I think abortions are morally wrong, to kill a fetus with a beating heart and fingers, etc. just isn’t something I can be okay with. It might be irrational, but after much thought on it, that’s how I feel. My husband and I choose a birth control method that prevents fertilization, not just implantation because we both feel the same way on the subject. It’s not because of some religious reason, it is my understanding of biology and fetal development that keeps me from being comfortable with the idea of abortions.

Having been a teenaged parent myself, I understand the hard decisions someone with an unwanted pregancy faces. I chose to have my daughter, and my life has been 1000x harder because of that choice. But I would make the same choice again today.

I think those things make me pro-life.

That said, I don’t think my opinions should create the rule of law. I understand how personal and difficult the choice is, and therefore feel that the government should stay far, far away from banning these choices. What is the right choice for me and my family may not be the right choice for others. I’m not so pompous as to believe mine is the only correct viewpoint. I follow in what Bill Clinton said about abortion: that it should be safe, legal… and rare.

That makes me pro-choice.

I don’t really see how the two things contradict each other.

In such a case, as long as that particular abortion is legal, I would consider supporting the father’s right to swear off all future parental responsibility at that point.

And I don’t think that makes me a moron.

Your example with the third-party birth mother seems a bit specious. Firstly, the usual argument between the triad is over whether or not the host mother–who willingly had the child implanted for the specific purpose of giving it up, has parental rights, not whether she should be allowed to abort or not.

However, I feel that she gives up the right to abort for any reason save serious health concerns once she signs the paperwork saying “Yes, I’ll have this couple’s baby.” It’s a business arrangement. Of course, someone observed above that such contracts may be illegal, thus unenforceable. If it were me, I think I’d insist on C.O.D. rather than paying the birth mother up front.

I’m not an absolutist. I merely feel that, in the end, the woman who finds herself unwantedly pregnant will do what she will to end it.

If the father doesn’t know of the pregnancy, what difference does it make to him?

If he knows, and leaves it in her lap, or ducks responsibility for the decision, then it’s all hers anyway.

If he knows, and objects to the idea of aborting it, and she has the abortion anyway, what can he do about that?

In the end, it’s women who have to deal with the major issues, and the woman who has to make the decision. A sperm donor–particularly one who isn’t going to be around and has made that clear–has only superficial rights in the case.

What part of that did you find “stupid”?

In brief, we’re irrational about this, just like so many other ‘moral’ issues. We act from our gut and justify with our minds.

That’s clearly what’s happening with all the anti-abortion people commenting, although they’re not doing a good job. They “know” i.e. feel that abortion is wrong but they haven’t been able to form a logical argument without resorting to undefined principles of “human” and “life”.

Who would not be more sympathetic to a baby than a dish of fertilized eggs? We know that the features of the infant are in such proportion as to provoke nurturing responses from adults.

Some doctors won’t perform abortions on fetuses because of this response even though they think there is nothing ethically wrong with it. I eat meat but I probably wouldn’t work in a slaughterhouse. I don’t like to perform acts of violence but sometimes it would be necessary. Reasoning people go against their emotional responses all the time. People are able to think through what’s important and do the right think for the right reasons.

It is easier for us to imagine aborting a “fetus” than a “baby. The Pro-choice propaganda latched onto the term “fetus” as one way to distance the unborn from our natural feelings.

“Fetus” is the correct term, I don’t think it’s an active propaganda strategy to use the correct terminology. Fetus is the stage after embryo before birth, baby is the stage after birth. You wouldn’t abort a baby because a baby is already out of the womb by definition. Both propaganda campaigns are no doubt interested in which word is used, “baby” certainly does have emotional responses attached to it.

wwyoud,

Beyond the scientific definition of life in general, I can’t give you a clear definition of when some bunch of cells is suddenly designated life (it’s kinda like porn – I know it when I see it:)). I don’t have a specific cut-off point for when that fetus becomes a real human rather than a potential; if it is a personal situation, then I might have to decide that, but otherwise it’s just not that important to me.

Thank you for your effort. No one else that has a problem with abortion would explain what they mean either. Perhaps it’s about the gift giver you’re being coy about. The scientific definitions of life aren’t applicable to the things you have written, and I doubt you worry about the killing of life in that sense, it’s pretty much a constant in our lives and we don’t think about it.

Yet I still value that fetus for its potential, and grieve for its loss, because I find joy in this world and the interaction of life with it, and want others to share this joy as well.

Any contraception has this affect, it doesn’t seem to be the potential you’re refering, as the potential for a baby is lost with the use of a condom. Further, any decision not to have sex would be a lost potential baby.