Abortion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The comparision is valid.

We don't do everything to avoid the loss of innocent life during wartime. We don't address the issues that lead to wars anywhere near the way we could. And, when war does occur, we conduct it in a way to protect our soldiers lives, not innocent lives.

On the contrary, modern nations do often do their utmost to protect innocent lives in war. Their best is not good enough, but if they refrained, their attackers would overrun us. We try to protect our soldiers and civilians. But there is a genuine effort made to protect innocent lives during modern ethical wars.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In the same way, we don't take measures to stop people from making the choice to abort. Universal freely available birth control at a very young age. Acceptance of the fact that some 12-year-olds will have sex. Free care and advice for mothers both before and after the birth of their child.

Some of this I agree with, other parts I can't agree with.

I agree that we should take measures to stop people making the choice to abort. That doesn't mean abortion itself should be an option.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Until we truely do everything possible to prevent wars from occuring in the first place and conduct them in a way that the innocent enemy's life is more valuable than our soldier's lives, we are guilty of killing innocents.

We did this in the 2003 Iraq war. When we attacked, we put our soldiers on the ground as opposed to the Persian Gulf War. In the Persian Gulf War, we didn't take chances with our own lives. We just bombed the heck out of Saddam's troops from the sky, killing tens of thousands of draftees who didn't want to be there in the first place. In 2003, however, we laid down lives of some soldiers to prevent the deaths of innocent Iraqis, for by being on the ground, many enemy troop units received and took the chance to surrender.

I've heard of other situations where US troops since the invasion have risked their lives to protect civilians, enduring the risk of being shot at from a house by the enemy until the last possible moment to ensure that they don't make a mistake and kill civilians.

We do lay down lives for them. Sometimes, when they're used as human shields, there is just no choice but to kill them.

Anyway, war is like the justice system and medical care in that we know sometimes we will accidentally kill innocents, but we do our utmost to avoid killing them. Sometimes in the past, our technology level has been low enough that we just haven't had any chance of protecting civilians, because trying to protect them would mean massive casualty rates among ourselves. That also is understandable- the civilians are still being accidentally, rather than purposely killed. It's just that our ability to avoid killing them was much lower.

If you are going to argue that war justifies killing innocents, you'd have to also say that medical care (which assumes we will accidentally kill people at times) and our justice system (which does the same) also justify abortion. Yet this is absurd, for in none of these cases do we PURPOSELY kill people. We do our utmost, whatever our level of ability is, to avoid it in ethically carried out wars.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Until we truely prepare our children for the realities of sex and care for mothers before and after the birth of their children, we are guilty of killing innocents.

Except that it is accidental, not purposeful. There lies the very major ethical difference.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's about society taking responsibility for the consequences of what we do and what we do not do. The only way to get people to stop choosing abortion is to give them a more attractive alternative. Make it illegal and all you do is push it underground.

One could make the same argument about any kind of crime. So the answer is dispense with the justice system .

[Lief Erikson]

I'm going to actually pull out of this thread now, because of time constraints. I'll be back later on, no doubt .

Originally Posted by Spock

delete the anti-war stuff.............this isn't about that, nor politics............

It is a pro-choice argument he was making, actually. It has nothing to do with political issues aside from abortion.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

delete the anti-war stuff.............this isn't about that, nor politics............

I'll post what I want. If you don't like it ban me, but enough with the comments.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that we should take measures to stop people making the choice to abort. That doesn't mean abortion itself should be an option.

The problem is, abortion is an option whether it is legal or not. It is an option, like the killing of civilians during war, that many people think is justified.

Comparing it to crime is apples and oranges. Why? Because 99.9% of people agree that murdering another adult is wrong. But no where near that many even see abortion as murder. If you make something a law that a very large portion of the population disagree with, it simply will not work in practice.

Instead, you have to try to work to change the demand side of the equation so that people will not want to get abortions anymore.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If you make something a law that a very large portion of the population disagree with, it simply will not work in practice.

Could you define "very large portion"?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

From the Guttmacher Institute:

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

[Nurvingiel]

No worries Lief!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Why does human DNA make the fetus part of the mother's body?

This statement was in response to why a baby kangaroo is not a person - it does not possess human DNA.

The foetus is part of the mother's body because it exists inside the womb and is also attached by the umbilical cord.

So to recap what I meant about personhood and foetuses:

1. To be a person, one must have human DNA ie. be a human being.
2. To be a person, one must be a single entity. This includes possessing your own mind, and not being part of anyone else's body.

Foetuses do possess human DNA and their own minds, but they live inside the mother's womb. Being encased in the womb and fed via the umbilical cord makes the foetus part of her body. I see it as say, the liver, which is inside your body and fed via numerous blood vessels. The umbilical cord pumps the mother's blood into the foetus, as blood vessels feed your liver.

Living inside the womb, and not the presence of human DNA, is what makes a foetus part of the mother's body.

The reason conjoined twins are two different people is because they share some body parts. One is not part of the other's body, neither are they inside someone else's body (like they were before they were born).

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

We agree that to say a fetus is a person is just as much of an assertion as to say it isn't. *busts out the champagne*

Oh, yes. I definitely agree. *accepts a glass of champagne and offers Paris toasts with smoked apple cheddar*

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's not a matter of not accepting your reasoning; I just don't see it. The relation between having human DNA and being part of the mother's body, quite simply escapes me. I'm not being nasty or anything, I simply don't see it, and am trying to.

I hope I explained this adequately above. What do you think now?

(Of course having DNA leading to being part of the mother's body makes no sense at all.)

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

*busts out more champagne*

Cheers! I really feel like we're getting places, and understanding each other more. I never thought we would agree on anything, to tell you the truth, and look at us now!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurv

This statement was in response to why a baby kangaroo is not a person - it does not possess human DNA.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by thee

Because if a foetus is inside the womb it is part of the mother's body. *huff* *pant*

I responded

Originally Posted by me

Why any more than the Joey?

Meaning, why is the foetus inside the womb part of the mother's body, and more than the Joey is?

I'm thinking you misunderstood me, as you said:

Originally Posted by thee

Because you have human DNA, and a joey does not.

My real question was not, why is a joey not a person, but why is a joey in the pouch not a part of the mother's body, when the fetus is?

Originally Posted by thee

The foetus is part of the mother's body because it exists inside the womb and is also attached by the umbilical cord.

Why is it that you feel this means the fetus is part of the mother's body?

Originally Posted by thee

1. To be a person, one must have human DNA ie. be a human being.
2. To be a person, one must be a single entity. This includes possessing your own mind, and not being part of anyone else's body.

What are your reasons for holding that this constitutes personhood?

Foetuses do possess human DNA and their own minds, but they live inside the mother's womb. Being encased in the womb and fed via the umbilical cord makes the foetus part of her body. I see it as say, the liver, which is inside your body and fed via numerous blood vessels. The umbilical cord pumps the mother's blood into the foetus, as blood vessels feed your liver.

But isn't the fact that the liver lacks its own mind - that is, its own soul - significant?

The reason conjoined twins are two different people is because they share some body parts. One is not part of the other's body, neither are they inside someone else's body (like they were before they were born).

Do you mean, that having the same body parts makes them different people, or having only some of the same body parts does so?

Cheers! I really feel like we're getting places, and understanding each other more. I never thought we would agree on anything, to tell you the truth, and look at us now!

You see what happens, when we try to trace things back? I'm working on the premise that, if we trace things far back enough via the reasons for them, we will have agreement, and then we will be able to make progress.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Could you define "very large portion"?

There are all sorts of polls out there from 60% pro-choice, 40% pro-life to 60% pro-life, 40% pro-choice. But I'm sure if you took a poll that asked should one adult be allowed to murder another the numbers would probably be 99% against 1% for.

You simply can't legislate against something that is so 50/50. It's like alcohol prohabition in the 20s. It won't work longterm and will cause more trouble than it is worth.

When you want to control something that a substantial portion of the population does not perceive as wrong, you have to work in other ways than banning to change. The best way is to provide more desireable alternatives.

[brownjenkins]

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

And many of the above can be dealt with. National free daycare would be one step. You could put controls in place, such as proof of a job or college attendence, to help control abuse.

How many women might decide not to abort if they knew that they could still go to college and have their baby cared for at the same time? No doubt, it would cost taxpayers money, but those would be some tax dollars I'd be happy to spend.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

There are all sorts of polls out there from 60% pro-choice, 40% pro-life to 60% pro-life, 40% pro-choice. But I'm sure if you took a poll that asked should one adult be allowed to murder another the numbers would probably be 99% against 1% for.

You simply can't legislate against something that is so 50/50. It's like alcohol prohabition in the 20s. It won't work longterm and will cause more trouble than it is worth.

When you want to control something that a substantial portion of the population does not perceive as wrong, you have to work in other ways than banning to change. The best way is to provide more desireable alternatives.

How about speeding? Alcohol consumption by minors? Downloading copyrighted material?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkinsA

nd many of the above can be dealt with. National free daycare would be one step. You could put controls in place, such as proof of a job or college attendence, to help control abuse.

How many women might decide not to abort if they knew that they could still go to college and have their baby cared for at the same time? No doubt, it would cost taxpayers money, but those would be some tax dollars I'd be happy to spend.

Same here.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, I'd say the answer to that is an obvious yes.

Thank god you aren’t on the supreme court then!

Yet this decision you make about the development of the foetus is all arbitrary. The foetus is a developing person from conception, and even at five years old is developing still. It's all a single, fluid process as I pointed out before.

So what? Everything is a fluid process. That’s the nature of the universe. The fact remains that the level of development IS a significant piece of data that tells us something about the life form involved. Its absurd to say that a 3 week (or 3 day!) old fetus is comparably the same as a child or adult.

However, all the way up to adulthood, people are growing and physically developing. Saying that we can select at what stage in development children should count as people has freaky implications.

Children aren’t fetuses. Stop with the shell game. Im talking about a threshold. Not about stopping developing. How come you are just fine and dandy with the concept of an age of consent and a legal age for drinking or voting or driving or owning a gun etc. but the concept of a point where the human organism is not developed enough to be a sentient, aware, higher thinking life form that can feel genuine pain and anguish is “freaky� to you? Better not allow anyone to drink alcohol or have sex then because development is a “fluid process�…

1) Since the whole process of development is fluid, there is no single "drop-off point" at which a person can be clearly seen any more or less a person than any other. It's a development process right from square A and continues as such to square Z.

This is such a silly way of arguing Lief. I mean do you consider a red wood seed the size of your fingernail to be the same as a 200 foot giant red wood tree? Because you realize its ALL part of a fluid process right? So lets start sawing up 3 foot saplings to make dinning room tables shall we? Because you cant tell at any given point when its ok to cut them for lumber and when they are too undeveloped to. Right…?

2) Hitler. I'm tired of beating on you with this point, though, that you use the same reasoning as racists and mysoginists, etc. to make your points, and that you're repeating their evil.

So yer just gonna ignore my point that racists will use ANY kind of nonsense to justify their racism? And that comparing certain races to say gorillas makes a MUCH better argument then comparing them to 2 week old fetuses? YOU use the same reasoning as racists on a lot of things you realize but do you know why nobody calls you on it? Because its completely irrelevant of the given point. Like this is… For example just because you think that Islam is a very violent religion doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to because extremists and haters could use your logic to justify exterminating them.

3) If you pick some point of development between A and Z, conception and adulthood, and you happen to be right, you are leaving open the possibility that someone else may in the future choose a letter higher up in the development scale to suit their own purposes.

Not if Im right! Then they would be WRONG now wouldn’t they? Because I already discovered the truth. So it would expose their thinking as blatantly racist and dangerous rather then a possibility. Its like saying today the earth is the center of the galaxy. Well clearly ITS NOT. And people who still insist it is completely undermine their own credibility so whats the problem exactly?

Yes.

How can you justify calling two undifferentiated cells with NO brain and NO nervous system and NO functioning organs a person exactly? The ONLY argument you can have to aborting something that underdeveloped is saying it still has the potential to become fully human. But that’s a whole different argument Lief. And opens up a whole different can of worms. And I don’t want to hear well most abortions aren’t that young because that’s avoiding the point that you still CONSIDER that a person.

Yes. Though I don't think that will ever be possible- the development is all one fluid process.

Wait so you are saying you would support abortion then?

Some people with physical or mental disabilities have a different and in some ways lower level of consciousness than we do.

Yes but they have been born and are no longer a forced resident in a host body. That makes a HUGE HUGE difference. If I crawled up inside some woman and refused to come out and her health was at risk because of it then the authorities would have the right to use any means necessary even to the extent of lethal force to stop me from holding her in that situation.

They have developed all the major organs . . . that includes the brain. It is a functional, thinking and feeling human that we're talking about here. And how do I know it's feeling? Because my brother, who died in his second trimester, fought to survive against the umbilical cord that was strangling him. You wouldn't do that if you didn't have feelings.

First of all that certainly does NOT tell you the extent of the functionality of the brain. Surely you are aware the the brain develops old brain first and higher order stuff much later. It doesn’t just spring into being overnight cerebellum and all... Survival is a fairly strong instinct Lief. I don’t find that very shocking at all. It doesn’t take some kind of high minded pondering and deduction to make an organism protect itself. In same cases all it needs is light. Or the intrusion of a certain hormone. Or something very basic that causes the lower body systems to react. You see the exact same thing in pre born animals as well. Even things as ancient as crocodiles will start moving away from the light early on in their development inside the eggs.

After the first trimester, it is plain that the child should be considered a person.

This declaration is not substantiated by any data so it remains meaningless. You have to find that out not simply go based on your gut feelings or worse yet emotional events in your immediate family.

Then I could say, "it's ethical to kill a developing teenager to save a fully developed adult."

Well then the next time someone gives birth to a teenager let me know.

On the contrary. You engage in war, when you do so ethically, to kill people who are trying to kill you, not just because they will mess with your lifestyle.

We also enter wars in which if we lost there would be no threat of every man women and child being exterminated by the enemy. Because that’s impractial… Instead we would be put under the rule of the enemy and become the enemy over time. This would in fact “mess with our lifestyle� quite a bit. Why we might even become poor and lose our financial and social grip in our society. It might conceivable turn our world upside down. Hmmm… just like an unplanned pregnancy can do in some situations.

Wars are far from your perfect little justified life or death struggle Lief… You’ve been watching a lot of John Wayne movies haven’t you…

Killing the innocent to "help us individually and as a society" is unethical. Killing the guilty who are trying to kill us in WAR is not even remotely similar.

And I say terminating the underdeveloped fetus is not even remotely similar to killing a full grown human. :shrug: Guess we are stuck there.

Better for us all to be poor than for us to be responsible for killing tens of millions of our children. And better for me to have a chance at a good life or even certainty of an impoverished life than for me to be killed in the womb. The fact that the poor people in the US haven't all committed suicide by now is evidence enough of this.

Nice attitude Lief… Instead of saying yes, you are right, if you are going to champion the fight against abortion then you MUST also champion the fight for the resources necessary to help kids in the worst situations in our society, you instead say let them come into the world and suffer as long as my theological/philosophical ideals are met. You would actually feel ok about adding to the numbers of suffering kids and adults by the millions and be ok with the damage they in turn would do to society and others… (you realize of course they would be more likely to get unwanted pregnancies themselves right?) and not have any part in doing what is necessary to make the world a better place for these millions of kids? That’s shameful in my opinion. Its inconsistent posturing self defeating fundamentalism rather then true sober compassion.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Nice attitude Lief… Instead of saying yes, you are right, if you are going to champion the fight against abortion then you MUST also champion the fight for the resources necessary to help kids in the worst situations in our society, you instead say let them come into the world and suffer as long as my theological/philosophical ideals are met. You would actually feel ok about adding to the numbers of suffering kids and adults by the millions and be ok with the damage they in turn would do to society and others… (you realize of course they would be more likely to get unwanted pregnancies themselves right?) and not have any part in doing what is necessary to make the world a better place for these millions of kids? That’s shameful in my opinion. Its inconsistent posturing self defeating fundamentalism rather then true sober compassion.

I agree, Rex; however, that is not what Lief said.

Originally Posted by Lief

But the reason it is ethical to kill these people in war is that they are trying to kill you.

Kinda hard to justify a "preemptive" war like that...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

How about speeding? Alcohol consumption by minors? Downloading copyrighted material?

I would think that a vast majority of adults agree that speeding is dangerous and alcohol consumption by minors. I don't hear many calling for changes to either law, except maybe what speed is considered speeding.

On copyrights, that has more to do with the fact that the rich benefit from copyrights, are major contributors in any politician's campaign, and thus get what they want. I think copyright law should be vastly restricted, and I think a majority would agree if they thought deeply about it, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Bottom line: the only laws that work well are the laws that at least 70-80% of the voting population agree with as good laws.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Meaning, why is the foetus inside the womb part of the mother's body, and more than the Joey is?

Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant why isn't the joey a person then.

I see the pouch as parental care, however, the only species that really matters in an abortion debate is humans.

Otherwise we might start debating the ethics of spaying and neutering as it is forced sterilisation.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Why is it that you feel this means the fetus is part of the mother's body?

Because it makes sense to me. There is no separation between the mother and the foetus. The foetus is not a separate entity.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What are your reasons for holding that this constitutes personhood?

Mainly because if something isn't its own separate entity, it cannot be a person.

At what point do you feel the developing human becomes a person? Why do you feel its a person at that point, rather than a different point of development?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But isn't the fact that the liver lacks its own mind - that is, its own soul - significant?

Yes, this is highly significant. This was just a comparison about things that are part of the mother's body.

I am not suggesting that the liver would become a person upon removal from the body.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Do you mean, that having the same body parts makes them different people, or having only some of the same body parts does so?

Sharing only some of the same body parts makes them different people.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You see what happens, when we try to trace things back? I'm working on the premise that, if we trace things far back enough via the reasons for them, we will have agreement, and then we will be able to make progress.

This is a very interesting premise and I think we should continue to explore it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I would think that a vast majority of adults agree that speeding is dangerous and alcohol consumption by minors. I don't hear many calling for changes to either law, except maybe what speed is considered speeding.

But the word you used wasn't "dangerous" but "wrong".

Bottom line: the only laws that work well are the laws that at least 70-80% of the voting population agree with as good laws.

And do you know from intense in-depth study of laws in the history of this country, or from opinion based on a few isolated examples?

Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant why isn't the joey a person then.

I see the pouch as parental care, however, the only species that really matters in an abortion debate is humans.

Why do you see the pouch as parental care? The joey can't survive outside any better than a foetus can outside the womb, and it gains all its nourishment directly from its mother.

I'm bringing this up, because I don't see what is the substantial difference that makes the foetus part of the mother, but not the joey.

Because it makes sense to me. There is no separation between the mother and the foetus. The foetus is not a separate entity.

There is separation between the mother and the foetus, it seems; there merely is one point at which they are connected.

As stated before, Siamese twins are much more connected than mother and infant. Note especially that pair in their twins, which are essentially one body with two heads. But they are clearly separate entities.

Mainly because if something isn't its own separate entity, it cannot be a person.

Agreed. I just debate your premise. Where are Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion when you need them? Probably off visiting Sartre.

At what point do you feel the developing human becomes a person? Why do you feel its a person at that point, rather than a different point of development?

It's not a matter of developing for me; I believe it is at the moment of conception. As soon as the egg and sperm unite.

I am not suggesting that the liver would become a person upon removal from the body.

I can imagine a really, really bad horror movie about that...

Sharing only some of the same body parts makes them different people.

But surely the mother can't truly be considered to share all of the babies body parts? That would mean that she had two hearts, four lungs, two brains, etc. If it were a male, she would then have a penis.

This is a very interesting premise and I think we should continue to explore it.

Hear, hear. I get so sick of the debate, sometimes, when it seems its mostly people just yelling at each other.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Why do you see the pouch as parental care? The joey can't survive outside any better than a foetus can outside the womb, and it gains all its nourishment directly from its mother.

Because the joey can't survive outside the pouch any better than a baby who is not fed by a parent.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm bringing this up, because I don't see what is the substantial difference that makes the foetus part of the mother, but not the joey.

The joey has independently functioning organs and an independent circulatory system, but you know, nothing important.

I feel the usefulness of the joey comparison has exhausted itself.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There is separation between the mother and the foetus, it seems; there merely is one point at which they are connected.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As stated before, Siamese twins are much more connected than mother and infant. Note especially that pair in their twins, which are essentially one body with two heads. But they are clearly separate entities.

Conjoined twins are far from being a two-headed person. Depending on the level of conjoined-ness, they could share a lung or a kidney, and maybe another organ.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Agreed. I just debate your premise. Where are Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion when you need them? Probably off visiting Sartre.

Doing what now? And what are their husbands doing?!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's not a matter of developing for me; I believe it is at the moment of conception. As soon as the egg and sperm unite.

Is a sperm half a person then? Or an egg?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I can imagine a really, really bad horror movie about that...

... which I would totally watch.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But surely the mother can't truly be considered to share all of the babies body parts? That would mean that she had two hearts, four lungs, two brains, etc. If it were a male, she would then have a penis.

Unlike conjoined twins, the mother is actually operating all the foetus' organs.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Hear, hear. I get so sick of the debate, sometimes, when it seems its mostly people just yelling at each other.

This thread is very respectful, especially considering that yelling on a message board LOOKS LIKE THIS.

[Rían]

Why are women who have very early miscarriages so sad?

And Nurv, did you ever share your thoughts on partial birth abortion? (maybe I missed it... I've been kind of hit and miss here)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why are women who have very early miscarriages so sad?

Because they were really looking forward to having the child that the foetus would become. Perhaps they also felt the foetus was a person anyway.

Plus, they could be affected by post-partum depression. (I believe this can affect women who give birth to healthy babies, women who have abortions, and women who have miscarriages, cam all experience post-partum depression.)

Mainly, though, because having a miscarriage at any stage is an awful experience. There are many psychological and physical reason why a woman would feel depressed after a miscarriage (at any stage) and I hesitate to generalise further than I already have.

It should be acknowledged that having an abortion is also an awful experience.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And Nurv, did you ever share your thoughts on partial birth abortion? (maybe I missed it... I've been kind of hit and miss here)

I didn't, because I didn't have time to read the whole article.

I'm still thinking about it, though I am starting to formulate ideas.