Fair point i respect that,just giving my opinion

when you come out with a statement like this you can't go half nilly. You have to say Murder is Murder. You can't say oh it wasn't murder because she was raped. That's still not the baby's fault.
I don't know if I respect people's decsions to end a new life in their womb claiming it's their body, and thinking only of themselves and no the life their ending, but I can accept that it happens in today's socieity. And I realize that I'm not going to stop it, by screaming blue murder at every women who walks by who's had an abortion.
I've had tons of people who told me, well put yourself in their shoes. And to those people, I'd like to say, I've been in those shoes, I've taken them on a bloody 1000 mile hike. Now it's your turn.

I worked at an economics research institute this summer and wrote an article on it; my editor said it was too controversial to get posted but I thought I would add my two cents:

In 1973, Jane Roe of Texas appeared before the Supreme Court arguing for her legal and lawful right to have an abortion. She claimed that Texas laws preventing her from having an abortion violated her First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and its final judgment can be summed up with the following passage from Mr. Justice Blackmun’s Opinion of the court, “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” With this ruling the court gave the woman the right to have an abortion and since 1973 over 40 million abortions have been performed in the United States .
In the libertarian or Austrian analysis of abortion it is necessary to keep an objective perspective as much as possible and keep property rights at the forefront. Issues of constitutionality will not be looked at ; the only issue that will be discussed in this particular analysis will be property rights; specifically property rights regarding one’s body.
When we speak of property rights in this manner we are discussing the person in question’s right to do what they wish with their body, so long as it does not infringe upon another’s right to do what they wish with their body. Regarding property rights we will talk about the various scenarios that can be played out in each step of the process in bringing a baby out into the world.
The first step that necessarily must be made in the step of a baby being conceived is for a man’s sperm to fertilize a woman’s egg (i.e. intercourse). If the woman did not willfully engage in this behavior (i.e. she was raped) than her property rights to her body were violated; the man should be punished severely and the woman should certainly be compensated. Should this happen, the woman does not bear the responsibility should a child be created from the forced sexual intercourse. If she continues with the pregnancy her physical and/or mental health could be at risk from the fallout of the rape. In a sense her vaginal (and in this case uterus) area was violated; she is not responsible for the child created. If she elects to have an abortion the man would pay for all fees associated with the abortion (the abortion should also be carried out immediately---before the child’s heartbeat takes place). Should she carry the pregnancy to term, the man would than be responsible for the following financial items:
• Half of the child’s expenses upon birth (the rest accruing to the woman for choosing to carry the pregnancy to full term) until the child is legally deemed an adult
• All of the medical expenses associated with giving birth
• The woman’s lost wages due to pregnancy and giving birth
• Monetary compensation of the woman’s place of work for lost productivity equal to the sum in wages the woman would have earned while working
• Taxes that the Government would have received from the woman’s lost wages.
• The man’s assets would be liquidated to pay for said expenses; if they were not enough to cover the expenses I propose the man (who would presumably be in jail) be employed on any labor that the Government sees fit at the wage rate of 1/3 the minimum wage at 70 hours a week until the man’s debt is paid off (even if this extends his jail time).
Now assuming that intercourse took place with the woman’s consent than the process would continue. Suppose that conception occurred within the woman; and a fetus was forming that would eventually turn into a person. Now it is necessary to determine when this new being has the rights of any other human; or at least the right to not have its life destroyed. The medical profession generally considers a person dead when their heart stops beating so for our example we will assume that a person is alive when their heart begins to beat. This occurs approximately twenty-two days after conception. Now the question of property rights truly begins to come into play. Suppose the woman does not want the child for whatever reason. If the 22nd day has passed than the woman’s right to not have this living organism in her body is superceded by the child’s right to life; that is to say the right to life is greater than is the access to convenience. In a sense, terminating the abortion at this point would be murder of another human being. The woman exercising the right to do with her body as she wishes would result in the death of another person. Under libertarian principles this cannot be permitted. However, before the 22nd day her body is the right to do with as she pleases; if she terminates the pregnancy she has not killed a living human. It should be noted that currently no abortion method is available (on a widespread basis) aside from menstrual extraction before the 5th week. If women would still want an abortion in this society the market would have to respond with new solutions.
Next, suppose that the woman has some sort of pre-existing condition. This condition results in her having a relatively high probability of death should she carry the pregnancy to term. Now suddenly her right to her life is mutually exclusive with the child’s right to its own life. In this case the woman’s right to life would supercede the child’s right to life based on the fact that the child is necessarily dependent upon the woman for its own life.
Conclusion
The position of looking at individual property rights in this way generally tends to be pro-life. In fact, data collected by the AGI suggests that approximately 96% of all abortions would be unjust were private property rights in this manner truly respected. This may seem like a high percentage but if we are truly to respect property rights than this means taking into account the new life’s rights; as well as the mother’s.

I have very mixed feelings about this subject, because while i do belive it is the woman's choice and noone should be able to take that away from her, it also is a form of murder, no matter which way you think of it.I think people should find alternatives to it, such as adoption, that way the woman has a choice, but she doesn't have to kill it.

Im pro choice..stupid topic to discuss as its no one's business except the person seeking the termination.
Doesnt really matter if your pro life or pro choice, woman has the right to choose, her bod, her mind and at the end of the day she'll be judging herself.

Firstly, I'd like to state that if anything I'm going to say has already been mentioned, not to flame me for it. I didn't read the entire thread.

Adoption isn't a very good choice. It's like shoving your problem onto someone else. The problem is left unsolved, and nothing is fixed.

Abortion on the other hand, well, it erases the current issue allowing for a normal life to proceed.

The fetuses aren't really "alive" when they're aborted, so how is it murder? Especially since they aren't even classified as being human until after the three months or whatever it is. So honestly, why does it matter?

Hey all, I personally think that abortion is wrong i mean its MURDER I TELLS YA!!! if u didn want the child you should ahve been more careful and still there are a lot of other options such as adoption. in the case of rape it is a tough decision that will depend on the person.

Kitty Kat XxX

I'm curious to know how it's anyone's business whether a woman has an abortion or why? Until you're in each woman's shoes you have NO place judging or saying what you would or wouldn't do. I know MANY women who say they would and could NEVER have an abortion only to find themselves at a clinic or contemplating one for various reasons. And before you start casting stones and spewing viscious words at ppl making them feel negatively about a choice they made, or are considering, you should try living their life, taking a walk in their shoes. How about babies that are diagnosed with terminal illnesses that will only make the infant suffer after birth and end up dying? How about when a method of birth control fails? (it does happen) And aside of THOSE reasons there are dozens more which are no one's business. No one has the right to say what's right or wrong for one person.
And as far as the rights of the embryo/fetus...what makes their rights any stronger than that of the woman who has to carry the child to term and give birth to it? There are plenty of ppl who are unable to have children, you're right... but does that mean another woman should have to feel guilty b/c of that? Is it their fault?
Do you honestly think that a woman chooses an abortion in a careless manner? Do you think it's an easy decision to make? If you think that all women who abort are monsters who don't care you couldn't be more wrong. It's sickening at how self-righteous ppl can be when abortion is the topic.
It's viewed at that women who have an abortion were careless and irresponsible....God forbid there should be a legitimate reason to have an abortion other than those mentioned.

But seriously... if a woman does infact make an irresponsible decision and falls pregnant, does that mean she should bring an unplanned child into the world? What kind of life would that child have? Oh better yet, send that child to an "orphanage" to be adopted.....IF that child becomes adopted at all. Forget about the mental effects it would have on the woman... but I suppose that's her "punishment" for being so irresponsible, right?

If God judges women who abort then he is the only one that should have a say whether it's right or wrong. None of us are God.... so leave the judging to him.

Funny how pro-lifers seem to think they have all the answers. Hail to the almighty pro-lifers! PFFFT.

1) If you consider the fetus a human being, and many people do, then its right to simply live far outweighs the mother's right to.. convenience.

2) "Valid" reasons for abortion such as birth defects have nothing to do with abortions for children that are simply unwanted.

3) The possibility of the child being unwanted/abused/orphaned/whatever does not mean they deserve to die.

4) Making fun of and belittling people whose opinions differ from yours does your argument a disservice.

I get the impression that you may have had an abortion. I am not condemning you or anyone who has had one, I am trying to present the other side of the coin in a reasonable manner.

The crux of the argument, in my opinion, is precisely where one draws the line of "humanity." At what point does a fetus become a human being whose right to live is inviolate? 9 weeks? 36 weeks? 7 months? 9 months? Birth?

It seems that most people agree with me on the point that at somewhere between conception and birth, the fetus becomes a human being and cannot simply be killed. My evidence is the fact that virtually everywhere that allows abortion has a "cut off date" after which an abortion cannot be carried out.

That is my question to you, myvoice. At precisely what point does the fetus become a human being? I'd appreciate an answer, as this is a question I continually wrestle with.

NOBODY has said that those who choose against abortion don't have that right... and that's the problem. Where do those with that point of view get off dictating to pro choicers that THEY don't have their right to choose to have one?

What's right or wrong for one person isn't right or wrong for another. It's about personal choice, personal freedom and each person's individual life and circumstance.

I realize that there are women who have "late term abortions" and that might be where the controversy comes into play. Once a fetus is able to survive outside the womb it is deemed VIABLE. You can make your own assessments on that and form your own beliefs and views and opinions. However it's not your job or right to impose them on anyone else. I am not trying to convince pro lifers that they should choose abortion or that they have to LIKE that there is that option, but I am suggesting that their rights and beliefs and opinions do NOT outweigh pro choicers.

When has the issue ever become about pro lifers not having a choice or opinion? It hasn't. The only reason there is controversy is b/c ppl who disagree with abortion refuse to keep their opinions to themselves and try to take away the rights of women.

so would your view still stand ollisangel if you were to find out on a scan that your baby was severely deformed/damaged to the point of either not surviving birth or having no quality of life..believe you me this is not an easy option.and abortions are carried out for this reason too,not exactly in the same way as a early abortion (im sure your aware on the different procedure of abortions,depending on gestation)

having a pregnancy induced for this reason is a valid one as far as im concerned.and any other abortions done for reasons that would/cause grief for the mother/parents..

i know of people whom have had their tubes tied,or had vasectomies which have failed..should this not be valid too...

freedom of choice i say,,,,,,,,you eat eggs do you,that was a potential chick..think bout that one