It should be illegal except in the extream cases of incest and rape. It should not however, be used as some sort of sick birth control method.

Ooooh boy talk about a touchy friggin subject. Please don't flame me because I feel pretty strongly about this.

I don't agree with abortion unless a woman is raped by a family member. No other time. Because if there's incest in the mix, the baby isn't going to have any kind of life. It'll be de-formed and/or mentally messed up. Better to just send it to Heaven before it has time to suffer.

Now if a woman is raped I can understand not keeping the child. But there's this thing called adoption. Use it.

That's it. If you don't want the kid put it up for adoption. There are hundreds to thousands of women out there who can't have children who would be more than happy to take the child.

So yeah....illegal unless raped by a family member.

Another solution is homicide suicide where the mother would shoot her brains out which would kill both the baby and her at same time.

But then you got those woman who give birth to a child and put them in a trash can... they made a law in my state, not sure if its in other states but basically you can drop a unwanted baby off at a fire station and they can take care of it hand it over to the right people.

If it were me I would not want to go through 9 months of hell just to toss the baby over to a fireman, so either abortion or keep it. If you have plans on giving the baby away then you shall be neutered and should never be able to make another baby again.

"Another solution is homicide suicide where the mother would shoot her brains out which would kill both the baby and her at same time." That statement made no sense and it was unnecessary.

If someone didn't want the baby than it was an act of stupidity for them to get pregnant in the first place. There is no point to getting pregnant if you don't want the baby.

I like how shallow these discussions usually are. No one ever bothers to look deeper than the subject matter.

Well, I'll take the stance of one of the few here that DO condone the woman's choice in the matter. To that end, I shall procure several arguments, as well as analyze several arguments against abortion, and point out their fallacies.

Note: My arguments are unbiased, and take root in no religious doctrine. I refuse to respect anything but logic.

Pro-Life Arg.1 : "It's murder"
=============================
This argument is usually presented in the following form:
a) Murder is wrong.
b) b1) A fetus is alive.
b2) Killing a living being is murder.
b3) Ergo, killing a fetus is murder.
c) Ergo, killing a fetus is wrong.

One fallacy that is often pointed out in this argument is that a fetus is not necessarily alive(b1). This is because there is no empirical definition of "alive", and each person is free to define it for himself.

Another is that there is no concrete proof to the fact that murder is wrong(a). Furthermore, the word "wrong" is ambiguous, and undefined.

As we can see, this argument is flawed. It provides no evidence to support itself. After a skim through the statements I outlined 2 fallacies(which completely obliterates the argument), though I'm certain that there are countless more which could be discovered upon closer examination.

Pro-Life Arg.1 Supplement : "God says murder is wrong"
-----------------------------------------------------
It would be laughable of me to even consider taking such a blatant abstraction as "god" to constitute a definite resolution to the aforementioned problems. God is undefined. Is it an omnipotent being? An omniscient? An omnipresent? Does he have a physical manifestation? What should I call him? If he gave us a set of rules to follow, who holds them: The Christians? The Jewish? The Muslim? The Hindu? The Krishnaists? Maybe the Mayans, or the Achomawi?

Until all these, and more, questions are answered, no one can claim that his god has monopoly over morals.

I'm not even talking about the existence of a god: many a generation of brilliant sophists where wasted on debating this. No, I am talking about the faulty definition of god, and the right of his followers to force their views unto others.
e.g. If a state passes a law that permits murder, based on some moral guideline, one could argue that what they do is unjustified, seeing as morals come in different shapes and sizes. Of course, most likely, this won't do any good, as you will see in my next argument: "Free Will"

Pro-Life Arg.2 : "Free Will"
===========================
a) One has a right to free will: a right to choose his own fate.
b) It is wrong to take away another's right to free will.
c) Abortions are performed without the fetuses consent.
d) Abortions take away the fetuses right to free will (from a, c).
e) Ergo, it is wrong to perform an abortion (from d, b).

From the get go I see that this argument has no roots in reality: (a) is unjustified. As we know, in nature the strong survive. So, it is natural to have no right to choose one's own fate, since the strong will decide on the fate of the weak.
Let's bring this principle into our field of debate: A mother or a doctor is surely stronger than a fetus. Therefore they can certainly decide on his fate, as nature dictates.

(b) is somewhat vague, but i will disregard that just because it may be argued that it is a derivative from (a) and not a separate statement.

(c) is a vague statement. From the previous argument we know that the definition of "alive" is variable. Someone who is not "alive" cannot consent to anything. Neither can he object to anything. This is because a stationary object(in this case: a fetus) has no way to communicate it's thoughts, if it has any. Since the will of the object cannot be obtained one cannot know whether or not this will is even existent(so the lack thereof might or might not exist, also). Therefore, (c) is a variable statement, and cannot be evaluated at face-value, without clinging to a dogma of some sort.

With (a) and (c) proven unjustifiable, and (b) Arguably connected with (a), (d) and (e) get thrown out the window, and we are left with an empty argument, which does not have the strength stand it's own in the harsh world of reason, much less to defend a stand.

Pro-Choice Arg.1 : "Self Defense"
=================================
a) a1) A parasite is defined as a benefactory at the expense of it's host.
a2) A fetus feeds off his mothers nutrients, and even her blood supply.
a3) Ergo, the fetus is a parasite.
b) It is in the right of the host to terminate a parasite.
c) Ergo, it is in the mother's right to terminate her fetus.

Of course, this argument is also invalid in the sense that (b) cannot be empirically proven. Also, (a) is valid up to a certain point in the fetuses development.

Pro-Choice Arg.2 : "Free Will"
==============================
a) One has the right to do with his property as he chooses.
b) All things inside ones property are his property (given a whole is the sum of it's parts).
c) Ones body is his property.
d) The fetus inside a woman's womb is her property(from c, b).
e) Ergo, the woman may do with the fetus whatever she chooses to. (from d, a)

(a) has to be true for the definition of property - if one could not do what he wanted to do with his property, he would not truly own it.
(c) is true only if you're not a religious fanatic.

Pro-Choice Arg.3 : "Euthanasia"
===============================
This is purely circumstantial:
a) This world is a cold, cruel and unforgiving place of suffering.
b) The infant has done nothing wrong to be placed in such a world.
c) Ergo, it is morally right to kill it, as to spare it the future torture of living.

A bit pessimistic and subjective, especially since none of the attributes in (a) can be defined. I like it, nonetheless: It's hard to dispute, and almost all claims against (a) can be deflected by switching the nearest TV Set to the news channel.
(b) is also arguable. Religious nuts may claim for all kinds of sins from the fetuses past lives, or the fact that he is touching his mother's private parts(incest) may be acclaimed to his karmic personal record. But, since I am free of religious dogmas, and incest cannot be defined as bad or good, this is irrelevant.

Pro-Choice Arg.4: "Utilitarian View"
====================================
1. a) At the end of each process is it's goal.
b) At the end of life is death.
c) It is desirable for a process to achieve it's goal as quickly as possible.
d) Ergo, it is desirable to end life as quickly as possible.

It's easy to see where this is going with our current argument...

2. a) (1)
b) An abortion ends a fetuses life quicker than him having to life it though.
c) Ergo, it is desirable to abort fetuses.

But here I am plunging this discussion into much more deeper philosophical waters; waters I do not believe many here would be interested to swim in.

I believe I have shown here, at least to an extent, that the notion of legal abortions is more than feasible.

I do not claim expertise on natal development. Nor do I claim to have all the answers in life. I don't even claim to believe in what I say. I just take the road less traveled in discussions like this, to show people how flawed their arguments usually are, and encourage them to seek better explanations.

It is not a matter of belief to see the world for what it is. It's knowing that the only thing that can be marginally trusted is pure reason.
if a=b and b=c then a=c. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is easy to cling to meaningless abstractions like "good" or "evil"; "right" and "wrong". It is much harder to look around and see what's really there.
You will notice I use some of these words in my arguments. They are not to be taken at face value, but as ideas. If I would've taken the time to write each argument without using these vague coin phrases, I would one of them in a week or so of typing. Try reading between the lines.

P.S.
====
I rarely get the time to check forums, so you'll have to excuse me if I won't reply to comments on this post. That is not to say I won't - just that I might not.

userdan : You are correct on a lot of points my friend.
And to add to them-

Pro-Life Arg.1 : "It's murder"
What defines murder? Is killing an animal murder?
There are many definitions of murder, some being that only killing a person is murder, others being that it is murder to take a life.

Then why are people allowed to murder other animals for food, survival and sport without consequences?
Some say it is because an animal does not possess sapience, that is, wisdom or the ability to act with appropriate judgment.
(This should not be confused with sentience, that is, the ability to feel or perceive, which all animals can do)

But can a fetous be said to have sapience? In fact can it even be said to have sentience?
A fetous can be said to feel (though whether this can be proven is another matter), but it cannot percieve, nor does it possess the qualities of sapience.
So this says that while aborting a fetous may be comparable to murder in the same sense as the murder of animals, it is not the same as taking a human life.

Further things to consider-
Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter, not murder.
Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses.

Pro-Life Arg.2 : "Free Will"
What defines free will?
The ability to make choices is based on the premise that the individual has cognitive reasoning.
Does a fetous have free will? No, it does not, it is an instinctual animal.
Therefore we can indeed chuck this argument right out the window.

Pro-Choice Arg.1 : "Self Defense"
b) It is in the right of the host to terminate a parasite.
Whether or not this is a right it has been proven to be lawful to terminate any other parasite living in the host body.
So logically the parasite in question, the fetous, has no more right then any others except for the fact that it has the potential to become a sapient being.
Though this is not always the case, and if the parasite is working to the detriment of the host organism then she has the right to cure herself of said parasite.

This brings up another point, "Health"
Some children are born with an incureable disease that will cause it pain for it's whole life.
Is it fair on the child to bring it into the world if you know 100% that it will suffer every day?

Not only that but this can end up causing the parents quality of life to become nothing more then a living nightmare.
When there is an alternative that will make sure no one has to suffer unneedlessly, why shouldnt it be allowed.

And to those that say "it shouldnt be used to correct a mistake",
well there are plenty of times that people get pregnent when they are using birth control,
so it is hardly their fault if the contraceptive did not work as advertised.
Again, it comes down to quality of life, if a parasite of any other kind makes it that your life is no more then a shell of what it was you get rid of said parasite.
This is no different.

And again we can come back to the subject of free will, someone should be able to do what they like with their own body rather then having others impose their own morals and standards on them.
Give people the right to make their own choices legally, because if they want to get rid of the unborn child they will find other ways, ways that will end up harming them.

If we make abortions illegal, only the criminals will have them!

i think its very illegal, its murder, and if they allow that, then murder should be allowed, but its not, its VERY wrong, same with abortions. i think it is very wrong and should not be legal, ever!

DarkHyren : perhaps I was a bit unclear in the 'Pro-Choice Arg.1 : "Self Defense"' argument. I should have elaborated more on that.

What that specific point meant was directly connected to one of my explanations to 'Pro-Life Arg.2 : "Free Will"' - that in nature, the strong dominate the weak.
What I was aiming at is that if the host has the ability to remove his parasite, he has the right to, because(seeing as he has the ability to overpower the parasite) he is stronger.

But your explanation is no worse than mine, and the arguments are not mutually exclusive.

I am mostly against abortion, but I believe it is tolerable if done in the first trimester.

My belife is that it should be the mothers choice. If i had to pick, i'd say illegal in all cases EXCEPT rape, and if the child is going ot be severly deformed, in that case, they MUST use it in stem cell research.

It shouldn't be legal. Abortion is still killing something.

serphvarna : What if the baby, or fetus if you will, has something wrong with it and will come out still-born? Then what? Should the mother just give birth to a dead baby? No, never put a grieving woman through that. So if you abort it, the human thing to do at that situation, is it "killing something"? No, its not. If anything its getting rid of dead tissue.

One fact in this world is that we can do anything we want with our bodies, so if a girl gets preggo and wants to get an abortion, thats HER choice, not anybody else's. God, its America, so lets all stop trying to control others.

Another thing, until theres a heartbeat, the "baby" is nothing but advanced tissue, which, you know, getting an abortion on that is just "killing" tissue. If the kid came from a rapist, so what? It has the choice if it wants a good or bad life, we're masters of our own fate.

We wouldn't need abortion clinics if men and woman used protection during sex, so if you wanna argue, argue where it all starts.

Sorry if Im ranting or offending anybody, but this whole "baby killer" crap has gone on long enough.

Is it legal or illeagal? Not my choice to make.

And I wish this whole "babies aren't alive" bull crap would stop. If the child wasn't alive to begin with than it wouldn't develop in the 1st place. And it doesn't matter if you're a woman or a guy, it isn't anyone's right to decide someone elses life.

JazzCoon : Um, no tool. Just because the "advanced tissue" as you call it doesn't have a heartbeat doesn't mean it's not alive. Bacteria have no heartbeat yet they are classified as living. I'm not opposed to having abortions in certain cases such as rape. And yes, more people should wear protection or stop being s***ty. But you're argument that abortion is just getting rid of "tissue" is ignorant.

serphvarna : If a chick is raped and is going to have a kid, by all means she should have the kid. The kid can grow up just fine with coming from a rapist. If she gets an abortion just for that, then yes, thats "wrong".

And please, don't call my opinion "ignorant". And that first thing you said, "Um, no tool.", are you calling me a tool? If so, please don't, I never went to name calling.

I'm sorry if I'm looking at this from a logical, scientific view instead of an emotional, sensitive view.

with most things in the world.... making things legal is by far a better alternative. Abortions will continue to happen regardless of whether or not they are legal. Making them illegal means not only losing the child but quite often causing damage to the female having the abortion which can lead to infertility or even death.


Abortions really shouldn't be the issue here. The real issue should be teaching women self-respect and getting both sexes to use protection if they choose to have sex outside of marriage. If you don't want to make a baby then use all the protection you can. The pill + a condom is about as effective as you could hope for without having surgery

I really dont know which it should be.I cant make up my mind what the right thing to do would be.

Abortion should always be legal. If it's legal for only a select few (rape, diseased babies, mothers that will die without an abortion) it should be legal for everyone.

More than anything, this is a women's rights issue. It's her body. I know I wouldn't ever want to be forced to share my body with a parasite for 9 months. By definition, a fetus is a parasite. It's the same as removing a tapeworm. Or, separating conjoined twins if one of them will die.

I don't believe a fetus is a human, either. DNA isn't what makes someone human. I mean, they look more like reptiles than humans at that stage.

JazzCoon : There is nothing logical nor scientific about your view.