Keeping abortions (for birth control) from happening does not infringe on the woman's rights. You made a decision when you decided to have sex. Pregnancy is a consequence of that action.

Can someone tell me when a human being gets its immortal soul, and therefore is a person that deserves protection? I do know from the moment of conception that the fetus is a genetically unique and separate from the host mother. I am particularly interested in the opinion of “believers” who support abortion. I know the position of the anti abortion folks.

I'm with ya grandpa. Everything that's needed is there at conception...like DNA, etc. It's a separate person, not a body part. It's not a sixth toe that needs to be removed if desired.

Dave, that's how I feel, too. You can practice "safe" sex, but birth control is still a statistical cr@p shoot.

Grandpa: I may be one of those people. I have two kids and don't think I could have an abortion, but I don't want to restrict the rights of those who may feel otherwise. I also would prefer not to see unwanted children brought into the world by mothers who are unable or unwilling to care for them properly. I would like to know the odds that those children will become either government dependents or criminals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Using your form of logic, you could justify terminating any one's life that you feel has tendency towards anti social behavior, that 8 year old boy who shot and killed his dad, and another man some days back. I know that is not what you mean, the question is at what point in the cycle of human life does that person have rights, and deserves the protection of society? How do we assure that the time we choose to afford such protection is the right time. I own a piece of land, it is wooded, this piece of land I fence in, and post every 5 feet a "no trespass" warning. Will you agree that does not give me licence to shoot any intruder on my piece of land? Would you also agree I would have responsibility to come to the aid of such an individual if he had an accident and could not move off my land on his own? Would you agree that even if i am on my own land, and no one is allowed on that land without my permission, I still must practice "due diligence" while shooting a rifle let say, and if I happened to shoot and kill a trespasser due to my own carelessness, the law would still say I committed a crime?

I should probably have put a paragraph break in there; the last line was a separate thought, just pondering, not a continuation of the previous statement. I did not mean to imply that we can preemptively convict someone.

I think there are enough gray areas that we should tolerate first-trimester abortions. That's where I would limit it, though.

Is it morally "right"? No.
Is it advisable as a compromise in our current culture? I believe so.

As for that eight-year-old, the case seriously troubles me.
I would really like to more of the family background and dynamics.
However, the example doesn't seem to fit the scenario, as I believe this was a(n) (apparently) stable family and there were no prior indications of anti-social behavior.

Your "No Trespassing" signs are good, but not sufficient warning to those passing through. If they read, instead, "No Trespassing, Open Firing Range" or "Open Hunting Season", people would be more completely informed and I believe they therefore take much of the risk on themselves. Other factors play a part: is it dark, are they wearing bright colors or camo, do they announce themselves in some way? It may still be a crime, but of a different (lesser, such as negligence) sort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

I don't want to start anything here.. but I have noticed that I've been seeing a lot of men who don't see abortion as "women's rights." I agree, like undave said, that they should not be used for birth control. There is no excuse for someone to use no protection and expect that nothing will happen. But what if it WASN'T their "poor judgement." What if their birth control failed, or if they were raped. It isn't like women just go and say "hmm I think I'll have an abortion today!" It's a lot more complicated than that, and it really does come down to a woman's right to choose.

These topics ALWAYS get so heated and I just want to stay out of it.. but when you are all making it sound like "removing a sixth toe" it is passing judgement on the people who need them for other reasons than "oh I didn't think it would happen to me.."

As one of those "a lot of men"; I don't classify "rights" as being men's, women's, black, white, straight, gay, or anything other then human rights. The question I asked was a simple one, and addressed to those who believe in abortion, and also believe in an "immortal soul", as to when they believe the child in the womb has acquired that "immortal soul" and therefore have their own rights to be protected. If you believe in abortion, and do not believe in an immortal soul, or are against abortion for religious or moral reasons, I understand and respect your views. My problem is with understanding those that hide behind the facade of "situational ethics". Can they make a cogent reasoned statement as to when that "thing" in the mother’s womb becomes a human baby, and therefore has rights to have their lives protected? The fact that if it was my daughter, my wife, or my sister that was raped would probably throw me into a black rage, and seek vengeance on the rapist, that would include a slow and painful death, would not and should not protect me from the consequences of taking another human life, even if it is a guilty human life. The best I could hope for, and expect would be mitigating circumstances when it came to sentencing. Not that I would escape the consequences of my action, but to acknowledge, I am not a threat to society, not likely to be a repeat offender, and there for might hope to be assigned to less then a maximum security prison.

Candace, to put it in a secular context, each new life is unique and individual from conception. As the mother of two children, I can vouch for that! Does that new life have no rights of its own? If so, how can any of us decide when to draw that line? If not, perhaps abortion should be extended to the age of two, or five. Or (since my kids are teenagers) 21?

Every time you have sex, with or without birth control, you're gambling.
It's not a lot different from drinking and driving. Does that mean that if you're in an accident and someone is seriously injured or killed, you get a "do-over"?

I can accept an exception for rape or incest.
Still, in an ideal world, those children would live to be placed for adoption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Candace, no worries. I appreciate your comments. The reason I am not totally pro-life is because of pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Obviously, in those cases the woman needs to have the choice available to them.

I do have concerns that women use abortion as birth control. I see absolutely no reason for late term abortion or partial birth abortion unless the mother's health is in jeopardy. I think the laws that are currently in place have reasonable limits on abortion. I don't want to have all of those repealed because Obama signed the FOCA.

What does "the mothers health in jeopardy" mean exactly? When a woman goes to a doctor, she is the patient, not the baby in the womb. The Doctors first responsibility is to his patient. If the mothers life is in danger, and only one of them (the mother or the baby can be expected to survive) The doctors responsibility is to all that is possible to save the mother. That was the case long before Roe. Vs Wade, it is part of the hippocratic oath all doctors take. If the mothers life is not in jeapordy, then what possible excuse is sufficient to terminate the pregnancy in the name of the mothers health?

I'm completely against my tax dollars funding abortions.

Also, I'm not sure who said it but in another Conservative Sugar thread someone had said something along the line that our kids are required to have parental consent to go on a school field trip but they can have an abortion without us knowing about it.

I appreciate the feedback, I'm happy that someone could show me the other points of view without causing a fight and telling me how wrong my opinions are. I can see where all of you are coming from. I'm not against abortion really, just if its used as a sort of birth control. I can understand Grandpa's point of view regarding rape but I can't say that I agree unfortunately. If it happened to somebody that I know, I would support them in whatever their choice was, even if it was abortion.

In cases where it will have a negative effect on the woman's health, in cases of rape, incest, and other things related that are NOT the mothers choice, I agree that the woman should have the choice of abortion. In cases where someone chooses not to protect themselves because they don't think anything can happen to them.. not so much.

And Trixie, thats a scary but true comment. I'm pretty sure that if you're under 16 the doctors do have the right to inform the parents though, don't they?

Oh, and someone said something above about late-term and partial-birth abortions, I thought those were illegal now? Except in the circumstances you stated where the mothers health is at risk.

Again, that "mothers health at risk" needs to be further defined. A partial birth abortion could justified by saying the mothers anxiety attacks are putting her health at risk. I suggest a better test would be by substituting the word "health" with the word "life".

Abortion was never illegal if the mother's life was in danger so Roe v Wade doesn't effect that, but who is in the judgment of if her life is in danger? That's a slippery slope.

If you have sex, you're risking getting pregnant. If you are adult enough to have sex, be adult enough to deal with the consequence of possible pregnancy. If you aren't grown up enough to handle that, then keep your pants on.

As far as rape, it still not the child's fault. Why kill her/him due to the despicable action of a cretin? I'm not saying people should be forced to raise the child, but at least give that child a chance by putting him/her up for adoption. I have many friends who've adopted babies from unwanted pregnancies and are so blessed with these children. Back to the rape thing...my best friend in college was raped right after hs graduation. She doesn't remember having sex with anyone so the best we could guess is that he used something to knock her out. It turns out she's prego. Abortion was never an option. She knew she had a precious life inside of her regardless of how it happened. She had a beautiful baby girl, continued to finish college, and push through tough times. Her 'baby' is now a bright 16 year-old student athlete. People want to whine about women's rights, but what about women who are in-utero? Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, said (paraphrasing) "where were my rights that day my birth mother chose to have a saline abortion?"