Normally, I would never bring such a touchy subject to any forum. However, healthy debate is always welcome so is with that knowledge I begin.

Whether abortion is morally justifiable has been seen as depending on our answer to the question "when does a human life begin?" Many philosophers believe this is the wrong question to ask because it suggests that there might be a factual answer that we can some how discover through advances in science. Instead, these philosophers think we need to ask what it is that makes killing a human being wrong and then consider whether these characteristics whatever they might be apply to the fetus in an abortion.

The media in the States often refer to two opposing abortion groups: pro-life and pro-choice . Actually, reality is much more complex than this simple either-or binary system. There are a few individuals, sometimes referred to by the term "anti-abortion," who are so opposed to abortions that they occasionally bomb or set fire to clincs and/or murder abortion providers.

The pro-life and pro-choice movements are not homogenous. There is a range of beliefs held by members of both groups. Prolifers hold various beliefs: Some believe that abortions are acceptable. It is better to let the woman and fetus die rather than save the woman's life by terminating the pregnancy happened as a result of rape or incest, Others say it is acceptable in cases where an abortion under some unusual conditions perhaps when pregnancy happened as a result of rape or incest, Others say it is acceptable in cases where an abortion is needed in order to prevent the woman from being seriously and/or permanently disabled, Others say it is accetable in a broader range of cases in which a continued pregnancy would very seriously affect the woman's health.

Prochoicers hold a different range of beliefs about the morality of abortion: Some say that only very early abortions are morally acceptable, Some say that only very early abortions are morally acceptable, Some say that only abortions during the first trimester are OK, Some say that an abortion before the fetus becomes viable is OK, Some say that a woman should be able to choose an abortion up to the time that the fetus is born.

Follow up:

World-class ethicist, Peter Singer has recieved a great deal of attention by recommending infanticide of some disabled newborns, He suggested that: "....some infants with severe disabilites should be killed" if the parents so choose. His reasoning is that they have diminished likelihood of enjoying an adequate "quality of life". According to author Richard Carrier: "the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event called 'quickening'). This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast wth animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. what is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state." But medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbeck counters "If we're talkng about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When it can feel pain, for example, because that's one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. and that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo."

In my personal opinion, which begs the question when one gives an opinion isn't it always personal, the decision should be an individual one. The parents would be aware of the type of life they could provide for the child. Abortion could be best in situations where the social or economic reasons are so dire that there is no way that a new mouth to feed could have any positive effect on a family. the question is should the state have the ability to decide either way whether a woman should see out a pregnancy or not. If the state is allowed this power, how soon before the state chooses who has kids and who doesn't. If abortions were made legal, the opporunity for infomation on the subject would be available to the masses. The pregnant woman would be able to exercise all her rights: Her right to privacy, the right specified in the 1973 case in the States of Roe vs. Wade, her rightto ownership of one's body and the right to self determination, women have the right to decide their own futures.

In China, one way the state has controlled the population is by setting a limit on the number of children one household can have. This type of decision should left up to the parents who could decide if they can afford it or not. If the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman then the pregnancy should terminated. If my wife was pregnant with our first child but I was told that it endangered the life of my wife if she went through with it then I would want it to be terminated. The problem alot of people have is the distinction between a fetus and a innocent person. The question is as rasied earlier is when does a fetus become a person.

I don't see a fetus becoming human until after clear definitions of fingers, toes and the head etc. So any abortions before that i deem to be OK. What if you found out that the fetus might be a danger to the mother after that you might ask. well I would have it removed because you would be saving a woman that in the future could have more children instead of putting both the unborn child and potential mother at risk. in my mind the decision should always be the woman's.