NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

A fetus is not alive until a certain point in its development. Any more alive than, say... a tree, anyways. Even if the fetus was alive - and I don't believe it is - at the time of abortion, one has to take in to consideration the future life of the child. Life isn't a Disney movie. Things don't always work out in the end, and sometimes children are born only to suffer and die.

Most of the above is simply my opinion (barring obvious facts, i.e. life isn't a Disney movie).

Ahh the never ending argument.....

Terminal diseases (Cystic Fibrosis)
Downs Syndrome

I just saw something funny and thought I'd comment...

"the victim of incest"

Just because your brother got you pregnant doesn't automatically make you a "victim"
Maybe you should said "the victim of incest rape," eh?

Yeah, 'life' may begin early in a pregnancy, but humanity (and most importantly, concienceness) doesn't beign until sometime is the 2nd trimester.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.
Untill every human currently on earth has the neccesary means to support themselves, I see no reason why the unborn deserve special attention. When I stop seeing famine, war, starvation, poverty and other avoidable miseries in the world, then i will consider changing my stance. Even then, I will remain humble in the knowledge that I am imperfect and that the person who best knows the mind and body of the pregnant woman is that woman herself and that my opinion is less valid than hers.

I just saw something funny and thought I'd comment...

"the victim of incest"

Just because your brother got you pregnant doesn't automatically make you a "victim"
Maybe you should said "the victim of incest rape," eh?
Just incest. Public health risk that is...

Yeah, 'life' may begin early in a pregnancy, but humanity (and most importantly, concienceness) doesn't beign until sometime is the 2nd trimester.


I don't think much worth bragging about starts until at least a couple weeks... AFTER the baby is born. I'm all for terminations through the first year of life.

:D :mp5:

abortions always have and always will be done. its a tragedy that doesnt need to be complicated by the abortion police coming around.

I don't think much worth bragging about starts until at least a couple weeks... AFTER the baby is born. I'm all for terminations through the first year of life.

I must disagree. I can't really stomach killing a baby after he/she is born.

The more I think about it, the more I am for abortion. Under certain conditions of course, but for it nonetheless. The human population is large enough already.

I don't think much worth bragging about starts until at least a couple weeks... AFTER the baby is born. I'm all for terminations through the first year of life.

:D :mp5:

I think abortions should be legal until age 4. The fact that I didn't have memories before then suggests that there is a fundamental shift in ones brain that must be related to the advent of conciesness. I know, most of you had memories we you were as young as a few months, but the world is defined by my experiences. You all know that.

(jk, jk)

Good point. I've changed my mind. I think abortions should be legal right up to the point that a child is capable of suicide. After that, let her/him worry about what to do with her/himself.

Good point. I've changed my mind. I think abortions should be legal right up to the point that a child is capable of suicide. After that, let her/him worry about what to do with her/himself.

Wait, you weren't kidding? *shock*

An abortionist is a doctor who performs abortions. On the small chance that you should find such a person posting on a NationStates board, I would also be interested in reading what he or she has to say.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion that abortion is not a morally good thing. I actually SHARE your opinion on a personal level. I would have to turn the question around on you, however, and ask why you believe that your opinion should be the basis for legislation that impedes on the civil rights of millions of women. I will always be ProCHOICE, not Proabortion. :)

I want to clarify this no between life and nonlife thing. Vitrus's aren't live even though they are just as active as a fetus. More so since they have a way to reproduce using others cells. Fetus can't till they are born and are babies.

I'm for abortion when there are reasons. I think there should be paper work like Oregon's Doctor-assisted active Euthanasia. You have to be mentally compenant, life at risk, etc.
Rape sure I'd allow abortion if Mom wants it.

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.
Shouldn't you say these are the only occasions I THINK abortions should be legal?
After all, you can't debate if you automatically are against listening.
You see Right and Wrong(Can't or can) are clear, no discussion.
What you could have said is Morally Good (its not recommended but it is recommended that it be positively regarded.)

I'm taking Social Ethics class: it helps you to make better understanding of terms.
Example:
Every Mother is Valuable
Whatever protects the mothers life should be attempted.
Abortions can save the mothers life sometimes.
Thus they ought to be legal and done when her life is in danger..

tut tut dont try and introduce logic into this forum. You will only confuse people.

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.


It's the woman's body, and it should be HER right to decide if she would like to terminate the child, under any circumstances. It's quite simple.

Anyway, I don't entirely support abortion either, except the aforementioned circumstances. However, I am pro-choice, because it gives people the choice (Sound's stupid, eh?) But it's true. People deserve choices, and if one person want's an abortion, it's their choice. If another doesn't, pro-choice isn't goint to stop them. It's just that pro-choice is the best and well-rounded option!

I think abortion is horrific and wrong, but I think the same thing about eating meat and any kind of war or unnesscessary harm to living things. I'd love for all of those to stop, but laws aren't how to change that - it's a personal and cultural change that would have to take place, and has nothing to do with what legistlation is on the books. Laws change as a result of social consensus, not the other way around, and while we're still overpopulated, shooting eachother, butchering animals, and fucking with the entire planet, abortion remains a secondary consideration.

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

Why should an innocent child be punished for the simple fact that it might be born live?

Why?

I think that it would help a lot more if people put more energy into such things as educating youth about safe sex and making places where you can get free counseling for low self-esteem issues and abusive relationships than how bad abortion is.
If you helped stop the origin of the problem then it wouldn't be such a big problem in the first place, and the above mentioned items help a more general cause than just abortion, so they're also more productive..

Why should an innocent child be punished for the simple fact that it might be born live?

Why?

The doctor of Hitler's mother almost convinced her to get an abortion..

The doctor of Hitler's mother almost convinced her to get an abortion..

Oh, how history weeps...

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

if protecting the health of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus then a woman should be allowed to abort whenever she wants. the process of pregnancy will cause physiological changes in a woman that will NEVER be reversed, and if a woman decides she doesn't want those changes then forcing them upon her is an injury to both her person and her dignity.

and why should it make a difference how the woman became pregnant, if you believe the life of the fetus is valuable enough to deny the right to choose? if a woman chooses to use contraception and yet becomes pregnant AGAINST HER WILL, then why should she have her rights denied while a rape victim is protected by the laws? do you really believe that sex should be a crime punishable by baby?

or do you, perhaps, also make a distinction between mother and "child" in cases of abortion? if you advocate killing a fetus to save the mother, but not killing the mother to save the fetus, but you still claim that a fetus is a person, then you clearly have hypocritical views that you should work out before questioning the views of other people.

and why should it make a difference how the woman became pregnant, if you believe the life of the fetus is valuable enough to deny the right to choose? if a woman chooses to use contraception and yet becomes pregnant AGAINST HER WILL, then why should she have her rights denied while a rape victim is protected by the laws? do you really believe that sex should be a crime punishable by baby?

I just want to note that while I support abortion, I also support responsibility for ones actions. There are many times in life when we do something which involves risk. We may try to be careful, but it still has unpleasant consequences. I don't believe we should simply shirk those consequences because we didn't want them to occur.

The simple fact is, if you aren't ready to take responsibility for your actions, you shouldn't be taking those actions at all. That isn't to say you shouldn't have sex unless you want a child. It's to say you shouldn't have sex unless you are ready to deal with all the potential consequences.

[/rant mode]

the fact of the matter is that aborotion is a tough choice to make. Now I know two women. They both got pregnant as teens one chose to have an abortion and the other choose adoption. Each one wakes up in the middle of the night crying. Thinking what have they done? What an awful thing they think they have done. Now I have never been in that situation, and hope never to be. I know another preganant teen who kept her kid, and she is sad at not knowing what her life could have been. So there is no right answer. Every choice you make will haunt you for the rest of your life. The only thing I can point out is the mother who kept her child does not wake up crying.

Abortion is never right, because it's the murder of a living being.A fetus isn't alive ok, but it will be...

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion that abortion is not a morally good thing. I actually SHARE your opinion on a personal level. I would have to turn the question around on you, however, and ask why you believe that your opinion should be the basis for legislation that impedes on the civil rights of millions of women. I will always be ProCHOICE, not Proabortion. :)

you have the right to an opion, but your still wrong.

(sry, I couldn't resist.)

you have the right to an opion, but your still wrong.

(sry, I couldn't resist.)

I believe Joseph Smallwood (no jokes about the last name, please) said something to the effect of: Every man has the God given right to be wrong.

Abortion is never right, because it's the murder of a living being.A fetus isn't alive ok, but it will be...
But using your logic then isn't killing any women a thousand murders? Her eggs aren't people but they will be!

Lmao, I just read my statement. If you think its not a living being then its not murder of a living being...
If you think its the killing of someone who will become one then you are somehow seeing the future or making my first statement fact.

Seeing future: That baby might die by some disease or some complication and never live. So you can only saw that might be one day turn into a living baby but not that it will be.

If you make my statement fact: Women became a whole lot more important than men. Not that that is a bad thing but geez, murder then and you are put away for life or really bad execution.
After all you are a thousand murderer! Mass murderer?

If you make my statement fact: Women became a whole lot more important than men. Not that that is a bad thing but geez, murder then and you are put away for life or really bad execution.
After all you are a thousand murderer! Mass murderer?

Actually, it would be the opposite. Men produce millions upon millions of sperm, which aren't life but could become it. So murdering a man would be about 10000 times worse than killing a woman.

Amazing how this argument always goes around and around and around in the exact same circle and nothing ever changes.

Anti-Abortion (I refuse to call them 'pro-life') = "Life begins at conception!"
Pro-Choice = "Don't pass your laws on my body!"

And so on ...

Here's my opinion:

http://www.unlc.biz/JP_QT.mov

However, as a member of the Y Chromosome Club, it's none of my damn business what the woman does.

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

Since you are all for killing SOME, why not include the rest? If you think Abortion is murder, can we murder people who were conceived in rape? In incest? Results of dangerous pregnancies?

Abortion is never right, because it's the murder of a living being.A fetus isn't alive ok, but it will be...

Nothing is really ever black and white like that though..

Joseph Smallwood

*tee hee*

(couldn't resist)

Seeing future: That baby might die by some disease or some complication and never live. So you can only saw that might be one day turn into a living baby but not that it will be.

BastardSword...this is not directed at you...I was just using what you said as part of an example....
Now...in my case... my son died the day after he was born. I had to have an emergency C-section cause we found out a week before the c-section something was wrong. All the ultrasounds to that point were fine...so up til week 34, everything is ok. I had asked for an abortion because I was terrified and afraid of what was happening. His head was extremely enlarged and something was seriously wrong. NYS does not allow abortions after the second trimester. We didn't know what was wrong with him til the day after he was born...in which he was put on life support the night he was born and I had to make a choice of pulling him off of it and letting him go. He had a massive brain tumor which took up 95% of his head. The tumor ended up destroying his brain..leaving him a vegetable. So, does that make me a bad person for inquiring about abortion in the first place when I first learned something was wrong?

Can some one PLEASE TELL ME THIS ISN'T MURDER?
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Partial-Birth_Abortion.jpg

I would definitely appreciate it!

Amazing how this argument always goes around and around and around in the exact same circle and nothing ever changes.

Anti-Abortion (I refuse to call them 'pro-life') = "Life begins at conception!"
Pro-Choice = "Don't pass your laws on my body!"

And so on ...

Here's my opinion:

http://www.unlc.biz/JP_QT.mov

However, as a member of the Y Chromosome Club, it's none of my damn business what the woman does.


I love you. That movie rocks.

I just want to note that while I support abortion, I also support responsibility for ones actions. There are many times in life when we do something which involves risk. We may try to be careful, but it still has unpleasant consequences. I don't believe we should simply shirk those consequences because we didn't want them to occur.

The simple fact is, if you aren't ready to take responsibility for your actions, you shouldn't be taking those actions at all. That isn't to say you shouldn't have sex unless you want a child. It's to say you shouldn't have sex unless you are ready to deal with all the potential consequences.

[/rant mode]
sorry, but now it's my turn to rant...

i am so sick and tired of people acting like having an abortion isn't a way to take responsibility. i have worked at an inner city clinic and seen women make the hard decision to have an abortion, and i quite frankly have to laugh at anybody who claims these women aren't taking responsibility. i've seen married women opt for abortions because they know they can't support the 4 kids they already have, and adding another would put their family in danger; even in times when they personally wanted another baby, they put the needs of others ahead of their wants, and made the responsible choice. i have seen the result of teens who "take responsibility" by having a baby they weren't ready for, girls who could have finished school, gotten better jobs, and had healthier families if they had chosen to abort their first unwanted pregnancy...they "took responsibility" by having a baby they couldn't deal with.

exactly what is responsible about bringing a life into the world when you are unable or unwilling to care for it? how is it responsible for a 15 year old to choose to have a baby, when she will be unable to care for it and provide for it in the ways that an adult must do? in what way is it responsible to bear a child with the intention of giving it up for adoption? you're basically then bringing a new life to the world but deciding to let somebody else take care of it, and i don't see how that is responsible in the slightest.

do we define "responsible" by how thoroughly the mother will be made to suffer as a result of her choice to have sex? do we think, "hey, she had sex, now she should have to endure the pain of pregnancy and delivery!" why is it more "responsible" for a woman to create a child she doesn't want or can't care for, just so that we can feel like she was made to suffer for a mistake?

taking responsibility means dealing with the consequences of an action. the only way to not take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy is to be in denial until the kid pops out and then ignore it or give it away. a woman who chooses to abort IS taking responsibility, she just isn't making the choice you personally might want her to. the idea that somebody should have a baby just because they got pregnant is silly; a baby is far too important a matter to be decided by a broken condom, and happily our modern world makes sure that it doesn't need to be.

Can some one PLEASE TELL ME THIS ISN'T MURDER?
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Partial-Birth_Abortion.jpg

I would definitely appreciate it!
it isn't murder. you're welcome.

Considering some of the kids I know, the abortion age should be about 15.

It's the woman's body, and it should be HER right to decide if she would like to terminate the child, under any circumstances. It's quite simple.

So the father is nothing more than a sperm donor? What about the child's body?

So the father is nothing more than a sperm donor?


in many cases, yes. more importantly, however, it is not his body being used to host the fetus, so his decision is irrelevant. this isn't about his claim to the fetus, this is about the woman's right to say that if he wants the fetus he is free to grow it in HIS uterus.


What about the child's body?
the only child involved in this debate is the 14 year old who is pregnant. until you establish that a fetus IS a human child, you need to either stop using that phrasing or start refering to human toddlers as "unmatured adults" and all human beings as "undead corpses."

if protecting the health of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus then a woman should be allowed to abort whenever she wants. the process of pregnancy will cause physiological changes in a woman that will NEVER be reversed, and if a woman decides she doesn't want those changes then forcing them upon her is an injury to both her person and her dignity.

Then she should have decided against having sex if the consequences of such actions were so abhorrent to her. Of course, that would be insisting people take responsibility for their actions and the consequences that follow. something that is frowned upon these days.

and why should it make a difference how the woman became pregnant, if you believe the life of the fetus is valuable enough to deny the right to choose? if a woman chooses to use contraception and yet becomes pregnant AGAINST HER WILL, then why should she have her rights denied while a rape victim is protected by the laws? do you really believe that sex should be a crime punishable by baby?

Because the woman chose to have sex which has the obvious implication that pregnancy may be the result...even if contraception is used. The rape victim did not choose to have sex and therefore cannot be held responsible for the consequences of that rape. Whether you are ignorant of the true function of sex or just choosing to ignore the blatantly obvious. Sex is the act of reproduction, a baby is a real consequence of having sex so people should take that possibility into account before deciding to have sex. Again, that requires people to be responsible for their decisions.

or do you, perhaps, also make a distinction between mother and "child" in cases of abortion? if you advocate killing a fetus to save the mother, but not killing the mother to save the fetus, but you still claim that a fetus is a person, then you clearly have hypocritical views that you should work out before questioning the views of other people.

Complications surrounding a pregnancy that put the life of the mother in danger should be treated int he manner that saves the mother. One reason is the fact that the mother may have other children to raise. Would killing the mother to save the child not be the wisest decision in such as case?

Then she should have decided against having sex if the consequences of such actions were so abhorrent to her. Of course, that would be insisting people take responsibility for their actions and the consequences that follow. something that is frowned upon these days.

again, choosing to abort is as much a way to take responsibility as choosing to carry a fetus to term, often more so.


Because the woman chose to have sex which has the obvious implication that pregnancy may be the result...even if contraception is used. The rape victim did not choose to have sex and therefore cannot be held responsible for the consequences of that rape. Whether you are ignorant of the true function of sex or just choosing to ignore the blatantly obvious. Sex is the act of reproduction, a baby is a real consequence of having sex so people should take that possibility into account before deciding to have sex. Again, that requires people to be responsible for their decisions.

again, choosing to abort is as much a way to take responsibility as choosing to carry a fetus to term, often more so.


Complications surrounding a pregnancy that put the life of the mother in danger should be treated int he manner that saves the mother. One reason is the fact that the mother may have other children to raise. Would killing the mother to save the child not be the wisest decision in such as case?
why? are you saying a woman's future ability to care for children is the only thing that makes her life more valuable? what if the woman has no children, can we kill her then? and what if the fetus is female? it has hundreds of eggs already in its uterus, and could produce plenty of its own babies that it would one day care for!

if baby growing ability is the criterion with which you determine the value of life then i suppose you wouldn't consider it murder if i was killed...i'm not going to birth any babies or rear any children at all, so i guess killing me doesn't matter.

if you want to say a fetus is a person and a life that deserves to be protected even when doing so violates a human female's rights, then you better be more consistent than this.

Pro Abortion.

Why? Because.

1) An unwanted pregnancy can cause a helluva lot more than physical damage.
2) An abortion is way cheaper than having a kid.
3) I'm childfree, I don't want children now or ever.
4) A child deserves to be planned.
5) A fetus is not a human being, legally, or according to my opinion. It is a parasite.
6) Just live IVF, it is a private matter decided only by the individual it concerns. I mean, I'm not too fond of IVF because there are children in third world countries that need adoption, and the world is vastly overpopulated, but I'm not going to tell an otherwise infertile couple that they cannot biologically reproduce.
7) My body. My choice.

And of course, these are just a few which have probably already been said. There are many more.

in many cases, yes. more importantly, however, it is not his body being used to host the fetus, so his decision is irrelevant. this isn't about his claim to the fetus, this is about the woman's right to say that if he wants the fetus he is free to grow it in HIS uterus.

Ah, so purely by not having a uterus the father has no say in the raising of his child? Oh, wait...when the bills need to be paid THEN they become important. Sorry, my mistake.


the only child involved in this debate is the 14 year old who is pregnant. until you establish that a fetus IS a human child, you need to either stop using that phrasing or start refering to human toddlers as "unmatured adults" and all human beings as "undead corpses."

A fetus is a human child, in is not a rhinoceros' child or a leopard's child, it is a human child. You can argue semantics but it doesn't change the fact that the fetus is human.
In my country a 14 year old who has sex is a vivtim of statutory rape, so, as I pointed out to you in a thread long ago, she would have the choice of having an abortion under what I consider to be acceptable scenarios for abortion to be considered. They being, rape victims (including statutory rape), situations where the mother's life is placed in medical jeopardy by the pregnancy or if the child has been pre-diagnosed with a disaease that will mean they will die shortly after birth.

And you may choose to have sex, but it's an act in itself, we have advanced beyond animals. We can do it for pleasure. If I want to have sex, that's my choice. But it is not my choice to concieve. That's why I use BC. If it failed, I'd have an abortion. Because though it was not reasonably forseeable that I would concieve. It would not be my choice. And I don't want a squirming sack of potatoes that I'm probably going to leave to bake in a car, anyway.

A fetus is a human child, in is not a rhinoceros' child or a leopard's child, it is a human child. You can argue semantics but it doesn't change the fact that the fetus is human.

No. It's not human. Yet. It has the possibility to become human, but it is not human. There is no way you could value its will over the will of the mother. It would not be fair. It would also be fairly sexist.

again, choosing to abort is as much a way to take responsibility as choosing to carry a fetus to term, often more so.

No, it is absolving themselves from responsibility.


again, choosing to abort is as much a way to take responsibility as choosing to carry a fetus to term, often more so.

No, it is absolving themselves from responsibility.

why? are you saying a woman's future ability to care for children is the only thing that makes her life more valuable? what if the woman has no children, can we kill her then? and what if the fetus is female? it has hundreds of eggs already in its uterus, and could produce plenty of its own babies that it would one day care for!

I said no such thing but I expect no better from you. It is not about reproduction capacity it is about protecting the mother's life. If the mother is not in mortal danger from the pregnancy then there is no reason to abort. If the mother's life is in danger then abortion is an option.

if baby growing ability is the criterion with which you determine the value of life then i suppose you wouldn't consider it murder if i was killed...i'm not going to birth any babies or rear any children at all, so i guess killing me doesn't matter.

Again, I said no such thing. Stop speaking crap.

if you want to say a fetus is a person and a life that deserves to be protected even when doing so violates a human female's rights, then you better be more consistent than this.

I have been very consistent. I told you months ago my thoughts on abortion and my views on when it is an option and when it isn't. Still saying the same thin now..thats consistent. Since when is preganancy a violation of a woman's human rights. If they find pregnancy so abhorrent then don't have sex. If you have sex then you risk pregnancy..simple.

Also, you can't say abortion just for rape victims. Rape is an equilibrium. There is no polar consent - rape comparison. I shall quote darling C. McKinnon, "All sex is rape."

No. It's not human. Yet. It has the possibility to become human, but it is not human. There is no way you could value its will over the will of the mother. It would not be fair. It would also be fairly sexist.

How can giving the child's life consideration sexist? The child could also be female. :confused:

How many chromosomes does a fetus have? How many chromosomes does a human have?

No, Tygaland. There *is* responsibility in abortion. It hurts. It bleeds. It cramps. It gives you depression. But you do it because you could not raise the child, it would not be fare to create someone unwanted.

Ah, so purely by not having a uterus the father has no say in the raising of his child? Oh, wait...when the bills need to be paid THEN they become important. Sorry, my mistake.

by not having a uterus the father has no say in the gestation of what may or may not become his child.


A fetus is a human child, in is not a rhinoceros' child or a leopard's child, it is a human child. You can argue semantics but it doesn't change the fact that the fetus is human.

a human fetus is a human fetus; saying that it is a human child just because it is not a rhinoceros fetus is like saying that 3 year old is clearly an adult because it is not a bear cub.


In my country a 14 year old who has sex is a vivtim of statutory rape, so, as I pointed out to you in a thread long ago, she would have the choice of having an abortion under what I consider to be acceptable scenarios for abortion to be considered. They being, rape victims (including statutory rape), situations where the mother's life is placed in medical jeopardy by the pregnancy or if the child has been pre-diagnosed with a disaease that will mean they will die shortly after birth.

well, i'm glad you won't force young teens to have babies, but then we raise the question of why, for the first time, people would actually LOSE rights by reaching the age of majority; if the right to choose is only granted to girls deemed too immature to consent to sex, then why would more mature women be denied that right? why give girls too young to consent the right to make such a huge decision? or would you give the right to their parents, so the parents could decide whether or not to make her carry or abort (regardless of her wishes)?

and we also have accertained that if a baby isn't likely to live long after birth then aborting it is okay. so how long is long enough? how long does a future baby need to live in order for its life to outweigh its mother's rights? and what probability is certain enough for you? should a fetus be aborted if it only has a 50% chance of surviving, or is it okay to give it a shot at 30% chance?

How can giving the child's life consideration sexist? The child could also be female. :confused:

How many chromosomes does a fetus have? How many chromosomes does a human have?

1) Because if someone creates a parasite in my uterus, and they tell me I have to bring it to term, they are dictating pregnancy on me. A man would not have to go through the same thing, in any circumstance. While a man does not need the choice, a woman does, and so if she does not get it, there is inequality.

2) The number of chromosomes is only a reflection of what it can become. What about it's brain function? It's ability to function independantly of the uterus? It is not a baby until it is no longer part of a womans body.

Some reading:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~life/abortion.html

How many chromosomes does a fetus have? How many chromosomes does a human have?
how many chromosomes do your skin cells have? and you shed them by the millions all the time! MURDERER!!!

Some reading:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~life/abortion.html

It doesn't even have independant circulation. Okies?

Some reading:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~life/abortion.html

Also, that's a pro-life site. It's gonna be pretty biased.

"Have you noticed that the people in favour of birth control are already born?"

1) Because if someone creates a parasite in my uterus, and they tell me I have to bring it to term, they are dictating pregnancy on me. A man would not have to go through the same thing, in any circumstance. While a man does not need the choice, a woman does, and so if she does not get it, there is inequality.

A parasite...well in the literal definition you are right although I find your reference to a child in that manner as disgusting. Simple, don't have sex if you are so intent on not becoming pregnant!!
The fact that a man cannot carry the child as a woman does is nature. The choice the woman and man should make is before they have sex. Not after. But again, that requires thought and taking responsibility for your decisions and we know how "out" that kind of thinking is.

2) The number of chromosomes is only a reflection of what it can become. What about it's brain function? It's ability to function independantly of the uterus? It is not a baby until it is no longer part of a womans body.

No, it makes fetus human. Does brain function make a human? So mentally impaired people are less human to you? Its ability to function outside the uterus does not make in inhuman, people on dialysis machines are inhuman to you then? It is never a part of the womans body, it is always a separate entity. Read the link in my post above.

"Have you noticed that the people in favour of birth control are already born?"

Big deal, anyone can breed. I could have been a blow job. Does that mean I have to produce **** nuggets of my own? No.

Ah, so purely by not having a uterus the father has no say in the raising of his child? Oh, wait...when the bills need to be paid THEN they become important. Sorry, my mistake.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, because women don't work! My God no! They just stay at home and cook and clean! And give birth to swarms of offspring that they have to stay home at look after. I bet you like them barefoot and pregnent, right?

I mean, could you possibly be any more sexist? Or hadn't you heard of the whole, you know, women's movement? You know? The whole "We want to work, not churn out your spawn" thing? And the whole "pay us equal wages SO WE CAN PAY OUR OWN BILLS" thing?

Or maybe your sexism is so ingrained you didn't even think while typing that, eh?

I'd like every anti-abortionist here to raise their hands
Good
Now, those NOT in possession of TWO X chromosomes, sit down and shut the hell up. You don't understand the physical process of carrying a parasitic growth inside of you, let alone listening to people trying to FORCE you to, against your will. If a woman doesn't want to deal with the effects of a child, you can't bloody well make her, and you have no right to even try.

Big deal, anyone can breed. I could have been a blow job. Does that mean I have to produce **** nuggets of my own? No.

Well that puts your mental capacity into perspective.

One thing I'd like the anti-abortion folks to explain is why they are so anti-birth control.

In my ideal world, abortion would only come up in cases of rape or life-endangerment because medical research would find better and more reliable ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and all people would be well-educated about their options and taught how to properly use birth control.

However, most of the people I know who are anti-abortion also are anti-birth control. I just don't get it. Which is worse?? Why, even when you are religiously opposed to birth control for yourself, would you oppose people not of that religion using it? Why wouldn't you be for it if it prevents someone also not of your religion (or even someone of your religion who has "strayed") from getting into a position where they'd even consider an abortion?
(And for the sake of the argument, let's assume we are only considering birth control that prevents fertilization such as a condom or other barrier method- I don't want to distract someone from actually answering by getting into the "most forms of birth control are really abortion" argument instead. Heck, let's even assume there's some "perfect" birth control that works 100% of the time.)

This is something I'd truly like to understand, btw. I'd love for abortion to be totally unnecessary. I don't think anyone is actually "for" abortion. It's just that all the issues involved are far from being a clear-cut right-versus-wrong thing. Pro-choice people acknowledge this as a fact of life.

"Have you noticed that the people in favour of birth control are already born?"
yeah, funny how living, conscious human people are the ones advocating the freedoms of living, conscious human people.

A parasite...well in the literal definition you are right although I find your reference to a child in that manner as disgusting. Simple, don't have sex if you are so intent on not becoming pregnant!!
The fact that a man cannot carry the child as a woman does is nature. The choice the woman and man should make is before they have sex. Not after. But again, that requires thought and taking responsibility for your decisions and we know how "out" that kind of thinking is.



No, it makes fetus human. Does brain function make a human? So mentally impaired people are less human to you? Its ability to function outside the uterus does not make in inhuman, people on dialysis machines are inhuman to you then? It is never a part of the womans body, it is always a separate entity. Read the link in my post above.

I read the link. It's pro-life propaganda. Don't think I haven't done the research.
And obviously you don't get laid often enough (or ever), because sex is NO LONGER about procreation. It is a loving act between two consenting adults.
And as long as it's sucking calcuim from my bones, it's inhuman. Kk?

[QUOTE=Tygaland]Ah, so purely by not having a uterus the father has no say in the raising of his child? Oh, wait...when the bills need to be paid THEN they become important. Sorry, my mistake.[QUOTE]


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, because women don't work! My God no! They just stay at home and cook and clean! And give birth to swarms of offspring that they have to stay home at look after. I bet you like them barefoot and pregnent, right?

I mean, could you possibly be any more sexist? Or hadn't you heard of the whole, you know, women's movement? You know? The whole "We want to work, not churn out your spawn" thing? And the whole "pay us equal wages SO WE CAN PAY OUR OWN BILLS" thing?

Or maybe your sexism is so ingrained you didn't even think while typing that, eh?

I didn't say any such thing, just using financial assistance to the upbringing of a child from the father as an example. It could well be a dual-income family. But the father would be expected to contribute to the upbringing of the child, no? Yet, before it is born the father has no say in anything about the child's life. That is the point I was raising. But if you feel the need to jump to extreme conclusions then don't let me stop you.

It's wrong ,so there, it seems easy for some of us to pass judgement on life, even if its not our own.

Well that puts your mental capacity into perspective.

Oh. We're bringing my mental capacity into it now, are we? Okay... well let's see... you're probably some aging white fundie. And I'm a childfree university student currently doing double degree of law and asian studies, which is why I believe I have the mental capacity to choose not to have children, and to choose to terminate the pregnancy, should I be so unfortunate. Is that okay, or do you need my enrollment details?

And you may choose to have sex, but it's an act in itself, we have advanced beyond animals. We can do it for pleasure. If I want to have sex, that's my choice. But it is not my choice to concieve. That's why I use BC. If it failed, I'd have an abortion. Because though it was not reasonably forseeable that I would concieve. It would not be my choice. And I don't want a squirming sack of potatoes that I'm probably going to leave to bake in a car, anyway.

One sick er lady.

I didn't say any such thing, just using financial assistance to the upbringing of a child from the father as an example. It could well be a dual-income family. But the father would be expected to contribute to the upbringing of the child, no? Yet, before it is born the father has no say in anything about the child's life. That is the point I was raising. But if you feel the need to jump to extreme conclusions then don't let me stop you.

And if the father refused? If he denied responsibility? If you can't afford to *make* him take a paternity test? You're stuck raising a child you didn't plan, and sure, you might love it, but you'll resent it, and hate yourself for this, and your life will be a living hell.

I read the link. It's pro-life propaganda. Don't think I haven't done the research.

Yes, if it conflicts with your opinion it is propaganda.

And obviously you don't get laid often enough (or ever), because sex is NO LONGER about procreation. It is a loving act between two consenting adults.

Never said it wasn't. What I did say was that a consequence of such an action is pregnancy. As such, that should be considered before having sex. Or is that pro-life propaganda also?

And as long as it's sucking calcuim from my bones, it's inhuman. Kk?

Contrary to your rather warped view of pregnancy and procreation. Many women actually look forward to having children. Just because you have some demented view of pregnancy and childbirth does not make a fetus inhuman. It is human.

One sick er lady.

It happens. Parents forget their children in cars. If people that intend to have children can't even take care of them, why should those who *don't* want them be expected to take good care of them?

It just seems like it's expecting too much from someone.

And I did mean out of carelessness, I'm not that sick.

Oh. We're bringing my mental capacity into it now, are we? Okay... well let's see... you're probably some aging white fundie. And I'm a childfree university student currently doing double degree of law and asian studies, which is why I believe I have the mental capacity to choose not to have children, and to choose to terminate the pregnancy, should I be so unfortunate. Is that okay, or do you need my enrollment details?

Go back and read your post....enough said. I did not mention your right to choose not to have children, I only posted in reference to the post I quoted. Try and keep things in context.

I didn't say any such thing, just using financial assistance to the upbringing of a child from the father as an example. It could well be a dual-income family. But the father would be expected to contribute to the upbringing of the child, no? Yet, before it is born the father has no say in anything about the child's life. That is the point I was raising. But if you feel the need to jump to extreme conclusions then don't let me stop you.

That is so wrong, fathers naturally feel very protective of their child, even if its to try and save it from its own if you could call her that, mother.

Its this kind of self centred feminist rubbish, that believes men are only walking sperm doners before the kid is born and wallets after the event, that is causing marriages to fail everywhere.

One thing I'd like the anti-abortion folks to explain is why they are so anti-birth control.

In my ideal world, abortion would only come up in cases of rape or life-endangerment because medical research would find better and more reliable ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and all people would be well-educated about their options and taught how to properly use birth control.

However, most of the people I know who are anti-abortion also are anti-birth control. I just don't get it. Which is worse?? Why, even when you are religiously opposed to birth control for yourself, would you oppose people not of that religion using it? Why wouldn't you be for it if it prevents someone also not of your religion (or even someone of your religion who has "strayed") from getting into a position where they'd even consider an abortion?
(And for the sake of the argument, let's assume we are only considering birth control that prevents fertilization such as a condom or other barrier method- I don't want to distract someone from actually answering by getting into the "most forms of birth control are really abortion" argument instead. Heck, let's even assume there's some "perfect" birth control that works 100% of the time.)

This is something I'd truly like to understand, btw. I'd love for abortion to be totally unnecessary. I don't think anyone is actually "for" abortion. It's just that all the issues involved are far from being a clear-cut right-versus-wrong thing. Pro-choice people acknowledge this as a fact of life.


Never said I was anti-contraception. But, as you know, contraception is not a 100% guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Therefore people must still make a decision and take responsibility should the woman become pregnant.

That is so wrong, fathers naturally feel very protective of their child, even if its to try and save it from its own if you could call her that, mother.

Its this kind of self centred feminist rubbish, that believes men are only walking sperm doners before the kid is born and wallets after the event, that is causing marriages to fail everywhere.

Oh FFS read the thread will you. I was arguing the point you just made.

And if the father refused? If he denied responsibility? If you can't afford to *make* him take a paternity test? You're stuck raising a child you didn't plan, and sure, you might love it, but you'll resent it, and hate yourself for this, and your life will be a living hell.

But how can you say that the father has no say in the child being born but then assume they will have an equal contribution to raising the child after birth?

[QUOTE=Ahtnamas]It happens. Parents forget their children in cars. If people that intend to have children can't even take care of them, why should those who *don't* want them be expected to take good care of them?

Id say the ones who do forget are the ones who *didnt* want kids in the first place.

Yes, if it conflicts with your opinion it is propaganda.



Never said it wasn't. What I did say was that a consequence of such an action is pregnancy. As such, that should be considered before having sex. Or is that pro-life propaganda also?



Contrary to your rather warped view of pregnancy and procreation. Many women actually look forward to having children. Just because you have some demented view of pregnancy and childbirth does not make a fetus human. It is human.

No, it is propaganda if it fails to look from both perspectives. It is both a fetus that will become a human, and something which is not yet fully developed. In fact, fetuses (and embyros in particular) bear very little physical difference to the fetuses of non-sentient beings. But where are the no-kill animal shelters in Australia?

Well yes, you should consider it. But that doesn't mean you should only have sex if you are prepared to have children. The topic should be considered and discussed with your partner, and BC should be used. But if something happens, ie the rhythm method is off because you're feeling ill, or your pill doesn't work because of the flu medication you too, or the condom breaks, then, while possible, it is not reasonable to expect that you should have to accept that you must carry it to term.

Sure, many women look forward to it. If they choose it. However, we're not talking about planned pregnancies. We're talking about your uterus being stretched, your organs compacted, permanent stretch marks, heaps of stuff. And childbirth? Do you realise how rare it is to have a normal birth? They cut, i repeat, they *cut* the vagina, to make the opening wider, so that it will not tear later. And after that, you've got stitches, possible bladder problems, you name it. Your body is not the same after childbirth. And to say that, should you not want the child, that you have to have it anyway... well that puts women pretty much on the level of incubators. Because *our* will matters nothing to you.

Contrary to what the website says, the earth is approaching carrying capacity. Instead of this absurd baby bonus, how about we let the refugees in?

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.
What about High Schoolers who aren't ready to take care of a child, but had sex anyway? I support abortion, because there are so many cases when it is needed. Quality of life over life at all.

But how can you say that the father has no say in the child being born but then assume they will have an equal contribution to raising the child after birth?

I'm not. I'm saying that you cannot expect them to give an equal contribution if they aren't willing, so you're on your own. Stuck with a child you didn't want in the first place. Hardly fair, right?

Oh FFS read the thread will you. I was arguing the point you just made.

Sorry Tygaland, my mistake.

[QUOTE]

Id say the ones who do forget are the ones who *didnt* want kids in the first place.

Not necessarily. Alot of the worst parents are the ones who *did* choose to breed. You know the kind, that let their children scream in restaurants, insist they get to breastfeed in public when there is a mother & baby room right nearby, that fail to even discipline their little PRESHUS MIRACLES.

Not necessarily. Alot of the worst parents are the ones who *did* choose to breed. You know the kind, that let their children scream in restaurants, insist they get to breastfeed in public when there is a mother & baby room right nearby, that fail to even discipline their little PRESHUS MIRACLES.

Hmm you have alot of hate towards children dont you, your a feminist then I take it.

No, it is propaganda if it fails to look from both perspectives.

So everyone who posts their opinion is spreading propaganda..even you?

It is both a fetus that will become a human, and something which is not yet fully developed. In fact, fetuses (and embyros in particular) bear very little physical difference to the fetuses of non-sentient beings. But where are the no-kill animal shelters in Australia?

We are arguing the "humanity" of the fetus. The fetus has the same number of chromosomes as a juvenile human, the same number of chromosomes as an adult human, hence it is human. If you want to change direction and discuss animal rights, start another thread.

Well yes, you should consider it. But that doesn't mean you should only have sex if you are prepared to have children. The topic should be considered and discussed with your partner, and BC should be used.

Didn't say you should only have sex if you want children, I said that if you have sex you have to be prepared for the consequence of havving sex..pregnancy. Of course BC should be used if you do not want pregnancy to occur. The fact that BC is not 100% guarateed means you have to accept the fact that there is a possibility of pregnancy occurring.

But if something happens, ie the rhythm method is off because you're feeling ill, or your pill doesn't work because of the flu medication you too, or the condom breaks, then, while possible, it is not reasonable to expect that you should have to accept that you must carry it to term.

I disagree, by engaging in sex you are accepting that, no matter how slight the possibility, pregnancy may occur.

Sure, many women look forward to it. If they choose it. However, we're not talking about planned pregnancies. We're talking about your uterus being stretched, your organs compacted, permanent stretch marks, heaps of stuff. And childbirth? Do you realise how rare it is to have a normal birth? They cut, i repeat, they *cut* the vagina, to make the opening wider, so that it will not tear later. And after that, you've got stitches, possible bladder problems, you name it. Your body is not the same after childbirth. And to say that, should you not want the child, that you have to have it anyway... well that puts women pretty much on the level of incubators. Because *our* will matters nothing to you.

Then don't have sex if you are that terrified of pregnancy. What about the will of the father, the will of the child you have created? If you have such a warped view of human reproduction then thats your problem. You would have to way up what is more important to you, sex or not getting pregnant. That is, make an educated decision.

Contrary to what the website says, the earth is approaching carrying capacity. Instead of this absurd baby bonus, how about we let the refugees in?

Says who? And we need babies rathe than refugees to counter the aging population. That is, soon there will be not enough people in the workforce age bracket to support those that have retired.

Sorry Tygaland, my mistake.

No worries. didn't mean to bitee your head off but yours was the third post to take something I said completely out of context. :(

I'm not. I'm saying that you cannot expect them to give an equal contribution if they aren't willing, so you're on your own. Stuck with a child you didn't want in the first place. Hardly fair, right?

So, what happens if a man and a woman have sex, the woman becomes pregnant and wants an abortion but the father wants to keep the child?

Pro-life activists make it sound as if there is a line of women every day stretching around the block at the abortion clinic. It's not an accurate representation. The CDC issues the numbers, and for the year 2000, there were only 857,000 abortions performed in a year in the entire country. It's not something that a lot of women choose to do, it's not an easy decision, and it's not a popular one. Nearly all of those women were unmarried, over the age of 21, and only 1.4% of those performed were after the second trimester. 9,080,744 live births were carried to term the same year.

We hear that it's this enormous problem, as if 13 year old girls are being hauled by the truckload to have abortions in their third trimester. The statistics tell a different story.

I'm against abortion for myself. I wouldn't do it, if I had a choice. Most women, according to the evidence, feel the same way I do. Either protect yourself against pregnancy in the first place, or deal with the consequences if you get pregnant.

I DO, however, get rather peeved when someone tells me that they don't trust me to make my own choices, for better or for worse.

No worries. didn't mean to bitee your head off but yours was the third post to take something I said completely out of context. :(

No worries either mate.

To all the open slather with Abortion supporters, male and female, its NOT just a womans body, its someone elses.

IF YOU SUPPORT OPEN SLATHER WITH ABORTIONS AND NO QUESTIONS ASKED, THEN YOU SUPPORT MURDER AND MURDERERS.

I'm against abortion for myself. I wouldn't do it, if I had a choice. Most women, according to the evidence, feel the same way I do. Either protect yourself against pregnancy in the first place, or deal with the consequences if you get pregnant.

one way of dealing with the consequences is to have an abortion

i am pro-choice. People need to look at the big picture, i mean, the really big picture. Don't have a go at someone for having an abortion, just let people get on with their own lives, thanks, bye.

by not having a uterus the father has no say in the gestation of what may or may not become his child.

So you are saying that the father has no say in the birth of his child. Just clearing that up.


a human fetus is a human fetus; saying that it is a human child just because it is not a rhinoceros fetus is like saying that 3 year old is clearly an adult because it is not a bear cub.

No, it is human. Just wanted you to say so.

well, i'm glad you won't force young teens to have babies, but then we raise the question of why, for the first time, people would actually LOSE rights by reaching the age of majority; if the right to choose is only granted to girls deemed too immature to consent to sex, then why would more mature women be denied that right? why give girls too young to consent the right to make such a huge decision? or would you give the right to their parents, so the parents could decide whether or not to make her carry or abort (regardless of her wishes)?

You should have known that from our last discussion on this topic. What makes you think a woman has the right to kill the human being inside her? More mature women would be denied the right by the fact they are mature enough to consent to sex and understand the consequences of that action. I thought that was self-evident.
I would say the decision would ultimately be up to the young girl with the assistance of her parents if they were even aware of the pregnancy. The girl would have access to doctor's, counsellors etc to assist her in making an educated decision. Are you advocating mandatory abortions for girls under the age of consent?

and we also have accertained that if a baby isn't likely to live long after birth then aborting it is okay. so how long is long enough? how long does a future baby need to live in order for its life to outweigh its mother's rights? and what probability is certain enough for you? should a fetus be aborted if it only has a 50% chance of surviving, or is it okay to give it a shot at 30% chance?

Again you talk as though I say it is mandatory. I said the choice to abort would be available if the child was diagnosed with a disease that meant it would die shortly after birth. The choice would be the mother AND father's and would be made after the scenarios were given to them by their doctor. The parents may choose to go ahead with the birth they may not.

how many chromosomes do your skin cells have? and you shed them by the millions all the time! MURDERER!!!

I wasn't using the number of chromosomes to prove the fetus was alive, merely that it was human. And thanks for pointing out that human skin cells are human. You learn something new everyday...gotta love the internet.

It has been written on this forum that few people disagree with the satement: "a woman should have the right to an abortion if she is the victim of sexual assault or if the pregnancy could threaten her life". Then there are cases where people believe that a pregnancy is a valid option ONLY in the above circumstance. To me, the latter sounds a bit like a double standard.

Consider this: if a woman has consensual sex which results in an unwanted pregnancy, many pro-life advocates would explain that such a woman should be legally bound to have the child, since the termination of the pregnancy would devalue the life of the baby.

However, if a woman was forced into non-consensual sex, she should have an abortion because she has a right to dignity and life.

In one case, people can be up-in-arms about a child's rights, whereas in another case people are sensitive to a woman's rights.

Most arguments in the abortion debate (both pro and con) follow the trends above: woman's rights vs. right to life of child. It is also rare to see a solution that honors both, allowing a woman to keep her right to self-determination while ensuring a child's right to live. Given this choice, people who are pro-life ought to consider their position more carefully. Either you care more about the life of the child, and should therefore lobby for a complete ban on abortion (e.g. a raped woman is irrelevant to the life of the unknowing child she carries), or you care about the dignity of the woman, and should demonstrate in-favor of abortion rights. But to go half-way creates a double-standard that will resolve nothing and keep this debate in a state of limbo.

I didn't read the majority of this, because wow, it's long.

It has always been my opinion that abortion should never be considered as a first resort. The problem we face anymore is that too many women are using abortion as a means for birth control.

I'm all about choice. If a woman would choose to keep her legs together, then abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

If a woman would choose not to have unprotected sex, abortion wouldn't be an issue.

If a woman would choose to honour the life (that does become human whether it is at a certain point or not) inside of her, abortion would not be an issue.

I am pro choice. I am also pro life. Abortion as a means of birth control is on the wrong side of the ever shifting invisible moral line. Abortion as a life saving means is a good reason for having a procedure that exists for it.

Abortion for the sake of abortion is ignorance.

To slow human population growth, if only just a little.

I didn't read the majority of this, because wow, it's long.

It has always been my opinion that abortion should never be considered as a first resort. The problem we face anymore is that too many women are using abortion as a means for birth control.

I'm all about choice. If a woman would choose to keep her legs together, then abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

If a woman would choose not to have unprotected sex, abortion wouldn't be an issue.

If a woman would choose to honour the life (that does become human whether it is at a certain point or not) inside of her, abortion would not be an issue.

I am pro choice. I am also pro life. Abortion as a means of birth control is on the wrong side of the ever shifting invisible moral line. Abortion as a life saving means is a good reason for having a procedure that exists for it.

Abortion for the sake of abortion is ignorance.

Ok...it's an awfully involved, expensive form of birth control, mate. As for women and their legs, closed or open, I guess you don't think there are men involved in the process at all, huh? I don't like the way you think. It indicates a disrespectful regard for women in general. I'm not inclined to listen to much of what you have to say on the subject, in light of that.

It has been written on this forum that few people disagree with the satement: "a woman should have the right to an abortion if she is the victim of sexual assault or if the pregnancy could threaten her life". Then there are cases where people believe that a pregnancy is a valid option ONLY in the above circumstance. To me, the latter sounds a bit like a double standard.

Consider this: if a woman has consensual sex which results in an unwanted pregnancy, many pro-life advocates would explain that such a woman should be legally bound to have the child, since the termination of the pregnancy would devalue the life of the baby.

However, if a woman was forced into non-consensual sex, she should have an abortion because she has a right to dignity and life.

In one case, people can be up-in-arms about a child's rights, whereas in another case people are sensitive to a woman's rights.

Most arguments in the abortion debate (both pro and con) follow the trends above: woman's rights vs. right to life of child. It is also rare to see a solution that honors both, allowing a woman to keep her right to self-determination while ensuring a child's right to live. Given this choice, people who are pro-life ought to consider their position more carefully. Either you care more about the life of the child, and should therefore lobby for a complete ban on abortion (e.g. a raped woman is irrelevant to the life of the unknowing child she carries), or you care about the dignity of the woman, and should demonstrate in-favor of abortion rights. But to go half-way creates a double-standard that will resolve nothing and keep this debate in a state of limbo.


that was extremely well stated

Abortion for the sake of abortion is ignorance.

Not to mention also obscene and disgusting, women who choose abortion purely for the sake of inconveinence(spelling), should be sterilised straight away afterwoulds as unfit to ever become a mother.

A fetus is not alive until a certain point in its development. Any more alive than, say... a tree, anyways. Even if the fetus was alive - and I don't believe it is - at the time of abortion, one has to take in to consideration the future life of the child. Life isn't a Disney movie. Things don't always work out in the end, and sometimes children are born only to suffer and die.

Most of the above is simply my opinion (barring obvious facts, i.e. life isn't a Disney movie).


So... a tree is never alive???
Anyone else find that to be a wierd thing to say..? :headbang: :confused: :headbang:

Ok...it's an awfully involved, expensive form of birth control, mate. As for women and their legs, closed or open, I guess you don't think there are men involved in the process at all, huh? I don't like the way you think. It indicates a disrespectful regard for women in general. I'm not inclined to listen to much of what you have to say on the subject, in light of that.


I'm not denying men their roles in the process, but who is the one that we're arguing the choice for? Are we debating women's rights or men's rights?

Men's rights are not the issue here, unless you look at it from the standpoint that a man may want to keep his baby, but that is not his decision until after the woman has decided whether she will keep it.

What it boils down to is, no matter how many men stay out of the sack, a woman can still get pregnant. and it may be expensive, but women who run around having sex with everyone with out worry for protection because they feel they can abort if/when it happens...those are the ones that i object to the most.

Not to mention also obscene and disgusting, women who choose abortion purely for the sake of inconveinence(spelling), should be sterilised straight away afterwoulds as unfit to ever become a mother.

Why anyone would do something for the sake of "inconvenience" is beyond me. Maybe they'd do it for the sake of "convenience", but it would take an awfully callous woman to have an abortion for that reason. Besides, now you're showing your true colors. You support eugenics. Eugenics, and that way of thinking is how 8 million jews died at the hands of the Nazis.

I'm not denying men their roles in the process, but who is the one that we're arguing the choice for? Are we debating women's rights or men's rights?

Men's rights are not the issue here, unless you look at it from the standpoint that a man may want to keep his baby, but that is not his decision until after the woman has decided whether she will keep it.

What it boils down to is, no matter how many men stay out of the sack, a woman can still get pregnant. and it may be expensive, but women who run around having sex with everyone with out worry for protection because they feel they can abort if/when it happens...those are the ones that i object to the most.

It's just the way you say it. The way you imply that women are promiscuous by nature, and callous enough to abort the result of unprotected sex. It takes a man too, and whether we're talking about their rights or not is immaterial. I'm talking about the way you think of women, and lay all of the responsibility on their shoulders for something which may have been a mutual mistake between two people. I've known women who had abortions, and it's a heart-wrenching decision for them to do it. A couple of them were pressured into it by their boyfriends, who paid for the abortion and drove them to the clinic. ALL of the women know exactly how old their child would have been if they hadn't done it. You make women sound so cold and unemotional, as if it were an easy decision for people you think of as sluts to make.

It's just the way you say it. The way you imply that women are promiscuous by nature, and callous enough to abort the result of unprotected sex. It takes a man too, and whether we're talking about their rights or not is immaterial. I'm talking about the way you think of women, and lay all of the responsibility on their shoulders for something which may have been a mutual mistake between two people. I've known women who had abortions, and it's a heart-wrenching decision for them to do it. A couple of them were pressured into it by their boyfriends, who paid for the abortion and drove them to the clinic. ALL of the women know exactly how old their child would have been if they hadn't done it. You make women sound so cold and unemotional, as if it were an easy decision for people you think of as sluts to make.

I'm not lumping all women into that category. I am simply stating, that those women who operate with that mindset (and I've known a few) are the ones that I find it appalling that abortion is an option to them.

I chose my words on purpose, I was hoping to illicit a response, or at least get someone to see the gall of it all.

Please know though that I am not talking about ALL women.

Perhaps you could have chosen to state your case with a little more class. I have a hard time respecting your opinion, if it's even possible, due to the words you chose "on purpose".

I still think that you're talking about women you know, but not necessarily women who have had abortions. Besides, there are plenty of men out there with the same mindset as the women you claim to have known. These are the men who drive their girlfriend to the clinic and pay for her to have an abortion she might not want.

Perhaps you could have chosen to state your case with a little more class. I have a hard time respecting your opinion, if it's even possible, due to the words you chose "on purpose".

I still think that you're talking about women you know, but not necessarily women who have had abortions. Besides, there are plenty of men out there with the same mindset as the women you claim to have known. These are the men who drive their girlfriend to the clinic and pay for her to have an abortion she might not want.

you're right, perhaps the words i used were a bit harsh, but can you deny that if a woman chose not to have sex she wouldn't have to choose an abortion later?

I am talking about women I know, and women I've met and deal with on a semi regular basis. Some of them have ended up pregnant, and some have had abortions (ok, all the ones pregnant had abortions, so it was the same some in both case).

Yes, there are plenty of men out there iwth that same mindset, but even if the boyfriend is going to pay for the abortion, the woman still has the choice to say no. If she doesn't want the abortion, then why does she sign the informed consent form that allows them to do the bloody procedure in the first place?

What this country has fought for and what it boils down to is a woman's choice in the end, pure and simple.

in many cases, yes. more importantly, however, it is not his body being used to host the fetus, so his decision is irrelevant. this isn't about his claim to the fetus, this is about the woman's right to say that if he wants the fetus he is free to grow it in HIS uterus.

This brings to light another issue. The fact that the male in the pair is f*cked regardless of whether or not he wants a child. He now has to pay child support for a child he had NO say in. Of course, this could be fixed quite simply by forcing the woman to make a decision: get an abortion, or raise the child with your own money without the 'father'. Ah, but im ranting again about how we get the shaft when it comes to most of the legal system.

Why anyone would do something for the sake of "inconvenience" is beyond me. Maybe they'd do it for the sake of "convenience", but it would take an awfully callous woman to have an abortion for that reason. Besides, now you're showing your true colors. You support eugenics. Eugenics, and that way of thinking is how 8 million jews died at the hands of the Nazis.

Because its 'inconvienient' as in not convienient, same thing isnt it?
And thats not a valid excuse for abortion.

Wake up about the Nazis, I hate those bastards and what they did to the Jews.

My husband and I are quite decided that we don't want children, ever. However, we are very much in love, and a logical extension of a meaningful loving relationship is a sexual one. That doesn't make me a whore, or him a 'jack the lad' - it just makes us humans who care about each other. I don't see why I should be castigated for wanting (and engaging in) a proper relationship, and neither do I see why I should be criticised because I don't want to be a mother. Why is there seemingly a dichotomy between the two for people who are against abortion?

Not wanting to have children, of course protection against pregnancy is used. I accept that it is not full-proof, and I accept that nature's intention behind sex was to procreate. However, even the most diehard anti-abortion arguments here fail to explain why we should just accept that if for whatever unlikely reason contraceptives fail, we should just deal with that. They fail to explain why, just because I am someone who doesn't want children, I should be forced into a life of celibacy. Sure, it's great to be able to show one's partner through emotion alone that you love them, but it's not always enough.

So, should I really die a virgin just because I'm not maternal? Or should I live a generally happy and contented life, safe in the knowledge that should something go wrong I can do something about it? I refuse to bring a baby into the world that I don't want - not just because of my own selfish reasons, but because it would have a shit life knowing it wasn't wanted. Get it adopted? In 20 years it's still going to know it wasn't wanted. Bet that feels nice.

Not to mention also obscene and disgusting, women who choose abortion purely for the sake of inconveinence(spelling), should be sterilised straight away afterwoulds as unfit to ever become a mother.

I find that rather disgusting that you would not allow "abortion of the sake of convenience". If I am not ready, mentally and financially, to have a child, then I should not be obligated to have a child. Single parenthood is the #1 cause of poverty in women, you would be condemning me and the child to a live below the poverty line, for at least the time when it is dependant.

I find that rather disgusting that you would not allow "abortion of the sake of convenience". If I am not ready, mentally and financially, to have a child, then I should not be obligated to have a child. Single parenthood is the #1 cause of poverty in women, you would be condemning me and the child to a live below the poverty line, for at least the time when it is dependant.

If you're not ready to have a child, then why engage in the act of creating a child?

And to touch on the post above yours...in America a 25-50 dollar operation will, in essence, prohibit reproduction in the male anatomy. (trying to dodge board censors here)

A vasectomy would prevent the case for abortion.

However, barring that, in your case, well, in most cases, I would not condemn you for choosing to have an abortion.

If you're not ready to have a child, then why engage in the act of creating a child?

And to touch on the post above yours...in America a 25-50 dollar operation will, in essence, prohibit reproduction in the male anatomy. (trying to dodge board censors here)

A vasectomy would prevent the case for abortion.

However, barring that, in your case, well, in most cases, I would not condemn you for choosing to have an abortion.

Well, I do not think that abortions should be given out willy-nilly. They aren't now, and alot of people fail to understand that. I just think that one mistake should not mean that a woman has to suffer for 18 or so years.

You can be psychologically mature enough for sex without wanting children at that time. Childbearing/raising is not all sunshine and daisies, you need to be prepared to make sacrifices, lots of them, and... well, it's not a fair thing to force on someone.

I'm all for vasectomies and tubal ligation, that is for sure.

"but can you deny that if a woman chose not to have sex she wouldn't have to choose an abortion later?"

True, but a woman's right to decide on a continuing basis who may or may not use her body is not contingent on perpetual celibacy (just as a man's right to refuse to donate blood or organs is not contingent on his avoiding any risky behavior, say driving, which might accidentally cause someone to need a blood or organ donation).

Childbearing is not the only purpose of sex. If nature or God intended childbearing to be the only purpose of sex, S/He/It would have given us an estrus cycle, as most other mammals have, where women only come into heat and desire sex when they are able to conceive, and where men only desire women who are in heat at that particular time. Instead, humans (and one of our two closest relatives, the bonobo or pygmy chimp) are unusual in that we do not have such a cycle, but are ready for and interested in sex at any time of the month or year, even when not fertile. In us as in the bonobo, this is an obvious adaptation for sex-as-bonding-mechanism between adults, though admittedly we don't take it quite as far as the bonobos (who commonly greet their friends - of either sex - with French-kissing and genital-rubbing).

we don't take it quite as far as the bonobos (who commonly greet their friends - of either sex - with French-kissing and genital-rubbing).

I am quite tempted to say "more's the pity", but that would not go over well, and would not help anyones argument.

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

Before I do, let me point one thing out: supporting abortion in other circumstances than you laid out does not make a person an "abortionist", as you called them in your subject line. Supporting abortion in other circumstances than you laid out makes a person "pro-choice." An abortionist is one who PERFORMS abortions.

Now.

I support the pro-choice position because the question of "when does life begin" and "is it ever moral to terminate an unborn child" has many, many answers, based on people's religious upbringing, on the teachings of those religions on this matter, on people's interpretations of those teachings, on the skills of the doctors involved, etc., etc., etc. The pro-choice position states ONLY that rather than asking the government to pick just ONE of these many possible teachings and asking everyone to live by it, the government instead is giving everyone the leeway to decide each for THEMSELVES, according to THEIR OWN standards, what the appropriate course of action is.

In other words, "pro-choice" doesn't say that you personally are wrong about when abortion is permissible and I am right, or vice versa. It doesn't have anything to do with when abortion is or isn't permissible at all. "Pro-choice" only means that you and I are EACH free to hold our OWN opinions about the issue, and should therefore ALSO be free to act in accordance WITH our own opinions.

Also, bear in mind that the government already puts some restrictions on this -- past a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion on demand is no longer legal. However, a number of other medical circumstances can also occur which would, in the opinions of many, necessitate abortion.

A final point -- "pro-choice" also means that you are free to choose NOT to have an abortion, even if people are suggesting you do.

I know about the sacrifices required to have a child. I have a 7 month old at home and I wouldn't trade him for the world. He was conceived out of wedlock. He and his mother are now married....but I know full well the choices and sacrifiecs that are required. And fair has nothing to do with it...I don't want to belabor the point, but how is it fair to the unborn life you're claiming?




I didn't say childbearing was the only purpose of sex (though I see how it could be implied). That bond though should only be made with one or two people, it is not a bond that one should want to make with just anyone. And no matter how much genital rubbing and french kissing you do, that won't lead to conception . ;-) All I'm saying is take precautions before you engage in sex with someone. I oppose those who take no precautions and use abortion as the "easy out".

If you're not ready to have a child, then why engage in the act of creating a child?

Did you mean that seriously? God, I hope not.

And to touch on the post above yours...in America a 25-50 dollar operation will, in essence, prohibit reproduction in the male anatomy. (trying to dodge board censors here)

Outrageous. Why should anyone go through a painful operation just to satisfy your (or whoever's) ridicilulous principals which are actually NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Before I do, let me point one thing out: supporting abortion in other circumstances than you laid out does not make a person an "abortionist", as you called them in your subject line. Supporting abortion in other circumstances than you laid out makes a person "pro-choice." An abortionist is one who PERFORMS abortions.

Now.

I support the pro-choice position because the question of "when does life begin" and "is it ever moral to terminate an unborn child" has many, many answers, based on people's religious upbringing, on the teachings of those religions on this matter, on people's interpretations of those teachings, on the skills of the doctors involved, etc., etc., etc. The pro-choice position states ONLY that rather than asking the government to pick just ONE of these many possible teachings and asking everyone to live by it, the government instead is giving everyone the leeway to decide each for THEMSELVES, according to THEIR OWN standards, what the appropriate course of action is.

In other words, "pro-choice" doesn't say that you personally are wrong about when abortion is permissible and I am right, or vice versa. It doesn't have anything to do with when abortion is or isn't permissible at all. "Pro-choice" only means that you and I are EACH free to hold our OWN opinions about the issue, and should therefore ALSO be free to act in accordance WITH our own opinions.

Also, bear in mind that the government already puts some restrictions on this -- past a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion on demand is no longer legal. However, a number of other medical circumstances can also occur which would, in the opinions of many, necessitate abortion.

A final point -- "pro-choice" also means that you are free to choose NOT to have an abortion, even if people are suggesting you do.

well said. This sums up pretty much what I feel on the subject, though I love playing devil's advocate to some extent. ;-)

Let's assume that the world-over abortions were illegal. Why don't the unwanted children get given to pro-lifers? They want the children, they can raise them.

(idea planted in my head by Bill Hicks)

Did you mean that seriously? God, I hope not.


LoL...not sure what you;re opposed to here...


Outrageous. Why should anyone go through a painful operation just to satisfy your (or whoever's) ridicilulous principals which are actually NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

I was merely pointing out other alternatives because the person who originally posted that chose to reveal their preferences in life. I never said anyone would have to have it....

I oppose those who take no precautions and use abortion as the "easy out".

How is that any of your freaking business? Who cares if you oppose it? I sure as hell don't and I doubt your opinion means anything to anyone.

EDIT: (I'd like to point out that while I may seem agressive/offensive/rude, its only in the matter of debate. Don't take it personally :P.)

Let's assume that the world-over abortions were illegal. Why don't the unwanted children get given to pro-lifers? They want the children, they can raise them.

(idea planted in my head by Bill Hicks)

I will never be a full supporter of the anti-abortion movement until the foster care system is fixed. In the interim, this alternative sounds great.

Although, I'd like to point out that there are very few people in the world who are not pro-life. Else murder would not be illegal.

Just a thought...

How is that any of your freaking business? Who cares if you oppose it? I sure as hell don't and I doubt your opinion means anything to anyone.

EDIT: (I'd like to point out that while I may seem agressive/offensive/rude, its only in the matter of debate. Don't take it personally :P.)

I'm sorry, I thought this was an open forum for discussion. If no one wants to read my opinion they are welcome to skip it.

LoL...not sure what you;re opposed to here...


The way that was worded, you appeared to believe that sex should only happen for the sake of procreation.

I'm sorry, I thought this was an open forum for discussion. If no one wants to read my opinion they are welcome to skip it.

Thats not how I meant. I meant in the sense that your opinion wouldn't matter to someone considering an abortion, not that it wouldn't matter to this discussion.

I think as long as you are two consenting adults participating in safe sex, there should not be need for an abortion. Ya? However, if an "oops" does happen, and they do, then you should have the right to terminate.
I think now, we are pretty much in agreeance on that.

Now, I have a little anecdote. Basically, I would not exist had my mother not had an abortion.
That's right, my mother got "oopsed" at age 18, and she chose to terminate, since she was not ready/in a stable relationship. Had she kept the baby, she would have probably been living on welfare in Sydney.
However, she chose not to, and later, because she had the "not paying to raise a child" money, she was able to go on a trip to Perth to see her father, whom she had not seen for over 12 years. That trip has now lasted nearly 20 years.
My mother met my father, they fell in love, and were married. They had me a few years later, followed by my brother.
Notice that this loving, happy family unit would not have been possible had my mother not terminated her unwanted pregnancy.
Notice that by the termination of one unwanted foetus, there exist two happy teenagers. And my mother and father, who are approaching their 20th wedding anniversary, have never had a fight, and are very much in love.

Having a child before you are ready (whether or not you will ever be ready) can ruin your life. However, you have the right to choose. Currently my 18 year old classmate is 6 months pregnant. She hates the father. While I dislike the situation, I can support the children. She has family she can rely on the help her.

But it's a choice. You shouldn't have to fall back on anyone just because the condom broke. And making more babies won't stop the aging population problem. A half-decent superannuation program would.

The way that was worded, you appeared to believe that sex should only happen for the sake of procreation.

I apologize, I didn't mean for that to sound that way. But you can't deny that procreation is a result of unprotected sex...

Thats not how I meant. I meant in the sense that your opinion wouldn't matter to someone considering an abortion, not that it wouldn't matter to this discussion.

LoL, I see your point. If I were consoling someone having an abortion I wouldn't speak quite as candidly as I do here.

I apologize, I didn't mean for that to sound that way. But you can't deny that procreation is a result of unprotected sex...

I didn't :P.

I apologize, I didn't mean for that to sound that way. But you can't deny that procreation is a result of unprotected sex...


Actually, I can...

I have known several people who tried unprotected sex for years, in the desperate hope of children - and never managed to 'procreate'.

Conversely, I have known a number of people who had protected sex - even with multiple protective media, and STILL manage to procreate.

Has anyone mentioned the Utilartarian Argument for the abortion? If not it quickly runs like this:
Say a woman decides she would like to have a baby (just one), but only once she is financially able and mentally prepared to go through the problems of raising one. She decides by 30 she'll best be able to cope. At 20 she gets pregnant, so has an abortion.
Now is this 'murder'?
No, because she still intends to have a child later. She has only ever wanted one child, so 10 years later when she becomes pregnant, this occurs. She intended to raise the World population by 1, and she has done so. At a time that is best for her and her child to maximise the quality of life for the both of them. Having the child earlier would have put both of them through unnecessary financial and mental hardship. Having the child when she is financially secure is surely the best option for the benefit of the child, as well as the mother.
So how can you argue that the abortion at 20 is wrong? A baby does come into being when it's best for both mother and child, it just has to 'wait' a few years.

My opinion, for what it is worth:

There are already too many people on this planet. For this reason alone, abortion should be considered a viable option.

Life is hard enough for most people - certainly in the third world, but also true for many in the more 'sophisticated' nations... and there seems no good reason to wish more suffering on a girl, just because she was unlucky enough to get pregnant when she was unprepared.

The way I see it, until it could survive outside the uterus for more than a few minutes - at that point you have some reason to refer to it as a life.

Until then, it's just a sperm-infected egg disorder.

And just to appease the anti-abortionists:
Question:

You know a woman who is pregnant, who has had 8 kids already, three who are deaf, two who are blind and one is mentally retarded. The parents are related, she has got syphilis and the father is an alcoholic.
Would you recommend that she have an abortion?


Highlight the line below to see the answer:
If you answered yes, you just killed Beethoven!


Of course when I was given this as a reason against abortion, I asked them whether they would have recommended the Schicklegrubbers get an abortion in 1888?

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

supporting a woman's right to choose does not make a person an abortionist. that term is for the doctor who preforms the procedure. duh.

Next time you have an anti-abortionist round for tea, I suggest you mix up a cake and serve it to them without baking it first. By their guidelines, it's still a cake.

The way I see it, until it could survive outside the uterus for more than a few minutes - at that point you have some reason to refer to it as a life.

Until then, it's just a sperm-infected egg disorder.

By that same regard, would you endorse euthenasia? Many old people can't survive outside of machines for more than a few moments.

What about comatose people? Do they cease being a life once they can no longer support themselves?

The Handicapped?

If your parents had had that same philosophy, you wouldn't be here today. How well would you survive on your own shortly after birth?



and so far as that 'Utilitarian approach'....it doesn't change the fact that a life was exterminated.

Yes, I would endorse euthanasia. In fact, it already happens, due to the double effect doctrine of criminal law. If someone has a terminal illness where quality of life is at the point where they do not want to live any more, they should have the choice. If they know they have the choice, they won't be comitting suicide early because they know they won't be able to do it on their own later. If they are past the point of consent, a loved one should be able to give consent on their behalf.

A foetus outside the womb has an terminal ill-ness of non-wombness. However, the womb does not belong to the foetus, it belongs to the mother. As such, she should be able to consent on the behalf of the foetus.

I am just curious. What is your perpective on IUD's?
(this is particularily aimed at the pro-lifers)
IUD's do not necessarily prevent conception, ovulation may/does still occur, but the IUD irritates the uterine wall, and implantation does not occur, and the blastocyst dissolves/dies/is washed away with the menses.
Do you consider this to be on the same level as abortion?
If not, are you not drawing an arbitrary line, just as we do?

Two thoughts on this thread (haven't finished reading it): 1) We're not going to start making laws against sex. Deal with it. So we shouldn't start making punishments for it. (for all of you saying "Well if you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place!") That's what individual liberties are about... If I chose to have sex, I do. Tough for you.

2) Ever heard of coathanger abortions? Doing away with Roe v. Wade won't eliminate abortions, it will just make them a lot more brutal and a lot less safe.

3) To all of you who approve of abortion only when the woman has been raped: you are completely relying on the justice system to then judge- accurately- who has been raped and who has not. We have to assume a fairly conservative government who has outlawed abortion for the lay anyway... how often do you think they'll really approve it for the raped? I see mysogynism coming much further into play. Considering its already hard to approve a rape count, and most rape victims are too ashamed to report it.

NEWS FLASH: ONE IN THREE WOMEN ARE RAPED DURING THEIR LIFETIME. That's a big number. Know how many rapes are reported every year?

I don't either. But I'll bet it's not 1,000,000 in the US alone.

(figure stemming from 1/2 population= 150 mil divided by 3 (1/3 women) is 50 mil, call life expectancy (or at least rape expectancy) a range of 50 years leaves you with about a million)

By that same regard, would you endorse euthenasia? Many old people can't survive outside of machines for more than a few moments.
and so far as that 'Utilitarian approach'....it doesn't change the fact that a life was exterminated.
Well, if you know anything about what goes on in a hospital, you'd know euthenasia occurs frequently. Mainly by not trying to resuscitate ppl when they red-line, if their condition is such that they weren't going to recover anyway.
And you didn't answer my question on the Utilitarian argument. Why is it better for the mother to have her child at 20, when 30 is far better for both of them? The child wil have far more options open to him/her and a mother that can afford the time to raise him/her properly. And only one child is brought into the world, as per the woman's decision.
So in effect you're saying it's better to have a child at 20 and have it grow up poor and neglected than at 30 and have it grow up comfortable and looked after.

How many of you men would date a woman who wouldn't have sex with you? I'm very serious- think hard about this one. Then tell me that the woman can just choose not to have sex, and it's that simple.

I'm not saying that it's necessary for a woman to comprimise her desires just to be in a relationship. I'm just saying that the picture doesn't look so pretty nor as simple from the other side, now does it?

Men, would you refuse to have sex with a woman just because she might get pregnant?
If so, your arguments might hold a bit more sway. But if not, as I expect the case will nearly often be... you really don't get to discuss the consequences of your actions, because most of time time they'll have about a million times more effects on the lives of the pregnant woman.

How many times have you heard a man discuss trying to balance a career and a family?

Would you have trouble getting the education you want or the career you've planned if you got a woman pregnant?

I'll second somebody else's quote: until you're ready to carry around that kid in your uterus and raise it until it can support itself, then it really isn't your decision. Sorry. If you're in a loving relationship with someone who is carrying your child, then you may be a part of the discussion. But making blanket statements and generalized laws won't help anyone.

By that same regard, would you endorse euthenasia? Many old people can't survive outside of machines for more than a few moments.


If you mean the Kevorkian idea of allowing those who are suffering to end their own existence, then yes, I am totally in favour of assisted euthanasia.

If you mean just popping off old people, because they are old, then no.


What about comatose people? Do they cease being a life once they can no longer support themselves?

The Handicapped?


After a period of time, I would say yes - those who remain in a permanent vegatative state should be euthanaised. They have no quality of life, they are not hurting as far as we can tell, but they could be suffering subjectively, they bring suffering to their families and friends who can't grieve, and they are a drain on medical resources that could be used to save someone who had a chance.

The handicapped (I prefer the term differently able) are a broad swathe of people - did you have any group in particular in mind?

If you get to the point where there is no quality of life, then sure, euthanase them - but for the same reasons as anyone else... don't victimise them just because they were born different, or were injured.

If your parents had had that same philosophy, you wouldn't be here today. How well would you survive on your own shortly after birth?


Why wouldn't I be here? That's a pretty silly thing to say.
I'm not saying we should automatically abort every foetus.
I don't think there are going to be many people saying that we should.

I propose that a female has the right to choose what happens to her body.


and so far as that 'Utilitarian approach'....it doesn't change the fact that a life was exterminated.

I disagree. I don't think a life was even started.
Why DO YOU think a life was started? Science certainly doesn't support it.

How many of you men would date a woman who wouldn't have sex with you? I'm very serious- think hard about this one. Then tell me that the woman can just choose not to have sex, and it's that simple.

I'm not saying that it's necessary for a woman to comprimise her desires just to be in a relationship. I'm just saying that the picture doesn't look so pretty nor as simple from the other side, now does it?

Men, would you refuse to have sex with a woman just because she might get pregnant?
If so, your arguments might hold a bit more sway. But if not, as I expect the case will nearly often be... you really don't get to discuss the consequences of your actions, because most of time time they'll have about a million times more effects on the lives of the pregnant woman.

How many times have you heard a man discuss trying to balance a career and a family?

Would you have trouble getting the education you want or the career you've planned if you got a woman pregnant?

I'll second somebody else's quote: until you're ready to carry around that kid in your uterus and raise it until it can support itself, then it really isn't your decision. Sorry. If you're in a loving relationship with someone who is carrying your child, then you may be a part of the discussion. But making blanket statements and generalized laws won't help anyone.

If the average man WOULD refuse to have sex because the girl might get pregnant, this debate would be pretty much irrelevant.

I must disagree. I can't really stomach killing a baby after he/she is born.


No one's telling you to do it. And if you can't stomach it, then don't. But why force the people with stronger stomachs to do things your way?

The simple fact is, if you aren't ready to take responsibility for your actions, you shouldn't be taking those actions at all. That isn't to say you shouldn't have sex unless you want a child. It's to say you shouldn't have sex unless you are ready to deal with all the potential consequences.

As if the possibility of an abortion isn't risk enough?

I've had two friends who had abortions... Trust me, it wasn't fun for them, physically, mentally, or otherwise. Of course, it's ten times worse with all these anti-abortion nut-jobs running around.

Besides which, the notion that "you shouldn't have sex unless you are ready to deal with a baby" puts a lot more responsibility on women than men. So, if a woman gets pregnant unintentionally, she is punished with pregnancy and child-birth... and maybe Dad will have to do something to support the child. But I assume you're ok with adoption? In that case, Mom gets a nine-month pregnancy, child-birth, and a set of irreversible physiological changes... and Dad has to do pretty much nothing.

Meanwhile, your argument is simply inconsistent. Sure, when doing something you should be prepared for all of the necessary consequences. But childbirth, due to the very existence of abortion, is not the necessary consequence of pregnancy.

Abortion is never right, because it's the murder of a living being.A fetus isn't alive ok, but it will be...

Tecnically so is a sperm, and an egg. If you are Male have you never wasted a sperm and if you are female have you ever had a period, it is technically possible never to have them by getting pregnent every 10 months. If you can answer " yes i have " then your opinion is valid...... Enough said I think.

I don't want to belabor the point, but how is it fair to the unborn life you're claiming?



How is it fair to the innocent five-year-old child, who needs a pint of your blood or your kidney or a bit of your bone marrow to survive, that you have the right to say no?
What is unfair is giving a fetus the right to use another human's body against her will - a right no other human has. What is unfair is declaring that a woman's basic human rights stop the moment she ceases to be permanently celibate.
You cry over unborn lives. You want to force a woman to spend nine months, 24/7, serving as a portable life-support machine, involving a sizable amount of work and physical and emotional energy on her part, possibly even risking her health or her life, to save those lives, because her careless action made an unborn child dependent on her body to survive.
But if _you_ injure a child accidentally, say in a car accident, and cause them to need so little a thing as a pint of your blood (something that takes maybe an hour of your time and causes you to suffer a little pinprick and the loss of a bit of easily-replaced fluid), you can say no for any reason, even the most selfish of whims. You might not - and I would likely not choose an abortion, either - but the choice is yours. If the government tried to take away your right to choose in that matter, to protect that little kid's right to life (or rather, their right to live off of your body without your consent), wouldn't you protest? Or would you think of all the helpless little children who could be saved if only you'd make your body public property, just as you ask me to do with mine?

[QUOTE=Planetary Plunderers] I have a 7 month old at home and I wouldn't trade him for the world. He was conceived out of wedlock. He and his mother are now married....
QUOTE]

I would just like to say...
I hope you left out the proper antecedent for the "he," and you in fact meant the child's father. If the 7 month old is now married to his mother... I think there are deeper issues at state than whether or not she chose abortion.

Tecnically so is a sperm, and an egg. If you are Male have you never wasted a sperm and if you are female have you ever had a period, it is technically possible never to have them by getting pregnent every 10 months. If you can answer " yes i have " then your opinion is valid...... Enough said I think.

All men waste sperm. They are constantly lost in urination, if not emitted elsewhere... the body automatically discharges them in their multiple millions.

All men waste sperm. They are constantly lost in urination, if not emitted elsewhere... the body automatically discharges them in their multiple millions.

wouldn't a period where an egg drops constitute suicide?

and yes, I meant me and his mother...the 7 month old is just now entering the dating phase....

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

Because it's none of your fucking business. Or mine.

wouldn't a period where an egg drops constitute suicide?

and yes, I meant me and his mother...the 7 month old is just now entering the dating phase....


Yes. Bad egg, deliberately throwing it's life away... and, if it was a (would-have-been) female egg... bad murdering egg, for aborting all of it's babies...

erm... "me and his mother"? Saving time by answering two people in one reply?

and, if it was a (would-have-been) female egg... bad murdering egg, for aborting all of it's babies...

the gender is determined by the sperm. only men have y chromosomes and without a y chromosome, one is female.

No. It's not human. Yet. It has the possibility to become human, but it is not human. There is no way you could value its will over the will of the mother. It would not be fair. It would also be fairly sexist.


So it could become a slug or bird? Yeah, I guess that makes sense, that was a really good point. Except that it WILL become (and already is) a person. How can it change? And when? When it's born? SO what's the difference between when it's been born and five minutes earlier? A month earlier? 9 months earlier???
You don't make sense!

"Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal."

I agree with all of your above for my own life, but I do not see how I or another can tell another person with thier own free will, how or what they shall do with thier body and that free will in anyway. I however would not allow for such a thing to happen for myself. I can not tell a person because I would carry that bottle of water that they must also. Or because I would have my baby breast fed then they should also. It is left up to the human that is going to be effected with this decision (wrongly the one in the womb doesnt get a say because they simply can not say, but that does not mean that some distant person has more of a say than the mother carrying that baby)

I agree with all of your above for my own life, but I do not see how I or another can tell another person with thier own free will, how or what they shall do with thier body and thier free will in anyway. I however would not allow for such a thing to happen for myself.

Because there is a thing called absolute truth and all people should abide by these truths.

OK, I've played devil's advocate through most of this, arguing sides of this argument that I don't quite understand and realizing that I need to understand those sides before I try to argue for them.

That said, here is what I feel on this issue.

I am a born again follower of Christ, and I believe that the act of abortion is wrong. I believe in the majority of cases that those who seek out an abortion to end a pregnancy have made the wrong decision. I will never condemn someone for seeking an abortion.

We live in a society where women have the right to choose what to do with every aspect of their body. As has been mentioned here, that right goes so far as to control who uses that body for what purpose, even if severing contact with those using it results in loss of current or potential life. I do not like this, but I will not debate what society widely accepts.

To say that abortion is murder is to say that everytime a male teenager masterbates is murder. To say it is murder is to draw a line for life that has never been settled on, nor ever will be. Science doesn't know precisely when life begins, but the courts have set up standards as to when that life becomes a life. A baby can exist and survive (albeit with machines at first) as early as 6 months gestationally. That said, any abortion (i.e. late term abortion, partial birth abortion) would be viewed as murder.

Considering the average pregnancy is not discovered until roughly 6 to 8 weeks in, there is a 4 month window where abortion is legally and culturally acceptable. I don't like it, but this is the fact.

So far as what I believe...

I believe that any Christian who seeks out an abortion to end the being inside of them should reconsider their beliefs. However, this is not a religions/Christianity discussion so I won't touch on that any longer.

Abortion should never be used as form of birth control. The IUV, the morning after pill, the...well, all of those, are acceptable in that they prevent the formation of what is necessary to sustain life. I know that there are those who believe life begins at conception, but a woman's body passes so many fertilized eggs that I can't see a manmade attempt to do this as any different.

If anyone ever asks me for advice, I will never suggest abortion. My friends know that, and have not been disappointed by this.

I am all for a woman's right to choose. I live in a country that has fought for that right. And with the state of our orphanages and the state of our foster care system, I can understand and even respect the decision to not to carry to term versus having a child that feels unwanted and unneeded shuffled through a system that couldn't care any less about it. Or worse yet, to be brought up in a situation where they are disdained and unwanted.

Now, I will answer any questions that anyone has.

So it could become a slug or bird? Yeah, I guess that makes sense, that was a really good point. Except that it WILL become (and already is) a person. How can it change? And when? When it's born? SO what's the difference between when it's been born and five minutes earlier? A month earlier? 9 months earlier???
You don't make sense!

No... it COULD become a human being... or it could miscarry, or be aborted.

If we are talking at the point of conception, it could become two people, or more.

But the difference between 'when it's born' and 9 moths earlier, is that a baby is born ready for life outside the uterus. A seven month foetus could possibly survive outside the uterus. A three month baby would not be able to survive outside the uterus.

Because there is a thing called absolute truth and all people should abide by these truths.

Prove it.

I see no 'absolute truth' here...

Because there is a thing called absolute truth and all people should abide by these truths.

and the truth is that life does not begin at conception. pregnancy doesn't even begin at conception.

No... it COULD become a human being... or it could miscarry, or be aborted.

If we are talking at the point of conception, it could become two people, or more.

But the difference between 'when it's born' and 9 moths earlier, is that a baby is born ready for life outside the uterus. A seven month foetus could possibly survive outside the uterus. A three month baby would not be able to survive outside the uterus.

And a year old couldn't survive without the help of others. Or whatever about a severely handicapped person. They are still living, but they can't live without the direct assistance of others? So technically neither persons are ready to live outside of the uterus either?

OK, I've played devil's advocate through most of this, arguing sides of this argument that I don't quite understand and realizing that I need to understand those sides before I try to argue for them.

That said, here is what I feel on this issue.

I am a born again follower of Christ, and I believe that the act of abortion is wrong. I believe in the majority of cases that those who seek out an abortion to end a pregnancy have made the wrong decision. I will never condemn someone for seeking an abortion.

We live in a society where women have the right to choose what to do with every aspect of their body. As has been mentioned here, that right goes so far as to control who uses that body for what purpose, even if severing contact with those using it results in loss of current or potential life. I do not like this, but I will not debate what society widely accepts.

To say that abortion is murder is to say that everytime a male teenager masterbates is murder. To say it is murder is to draw a line for life that has never been settled on, nor ever will be. Science doesn't know precisely when life begins, but the courts have set up standards as to when that life becomes a life. A baby can exist and survive (albeit with machines at first) as early as 6 months gestationally. That said, any abortion (i.e. late term abortion, partial birth abortion) would be viewed as murder.

Considering the average pregnancy is not discovered until roughly 6 to 8 weeks in, there is a 4 month window where abortion is legally and culturally acceptable. I don't like it, but this is the fact.

So far as what I believe...

I believe that any Christian who seeks out an abortion to end the being inside of them should reconsider their beliefs. However, this is not a religions/Christianity discussion so I won't touch on that any longer.

Abortion should never be used as form of birth control. The IUV, the morning after pill, the...well, all of those, are acceptable in that they prevent the formation of what is necessary to sustain life. I know that there are those who believe life begins at conception, but a woman's body passes so many fertilized eggs that I can't see a manmade attempt to do this as any different.

If anyone ever asks me for advice, I will never suggest abortion. My friends know that, and have not been disappointed by this.

I am all for a woman's right to choose. I live in a country that has fought for that right. And with the state of our orphanages and the state of our foster care system, I can understand and even respect the decision to not to carry to term versus having a child that feels unwanted and unneeded shuffled through a system that couldn't care any less about it. Or worse yet, to be brought up in a situation where they are disdained and unwanted.

Now, I will answer any questions that anyone has.

You make the statment "Abortion should never be used as form of birth control", and then you say you respect a woman's right to choose?

""I see no 'absolute truth' here... ""

Is that the absolute truth?

And a year old couldn't survive without the help of others. Or whatever about a severely handicapped person. They are still living, but they can't live without the direct assistance of others? So technically neither persons are ready to live outside of the uterus either?

but those others aren't necessarily one single person. they are people who choose to take care of them. if someone doesn't want to look after a handicapped child, they can give it up for adoption and someone who chooses to adopt it can if not, there are people who have foster homes who choose to deal with such children.

when an embryo is in the womb, it depends on one person for its survival. that one person should have the choice as to whether they want to put up with it or not.

"Because there is a thing called absolute truth."

Not in any instance that it does not effect you or another that has a say in any instance about the absolute truth. The absolute truth that someone says about abortion or medical marijuana or a death with dignity is no differnet than the absolute truth the anti-gun nut see's with banning guns as being thier answer to the problem of someone elses. You can not and our law has proven this (even though I would vote against it) say that once something becomes a law that I do not like, happens to be against my absolute truth so therfore it is wrong (you see you must remember not everyone believes in absolute truth from a religios point) . Really it is only wrong for you not anyone else, as our laws have proven time and again.

Its like saying I as a Christian should be subject to the truths that Muslims seek out. No, the same that a non Christian has no moral or any other obligation to be subject to our truths. Live your own life without effecting my own free will and I will live mine without effecting yours, is Gods word.

And a year old couldn't survive without the help of others. Or whatever about a severely handicapped person. They are still living, but they can't live without the direct assistance of others? So technically neither persons are ready to live outside of the uterus either?

I assume you mean a severely handicapped person that was already born, right?

A one year old can survive outside the uterus. Maybe not for a year - but if the mother died - the child probably has a good week in him to find another protector.

The disabled person... are you suggesting we euthanize the 'differently able'? I think that harsh... unless their quality of life was so poor that they WANTED it...

A foetus... upto about, I don't know.. 7 months (I have heards of two month premature babies surviving... normally I'd say 8 months, but let's err on the side of caution) has no survivability.

You remove a 4 month foetus and you have a slightly piscine-shaped blob. That's not a viable lifeform...

You make the statment "Abortion should never be used as form of birth control", and then you say you respect a woman's right to choose?

Ah, yes. Let me elaborate.

Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

For example. A woman has unprotected sex, lots of it, for the express purpose of having sex. She gets pregnant. She has an abortion to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy. This cycle repeats. Over and over.

Apart from that, I fully respect a woman's right to choose.

Abortion is never right, because it's the murder of a living being.A fetus isn't alive ok, but it will be...



I bolded "living being"... because I'm wondering if you are opposed to killing, say, a lamb or calf as well?

I believe abortion is wrong. But hey, if the abortionists want to kill of there poisonous seed, let them. There will just be more of us in the end to abolish abortion. I am not going to let you train my children that killing a sacred being is ok. That will open the door to more people who do not support abortion and then it will be all peachy. It's your sacred life isn't it. If you want to be euthanized, goodbye. I don't believe in that either, but hey, if you want to be sent to the other dimension early without the knowledge of God, then fine, I don't care. Less of you and more of us. More people to love people unconditionally for the sake of loving unconditionally. Goodbye killers of life. I didn't miss you.

I believe abortion is wrong. But hey, if the abortionists want to kill of there poisonous seed, let them. There will just be more of us in the end to abolish abortion. I am not going to let you train my children that killing a sacred being is ok. That will open the door to more people who do not support abortion and then it will be all peachy. It's your sacred life isn't it. If you want to be euthanized, goodbye. I don't believe in that either, but hey, if you want to be sent to the other dimension early without the knowledge of God, then fine, I don't care. Less of you and more of us. More people to love people unconditionally for the sake of loving unconditionally. Goodbye killers of life. I didn't miss you.

I'm curious to how you define sacred being, and what brought you to that conclusion...

However, as a member of the Y Chromosome Club, it's none of my damn business what the woman does.

I feel exactly the same way. I encounter people all the time, however, who think that "the man" has "a right" to either a) know about the pregnancy/abortion, or b) even "help" decide what to do about a pregnancy.

That, to put it simply, is bullshit.

In a healthy relationship, I might hope or expect that a woman would share her decision with her mate... but to define this in terms of "a man's right" implies that abusive men have the same right... and that it exists in any of the many situations in which a woman has good reasons for not sharing her situation.

The same applies to parents, by the way.

Ah, yes. Let me elaborate.

Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

For example. A woman has unprotected sex, lots of it, for the express purpose of having sex. She gets pregnant. She has an abortion to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy. This cycle repeats. Over and over.

Apart from that, I fully respect a woman's right to choose.

Basically, I agree with you... I don't think the girl should use abortion as birth control... but, if 'she' did... I would still argue she has the right to choose.

It would be easier to use a pill, I guess... some guys don't like to use protection, so you can't always rely on that avenue... but, if a girl feels the need to resort to abortion, over and over, I still see it as her choice... she still has something in her uterus she doesn't want.

I feel exactly the same way. I encounter people all the time, however, who think that "the man" has "a right" to either a) know about the pregnancy/abortion, or b) even "help" decide what to do about a pregnancy.

That, to put it simply, is bullshit.

In a healthy relationship, I might hope or expect that a woman would share her decision with her mate... but to define this in terms of "a man's right" implies that abusive men have the same right... and that it exists in any of the many situations in which a woman has good reasons for not sharing her situation.

The same applies to parents, by the way.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

say you're in a relationship, have sex, break up, she is pregnant with your child.
five years later you're hit with a paternity lawsuit for a child you didn't know you had, and are now liable to pay support on for not only the past five years, but the next thirteen years as well.

Shouldn't the man get a say in any of that??

----"I believe abortion is wrong. But hey, if the abortionists want to kill of there poisonous seed, let them. There will just be more of us in the end to abolish abortion. I am not going to let you train my children that killing a sacred being is ok. That will open the door to more people who do not support abortion and then it will be all peachy. It's your sacred life isn't it. If you want to be euthanized, goodbye. I don't believe in that either, but hey, if you want to be sent to the other dimension early without the knowledge of God, then fine, I don't care. Less of you and more of us. More people to love people unconditionally for the sake of loving unconditionally. Goodbye killers of life. I didn't miss you."

This person knows the tolerance of God. This doesn't mean we (as man or woman) have to agree with it we just know that you will have your day of judgement for your sins by the only one that can judge in these instances.

I believe abortion is wrong. But hey, if the abortionists want to kill of there poisonous seed, let them. There will just be more of us in the end to abolish abortion. I am not going to let you train my children that killing a sacred being is ok. That will open the door to more people who do not support abortion and then it will be all peachy. It's your sacred life isn't it. If you want to be euthanized, goodbye. I don't believe in that either, but hey, if you want to be sent to the other dimension early without the knowledge of God, then fine, I don't care. Less of you and more of us. More people to love people unconditionally for the sake of loving unconditionally. Goodbye killers of life. I didn't miss you.

How can you talk about love, and issue such bile?

It's not 'abortionists'... they are people who perform abortions.

You probably mean Pro-Choice Advocates... which you are confusing with people who 'support' abortion. Supporting the right to choose abortion is a very different prospect to just aborting every child - which is what someone who 'supported' abortion would be doing, surely?

And your 'god' is only true for you... it doesn't apply to me.

Basically, I agree with you... I don't think the girl should use abortion as birth control... but, if 'she' did... I would still argue she has the right to choose.

It would be easier to use a pill, I guess... some guys don't like to use protection, so you can't always rely on that avenue... but, if a girl feels the need to resort to abortion, over and over, I still see it as her choice... she still has something in her uterus she doesn't want.

Yes, it's still her choice, and under the current law today, she could do that as much as she wanted....

if i were to change anything, it would be that part of the law....

and to all the religious people out there trying to argue from a moral standpoint: while you may be right, keep in mind the current laws will not change to outlaw abortion. Even should that happen, women will find ways to do it. At least this way it is safe and will protect the life of the mother.

More people to love people unconditionally for the sake of loving unconditionally. Goodbye killers of life. I didn't miss you.

i find it funniest when the anti-choicers are all about starting pointless wars and the death penalty. yeah, that shows such love of the lives of others and you know, doesn't kill anyone.


oh, a question for you anti-choice kids out there: what do you think of invitro fertilisation? that ends the potential for many embryos to produce few of them. is that wrong too? i mean, abortion only wipes out the possibility for one at a time generally..

This brings to light another issue. The fact that the male in the pair is f*cked regardless of whether or not he wants a child. He now has to pay child support for a child he had NO say in. Of course, this could be fixed quite simply by forcing the woman to make a decision: get an abortion, or raise the child with your own money without the 'father'. Ah, but im ranting again about how we get the shaft when it comes to most of the legal system.
luckily men still have the right to decide who to have sex with.

legally speaking there is no way to split the right to decide abortion. think about it. of COURSE a man has an interest in his unborn offspring. but does he have MORE interest than the woman who is carrying it? welll.. no.... its ...say...49/51 in her favor. seems reasonable doesnt it? well LEGALLY that gives her 100% rightto make the decision and gives the man 0% right. there is no way to give a partial right. either you get to make the decision or you dont.

once a child is born ITS interest is most important so both parents are required to support this little blessing that they have created. in the same way the father, even if he is unsuitable in the opinion of the mother, still gets rights to SEE his child. he can even, in some circumstances, end up with sole custody of his child.

the only right the father doesnt have is abortion. he cannot force a woman to have an abortion nor stop her if she wants one.

The fact that you move you hand with just the wish to move your hand is controlling nature. We have the only rational minds in the universe that you can actually detect with your limited five senses. The fact that we are having a discussion right now about whether or not to abort people is what makes me understand that man is sacred. We are the only one participating in this universe. To think something other than our rational mind can exist and think outside of our[man's] conciousness is an idol. Who do you think gave us that ability to set in motion the building of a skyscraper, the creation of a telescope that orbits earth, the house you live in, and the computer you are typing on? Do you think chance did it? Or do you think WORDS did? You are thinking on a very closed level right now. It's very simplified and almost animal like. The fact that you can't seperate the sacred divine from nature is quite animal like. If you want to die like an animal, go ahead. I am going to die like a man.

Note: I don't have the choice to die. I am not the one who wanted to put out a sacred being from this would. You are. I didn't say I was going to kill anyone. I said you were going to kill the people inside of you, and yourself. That's what you want isn't it. The right to die. My right has been given to an Authority higher than me. He decides when I die. My life is His.

luckily men still have the right to decide who to have sex with.

legally speaking there is no way to split the right to decide abortion. think about it. of COURSE a man has an interest in his unborn offspring. but does he have MORE interest than the woman who is carrying it? welll.. no.... its ...say...49/51 in her favor. seems reasonable doesnt it? well LEGALLY that gives her 100% rightto make the decision and gives the man 0% right. there is no way to give a partial right. either you get to make the decision or you dont.

once a child is born ITS interest is most important so both parents are required to support this little blessing that they have created. in the same way the father, even if he is unsuitable in the opinion of the mother, still gets rights to SEE his child. he can even, in some circumstances, end up with sole custody of his child.

the only right the father doesnt have is abortion. he cannot force a woman to have an abortion nor stop her if she wants one.

Unfortunately, I have heard of courtcases in the US, where women were taken to court by a boyfriend or husband over their decision to abort, and actually ended up forbidden to continue with it.

Now THAT is wrong.

luckily men still have the right to decide who to have sex with.

legally speaking there is no way to split the right to decide abortion. think about it. of COURSE a man has an interest in his unborn offspring. but does he have MORE interest than the woman who is carrying it? welll.. no.... its ...say...49/51 in her favor. seems reasonable doesnt it? well LEGALLY that gives her 100% rightto make the decision and gives the man 0% right. there is no way to give a partial right. either you get to make the decision or you dont.

once a child is born ITS interest is most important so both parents are required to support this little blessing that they have created. in the same way the father, even if he is unsuitable in the opinion of the mother, still gets rights to SEE his child. he can even, in some circumstances, end up with sole custody of his child.

the only right the father doesnt have is abortion. he cannot force a woman to have an abortion nor stop her if she wants one.

but if....the woman wants to keep the child, and the man doesn't, the man is still liable to support that child after birth.

if the situation is reversed, well..the child is no longer there to worry about, and no liability exists.

Unfortunately, I have heard of courtcases in the US, where women were taken to court by a boyfriend or husband over their decision to abort, and actually ended up forbidden to continue with it.

Now THAT is wrong.

it's a touchy issue. yes the mother has to carry the child, but the father can and should have a say in what goes on. i would be interested to know if those court cases then gave full liability and custodianship of the child to the father, or if they charged the mother child support....

The fact that you move you hand with just the wish to move your hand is controlling nature. We have the only rational minds in the universe that you can actually detect with your limited five senses. The fact that we are having a discussion right now about whether or not to abort people is what makes me understand that man is sacred. We are the only one participating in this universe. To think something other than our rational mind can exist and think outside of our[man's] conciousness is an idol. Who do you think gave us that ability to set in motion the building of a skyscraper, the creation of a telescope that orbits earth, the house you live in, and the computer you are typing on? Do you think chance did it? Or do you think WORDS did? You are thinking on a very closed level right now. It's very simplified and almost animal like. The fact that you can't seperate the sacred divine from nature is quite animal like. If you want to die like an animal, go ahead. I am going to die like a man.

we're all going to die the same way... well, not necessarily, but as the same species. and as it is, our species has simply declared itself to be the best species on this planet. you don't see chimps inventing nuclear weapons of giraffes killing each other for no reason, do you?
just because we have opposable thumbs and language does not mean that we're so much better than the animals you seem to have such disdain for. because really, that's what separates us from them. we are able to record our discoveries and pass them onto the next generation, who can then build upon them and pass them on further. we can read things written by people long dead because we have the manual dexterity to write. we can communicate effectively because we have the vocal chords and tongue suited to talking.
and as far as we know, there are more intelligent species out there who would laugh at us for thinking ourselves so great. we are most likely not on the only planet out there with life. and hey, who's to say we haven't been visited by people from outside our planet... for all we know, extra terrestrials have been shaping our civilizations.

at any rate, i shall not die like a man, i shall die like a woman... a far more rational version of a man if you ask me. ;)

What happens if we find out that the 40 million future people who have been killed so far had the answers for all the excuses we used to justify killing them?

If you don't believe in God - that is the only other place the solution could come from.

Can someone help me here? None of you have explained the position, only made excuses that ignore the most frequent causes of abortion and defiy logic.

The fact that you move you hand with just the wish to move your hand is controlling nature. We have the only rational minds in the universe that you can actually detect with your limited five senses. The fact that we are having a discussion right now about whether or not to abort people is what makes me understand that man is sacred. We are the only one participating in this universe. To think something other than our rational mind can exist and think outside of our[man's] conciousness is an idol. Who do you think gave us that ability to set in motion the building of a skyscraper, the creation of a telescope that orbits earth, the house you live in, and the computer you are typing on? Do you think chance did it? Or do you think WORDS did? You are thinking on a very closed level right now. It's very simplified and almost animal like. The fact that you can't seperate the sacred divine from nature is quite animal like. If you want to die like an animal, go ahead. I am going to die like a man.

So...you're saying that we are sacred beings because we can build things?

I don't have the choice to die. I am not the one who wanted to put out a sacred being from this would. You are. I didn't say I was going to kill anyone. I said you were going to kill the people inside of you, and yourself. That's what you want isn't it. The right to die.

i just want the right to deceide what goes into my body and lives off it. i want the right to deceide "hey, well this is too risky for me, i want out" when my odds of death in childbirth are high. i want the right to choose.
now, i hope that this is never an issue for me, and i take precautions to insure that it is at least very unlikely that it will happen, but should this become an issue, i would like to have a say what happens in my body.

My right has been given to an Authority higher than me. He decides when I die. My life is His.

well, too bad for you. my life is my own.

but if....the woman wants to keep the child, and the man doesn't, the man is still liable to support that child after birth.

if the situation is reversed, well..the child is no longer there to worry about, and no liability exists.
thats exactly right.
the man has no choice over abortion
if he is father to a child who is born, the child has right to support from both parents
in most places the father has the right to stop a woman from adopting out that child without his consent.

in any case, if the thought that your child could be aborted upsets you, i suggest that you be very careful about who you have sex with and what birth control you are using to prevent pregnancy. better to prevent than to regreat even if its not 100% effective.

Just to tell you. A woman is the sum of all creation. She is the epitome of life. Maybe you ladies do not have the respect for yourself as I do. You generate a sacred divine life inside your own bodies. What is more awesome than that?

To answer the other question:The byproduct of our minds is a Thermonuclear bomb. What monkey has the sacred mind to do that. Our sacred minds have created something more powerful than nature itself. And yes there are eternal beings from other dimensions that are better than we are living among us right now. You are right, they do laugh at us for thinking ourselves so great. I don't think you are ready for that though. Because your thinking is based on the natural. Which is a one level floor. As mechanical as an animal's thought.

Women are the sum of all Creation. Some women don't know that and some forget that they are. That is my only problem with them.

What happens if we find out that the 40 million future people who have been killed so far had the answers for all the excuses we used to justify killing them?

If you don't believe in God - that is the only other place the solution could come from.

Can someone help me here? None of you have explained the position, only made excuses that ignore the most frequent causes of abortion and defiy logic.
the reason nobody explained it is because your "problem" is ridiculous and irrelevant.

how do we know those 40 million "future people" weren't going to grow up and destroy the world? or be totally mediocre?

my friend, call him Dan, was born to a woman who is open about the fact that she had an abortion when she was 16. if she had given birth instead of having an abortion, she never would have gone to college when she did, would never have met Dan's father, and Dan and his sisters would never have been born. Dan has just recently begun working as a pediatric oncologist (working on children who have cancer), and has already helped save at least one life.

Dan is just one example of why your "problem" is idiotic, because we can never know if the world would have been better or not had those "future people" come into the world. maybe instead of Dan we would have gotten somebody who cured cancer, or maybe (and more likely, according to all studies to date) we would have gotten a drug-abusing high school drop out who would end up doing more harm than good.

Just to tell you. A woman is the sum of all creation. She is the epitome of life. Maybe you ladies do not have the respect for yourself as I do.


what do you base that judgment on? because we don't express our self-value in the same way you do? that's pretty presumptuous of you, don't you think?


You generate a sacred divine life inside your own bodies. What is more awesome than that?

for me? pretty much anything that isn't a reflexive bodily function. to me, the production of offspring is a natural process, much like digestion or respiration. it is no more or less fascinating than any other bodily process.
my ability to play a video game, and my desire to do so, are more amazing to me than my ability to reproduce. my ability to stand on my head is more mechanically baffling and interesting than my ability to host a fetus. my ability to speak, laugh, sing, dance, and love are all more valuable to me than my ability to breed.

just because i don't value myself based on my ability to reproduce doesn't mean i value myself any less. some would argue i value myself more, since i don't base my self-worth on my ability to produce other lives but rather on my ability to use and better my own life. i don't disparage women who choose to have children (provided they do so responsibly), yet i am frequently informed by self-righteous men and women that there is clearly something wrong with me if i don't want to breed. why is that?

I didn't read the majority of this, because wow, it's long.

It has always been my opinion that abortion should never be considered as a first resort. The problem we face anymore is that too many women are using abortion as a means for birth control.

I'm all about choice. If a woman would choose to keep her legs together, then abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

If a woman would choose not to have unprotected sex, abortion wouldn't be an issue.

If a woman would choose to honour the life (that does become human whether it is at a certain point or not) inside of her, abortion would not be an issue.

I am pro choice. I am also pro life. Abortion as a means of birth control is on the wrong side of the ever shifting invisible moral line. Abortion as a life saving means is a good reason for having a procedure that exists for it.

Abortion for the sake of abortion is ignorance.

First, you are calling for blaming the victim such as rape, etc. You are downplaying the injustice by saying she shouldn't have looked so fine or had legs so far apart.

Abortion is rarely birth control, but it is used as a means to not raised a unloved child or unfinanced child sometimes.
Pro-life for the sake of pro-life can be igniorance too.

I respect your decision but even Pat Roverson is Pro-choice.(Though I don't agree with what he does, I respect his belief in choice)

To go to a religious stabndpoint: According to the Old Testament (hereby known as the "hard core testament") causing a woman to abort a child by accident or purpose is a fine and you must repent/apologize. That is it!
Now how can any Christian say its so wrong when the punishment is so slack? I can check the scripture number for you but I need to study for a test today.

The death of a man or woman is remembered, but the death of an animal is forgotten.

My bro and his wife take birth control, but if my bro's wife gets pregnant they are going to go through with it. Like I said before maybe you getting an abortion is a good thing, because you don't respect the life you are producing. He won't originally have an animal like mind. He will be participating with reality. When he has been told philosophies that deaden the mind, then he might as well be aborted because he isn't living anymore. You said it yourself, it's just like prespiration and digestion, so that's all his life is going to be summed up to be if he is taught these beliefs. What happens when somebody dies like a man or woman? Legends are created about the feats of daring and adventure in his life. What happens when somebody dies like an animal? He is forgotten forever.

----"The death of a man or woman is remembered, the death of an animal is forgotten."

Even though I have agreed with everything you have written so far on this topic I have to disagree with you here.
I remember and loved my dog and it hurts just as much as I remember my grandfathers and friends dying. Some people create personal connections of rememberance to thier animals by choice, some choose to cut personal connections of rememberance to thier family by choice. Our free will makes it so thier is no right or wrong answer in a universal sense when it comes to how our brain (or heart) works.

This may sound old-fashioned, but a man can talk to a woman about her values before they go to bed. THAT'S the say he has as to whether his child is aborted or kept: he can sleep with women who share his core values, rather than refusing to keep it in his pants and then whining later. This is probably a good idea anyway. I belong to NARAL, and yet probably wouldn't have the heart to abort after a month. Because of this, my boyfriend and I are waiting until I find a stable working birth control. It's called SMART people. And BTW, neither of us is Christian. You don't have to be a religious person to consider ethics and common sense. And we're not puritans either....we do things that make Fundementalists mad I just can't get pregnant. If prolifers put half as much thought into their own choices as they did into legislating against my rights, the number of unwanted children would be cut in HALF.

But who is the animal remembered by? Is it remembered by an animal or is it remembered by man?

There is only one significant fact in this debate. It has little to do with the circumstances of the pregnancy or the underdeveloped, unborn fetus (mistakenly called a "child," when it is merely a group of dividing cells.) Clearly the most important issue here is freedom. This is America. We run around the world "liberating" other people and spreading our "freedom," yet we are losing more and more of our precious choices right here at home. My body is my right. For the sake of our country, and everything it supposedly stands for, abortion must remain legal.

The vast majority of the time, abortion is a decision made after long and careful assessment of the situation. Very rarely is abortion abused and relied upon as birth control. It is certainly a shame when irresponsibility leads to that. But taking the right to choose away from everyone is absurd. Education and counseling is the proper way to stop women from misunderstanding the uses of abortion.

For the pure fact that birth control is only 99% effective, and accidents still happen no matter how careful you are, this is why abortion should remain legal. Unless you pro-life fanatics are against birth control too???

For the pure fact that birth control is only 99% effective, and accidents still happen no matter how careful you are, this is why abortion should remain legal. Unless you pro-life fanatics are against birth control too???

Actually a lot of pro-lifers are against birth control. Living in the Bible Belt, I've encountered a great number of people who firmly believe that sex is only for making babies. Period.

Being a woman who firmly believes she would suck as a mother, abortion has always been in the back of my mind. I've always known that should an accident occur (and it would be an accident, I've never had sex in my life without some form of reliable birth control) I would choose to have an abortion. I would do so, not only for my sake and the sake of my future, but for the sake of the kid. Genetically, I'm a mess and emotionally there's no way I could effectively raise a child.

Should this bar me from ever having sex? Just cause I don't want kids and have enough sense to realize that I would be a poor mother? Nope. I've taken responsibility for my actions, and after being on the pill for 10 years, I elected to have a tubal. Fortunately, I never had to have an abortion, but knowing it was possible and that I could do so safely was a great comfort at times.

Definition of parasite... An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Is it crueler to take the life of a..parasitic organism growing inside of a woman than to have it be born into poverty where it will live in harsh conditions and do nothing to further advance the human race? Because that's all humans are supposed to do, you know..whatever.

And religion has nothing to do with this. I know that there are people from other countries that might not believe in the seperation of church and State, but in America we do. It's true that you have the right to your opinion, and you should always, definitely have the right to live your life how you choose. This, however, goes for all demographics. It should not be constricted to only white Christian men who can make laws about what everyone else should do, it's the same for the person who lives in a shack in the middle of nowhere smoking pot all day, or the woman who decides to have sex carelessly without protection. I'm not saying most people or really anybody thinks that those are moral, but they have a right to, just as you have the right to go to church, others have the right to go to a Synagogue, and others have the right to stay home and do nothing. You have the right to protest but you don't have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do forcefully.

----"Definition of parasite... An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Is it crueler to take the life of a..parasitic organism growing inside of a woman than to have it be born into poverty where it will live in harsh conditions and do nothing to further advance the human race? Because that's all humans are supposed to do, you know..whatever.
And religion has nothing to do with this. I know that there are people from other countries that might not believe in the seperation of church and State, but in America we do. It's true that you have the right to your opinion, and you should always, definitely have the right to live your life how you choose. This, however, goes for all demographics. It should not be constricted to only white Christian men who can make laws about what everyone else should do, it's the same for the person who lives in a shack in the middle of nowhere smoking pot all day, or the woman who decides to have sex carelessly without protection. I'm not saying most people or really anybody thinks that those are moral, but they have a right to, just as you have the right to go to church, others have the right to go to a Synagogue, and others have the right to stay home and do nothing. You have the right to protest but you don't have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do forcefully. "

Awesome!

Just to tell you. A woman is the sum of all creation. She is the epitome of life. Maybe you ladies do not have the respect for yourself as I do.

i think i respect myself more than you do. you respect women for our ability to push out babies. i am capable of more than that. for someone who claims to be so above his animalistic nature, you seem to think women are below you in that all we are good for is doing what every female mammal does. ass.

And yes there are eternal beings from other dimensions that are better than we are living among us right now.

1. i was talking about extraterrestrials, not eternal beings in other dimensions.
2. you don't know fuck all about what is in other dimensions, neither does anybody else, you're assuming that there are these things in other dimensions who think as you do.

I don't think you are ready for that though. Because your thinking is based on the natural. Which is a one level floor. As mechanical as an animal's thought.

how about this, if you think you're so smart, you try passing a single class that i have to take. i think you'd flunk out of differential equations... assuming you got by first year calc.
if there is anything out there, i'm sure they're on their floor laughing about you. you're such a pompous ass who assumes that you know more than everyone and that you assume you know what's best for everyone. news flash: you don't.

But who is the animal remembered by? Is it remembered by an animal or is it remembered by man?

tell that animals don't remember anything to the loon who never mates again because its mate has died.

i think i respect myself more than you do. you respect women for our ability to push out babies. i am capable of more than that. for someone who claims to be so above his animalistic nature, you seem to think women are below you in that all we are good for is doing what every female mammal does. ass.



1. i was talking about extraterrestrials, not eternal beings in other dimensions.
2. you don't know fuck all about what is in other dimensions, neither does anybody else, you're assuming that there are these things in other dimensions who think as you do.



how about this, if you think you're so smart, you try passing a single class that i have to take. i think you'd flunk out of differential equations... assuming you got by first year calc.
if there is anything out there, i'm sure they're on their floor laughing about you. you're such a pompous ass who assumes that you know more than everyone and that you assume you know what's best for everyone. news flash: you don't.

A fine example of what I was talking about.

Does the phrase argumentum ad hominem mean anything?
For those of you who are familiar with Latin, this means literally to "argue against the man or woman". In debate, this is a method used to discredit your adversary by not attacking your opponent's position or logic but rather to attack your opponent personally or to in some way defame their character.
Generally, this is a self defeating stance to take in a debate for if the audience is not misdirected by this ploy and the opponent is able to point out this common fallacy of logic for what it is, the person who began this line of debate often winds up looking the fool and the tactic backfires.

The loon never mates and that's as far as it gets. They don't make monuments of thier fallen mate do they? And I thought I said I was below women in saying that they were the sum of all creation? I don't get it. Pushing out babies? If that's all that means to you, I guess you should abort. I didn't say I wasn't for abortion did I? Nowhere in my argument did I ever advocate for pro-life. No where in my argument did I ever say the chief objective of women is to push out babies. I just thought that maybe you respected yourself enough to think of the process as special. And obviously you don't.

You are right. I will fail pre-calc. I was never good at math. It was too systematic and if I missed one number I would mess up the whole solution. The highest education I have is a high school diploma at 22 years of age and I am currently lower class working for wal-mart. I believe life is more than just numbers. What you spouted out at me was what you were told to spout out at me from watching TV. I barely watch TV at all now. It interferes with my thoughts. I am tired of following the ways of the world like a lemming. Whatever you say I have been told, "If I wasn't married, I would marry you." many times. Read what you just told me I was. You might be talking about yourself.

Does the phrase argumentum ad hominem mean anything?
For those of you who are familiar with Latin, this means literally to "argue against the man or woman". In debate, this is a method used to discredit your adversary by not attacking your opponent's position or logic but rather to attack your opponent personally or to in some way defame their character.
Generally, this is a self defeating stance to take in a debate for if the audience is not misdirected by this ploy and the opponent is able to point out this common fallacy of logic for what it is, the person who began this line of debate often winds up looking the fool and the tactic backfires.

and you didn't do that to me at all in the post i quoted you in, did you? oh, of course not, you're so perfect and see everything on a higher level, how could you ever stoop so low as to insult someone of such animalistic intelligence as myself. i'm surprised you're even talking to me because i'm so beneath you.

whether or not that's how you intended to come accross, that's how you did. and it has been my experience that those who think they know everything don't know anything or much of anything in reality.

first you insult my gender by saying we're only good for breeding.
then you insult my intelligence.

who was using the ad hominem arguments now?

I wonder how the debate would be like if only females could say something..

Looks like you would have to go somewhere else to be self-righteous, Subterfuges! Oh noes! And they have the ability to make offspring with two eggs from a female now too, so looks like males wouldn't be needed anymore...does that make us completely useless then, since we're only supposed to be breeding?

Where in my post did I say women were only good for breeding? Man this is just weird. I think I was attacking the mode of thought not you. Most of these things you say seem scripted.

Where in my post did I say women were only good for breeding? Man this is just weird. I think I was attacking the mode of thought not you.

you said that women who didn't respect their wonderful ability to produce life didn't respect themselves.
there is more to life than reproduction and women are capable of much more and much greater things than reproduction. what if i was going to be a doctor and save hundreds of lives, but instead i have a kid right after i finish my bachelor's and never do and those hundreds of people die?
not only that, but the animals that you so seem to despise can all do the same thing. if you think that a woman should be revered for being able to carry potential life in her womb, then why not revere a female raccoon for the same power? but no, you detest those animals and those who think "naturally"

and for your information, math isn't natural and i can whiz my way through that. so much for me thinking like an animal, eh?

Most of these things you say seem scripted.

how is it scripted? you attacked me with your self-righteous attitude, i returned fire. it's only fair.

[QUOTE=Dakini]i think i respect myself more than you do. you respect women for our ability to push out babies. i am capable of more than that. [QUOTE]

This is what seemed scripted. I have heard it somewhere before many times. I know you are capable of things way more than reproducing, but what we are talking about for the moment IS about reproducing. I wasn't saying that's what you are for. If I said that, that would be even more animalistic than anything. I was just arguing for the sacred importance of human life. As for animals. I love them, I just know they don't have a soul like we do because right now none of them are carrying out a discussion about whether abortion should be legal or not. I am not arguing for abortion being legal or not, I was just bypassing this mind trap and arguing about the pricelessness of human life.

The loon never mates and that's as far as it gets. They don't make monuments of thier fallen mate do they?

do loons have thumbs? are they physically capable of doing anything like that?

And I thought I said I was below women in saying that they were the sum of all creation? I don't get it. Pushing out babies? If that's all that means to you, I guess you should abort.

you said that women are the sum of all creation because they can carry life in them... carrying life would mean pushing out babies, essentially. you are gloyifying women only for their ability to reproduce and on no other basis.
and you're a pompous ass for saying that i should abort. i want to have kids some day. but when i do, it will be on my own time. when i am good and ready to do so. not when some accident happens.

Nowhere in my argument did I ever advocate for pro-life. [/qutoe]

look at the first post you made in this thread, on and on about how life was sacred and how it should always be allowed to go on and such.

[quote]No where in my argument did I ever say the chief objective of women is to push out babies. I just thought that maybe you respected yourself enough to think of the process as special. And obviously you don't.

how is it any more special than what men do. i'm not going to self-fertilize any time soon, now am i? and personally, i'm looking forward to the fact that someday, i will be a mother. however, that is not what makes me special. what makes me special and important is not my ability to reproduce. just as what makes you special is not your ability to reproduce. people are special for who they are and what they can do, not for how they pass on their genetic material. and also, way to make assumptions... as you have been making all this time.

You are right. I will fail pre-calc. I was never good at math. It was too systematic and if I missed one number I would mess up the whole solution. The highest education I have is a high school diploma at 22 years of age and I am currently lower class working for wal-mart. I believe life is more than just numbers. What you spouted out at me was what you were told to spout out at me from watching TV. I barely watch TV at all now. It interferes with my thoughts. I am tired of following the ways of the world like a lemming. Whatever you say I have been told, "If I wasn't married, I would marry you." many times. Read what you just told me I was. You might be talking about yourself.

when did i mention t.v.? and i didn't say pre-calc, i said first year, university calc. perhaps you could use to do more than sit in your armchair and philosophise about things that don't affect you in the least. you're never going to have to deal with being pregnant or facing a decision such as abortion. you're going to end up with a philosophy riddled with holes as it seems many rationalists do. look at descartes...

i think i respect myself more than you do. you respect women for our ability to push out babies. i am capable of more than that.

This is what seemed scripted. I have heard it somewhere before many times. I know you are capable of things way more than reproducing, but what we are talking about for the moment IS about reproducing. I wasn't saying that's what you are for. If I said that, that would be even more animalistic than anything. I was just arguing for the sacred importance of human life.

well, perhaps if you heard it before it's because i'm not the only woman who as said so to you. perhaps you should reword your argument so that you don't come accross as saying that women are only good for reproductive purposes. as for human life being sacred... it is no more sacred than the life of any animal out there.

I heard it on the news. Again. Again. And again. I never have had a discussion with my friends face to face about abortion. We are always talking about other things. And once again. You said a human life is no more important than an animal. Why were you attacking me in the first place about the way you think then if you agree? If human life is no more important than an animal's then poetry is dead. I am not an animal. I am not nature, I control nature. My body is a part of nature but I control my body and my thoughts are nowhere in nature. Just like a thermonuclear bomb, a rocket, and a space station. These would of never existed in nature if it wasn't for RATIONAL minds. And if it wasn't for a rational mind then there wouldn't be anything existing now.

I heard it on the news. Again. Again. And again. I never have had a discussion with a lady face to face about abortion.

i'm not facing an abortion either. i just don't like it when men treat women as no more than carriers for their seed.
and wait, you've never spoken to anyone in such a situation? then how do you have any idea of what it's liek to be in such a situation. one of my roommates when i was in first year got herself pregnant and she didn't just nonchalantly say "yeah, i'll get rid of it" she considered it (qutie emotionally) for a month before she did anything... she knew that she was pregnant as soon as it happened... though that could have been paranoia... until she skipped a period.
she didn't have an easy decision, and she didn't treat it as such. but she made a decision that she felt was right for her.

you are not in a position to make that decision for anyone else.

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.
I agree, except that I think abortion should be legal up until the point when the foetus is alive. To do so after is murder. My opinion on this is based on belief in human rights, rather than religion. I think that a baby's right to life supersedes the right to choice.

But _Susa_ and other right-wing conservatives, I think you should understand that life isn't perfect. After the baby is born, you should try to make sure than the baby is OK. Thus, you should support welfare programs. :)

You said a human life is no more important than an animal. Why were you attacking me in the first place about the way you think then if you agree? If human life is no more important than an animal's then poetry is dead.

how do you figure? how do you figure that we're any less important if we are no more important than animals? perhaps i mean that animals are more important than you give them credit for... why dont' you assume that, rather than assume that i am degrading all life to what you deem animal life to be worth.

I am not an animal.

yes you are. so am i. so is every other human being alive. einstein was an animal, hawkings is an animal, janis joplin was an animal, bob dylan is an animal. we are a specific species of animal. that is what makes us different.

I am not nature, I control nature.

oh, so you control the weather? that would be a feat to see. you control earthquakes too?

I wasn't arguing for that decision nor was I ever holding that one. This is just plain old funny. All I said was human life is more than what you are taking it for. That is all. Did I say, "Abortion should be illegal?" No. If you think human life is no more important than an animal, I think I wouldn't want to be born by you either. As I said before this either or decision is a big mind trap. I am just putting more suggestions into the box from a place that is foreign to you. Nicely taken out of context. I said I control my body, which is of nature. I control nature because I use the materials and build things that are not of nature at all and I have total control of my natural body.

People deserve choices, and if one person want's an abortion, it's their choice.
Babies deserve life. Their right to life is more important than the right to choice.

Babies deserve life. Their right to life is more important than the right to choice.
they're not babies until the exit the womb. based on the definitions of the stages of life.

I wasn't arguing for that decision nor was I ever holding that one. This is just plain old funny. All I said was human life is more than what you are taking it for. .... If you think human life is no more important than an animal, I think I wouldn't want to be born by you either. As I said before this either or decision is a big mind trap. I am just putting more suggestions into the box from a place that is foreign to you.

ok. so because i think that animals are equally important, i'm a terrible person.

let's put it this way. from your point of view, you see me as bringing humans down to the levels of animals. correct? that's not what i'm doing. i'm saying that all animals, humans included are important.
man, you should really try expanding your mind and considering where we would be without the other species we share this planet with. it's people like you that lead to brutal slaughterhouse procedures and fur coats being fashionable and people testing cosmetics on defenseless animals.

and you want to talk foreign concepts? how about compassion? it seems to be something you know nothing about.

It seems to me I am person you know nothing about. For now I am debating about abortion and the value of human life and sticking to the thread. Not whether I am good at math class, or if I have enough compassion on foreign issues, that is reserved for another thread. One of our purposes might very well be, at the end of the age, to save nature, but for now we have some very human issues to deal with. I am very poor. What do I have against nature? Every time I hike I feel welcomed into this beautiful world. Untouched by man. That's how deep into wildernesses I hike. The deeper I go the more welcome I feel. I don't have to deal with people who disdain life. Nature seems like it's just there for me.
Also I do not have a luxury car. I have an 87 jeep wrangler. Most of the rainy season I only had the bikini top. It felt like I was driving through a waterfall every time it rained. Hard plastic seats don't get wet. Also I could whip it off on sunny days and let the sky be my ceiling. That jeep makes me feel so alive. I only now had to put the hardtop on after a year of having it off because of hurricane frances. So don't go saying that I disdain nature, I embrace it.

It seems to me I am person you know nothing about.

i could say the same thign about you. with all your false assumptions about me.
also, how the hell should i know anything about you? i met you online like less than an hour ago when you were babbling about women being important for beign able to produce life, what the hell did you expect?

Because its 'inconvienient' as in not convienient, same thing isnt it?
And thats not a valid excuse for abortion.

Wake up about the Nazis, I hate those bastards and what they did to the Jews.

No. Someone does not usually do what is not convenient, as in "inconvenient", and they especially do not do things for the sake of "inconvenience". I never said it was a valid excuse for an abortion. You're not reading, are you?

As for eugenics and the Nazis, yes, if you're proposing forced sterilization according to a standard set arbitrarily by you, then yes, it's eugenics, and yes, it's the same policy that killed 8 million jews. You are aligning yourself with the Nazis, and I'd rethink your opinions, because they conflict. You can't support Nazi policies and then turn around and say that you hate them. It doesn't jive. It's like saying that you believe in gun control and then saying that you'd shoot anyone that doesn't agree with you. Try again.

So it could become a slug or bird? Yeah, I guess that makes sense, that was a really good point. Except that it WILL become (and already is) a person. How can it change? And when? When it's born? SO what's the difference between when it's been born and five minutes earlier? A month earlier? 9 months earlier???
You don't make sense!


It might not become a person. Millions of women have miscarriages without even knowing it's anything more than a heavy period, before the fetus is out of its first month, even. Millions of women miscarry in their third trimester, and millions of babies die before they reach their first year. It's nature weeding out the unviable.

My reason for supporting it simple. I measure my life from the day I was born. As in, the day I exited the birth canal, not when my parents fucked, not 3 months after, not 6 months after, but the day I came into the open air for the first time. Before that, I was tissue, basically just part of my mother's body. And I do not take anyone seriously if they oppose abortion by saying that life begins sometime before birth, yet still celebrate their birthdays as the beginning of their life. I do not believe that the government has any right to tell a citizen what they can or cannot do with their own body. That's the core of it. Criticize me all you want, but realize it is futile, because I'll never accept any day as the beginning of my life except that on which I was born. My life began then and will end when I die.

I am not an animal. I am not nature, I control nature.

That is the most profoundly arrogant statement I've seen in a long time. We are animals of the Homo Sapiens species, part of the primate group, which are mammals. Try saying you control nature in the middle of an earthquake.

That is the most profoundly arrogant statement I've seen in a long time. We are animals of the Homo Sapiens species, part of the primate group, which are mammals. Try saying you control nature in the middle of an earthquake.

She* already explained that she meant she controlled her body.

Ha.

You should be asking her to stop breathing/digesting her food/her heart beating/hormones being released/cells dividing/hair growing.

See how 'in control' she is then

I'm assuming gender based on the mention of wearing a 'bikini top' earlier... although I'm appalled that any woman could be *against* the right to choose abortion... I guess there'll always be a few though. Le Sigh.

No. Someone does not usually do what is not convenient, as in "inconvenient", and they especially do not do things for the sake of "inconvenience". I never said it was a valid excuse for an abortion. You're not reading, are you?

Yes I am actually, and there is something really sad about your reasoning on this matter, heres why:

100,000 abortions a year in my country Australia alone, can you give me then a valid reason for this many abortions each year if its not because of inconvienience?
Guess what genius, most of them are matters of inconvienience, do you even know what the word means?

As in somethings inconvienient, and not planned or wanted so get rid of it?
Or are you trying to seriously tell everyone here this high number of abortions each year are because of rapes, a forseen danger to the mother, or something drastically wrong with the baby.


As for eugenics and the Nazis, yes, if you're proposing forced sterilization according to a standard set arbitrarily by you, then yes, it's eugenics, and yes, it's the same policy that killed 8 million jews. You are aligning yourself with the Nazis, and I'd rethink your opinions, because they conflict. You can't support Nazi policies and then turn around and say that you hate them. It doesn't jive. It's like saying that you believe in gun control and then saying that you'd shoot anyone that doesn't agree with you. Try again.



Just so you know something, steralisation doesnt kill you, it just steralises you.

The Nazis may have steralized alot of Jewish women but that didnt kill them did it?
The final solution as it was called -killing them by gassing them to death in showers or lining them in fields and mowing them down with machine guns, so
try again also, and go read your history a little bit better.

My idea of women being steralised who dont want to have kids, would get rid of the whole abortion problem for women who find having kids around inconvienient.

Also its quite a laugh for you to say Im the one in a line with the Nazis policys when you seem to have no problem with millions of unborn babies getting slaughtered each year in clinics and hospitals around the world because you support pro choice, Himmler would have loved you provided none of the babies killed were Aryan ones.

Just so you know something, steralisation doesnt kill you, it just steralises you.

The Nazis may have steralized alot of Jewish women but that didnt kill them did it?
The final solution as it was called -killing them by gassing them to death in showers or lining them in fields and mowing them down with machine guns, so
try again also, and go read your history a little bit better.

My idea of women being steralised who dont want to have kids, would get rid of the whole abortion problem for women who find having kids around inconvienient.

Also its quite a laugh for you to say Im the one in a line with the Nazis policys when you seem to have no problem with millions of unborn babies getting slaughtered each year in clinics and hospitals around the world because you support pro choice, Himmler would have loved you provided none of the babies killed were Aryan ones.

Ok, I can see where we got crossed wires on the "convenience"/"inconvenience" issue, but the phrase most commonly used is "a matter of convenience", or "for the sake of convenience". I took your saying that women had abortions for the sake of "inconvenience" to mean that you thought women were having abortions because an abortion was inconvenient, hence having an abortion for "the sake of inconvenience". It didn't make sense.

As for the eugenics issue, I'd say that you're still wrong. Again, you didn't read. I'm not for abortions, I don't like the idea, but I'm against a lot of things. That doesn't give me the right to make choices for anyone else. YOU, on the other hand, seem to be saying that you'd make the choice beforehand for someone else by sterilizing them. It would be like an abortion before conception, even. It doesn't kill anyone, but it prevents anyone from being born just as effectively. Besides, you're basing the criteria for sterilization on your own subjective set of values, your own opinion. What gives you or anyone else the right to take away freedom of choice? Not just about abortion, but anything else. You are not God. Thank goodness for the rest of us that you'll never be in a position to make your ideas a reality.

How many of you men would date a woman who wouldn't have sex with you?

Me, but as I am now married I am no longer looking for a date.

I'm very serious- think hard about this one. Then tell me that the woman can just choose not to have sex, and it's that simple.

Yes, the woman can choose not to have sex. So can the man.

I'm not saying that it's necessary for a woman to comprimise her desires just to be in a relationship. I'm just saying that the picture doesn't look so pretty nor as simple from the other side, now does it?

So sex is the only reason you date a woman? How shallow are you?

Men, would you refuse to have sex with a woman just because she might get pregnant?

Yes

If so, your arguments might hold a bit more sway.

Thank you.

But if not, as I expect the case will nearly often be... you really don't get to discuss the consequences of your actions, because most of time time they'll have about a million times more effects on the lives of the pregnant woman.

And a child being created has no effect on the father's life?

How many times have you heard a man discuss trying to balance a career and a family?

Many times, I know a number of single fathers and fathers whose wife also works and so they both regualte their jobs around their children. Welcome to the 21st century.

Would you have trouble getting the education you want or the career you've planned if you got a woman pregnant?

More than likely. Seeing as fathers have roles to play in the upbringing of their child. I wouldn't get the woman pregnant in the first place unless I and my partner were ready for the consequences. If my partner became pregnant then we would both make sacrifices to commit the time required to the child both before and after birth.

I'll second somebody else's quote: until you're ready to carry around that kid in your uterus and raise it until it can support itself, then it really isn't your decision. Sorry. If you're in a loving relationship with someone who is carrying your child, then you may be a part of the discussion. But making blanket statements and generalized laws won't help anyone.

Such as your blanket non-statements? You are telling us who can and cannot comment on this topic?

No. Someone does not usually do what is not convenient, as in "inconvenient", and they especially do not do things for the sake of "inconvenience". I never said it was a valid excuse for an abortion. You're not reading, are you?

As for eugenics and the Nazis, yes, if you're proposing forced sterilization according to a standard set arbitrarily by you, then yes, it's eugenics, and yes, it's the same policy that killed 8 million jews. You are aligning yourself with the Nazis, and I'd rethink your opinions, because they conflict. You can't support Nazi policies and then turn around and say that you hate them. It doesn't jive. It's like saying that you believe in gun control and then saying that you'd shoot anyone that doesn't agree with you. Try again.

Sterilizing stupid women is a far cryfrom killing off a race of people...

(Note, 'Kawa Lahb Are' is my other nation, I am Ekkukria)


----"I believe abortion is wrong. But hey, if the abortionists want to kill of there poisonous seed, let them. There will just be more of us in the end to abolish abortion. I am not going to let you train my children that killing a sacred being is ok. That will open the door to more people who do not support abortion and then it will be all peachy. It's your sacred life isn't it. If you want to be euthanized, goodbye. I don't believe in that either, but hey, if you want to be sent to the other dimension early without the knowledge of God, then fine, I don't care. Less of you and more of us. More people to love people unconditionally for the sake of loving unconditionally. Goodbye killers of life. I didn't miss you."

This person knows the tolerance of God. This doesn't mean we (as man or woman) have to agree with it we just know that you will have your day of judgement for your sins by the only one that can judge in these instances.

Please don't tilt this discussion towards any religious BS. Thanks.

The fact that you move you hand with just the wish to move your hand is controlling nature. We have the only rational minds in the universe that you can actually detect with your limited five senses. The fact that we are having a discussion right now about whether or not to abort people is what makes me understand that man is sacred. We are the only one participating in this universe. To think something other than our rational mind can exist and think outside of our[man's] conciousness is an idol. Who do you think gave us that ability to set in motion the building of a skyscraper, the creation of a telescope that orbits earth, the house you live in, and the computer you are typing on? Do you think chance did it? Or do you think WORDS did? You are thinking on a very closed level right now. It's very simplified and almost animal like. The fact that you can't seperate the sacred divine from nature is quite animal like. If you want to die like an animal, go ahead. I am going to die like a man.

Note: I don't have the choice to die. I am not the one who wanted to put out a sacred being from this would. You are. I didn't say I was going to kill anyone. I said you were going to kill the people inside of you, and yourself. That's what you want isn't it. The right to die. My right has been given to an Authority higher than me. He decides when I die. My life is His.

See above.

I feel exactly the same way. I encounter people all the time, however, who think that "the man" has "a right" to either a) know about the pregnancy/abortion, or b) even "help" decide what to do about a pregnancy.

Fine. But if the father does not want the child, and the mother refuses to get an abortion, there should be no child support involved. Period.


luckily men still have the right to decide who to have sex with.

legally speaking there is no way to split the right to decide abortion. think about it. of COURSE a man has an interest in his unborn offspring. but does he have MORE interest than the woman who is carrying it? welll.. no.... its ...say...49/51 in her favor. seems reasonable doesnt it? well LEGALLY that gives her 100% rightto make the decision and gives the man 0% right. there is no way to give a partial right. either you get to make the decision or you dont.

once a child is born ITS interest is most important so both parents are required to support this little blessing that they have created. in the same way the father, even if he is unsuitable in the opinion of the mother, still gets rights to SEE his child. he can even, in some circumstances, end up with sole custody of his child.

the only right the father doesnt have is abortion. he cannot force a woman to have an abortion nor stop her if she wants one.

I disagree. The father should only have to pay child support if he wants partial custody. If he doesn't want the child, doesn't want to see the child, doesn't want to support the child, he shouldn't have to. Child Support should ONLY be enforced upon those fathers that WANT the child. If the woman still wants the child and the father doesn't, she'll have to take care of it herself. On that note, did you know there are women who will actually take a used condom after sex and impregnate themselves with the sperm? Just so they can then hook the male and he can't do shit about it. I did NOT just make that up, either. Its true.

the reason nobody explained it is because your "problem" is ridiculous and irrelevant.

how do we know those 40 million "future people" weren't going to grow up and destroy the world? or be totally mediocre?

my friend, call him Dan, was born to a woman who is open about the fact that she had an abortion when she was 16. if she had given birth instead of having an abortion, she never would have gone to college when she did, would never have met Dan's father, and Dan and his sisters would never have been born. Dan has just recently begun working as a pediatric oncologist (working on children who have cancer), and has already helped save at least one life.

Dan is just one example of why your "problem" is idiotic, because we can never know if the world would have been better or not had those "future people" come into the world. maybe instead of Dan we would have gotten somebody who cured cancer, or maybe (and more likely, according to all studies to date) we would have gotten a drug-abusing high school drop out who would end up doing more harm than good.

Exactly. This argument that "that aborted child could have been the next Jonas Salk". Well, he could also have been the next Stallin, or Hitler; making that argument null and void.


This may sound old-fashioned, but a man can talk to a woman about her values before they go to bed.

And a woman can lie.


i think i respect myself more than you do. you respect women for our ability to push out babies. i am capable of more than that. for someone who claims to be so above his animalistic nature, you seem to think women are below you in that all we are good for is doing what every female mammal does. ass.



1. i was talking about extraterrestrials, not eternal beings in other dimensions.
2. you don't know fuck all about what is in other dimensions, neither does anybody else, you're assuming that there are these things in other dimensions who think as you do.



how about this, if you think you're so smart, you try passing a single class that i have to take. i think you'd flunk out of differential equations... assuming you got by first year calc.
if there is anything out there, i'm sure they're on their floor laughing about you. you're such a pompous ass who assumes that you know more than everyone and that you assume you know what's best for everyone. news flash: you don't.

*applause*
VERY well put!


A fine example of what I was talking about.

Does the phrase argumentum ad hominem mean anything?
For those of you who are familiar with Latin, this means literally to "argue against the man or woman". In debate, this is a method used to discredit your adversary by not attacking your opponent's position or logic but rather to attack your opponent personally or to in some way defame their character.
Generally, this is a self defeating stance to take in a debate for if the audience is not misdirected by this ploy and the opponent is able to point out this common fallacy of logic for what it is, the person who began this line of debate often winds up looking the fool and the tactic backfires.

The loon never mates and that's as far as it gets. They don't make monuments of thier fallen mate do they? And I thought I said I was below women in saying that they were the sum of all creation? I don't get it. Pushing out babies? If that's all that means to you, I guess you should abort. I didn't say I wasn't for abortion did I? Nowhere in my argument did I ever advocate for pro-life. No where in my argument did I ever say the chief objective of women is to push out babies. I just thought that maybe you respected yourself enough to think of the process as special. And obviously you don't.

You are right. I will fail pre-calc. I was never good at math. It was too systematic and if I missed one number I would mess up the whole solution. The highest education I have is a high school diploma at 22 years of age and I am currently lower class working for wal-mart. I believe life is more than just numbers. What you spouted out at me was what you were told to spout out at me from watching TV. I barely watch TV at all now. It interferes with my thoughts. I am tired of following the ways of the world like a lemming. Whatever you say I have been told, "If I wasn't married, I would marry you." many times. Read what you just told me I was. You might be talking about yourself.

Good god somebody shoot this guy already and put him out of our misery.

Where in my post did I say women were only good for breeding? Man this is just weird. I think I was attacking the mode of thought not you. Most of these things you say seem scripted.

Most things you say make me want to beat the shit out of you. :)


ok. so because i think that animals are equally important, i'm a terrible person.

let's put it this way. from your point of view, you see me as bringing humans down to the levels of animals. correct? that's not what i'm doing. i'm saying that all animals, humans included are important.
man, you should really try expanding your mind and considering where we would be without the other species we share this planet with. it's people like you that lead to brutal slaughterhouse procedures and fur coats being fashionable and people testing cosmetics on defenseless animals.

and you want to talk foreign concepts? how about compassion? it seems to be something you know nothing about.

I think that when he says he isn't an animal, he means he is a tree or some type of shrubbery ;) .

[QUOTE=Sheilanagig]Ok, I can see where we got crossed wires on the "convenience"/"inconvenience" issue, but the phrase most commonly used is "a matter of convenience", or "for the sake of convenience". I took your saying that women had abortions for the sake of "inconvenience" to mean that you thought women were having abortions because an abortion was inconvenient, hence having an abortion for "the sake of inconvenience". It didn't make sense.

Good Im glad we cleared that one up, probably just different ways of expressing we have compared to you, Im guessing your American right?

I'm not for abortions, I don't like the idea, but I'm against a lot of things. That doesn't give me the right to make choices for anyone else. YOU, on the other hand, seem to be saying that you'd make the choice beforehand for someone else by sterilizing them.

Wrong, it would already be put into place, that any woman who has an abortion just for the hell of it would loose the right to bear kids permanently afterwards, there must be a valid reason for the abortion, not just one of convienience.

It would be like an abortion before conception, even. It doesn't kill anyone, but it prevents anyone from being born just as effectively.

It would also encourage women to be alot more responsible and moral.

Besides, you're basing the criteria for sterilization on your own subjective set of values, your own opinion.

So what, I think its right.


What gives you or anyone else the right to take away freedom of choice?

Well someone has to stick up for the rights of the unborn child, what right do women have to murder their own just because it wasnt planned, wheres there caring motherly instincts, answer they never had any, so steralise them as unproductive, they probably wouldnt really care that much anyway.



Not just about abortion, but anything else. You are not God. Thank goodness for the rest of us that you'll never be in a position to make your ideas a reality.

Yeah well you never know. :p

[QUOTE]

Good Im glad we cleared that one up, probably just different ways of expressing we have compared to you, Im guessing your American right?



Wrong, it would already be put into place, that any woman who has an abortion just for the hell of it would loose the right to bear kids permanently afterwards, there must be a valid reason for the abortion, not just one of convienience.

I disagree, im not against abortion for any reason. Not even if the woman feels like doing it just to rub it in some pro-lifers face. First, because its none of my fucking business WHAT she does on ANY level. Second, because life begins at birth.


it would also encourage women to be alot more responsible and moral.

No, it would encourage women to live a shit life and maybe even encourage them to actually hate the child for it's existance effectively ruining her life.

unborn child

That is quite an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

[QUOTE=Kawa Lahb Are]I disagree, im not against abortion for any reason. Not even if the woman feels like doing it just to rub it in some pro-lifers face. First, because its none of my fucking business WHAT she does on ANY level.

OK you support unjustified murder then.

Second, because life begins at birth.

Right so the babys dead before the crown of the head breeches then hey presto- life!
Care to restate that opinion, because it doesnt even make medical sense.



No, it would encourage women to live a shit life and maybe even encourage them to actually hate the child for it's existance effectively ruining her life.

Well maybe if women like this got out of the Its only all about Me Me and Me focus a bit, they wouldnt have such a bad attitude towards having kids.



That is quite an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Do you even know what that means?
Hint- Google dictionary is your friend.

[QUOTE]

OK you support unjustified murder then.

mur·der
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

You call a quasi-living blob a human?

Right so the babys dead before the crown of the head breeches then hey presto- life!
Care to restate that opinion, because it doesnt even make medical sense.

Don't be a smartass. You know exactly what I mean. An unborn Foetus is as alive as a sperm cell.


Well maybe if women like this got out of the Its only all about Me Me and Me focus a bit, they wouldnt have such a bad attitude towards having kids.

Are you saying its selfish for a woman to not want children?


Do you even know what that means?
Hint- Google dictionary is your friend.

ox·y·mo·ron
n.
A term in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Yeah, I do.
Hint- There is no such thing as Google Dictionary, moron.

we're all going to die the same way... well, not necessarily, but as the same species. and as it is, our species has simply declared itself to be the best species on this planet. you don't see chimps inventing nuclear weapons of giraffes killing each other for no reason, do you?
just because we have opposable thumbs and language does not mean that we're so much better than the animals you seem to have such disdain for. because really, that's what separates us from them. we are able to record our discoveries and pass them onto the next generation, who can then build upon them and pass them on further. we can read things written by people long dead because we have the manual dexterity to write. we can communicate effectively because we have the vocal chords and tongue suited to talking.
and as far as we know, there are more intelligent species out there who would laugh at us for thinking ourselves so great. we are most likely not on the only planet out there with life. and hey, who's to say we haven't been visited by people from outside our planet... for all we know, extra terrestrials have been shaping our civilizations.

at any rate, i shall not die like a man, i shall die like a woman... a far more rational version of a man if you ask me. ;)


After all, the Y chromosome is just a mutated X chromosome...

Male is just an abberation of the female.

Just to tell you. A woman is the sum of all creation. She is the epitome of life. Maybe you ladies do not have the respect for yourself as I do. You generate a sacred divine life inside your own bodies. What is more awesome than that?

To answer the other question:The byproduct of our minds is a Thermonuclear bomb. What monkey has the sacred mind to do that. Our sacred minds have created something more powerful than nature itself. And yes there are eternal beings from other dimensions that are better than we are living among us right now. You are right, they do laugh at us for thinking ourselves so great. I don't think you are ready for that though. Because your thinking is based on the natural. Which is a one level floor. As mechanical as an animal's thought.

Women are the sum of all Creation. Some women don't know that and some forget that they are. That is my only problem with them.

A thermonuclear device is more powerful than nature itself... well, except the sun, of course, which is an enormous thermonuclear reaction in almost eternal progress.

And where did all this 'supernatural beings stuff' come from, and what has it to do with the topic? And, of course, you can't prove any of it.

I find it distressing that the only justification you see for women, is the fact that they can carry children.

When he has been told philosophies that deaden the mind, then he might as well be aborted because he isn't living anymore. You said it yourself, it's just like prespiration and digestion, so that's all his life is going to be summed up to be if he is taught these beliefs.

Interesting. The bible prohibits philosophy, you know.

So, nothing deadens the mind like religion.

So - by your rules, it is not only JUST, but practically REQUIRED, that we should abort all the children of christians.

Nice.

Keep spreading the love, brother.

Here goes...

This is always a touchy subject to discuss, but I'm going to give my 2 cents worth anyway.

I agree with the person that started this forum. Abortion should be legal,but ONLY in extreme circumstances i.e. Rape,incestuous pregnancy,severe problems with the pregnancy. I do NOT agree with abortion as a form of birth control.
I must add,though,that with legalised abortions, the mother and father(If he's around) should be REQUIRED by law to get counselling. I don't care what the mother says about being mentally OK after having an abortion, counselling should be MANDATORY. I know someone that I used to be friends with that had an abortion (because she just didn't want the baby. bitch.),and afterwards she had all kinds of nightmares, "daymares", and other problems that were affecting her psychologically. As a result, she became unbearable to be around,yet refused to get counselling. I told her mother (who didn't know about it all) in the hopes that maybe her mom could get her to go for some kind of counselling. Things backfired when the mother accused me of lying to her about her daughter,she then stormed off to ask her personally about it. Her daughter LIED to her face about it...said that it never happened, that she was still a virgin (B.S.) and all. The end result is this former friend of mine thinks that I was the one that ruined her life. The sad thing is that before the abortion, she was completely normal....
The other thing for legal abortion is that whether it's legal or not, it's still going to happen. Either in a doctor's office with a needle or whatever, or in a back alley with a coathanger. To me, it would make more sense to have it in a sterile environment done by a professional, than by "Vinnie" in a back allet between a porn shop and a strip joint.

/agree with jipooti.

you can't go and outlaw it now.. would only make it worse with loads of infections and such.

Abortion should be legal even if its a problem.. like.. the couple (or single parent) can't support a child, albeit emotionally or literally (money problems)
Don't get me wrong on this, I view abortion as a bad thing.. and if I got someone pregnant I would try to support them as best I could... but I can hardly forbid anyone to get an abortion, they have their reasons and morals.. and I shall have mine...

Subjects like these can never truly be settled.. theres always someone who isn't happy with the end result :headbang: Look at the treaty of versailles... they all tried to reach a comprimise and NO ONE got what they wanted :P

Now, before we begin, let me clear some things up. I do not support abortion, excepting some circumstances. If the pregnant woman was raped, in my opinion, she should be able to have an abortion. If the pregnant women was the victim of incest, she should be able to have an abortion. If the birth of the child would cause the mother serious injury, she should be able to have an abortion. Those are the only occasions when an abortion should be legal.

Now, for those people that support abortion in other circumstances than those mentioned above, explain your position.

if the pregnant woman was raped or was the victim of incest,
rather than executing the unborn INNOCENT HUMAN who had nothing to do with the afore mentioned dastardly deeds,
it is the perpetrators of those crimes who SHOULD BE EXECUTED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!

ya'll would see just how quickly these crimes would disappear from society and, consequently, those would no longer be reasons to terminate UNBORN HUMANS.

but becasue the perpetrators of these hiennous crimes are released after serving 6-12 months,
they return to terrorize women and commit more of these crimes even more attrociously.

from the moment of conception, there is NO DOUBT that the resulting collection of cells known as zygote, embryo, et al, is of the HUMAN kind and, if it can be determined that this so called embryo is ALIVE, then what we have is a LIVE HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN.

the dastardly deed known as abortion is simply an euphemism for the KILLING OF A LIVE HUMAN BEING.

finally, just how can now days a woman's life be in danger when a procedure known as "cesarean section" is available?

Here goes...

This is always a touchy subject to discuss, but I'm going to give my 2 cents worth anyway.

I agree with the person that started this forum. Abortion should be legal,but ONLY in extreme circumstances i.e. Rape,incestuous pregnancy,severe problems with the pregnancy. I do NOT agree with abortion as a form of birth control.
I must add,though,that with legalised abortions, the mother and father(If he's around) should be REQUIRED by law to get counselling. I don't care what the mother says about being mentally OK after having an abortion, counselling should be MANDATORY. I know someone that I used to be friends with that had an abortion (because she just didn't want the baby. bitch.),and afterwards she had all kinds of nightmares, "daymares", and other problems that were affecting her psychologically. As a result, she became unbearable to be around,yet refused to get counselling. I told her mother (who didn't know about it all) in the hopes that maybe her mom could get her to go for some kind of counselling. Things backfired when the mother accused me of lying to her about her daughter,she then stormed off to ask her personally about it. Her daughter LIED to her face about it...said that it never happened, that she was still a virgin (B.S.) and all. The end result is this former friend of mine thinks that I was the one that ruined her life. The sad thing is that before the abortion, she was completely normal....
The other thing for legal abortion is that whether it's legal or not, it's still going to happen. Either in a doctor's office with a needle or whatever, or in a back alley with a coathanger. To me, it would make more sense to have it in a sterile environment done by a professional, than by "Vinnie" in a back allet between a porn shop and a strip joint.

While it is unfortunate that you lost a friend, that doesn't mean every other woman should have to partake in counseling just because you had a bad experience. If she didn't want counseling, it probably wouldn't have made any difference if she got it or not. The only real chance it has of affecting someone is if they are willing to accept it, not being forced to do it.

Oh, and just because she didn't want it doesn't make her a bitch. I've never been through pregnancy (I don't think that would be possible with males :P) but I obviously have a much more realistic view of the experience than you do.

it is the perpetrators of those crimes who SHOULD BE EXECUTED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!

That I actually agree with. Just the part about rapists being executed. I'm not even for capitol punishment, but rape is second only to murder.

from the moment of conception, there is NO DOUBT that the resulting collection of cells known as zygote, embryo, et al, is of the HUMAN kind and, if it can be determined that this so called embryo is ALIVE, then what we have is a LIVE HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN.

So then, as previously mentioned, you believe that (male) masturbation murders millions of 'LIVE HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN'.

the dastardly deed known as abortion is simply an euphemism for the KILLING OF A LIVE HUMAN BEING.

Dastardly? Is it you, Hiraldo?

finally, just how can now days a woman's life be in danger when a procedure known as "cesarean section" is available?

You obviously don't know much in the way of medical science.

[QUOTE=Dakini]i think i respect myself more than you do. you respect women for our ability to push out babies. i am capable of more than that. [QUOTE]

This is what seemed scripted. I have heard it somewhere before many times. I know you are capable of things way more than reproducing, but what we are talking about for the moment IS about reproducing. I wasn't saying that's what you are for. If I said that, that would be even more animalistic than anything. I was just arguing for the sacred importance of human life. As for animals. I love them, I just know they don't have a soul like we do because right now none of them are carrying out a discussion about whether abortion should be legal or not. I am not arguing for abortion being legal or not, I was just bypassing this mind trap and arguing about the pricelessness of human life.

Still don't get it, do you.

"I know you are capable of things way more than reproducing..." still implies that you believe that reproduction is the basis. MORE than reproducing... but still, you are suggesting reproduction as the MAIN function.

"but what we are talking about for the moment IS about reproducing..." Actually, what we are talking about is NOT reproducing. And, mostly, we are talking about whether the woman has the right to abort - whether she has the right to control her own uterus.

By saying we are talking about 'reproduction', you are a) missing the whole point, and b) bringing everything back to the female as a breeding vessel, again.

I would love for you to start a thread about the "lack of souls in animals" - because I would be happy to discuss that with you... in another thread. That is not the topic of this thread.

"I know you are capable of things way more than reproducing..." still implies that you believe that reproduction is the basis. MORE than reproducing... but still, you are suggesting reproduction as the MAIN function.


How would you have preferred him to word it? :confused:

Things other than reproducing?
As well as reproducing?

Please.. I don't actually understand a way of wording it better :confused:

One problem with making abortion illegal that a lot of people seem to forget is that there is no way to stop a determined person aborting their fetus. Whether it is poisoning the fetus with over consumption of alcohol or more drastic methods like self-surgery, the fact remains that the fetus will die.

Sure, you could arrest the mother, but what good would that actually do? Surely you would only be destroying two lives. Surely it is better to have professionals who can ensure safety doing these sorts of procedures, than having women mutilate, injure or kill themselves?

Sure, you could arrest the mother, but what good would that actually do?

It might allow you to get the mother to a hospital and get rid of the infection caused by the non-sterile meat cleaver and other tools used.

I wasn't arguing for that decision nor was I ever holding that one. This is just plain old funny. All I said was human life is more than what you are taking it for. That is all. Did I say, "Abortion should be illegal?" No. If you think human life is no more important than an animal, I think I wouldn't want to be born by you either. As I said before this either or decision is a big mind trap. I am just putting more suggestions into the box from a place that is foreign to you. Nicely taken out of context. I said I control my body, which is of nature. I control nature because I use the materials and build things that are not of nature at all and I have total control of my natural body.

You have total control of your natural body? Really?

Can you stop your heart?

Human life isn't so sacred, you know. And if your justification is that we can build bombs and space stations.... so what? Wouldn't we be better off without bombs?

So - in fact, 'sacred' means 'not as good as animals'...

It might allow you to get the mother to a hospital and get rid of the infection caused by the non-sterile meat cleaver and other tools used.

MEAT CLEAVER?!? You know what a meat cleaver is, right!? I'm going to assume your being facetious or there is some strange application for a meat cleaver that I don't want to know about.