Sadly... there are people out there in this world who actually believe it is a contreceptive.
"Oh baby... I hate having put that thing on... let's go bareback tonight!!"

Get knocked up and have an abortion... and they become regulars down at PP or other facilities. They just don't care... these are the same folks who typically are also getting the procedure done via the taxpayers in whatever state they happen to be in... a joy to hear.
Don't have $300 for an abortion? Let the taxpayers pay for it then... they won't mind.

People can still be against it and not be religious. Why does everyone still assume pro-life = religious views?

I highly doubt that Bush has any say on the manner and evne if he did, it'd be pretty hard to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court.

I thought they signed that bill? O.o;

What Adamgian is referring to here is John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the new Justices Bush appointed to the Court.

I think that we have also not discussed a major issue. Why has this decision been made solely for women to make. Should the man not have a say in this matter. If the man wants to have the kid then should he not be allowed to have the child even if the mother does not want the child. This is often overlooked and ignored. It does take two (in the natural way of reproduction) to make a baby. Therefore the decision should be made by both of them and if one doesn't agree then it should not be done. That is the most diplomatic answer.
I personally believe that abortion is wrong and should not be allowed except in the case that the mother's life is in danger. I am not going to stand in front of an abortion clinic and yell at women who go in there. I believe in making the right choice. The right choice is always life over death. There is no question that the infant is a human and therefore aborting the life is murder.

What you're getting into here, Gohan, is Male Reproductive Rights, which is an issue with enough material and philosophical bullshit to warrant its own seperate discussion. I know it does involve in many ways abortion, but it's not what is ultimately key to the issue, so please do keep it in a seperate thread.

EDIT: Removed the part concerning male reproductive rights, since it went off-topic.

EDIT 2: Yar har har har, my essay killed the topic. :edgarrock:

Those are your beliefs. Are you a woman? In such a case, let's have you get impregnated by rape or incest, and then we'll see if you still want to take the child to term.

Good for you.

Ahh, the meat of your argument. You obviously are a supporter of the species criterion for qualifications of personhood. *puts on professor's cap*

First off, the issue at heart is the status of the fetus (please refrain from using emotionally charged terms such as infant, baby, unborn child, etc. Using such terms is at best an appeal to emotion, something that has no place in logic). Is it a person or not? Only persons can have rights, which is rather obvious. Another issue is the conflict of rights: Assuming that the fetus IS a person, then does the rights of the mother supercede those of the fetus? (Rights as in fundamental rights: right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, self-defense, bodily autonomy, etc. Not that these rights, while they apply to every person, are not absolute)

Now, the right to life at its most essential, is the right to be entitled to the expectation that we would not be killed unjustly, and rescued from impending disaster provided that such rescue does not require unreasonable sacrifice.

Now, there are three proposals for the criterion of the conferral of moral personhood (i.e. having fundamental rights).

The first is the species criterion, the second is the potentiality criterion, and the third is a rather obscure one called actual possession.

First, let's talk about the species criterion, as it is what you cited in the defense of your belief that abortion is morally wrong. The species criterion is that all and only those individuals that are members of Homo Sapiens are moral persons, and have a right to life. Put in another way, only humans have souls, thus only humans are moral persons. Of course, since the soul cannot be observed it cannot logically exist. (Not to say that it DOESN'T exist, but that logic says that assuming that we have every method of detection available, since it cannot be observed, it cannot exist. There can be some unknown method that pops up with "Sup soul," later on)

Now, imagine that one day, aliens popped down for a cup of joe with the President. According to the species criterion, they have no rights because they are not human. It might be PRUDENT to treat them as if they do because otherwise they might decide that we're better meat than allies. However, if we were to argue that fetuses are not persons but it is prudent to treat them as such, then we're talking about something completely different from the species criterion, and indeed the entire right-to-life argument.

The second criterion is the potentiality criterion. In essence, it says that because a fetus is potentially qualified for the right to life, therefore a fetus actually has those rights.

There are two major flaws:

1) Potentiality has little actual meaning, as potential cannot be observed. For all we know, the fetus could turn out to be stillborn. Would it still have rights then?

2) The logical form of the argument is defective.

Now, for your benefit, here's some a bit of basic logic:

Around the area where I live, there's a place called something like Field of Dreams. In this, you basically pay to be taken on a tour of various expensive homes, ranging from contemporary to rustic. Now, on the surface, all these homes are different. If you were to get the blueprints for these homes, however, you'd notice something: they're all exactly the same in terms of blueprint. The logical form of an argument is essentially the blueprints of the home. Do you get my meaning?

Now then, all arguments are correct or incorrect based SOLELY on their logical form. Thus, if a logical form is correct, then every instance of that argument, no matter how absurd, is correct as well, and the opposite is true as well: if a logical form is false, then every instance of that argument, no matter how reasonable, is false as well. Either every instance of the argument is correct, or NO instance is correct.

Now that I've drilled that into your head, here's the logical form of the potentiality argument: because x is potentially qualified for y, therefore x actually has y.

So, to counter the potentiality argument, we have the Commander-in-Chief argument: because President Bush (before his first inauguration) is potentially qualified for the rights of the presidency, President Bush actually has the rights of the presidency.

Obviously, there are some federal agents who would like to tell you that this is false. And the logical form is the same, because x (Bush) is potentially qualified for y (the rights of the presidency), therefore x actually has y. Because x (a fetus) is potentially qualified for y (the right to life), therefore x actually has y.

The third argument, actual possession, is one that I'll mostly skim over. Essentially, it says that only those that actually possess the characteristics of personhood are moral persons.

Finally, as a closing, I'll discuss the actual right-to-life argument. In essence, this argument says: "Because the fetus is a potential person, it has the right to life, which right is paramount. All other rights are secondary."

First, it relies on a logically indefensible argument to claim that a fetus is a person. Even assuming that a fetus DOES have the right to life, however, there are still several ramifications for this argument that inevitably render it indefensible.

First, I recommend that you read J.J. Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion," in which you'll find the Famous Violinist argument. In essence, this argument is a story: One day you wake up in a hospital, and find that you are hooked up to a dialysis machine. A nurse comes in and tells you that a famous violinist is dying from kidney failure and that you were the only one available until they can get a transplant done, which will be nine months, give or take a few. According to the right-to-life argument, you are morally obligated to stay hooked up to that violinist, even if you did not volunteer.

Personally, I've never much liked this argument, but it still warrants mention.

The second point of criticism is the Stranger-in-Peril argument. Let me tell you a story again:

You get out of class, and you decide to go to a nearby river with some buds, smoke some mwah mwah, drink beer, and discuss whatever you like to discuss. You get there, but before you can get nice and stoned, a stranger comes up and asks you, "Hey, is it safe to go into this river? I wanna swim some."

At this point, there are two situations with three conclusions.

The first is that you know that the river is dangerous, and that the guy will probably die if he goes into the river, but you smile and say "Go ahead, it's perfectly safe."

In such a case as this, you knowingly put a person in danger. As such, regardless of whether or not you believe that the right to life is paramount (supervenes all other rights), you are morally obligated to rescue him when he inevitably floats past you yelling "HELP HELP!"

The second situation is that you know the river is dangerous, and that the guy will probably die if you go into the river. You tell him this, and you tell him that there's no lifeguard nearby, and that you can't swim at all. The guy shrugs, and says "Awesome, I wanna challenge."

Now, here is where we get the divergence. According to the right-to-life argument, when that person inevitably floats past you yelling "HELP HELP!", you are morally obligated to rescue him, even if performing such an act is not only impossible for you to do, but will also result in your own death.

According to the right-to-choice, you warned him, you did all that you could reasonably do to prevent his death, and you have done nothing wrong.

Thus, the right-to-life argument would have the actual right to life become, "You have the right not to be killed unjustly, and the right to be rescued from impending disaster."

To conclude, the right-to-life argument is incredibly dangerous, because its very nature will force you to rescue a person, no matter how unlikely the chance of success, or how high the risk to yourself is. However, it's also incredibly attractive, because it's easier than the right-of-choice argument, as with the right-of-choice you have to make moral judgements for each individual case (life-threatening pregnancies, which are pretty much always morally permissible, rape/incest pregnancies, and everything else).