexist-quotes-on-womens-issues-by-republicans/
When these are the people who actually move your movement forward, who make the laws you follow- they aren't insignificant or as extreme as you'd like to think. These are elected by your movement, your representatives. You can't distance yourself from them when they show their true colors

88% of anti-choice leaders are men, just like on this thread almost every anti-choice advocate is a man (I am betting white, between the ages of 16-30) because that is what the "Pro-life" movement boils down too. Men who will never be at risk for an unwanted pregnancy saying they know better than a woman herself what is best for her life. Better than her doctor, her family- that the government owns her fertility. And should she disobey, they want to make a criminal out of her, or physically force her to remain pregnant. Those are the choices. I see no respect for life there.

I always distance myself from politicians -- not just when I don't like what they're saying. Because economically, politicians respond to a very different set of incentives than I do. A successful politician generally builds his platform not out of his own personal beliefs, but out of the stated beliefs of his most outspoken constituents. Again, that's why politicians are rarely actually good representatives of the movements that they champion.
The "respect for life" in the pro-life movement will be hard to see if you selectively limit the context. The pro-life movement isn't about forcing women to be pregnant. What it's really about (at least for me) is simply pointing out that the choice was already made. The woman already made the mistake of becoming pregnant when she didn't want to. It also includes the understanding that consequences are a natural part of reality, and it is irresponsible and selfish to try to make someone else pay for your mistakes.

I don't want children to be aborted. But even more than that, I don't want women becoming pregnant if they aren't ready for it. If we could accomplish that, abortion wouldn't even be an issue. I think the reason why it is such a big controversy is simply because the debate occurs under a circumstance where a serious mistake has already been made, and we're just trying to choose who should be paying for it and how. When you think about it, it's really a stupid question that we shouldn't even be trying to answer. But here we are, because our culture is so rotten that that circumstance is created regularly.

Argh, I didn't think it was obnoxious for men to be posting about abortion at the start of this thread, but now I definitely see what the post is talking about. "Making the mistake of becoming pregnant" "the choice was already made" "the woman made the mistake."
Figures the only time these men even mention the woman is when she is the sole and lone person responsible for impregnating herself. She can't decide if she should be a mother, but boy, she was the only one who decided to have that sex, tell you what.
I puked in my mouth a little.

I'm sorry to put vomit in your mouth, but if you'll notice, I never said anything about it being only her fault and not the guy's. I simply said that a mistake was made. No, I didn't include the guy, but why would I? We're not talking about him. Obviously he acted at least as irresponsibly as she did (probably even more).
Please don't put words in my mouth, and you won't get puke in yours, I promise. ;)

Have you put any thought towards if the pregnancy wasn't the woman's choice? (I realise this point has been stated already (: ) what if she was raped, or if an abusive boyfriend poked holes in the condom to get her pregnant?
Sometimes there's a bigger picture behind the pregnancy

Of course I have. As you said that has been covered above. We know that extenuating circumstances like rape, incest, or significant health risk only constitute a small fraction of abortions actually performed.
As one man said, "More than 95% of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by sexual relations. Thus the effect in over 95% of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences."
- http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=669 (copy and paste the link -- for some reason it doesn't work when you click on it)

Seriously? Mike "It's irresponsible to make someone else pay for your mistakes" but "Why would I talk about the man? We're not talking about him." That is such a disturbingly perfect picture of the "Pro life" way of thinking it made me wince. Completely disgusting.

You're making me a lot worse than I am here, "guest." Be reasonable. Think with your head, not your digestive system. Men can't have abortions. If we're talking about abortions, we're obviously not talking about men. That should be pretty obvious. But as I said pretty clearly, he made at least as much of a mistake as she did, and if the universe was fair, he would suffer as much as she does. But the reality of nature is that it's a lot easier for guys to get away with this kind of crap. That's unfortunate, but there's not much we can do about it. That s.o.b. will get his just desserts in the next life.
Please, since I'm obviously so clueless, explain to me exactly how anything I said is wrong or "disgusting." You're good at throwing out the insults, now back them up.

...yeah, if you can't trust a male speaker from a Mormon college to tell you about reproductive rights, who can you trust? Yikes....

..."the reality of nature is that it's a lot easier for guys to get away with this kind of crap. That's unfortunate, but there's not much we can do about it. That s.o.b. will get his just desserts in the next life." That's your wise explanation? Wow.
You condemn women as irresponsible had lots, you make children into punishments for supposed sin, but gosh darn it, boys will be boys, huh? I am so out- thank you for that. I have to go thank my local Planned Parenthood workers like 100+ times

You obviously have your mind made up. At least behind the safety of your anonymous "guest" alibi. If you want to purposefully twist everything I say into a negative that's your call. Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't bother trying to get through to the closed-minded and insecure. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Don't worry too much about it, Mike. You make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, you'll now have to get used to being downthumbed all the time. People around here can get mighty intimidated by people who can string a few sentences together, let alone hold their own in a discussion like they've actually spent some time thinking about it.
Take it from me, on FS, the downthumbs are a sign that you're doing something right.
Oh, and guest(s), what you are doing is just sad. The only people I pity more than you is anyone that your bullshit responses have fooled. Pathetic.

I think in regards to this post, down thumbs represent people disagreeing with the opinion you shared in your comment, not the fact that you strung together a few sentences

What I'm saying is that for many FS users, that seems to be all it takes. There's nothing wrong with them disagreeing, either, but at least join in the conversation constructively. If you think about it, up/downthumbs are meaningless. Use your words (and hopefully your brains), please.
(Apparently, 6 people don't like the idea of using their brains. I wonder if it's the same six going around downthumbing the big, scary brainiacs in this thread...)

All the guest did was (rather brilliantly) quote his own words back to him. How is that being disingenuous? I definitely agree that no one is changing their minds, but if you cannot stand to see your own words quoted back to you, don't say them.

If y'all want me to take up 50 comments to write an entire essay explaining my position on abortion, I can. But I highly doubt you would read it all. with the limited space available, we simply can't explain everything and how it all fits together. what that means is that when we read comments on here, we have to understand that the person's beliefs are not as simple as what he/she is saying.
I have no problem having my words read back to me, as long as it's done intelligently and honestly. Not by someone with an agenda to make me look like the bad guy.

When Jesus was arrested, he was accused of threatening to destroy the temple. what happened there was the exact same kind of intellectual cowardice that "guest" has exhibited; they took something he had said way out of context and misapplied it. It's possible that they were malicious, and ot's Possible that they were really so dense that that's what they thought he said.
A Chinese proverb states that "two thirds of what we see is behind our eyes." Common sense and psychology back that up. We see what we want to see. that has been confirmed to me again on this thread. In these kinds of discussions, it almost doesn't matter what you say, because the people you're talking to have already decided what they will hear.

Are you likening yourself being "misquoted" by a guest to Jesus being arrested?
High opinion of yourself, huh Mike?

Going back to your earlier argument though that it's the woman's decision at the time the baby is conceived to have unprotected sex, what about when contraception fails?
Condom breaks, pill fails, implant fails? No contraception is 100% effective (and don't say abstinence as you clearly believe in Jesus and his mother was a virgin).
Not everyone who wants / considers and abortion is irresponsible and trying to get rid of the evidence of a drunken one night stand.
And if you concede that in those scenarios it's ok to want / have an abortion, what gives you the right to make that decision? Who are you to say, if you're raped you can about the fetus, but if the condom breaks you can't. It shouldn't be anyone's decision but the female (if single) or the couples.
I don't care about whether anyone would PERSONALLY want one, I care that women don't have the option, or have to explain why they would need one.

You are calling out intellectual cowardice? Lol, you are the guy who can't even defend his own words without complaining how mean and unfair people are to quote them and comparing yourself to Christ! That is insane! My name is Jess, I live in Kentucky and.I saw this pin on Pinterest and clicked through- I am not hiding at all lol.
You are the guy who is saying women need to pay for their "mistakes" harshly and solely, and that punishment includes pregnancy and a child- but men are able to wait until the next life for judgement, because that's just the way it is. And that's something we should just accept.
I admire whome and saviourself- stamina while the men comfort each other over their hurt bro feelings, but you are not going to get anywhere. Obviously, because this guy is persecuted like Jesus.....*msg*

*sigh... I rest my case. You continue to respond only to the things I say that you can decontextualize and turn against me, while ignoring my main points. Thank you for proving me correct.
No, I did not compare myself to Jesus, I compared you to the Pharisees.
I've made it pretty clear that I have no sympathy for irresponsible men, and I dislike them far worse than their female counterparts. If you don't want to understand that, that's your choice. The one thing you're right about is that I'm not going to get anywhere.

@ whome: I see what you're saying with birth control failing, but shouldn't that be something that they understand beforehand? If you know that birth control can fail and you trust it anyway, and it fails you, you're still responsible for what you've done. You accepted the risk and rolled the dice, and I think's it's morally wrong to expect society to bail you out because you lost the gamble. So it's still completely different than a rape scenario.

This. This is what I was getting at in another part of this post.
Unfortunately, I highly doubt you are going to get anywhere with these people.

At the risk of offending Christ here, the position seems to be a faulty one. If according to your beliefs life begins at conception, and abortion is murder- why is there any scenario you and your Mormon friend see fit to grant one? Unless you are saying God/fate/life does not intend or force every women to continue her pregnancy- how can you support "murder?"
Rape is a horrible thing, so is incest. So is having your IUD fail when you have four children you have trouble feeding already. So is being 14 and terrified. But all of these cases has an equally developed embryo- one is not different than the other.
If you agree that abortion is the right choice, and perhaps even the God Approved choice in some of these scenarios, that's an interesting cognitive dissonance you have.

And what I remember from years of bible schooling are beware the Pharisees and their self righteousness- the men who will loudly preach to you that they know the word of God better than that of God himself but will not practice it's words or live it's truth. My aunt, who was a nun for many years, used to call the sidewalk counselors and preachers outside LGBTQI events Pharisees, the name stuck in my head.

I can't answer that question, saviourself, because I never claimed that life begins at conception. Careful with the assumptions you make. Personally, I would not put my hand on a Bible and say that "abortion is murder." There are way too many abstract concepts and variable definitions, but more than anything else I simply don't see how anybody could make and adequately defend that claim, unless they use very basic definitions of "life," in which case the science alone would be more than enough to verify that abortion is murder. But because the definitions involved in that argument are incomplete and maybe even incorrect, I'm not going to make it.
I'm a little concerned about your comment though. I know (or at least hope) you aren't putting rape and a birth control failure on the same level, but that's what it sounds like. The difference between rape and consensual sex is still very distinct.

You've been arguing this whole time against abortion, and you are not sure of when life begins- even if it is just your own beliefs? We could have ended this ages ago, then. If you can't say when abortion is "murder," or more practically for what we are speaking of when the woman is commuting a crime, then what are we talking about? If you can't tell me when abortion is murder, an actionable, punishable crime and should therefore be illegal- we don't have anything to discuss.

And of course rape is different than sex, but when conception occurs the products of conception are indistinguishable. If one embryo is exactly like the other, anti-choice advocates and their vision of God should not distinguish. If you say there are exceptions, then you say abortion must be legal, and kept safe. Period.

Should I point out the silliness of giving Mike shit for the Christ thing coming from a user with "saviour" in his name, or would that put me on the same level as some of these folks who would rather nitpick and bullshit instead of participate in a mature conversation?

Lol, I liked the name when I picked it- but after having people ask me if I am "Saviour's Elf," I think I might have overreached...the wordplay seems to have been lost. Oh well :-)

@mgoveia I'm happy to have a serious discussion.
Please succinctly describe your main point against abortion. The fewer words the better.

Lol, should I point out the irony that the two people who keep trying to argue these points about women's bodies and rights have NO women's bodies? Now, that's silliness, giggle giggle. Saviourself is just trying to save HERself and HER body. [I read the above thread, I hope I am gender correct ha]

@whome: I've already said most, if not all, I have to say.Feel free to peruse the topic again.
@Saviourself: No worries. I like you and your name, I was just trying to make a point.

Thank you Mgoveia, I appreciate that :-) And yes guest, I am a woman (I am trying not to make a SaveHERself joke here lol)- you read correctly.

@mgoveia I'm after a one sentence, dumbing-it-down, sum up.
Me, I support a females rights to an abortion because it shouldn't be up to others to decide whether what she does to get body is right or wrong.
You haven't really given an straight out opinion, only argued with others, and while that definitely lets people know you're against it, it doesn't really say much.
Even if you've said it before, can you please reiterate in summary? I'm curious as to why

Oh, silly whome...you know I'm not known for dumbing things down.
Edit: I'm not wasting any more comments on you if you can't bother reading what I've already posted.

Is that because you don't really have an opinion on this? So far you've only reiterated others statements and quoted other people.

I wasn't talking about laws. I'm talking about the fact that all this has been argued before, there is nothing new to add. Yet both sides are just as entrenched as when this began.
I've always thought that it's going to take us evolving as a species before this reaches it's conclusion.
As for giving up, I doubt me jumping into the debate on the internet once again will accomplish anything. I'd actually have to be doing something productive before I could be said to be giving up.
Edit: It should go without saying, but FS is not the place to finally solve the abortion issue in the first place.
Oh, and I'm just assuming here, but was it SuperChristian red states that passed those laws? You know, the same states that are trying their damnedest to make it as difficult as possible for certain races to vote. Which is funny, because they try to pander to them in the same breath they took while trying to take their rights away.

But yeah, just because a few laws were passed in a few states doesn't mean the issue is going away any time soon. Not matter how much we all wish it would.

Again, if everyone is as lazy as you then you're correct, nothing will happen. Yes, people will always have different opinions, but debating it regularly will keep it fresh in the public and politicians minds and keep the argument moving forward.

It was actually a widespread epidemic of laws in states ranging from ultra conservative states to more liberal eastern ones- in the hundreds and hundreds. More clinics and centres closed this year than have any other.
And I have to disagree- the people here are mostly teens to young adults, right at those ages when you are figuring out social issues, getting a handle on where they stand. That is when I changed my mind on a lot of issues, because I saw people talk about them in real ways. You never know who is reading, and whose mind you could be changing. Besides, it's interesting to see what people think. **Here is a link, if anyone wants to check out the laws I am talking about: http://www.nwlc.org/resource/2013-state-level-abortion-restrictions-mid-year-extreme-overreach-women’s-reproductive-heal

I just skimmed that article. While some of those were new to me, I can't say I'm surprised.
Also, does anyone else find it kind of sad that these politicians are attacking the symptoms, and not the cause? I guess it must go against the Bible or something to actually educate our children about sex, relationships, and their consequences.
Somewhat related, I seem to recall one of these (male) politicians being interviewed and showing how clueless he was about the issue on the Daily Show, or possibly Colbert. I'll see if I can find it on YouTube, although I really wish we could post directly from the CC website here. *hint hint*

I know just what you are talking about! That male Ohio politician who was asked by Rachel Maddow if he had ever thought of the reasons a woman sought an abortion- and he said it hadn't occurred to him. I almost broke my tv. Ohio, which has passed some of the most crippling legislation against birth control and clinics in the country, spearheaded by that man... grawr.
And I noticed that too- I thought it was just my tablet not letting me post from CC. Odd restriction...

I think McDonaldo's on the right track- at least at 14 they are starting to think about and question the social issues around them. It took me a few years to even care, let alone realize abortion, birth control, women's rights, and lqbtqi rights were all connected.
But yeah, those internet stories will get you every time, lol. Mgoveia, I saw this the other day and thought of you, and it fits this whole thread so well (and me too, cough) lol: http://m.funsubstance.com/fun/103056/not-now-woman-my-public-needs-me,/

That's a good point saviourself, it is easy to demonize the opposition and trivialize their experiences and thought processes, and it's important to try and understand it from their point of view. But unfortunately it's always easier to see someone else making this mistake than yourself. Do you think you might be making the exact same mistake every time you use buzz words like "anti-choice"? Just an observation.
Being mindful of the propaganda we use on ourselves is one of the hardest things to do. On the "pro-life" side, people portray their opponents as whimsical and careless and heartless, which is not true. On the "pro-choice" side, people think pro-lifers are intrusive, misogynistic, arrogant jerks, which is equally untrue.
That's why I personally don't like the words "pro-life" and "pro-choice" -- the words themselves are propaganda. But this kind of thing happens with every issue under the sun.

I am thinking you didn't see my response to you before since it got sort of carried away in the rushes of others, so I wanted to make sure to address it again. You can argue rhetoric all day- I am not really interested in that, nor am I that interested in how you as an individual "feel" about abortion. Like with other social issues such as homosexuality, if you are personally uncomfortable with them, that is your own business.
.
What I asked you for was a clear definition of what should be legal regarding abortion. I want to know at what point do these personal beliefs and judgements you hold become votes toward laws, or (in a hypothetical world) morals you would turn into legislation. When is it that a woman who is seeking to end her pregnancy is committing a crime? Where is that line? If you can't tell me when abortion is murder, an actionable, punishable crime and should therefore be illegal- we don't have anything else to discuss.

I'm sorry that "rhetoric" is not interesting to you. As a student of psychology I not only find it interesting but extremely important and applicable to these situations. But I suppose if you don't care whether your world views are accurate or not, that's your call.
Well, first let me point out two things: 1) I'm not the one with the primary responsibility to put law books together, nor am I obligated to have all the answers. 2) More importantly, the question of whether abortion is morally wrong and the question of legality are two different debates. I'm more interested in the first, because I don't like the way that we tend to insist that the government legislate our opinions into law, which people on both sides of the aisle are guilty of. I think the law book makes a pretty pathetic moral code, even if it was a perfect law book, so I don't usually think about legality when I think about ethical issues.

But, since you want an answer so bad, here's what I think: kinda like what I said as I explained why I won't argue that abortion is murder, there is a lot that we simply don't know. The key question behind the legal argument probably is whether the fetus is a living human being or not. Personally I think the science can only support the "pro-life" position, but I imagine the world will end before we come to any kind of agreement on that question. So right off the bat, we're stuck at a dead end. But since we have to make a decision, it seems like if there is any chance that human life is on the line, we should err the side of protecting it.
There was more I had in mind but I gotta bounce right now, so that'll have to suffice for now.

Absolutely rhetoric is not interesting to me, although I can see why you find it "not only interesting but extremely important and applicable." Rhetoric is defined as "language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable. (Merriam Webster)" It is just a ploy used to cover up the real issue, and therefore I find it of no value in real discussion, and want no part of it.
.
I asked very clearly a question every person who says they are against abortion should be able to answer. If you want it to be illegal, when does it become a crime? When should the women be arrested? This is what anti-choice laws come down to- voting on when you believe abortion is a crime- when in your opinion, a woman has become a criminal for seeking an abortion.

You seem unwilling to admit your ability to have an impact and give an answer. You have an opinion on abortion that you are eager to share, and you can vote on abortion legislation- this makes you a judge of when it is a woman is committing a crime for seeking an abortion. That is what your votes on these issues do. I am asking you to tell me when, at what point are you willing to vote that a woman is a criminal- you have these opportunities, it's a real to life question. Haven't you thought about it?
.
You say you are more interested in talking about whether abortion is moral, and let me tell you why I am not. Your opinion of morality does not interest me- it's most likely completely different than my own, and your view of how moral my or anyone's life is irrelevant when it comes to law. Your personal opinion as a man who will never experience this issue is not one I am interested in. The only way you effect this issue is with your votes. That is what I am interested in.

Just to clarify (yet again), you're the one that called it "rhetoric." The simple truth regarding that is that if you don't understand rhetoric, then you are bound to fall victim to it (and indeed you already have). You only hurt yourself by dodging it and intentionally perpetrating your blissful ignorance, and I feel sorry for you.
When does abortion become a crime? I must be misunderstanding the question, 'cause I can only think of one real answer to it. Something becomes a ''crime" when we make it illegal. That's it. "Crime" is defined by the law book, and is subject to change. If you want a different answer please ask a different question that makes more sense.
As far as arresting people goes, I'll point out that not every violation of law warrants arrest, so I'm not sure where you're going with that either. If abortion were illegal, it would only make sense to arrest people that provide them. The specific penalties the woman should face isn't something I've thought about.

Hold on a second -- did you just say that men "will never experience this issue"? I'm sorry, that is a blatant lie. I have a good friend in South Africa whose long-time girlfriend aborted eleven of his children without his knowledge, and it absolutely destroyed him. I've never seen a strong man like him reduced to tears like that, and I don't care to see it again. Sure, some men are shallow jerks who bang a hot girl then run from the consequences. But most men know how to love and are invested in the well-being of their partners and their children. This is not a women's issue, this is a human issue. The one lie I will not put up with is the claim that men don't deserve a voice.

I think you're missing Saviours point - if having an abortion is illegal (as in not everyone has the right to one) please describe the crime the woman is committing.
I'm sorry about your friend, but that is one woman in one relationship, not every woman in the world. If we stopped everything that a small percentage of the population abused no one would be allowed to do anything.

I can see you haven't thought about the consequences of your position- like so many other male anti choicers who will never have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy, you have never thought beyond the rhetoric you speak. There are real consequences to the actions you take, real women are hurt by these laws you choose not to think all the way through.
.
When a woman and her doctor are no longer the one's making the choices for the best care for her, but instead a bunch of politicians and faux politicians who go out and vote her a criminal and take her autonomy from her- there are real consequences. The woman is the one who will have to deal with all the consequences of the crime and punishment that results from being pregnant and still you interpreted my words as an attack on men and men's rights, the only people you have leapt to the defense of this whole time. And that really says it all.
.
I can't think of anything else we have to discuss. Thank you for being honest.

Allow me to clarify what should have been pretty obvious -- the only men I've defended are those who have been hurt. Those who love and care about their partners and their children, and therefore deserve a voice in issues that affect them. And those who are forbidden from having an opinion just because they are men.
I have spoken much more harshly against irresponsible men than I have against any woman. If you want me to defend women, we would have to carry our conversation over to a topic where the women are actually the victims. But as things stand, a woman can go ahead an have an abortion freely. She is not a victim of abortion, so how can I defend her in the context of an abortion debate? If she is the victim of rape or of the neglect of a selfish sexual partner, I will defend her viciously (although not to the point of absolving her of her own responsibility -- because that doesn't do her any favors).

That's an interesting comment though ... about consequences. Yes, making abortion illegal would hurt people – especially those whose business it is. Whether it would actually hurt the women who seek abortions is a very complex question with many different answers that won't be agreed upon here, so let's not get into that. But permitting abortion hurts people too. Have you ever thought of that? Like my South African friend, and many others like him.
The point I was going to bring up earlier but didn't get around to is an argument I've heard several times about fighting poverty. It says, “what if the cure for cancer is hidden in the mind of someone who can't afford an education?” My thoughts are, what if the cure for cancer is hidden in the mind of someone who was aborted? It's basically the same. Humanity as a whole loses assets when abortions are performed. And, as I pointed out before, we may just be robbing innocent babies of their lives. That's a pretty serious consequence.

Anyway, you're right. This has gone on long enough, and this isn't worth pursuing any further. You're only becoming more entrenched in your position, and I'm only becoming more entrenched in mine, so for both of our sakes let's be done.
I concede that you have a lot more social power and conversational control than I do, which would be commendable if it weren't misused. Unfortunately for many, social power is easily misinterpreted as intelligence or moral strength. Of course, you also have the advantage of an environment that agrees with you, while I have to try to make myself understood to an audience of at least 7 or 8 people who would probably down-vote me for breathing too hard. :P
For someone who so aggressively defends their ignorance with regards to the workings of rhetoric, you are very good at using it to your advantage (which isn't as odd as it probably sounds). I can't compete with that. I guess I'm just too “honest.” ;)