NationStates Jolt Archive

=Dakini]oh, i'm so sorry that no real man actually does anything around the house but burp, fart and scratch himself.

You watch way too much Simpsons.

Every child deserves to be cherished, and every person deserves to choose when, how, and if they can provide for a child both physically and emotionally. All of this talk about when a foetus becomes a human.... who cares? If a child isn't wanted, it will be devastating to everyone involved, and I fail to see how that could possibly be pro-family. Pro abortionists get all gooey about babies, but the fact is that if they really did care about children, they would agree that had all of those aborted foetuses been born half of our population would be starving and/or in a mental institution. Not good for the child, not good for the parents, not good for the taxpayers.

Only half serious: The only way that I would ever approve of outlawing abortions was if it was stipulated that the mother had the right to drop the baby off on the doorstep of the local anti-abortion activist. You want it born no matter what, then you can raise it no matter what!

Every child deserves to be cherished, and every person deserves to choose when, how, and if they can provide for a child both physically and emotionally. All of this talk about when a foetus becomes a human.... who cares? If a child isn't wanted, it will be devastating to everyone involved, and I fail to see how that could possibly be pro-family. Pro abortionists get all gooey about babies, but the fact is that if they really did care about children, they would agree that had all of those aborted foetuses been born half of our population would be starving and/or in a mental institution. Not good for the child, not good for the parents, not good for the taxpayers.

Only half serious: The only way that I would ever approve of outlawing abortions was if it was stipulated that the mother had the right to drop the baby off on the doorstep of the local anti-abortion activist. You want it born no matter what, then you can raise it no matter what!

Better than murdering 'it'.

probably gay lol

That's not funny. Not even if you type 'lol' at the end.

It still just makes you look like a homophobe, a misogynist, and an anachronism.

And how is it, in your tiny little mind, that the 'girl' is going to have a gay 'boy'friend?

Better than murdering 'it'.

You can't murder an 'it'.

You know, it's almost scary how little you seem to know?

No Im capable of cleaning up after myself, women if anything seem to be just as messy as us.


You sure don't believe in stereotyping much, do you...? Is this how you can 'justify' your misogynistic attitudes?


You seem to have a very low opinion of men too.
your answer to that of course: no just ones like you
my reply: I couldnt care less.


If you are an example of what 'men' should be, then it is no surprise many women have such low opinions of men...


Ah when it comes to the heavy stuff, not that theres as much now, we usually do.


You obviously haven't met my wife.


That natures reasoning as well, but dont let that get in the way of a good story.


Nature has reasons, now? You anthropomorphise nature?


No, help out but let her run the house, just dont become part of what shes running.
Unless thats what you like.

You pointed out in one of your earlier posts that you think university is a waste of time. You have pointed out in other posts (not least through your spelling) that you consider education to be wasted (you attacked someone for 'sounding like a textbook, I recall).

All in all, it looks like, should you EVER be lucky enough to find a (real live) woman actually willing to put up with you, SHE will probably be the one working, and you'll be left at home.... will you be doing the housework then?

No Im capable of cleaning up after myself, women if anything seem to be just as messy as us.


You seem to have a very low opinion of men too.
your answer to that of course: no just ones like you
my reply: I couldnt care less.



Ah when it comes to the heavy stuff, not that theres as much now, we usually do.



That natures reasoning as well, but dont let that get in the way of a good story.



No, help out but let her run the house, just dont become part of what shes running.
Unless thats what you like.

funnily enough, you didn't answer my original question at all. would you mind trying again?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]That's not funny. Not even if you type 'lol' at the end.

Diddums

It still just makes you look like a homophobe, a misogynist, and an anachronism.

Thats just terrible.

And how is it, in your tiny little mind, that the 'girl' is going to have a gay 'boy'friend?

More insults Grave, and your always telling me not to be rude, whats your favourite word again, hypocrite isnt it? lol

You can't murder an 'it'.

You know, it's almost scary how little you seem to know?

I was just repeating the term he used for the baby, you dont have a problem with him but.
And of course the gratutitous insult tacked on the end from Grave, your predictable if anything.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]

You sure don't believe in stereotyping much, do you...? Is this how you can 'justify' your misogynistic attitudes?

Well you can have the old stereotypes or the new ones people are being asked to accept, forced might be a better word, I'll take the old ones anyday.


If you are an example of what 'men' should be, then it is no surprise many women have such low opinions of men...


If all men were like me, women wouldnt have such low opinions of men, despite the unintelligent thug who beats women up you like to conjure of me, I am sorry to dissapoint, anything but.



You obviously haven't met my wife.

Right, no disrespect but shes not the norm is she.



Nature has reasons, now? You anthropomorphise nature?

Yes, nature has reason to it.


You pointed out in one of your earlier posts that you think university is a waste of time. You have pointed out in other posts (not least through your spelling) that you consider education to be wasted (you attacked someone for 'sounding like a textbook, I recall).

No I clearly said anyone who spends half their lives in Unis is just hiding from the world, going to Uni continuously just for the sake of going to Uni is a waste of time.
And I think your being a bit over dramatic about the textbook inncident, nothing new for you but.


All in all, it looks like, should you EVER be lucky enough to find a (real live) woman actually willing to put up with you,

Gee that hurt, not.

I have a girlfriend sorry to disapoint, and I think the world of her

SHE will probably be the one working, and you'll be left at home.... will you be doing the housework then?

We both work, Im on leave at present and shes in hospitality, we have our own places at present, so I cant comment on the housework yet.

just out of curiosity, why is that? is a man somehow incapable of cleaning up his own messes? or is he simply so much weaker and stupider than a woman, that while she can have a career and also keep house he is unable to function after straining himself to work during the day?



have you ever seen a bachelor's home? You know as well as I do (in my experience at least) that men can't keep things clean...

I was just repeating the term he used for the baby, you dont have a problem with him but.
And of course the gratutitous insult tacked on the end from Grave, your predictable if anything.

You still didn't get it, did you...

You can't murder an 'it'. If it is an 'it' there can be no crime of murder.

'Murder' does not apply to entities that are 'it'.

How can I say this so you understand?

And it's not an insult. You don't know what 'pissant' means (but become enraged when someone says it), you appear not to know what 'misogynist' means, you seem not to understand the meaning of 'anachronism' (either that, or you relish being one), you don't comprehend the simplest of legal concepts (e.g. someone 'annoying you' actually doesn't justify you 'knocking them out' - or the fact that an entity with no legal standing (i.e. an 'it') cannot be the victim of a legal crime (i.e. murder)).

I am merely commenting that it IS hard to believe how much you 'apparently' don't know.

Perhaps this is a charade, on your part?

have you ever seen a bachelor's home? You know as well as I do (in my experience at least) that men can't keep things clean...

Sorry but thats just sexist rubbish and a huge generalisation, cleanliness is up to the individual, its not determined by what sex you are.

Well you can have the old stereotypes or the new ones people are being asked to accept, forced might be a better word, I'll take the old ones anyday.


There is, of course, the alternative where you don't try to FORCE any stereotypes onto anyone. Now, hold your head, I appreciate that's a hard concept.

The 'old stereotypes' were wrong in the past, and they are still wrong in the present. You should admit that you feel a need to oppress women, because at least then you can work on your problems.


If all men were like me, women wouldnt have such low opinions of men, despite the unintelligent thug who beats women up you like to conjure of me, I am sorry to dissapoint, anything but.


I never said you were unintelligent.
I certainly never said that you beat women up.

Paging Dr Freud....

Hoist by your own petard, (again) I'm afraid.


Right, no disrespect but shes not the norm is she.


I don't know. Obviously, I think she is 'special', but I assume she is 'special' in ways similar to many other women.


Yes, nature has reason to it.


An interesting perspective for a 'christian'.


No I clearly said anyone who spends half their lives in Unis is just hiding from the world, going to Uni continuously just for the sake of going to Uni is a waste of time.
And I think your being a bit over dramatic about the textbook inncident, nothing new for you but.


I don't believe anyone 'goes to uni' just for the sake of 'going to uni', except maybe a very small minority of slackers with rich parents. Most people have to put far too much money into even attending uni for it to be a cheap dodge.

I would hazard a guess that you didn't 'measure up' for continued education, and are lashing out at the 'elitists' who can 'hack it'.

I have a girlfriend sorry to disapoint, and I think the world of her


That's okay... if she's real sweet she'll forgive you when you disappoint.

Maybe that's not what you meant.

But, if I was her, I'd be getting braced for disappointment, anyways.

We both work, Im on leave at present and shes in hospitality, we have our own places at present, so I cant comment on the housework yet.

You should be able to.

You should be able to say, either, "I am a caring, loving individual, who respects his (alleged) partner, and I am willing to make a commitment to help her, in any way I can."

or

You should be able to say "I am a misogynist and an anachronism, and will offer no support to the vessel that will serve the purpose of gestating my seed."

If you haven't made that decision yet, then you are lying to yourself, and/or your intended.

I'M AGAINST ABORTION

i do believe in a woman's right to choose, though. she has the right to choose to not have sex in the first place. even if the pregnancy came about under horrible circumstances, i believe that the baby should be given up for adoption and not killed.

I agree with Jeron, I don't support the atrocity at all. And I would never have my nation join the UN because it supports abortion aswell. I believe ALL life is sacred and deserves a chance. I think of abortion as an act of self-terrorism.

a fetus is human at conception. not a fish or a tree. that is why it is murder.

it's like saying it's ok to end the life of someone who is old if they don't have full mental capacity.

I'M AGAINST ABORTION

i do believe in a woman's right to choose, though. she has the right to choose to not have sex in the first place. even if the pregnancy came about under horrible circumstances, i believe that the baby should be given up for adoption and not killed.
The right, certainly. But not always the capacity.

I have known many girls from the Southern states of the US.

Many of these girls (and I am using the term advisedly, most were under the age of 18 at the time of the events)... have become pregnant, and most have kept their babies. (Although many have lived to regret that decision).

Why did so many of these young teen females get pregnant? Why are they living 'promiscuous' lifestyles?

The answer, when it came, was something of a shock.

The answer I got from most of these girls was: being raised as Southern Baptists, they were told that the female was subordinate to the male (there are many, many biblical references used to reinforce this position).

Consequently: When a male shows interest (this is usually a much older male, often with a girl not yet even 16) the girl has been 'conditioned' by her religion to acquiesce to his advance. Furthermore... if the girl is worried about pregnancy, she has no recourse unless the man takes precautions.

Finally, the girl cannot even complain about this after the fact. She may feel like she was unendurably pressured, but she lacks the legal requirement (she feels) to argue for rape. Anyone who has read the bible knows that a girl who is raped 'within city limits' (i.e. where people are) should be stoned to death WITH the rapist... because it must have been consensual - else she would have 'raised the alarm'. So - even after the fact, the girl cannot claim she was 'coerced'.

In other words: religion is training girls to be victims of rape, and then taking away their right to fight it. Add to this, you would require them to ALSO carry a child as further punishment.

And, I believe nobody recommended babies being killed. We were debating aborting the foetus, before it becomes a baby, and , therefore, before it is possible to 'kill' it.

a fetus is human at conception. not a fish or a tree. that is why it is murder.

it's like saying it's ok to end the life of someone who is old if they don't have full mental capacity.

1) the law disagrees.

2) the Bible disagrees.

3) Prove it. Prove that it is murder? Prove that it is human?

4) It's nothing like talking about ending the lives of living people.

5) sometimes ending the life of a person is a mercy.

what do you mean by "before it becomes a baby?"

please give me a reference where the Bible disagrees with what i said.

1.) Nine out of every ten humans is a moron. Do you want more morons in the world?
2.) A woman who would consider abortion without any of the reasons listed in the first post probably would not make a good mother; the child would be better off never gaining a consciousness.
3.) I'd have listed other reasons if I had posted this topic as well. (See below)
4.) Child predatation is at an all-time high. This, combined with number 2, would be enough for me.
5.) Life is not good. Poverty is wide-spread, both spouses need to work in order to survive, and recent studies have shown that children do indeed require food to survive.
6.) Other reasons a pro-lifer might acknowledge the validity of an abortion:
6a.) Mother has an STD.
6b.) Father walks out during pregnancy.
6c.) Child is observed to be mutated, disfigured, or diseased in the womb, perhaps via ultrasound, which would cause death early in life.
6d.) Mother uses alcohol or drugs such as cocaine.
6e.) Mother conceived while on a birth control pill (Yes, it has happened, and it can cause the same things other drugs can).

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You still didn't get it, did you...

You can't murder an 'it'. If it is an 'it' there can be no crime of murder.

'Murder' does not apply to entities that are 'it'.

How can I say this so you understand?

You label a developing human being as an 'it' for good reason, because you are then absolved from any guilt you might feel, its very PC to have no guilt isnt it?
What about people who die and decay, are they any less human to you for no longer being alive, because they no longer have flesh and organs?


And it's not an insult. You don't know what 'pissant' means (but become enraged when someone says it), you appear not to know what 'misogynist' means, you seem not to understand the meaning of 'anachronism' (either that, or you relish being one), you don't comprehend the simplest of legal concepts (e.g. someone 'annoying you' actually doesn't justify you 'knocking them out' - or the fact that an entity with no legal standing (i.e. an 'it') cannot be the victim of a legal crime (i.e. murder)).

Well what ever it means its obviously not complimentary, as for flying off into a rage about it, as you like to imgine I would, I would more likely probably laugh then see what happens, and I have given you examples of alternatives I use to pissant in another thread about this, so whether Im not fluent in its exact meaning, I can pretty much guess the drift of it, your a bit hungup on this pissant thing arent you?

I take women as they come, I dont form an opinion of dislike or like, just because of their sex.
And Im happy to be seen as old fashioned, better than whats excepted now.



I am merely commenting that it IS hard to believe how much you 'apparently' don't know.

Yet you still talk to me about different subjects, if I was as unknowing as you think, being so superior in intelligence as you like to believe yourself to be, you then wouldnt bother in the first place.


Perhaps this is a charade, on your part?

Yeah I just like messing with peoples minds for the hell of it. :rolleyes:

As to the Southern Baptist, i am not but i am Independant Fundamental Baptist.

1) i mean this not to sound as though people outside of my religion are not loved by God. God loves all people and wants all people to accept him as their personal Saviour.

2) premarital sex is not Biblical, and any church that is allowing young girls to be raped and then allows the murder of the child is not of God.

[QUOTE=Doorn Batask]1.) Nine out of every ten humans is a moron. Do you want more morons in the world?

Your obviously one of the nine, why werent you aborted then? :)

Child predatation is at an all-time high. would be enough for me.

Right there are a lot of sickos around so lets save kids from them by murdering them instead.
Love your reasoning, how about we get rid of the sickos instead.
You have no problem with innocent developing human beings being murdered, so you shouldnt care about the worlds sickos being executed for the good of society.


Life is not good. Poverty is wide-spread, both spouses need to work in order to survive, and recent studies have shown that children do indeed require food to survive.


Recent studys, thats pretty much been common knowlege since Adam and Eve.
Poverty is not wide spread where Abortion is, and this is not a good reason of course then to have mass abortions in third world countrys.
Both spouses could be a lot more comfortable if they didnt fall for consumerism, and feel they have to buy their kids everything so there not at a disadvantage with other kids who are spoilt rotten, thus creating more of the same and making the problem bigger.


Mother has an STD.

This is not a good enough reason, what about if the babys born with a slight disfigurement, should abortion been recommended as well?


Father walks out during pregnancy.

Then its more an act of revenge, definitely not a good reason to murder a developing human, what if the father came back, or paid child support after recieving definite proof of the baby being his.


Child is observed to be mutated, disfigured, or diseased in the womb, perhaps via ultrasound, which would cause death early in life.


That would be a valid reason, still a sad course to take.

Mother uses alcohol or drugs such as cocaine.

Yeah you have to wonder about women like this, personally I would like to see them steralised as incompetent idiots, still not a good reason to abort a human being, but by all means give the baby after treatment for any damage done, to a woman more loving and responsible, someone who is not so incredibly self centered.


Mother conceived while on a birth control pill Yes, it has happened, and it can cause the same things other drugs can.

Definitely the worst reason so far.

what do you mean by "before it becomes a baby?"

Okay... here's an example....

Ever eat an egg?

Ever eat a chicken?

Is the 'egg' a 'chicken'?

The answer is, of course, no. Although the egg has the POTENTIAL to become a chicken, and contains all the 'programming' to become a chicken, still, it isn't a chicken.

Similarly, a human foetus is a bundle of cells, to start with. Nothing more. It has the same genetic code as sperm or ova. It has the same genetic code as the stomach wall. Those cells replicate, becoming more and more 'like' a human baby... but, until certain things happen (i.e. until, at the very least, a nervous system is formed) all of the cells are just tissue. Tissue that COULD become a baby... but tissue that isn't YET a baby.

please give me a reference where the Bible disagrees with what i said.

Well, how about Exodus 21:22: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine".

Which clearly states that, if the husband doesn't object (note that the bible doesn't call him a father at this point), then there will be no punishment on the man that shall "and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her".

The bible, therefore, ONLY condemns abortion:

a) when the woman is married (since pregnancy isn't assumed to take place outside of marriage in biblical times)... AND

b) when the 'husband' chooses to lay punishment upon the abortionist.

Do You Know? That the taking of a human life by abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON!
Do You Know? At 18 days after conception, a baby has a heartbeat.
Do You Know? At 6 weeks following conception, the babies brain waves can be measured. At 8 weeks after conception, the stomach, liver, and kidneys of the baby are functioning, and fingerprints have formed. At 9 weeks, the unborn child can feel pain.
Do You Know? That 700,000 abortions are performed each year in America after 9 weeks into the pregnancy.
Do You Know? The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control. Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest; 1% because of fetal abnormalities; 3% due to the mother's health problems.
Do You Know? For every two babies born another baby dies in an abortion


The distinction made between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-choice omits the choice of the baby. We don't get the choice to murder adults no matter how much they piss us off. When a mother is having trouble raising her children, she can't just kill them off (and rightfully so). So why is it legal to kill an unborn baby?

Then we should ask, when is a baby alive? Why do some people claim to be such an authority on this? Once concieved, a baby will grow into an adult if noone kills it. That seems to be pretty straight forward to me.

As far as the world being overpopulated, why does that make any difference? How would you feel if someone wanted to kill you to free up some space on this planet. As far as worrying about how the baby will not have a good life, who are you to make that decision? If I see a bum on the street, I don't kill him to put him out of his misery. Also, there are countless (I forget the exact number) of people who are on a waiting list to adopt at least one child.

Overall, I think abortion is one of the most morally bankrupt pracitces that the world has seen. Let's face it, abortion is about placing the convinience of the parents over the life of the unborn baby. I think the vast majority of people feel at least a little guilty about it, but rationalize their choice with rhetoric about "the choice of the woman" or "the government can't tell me what to do with my body!" when in fact, the body of the baby is what's important.

For those who think it is wrong, but don't think they should impose on others, let me ask you this question. Would you sit by and let others murder? After all, it's their choice who they murder, right?

I realize that if abortion became illegal our country would have a lot of work to do. We should be supportive of single and impoverished mothers, both at the personal level with our friends and family, and with daycare at work programs and things like that. It would be difficult, but worth it.

Finally, I just want to say one thing to those considering an abortion. Listen to your conscience. If it feels wrong, don't do it! It's the moral logic we all learn before grade school and it works. You'd be surprised at what you can do, even in the worst circumstances.

You label a developing human being as an 'it' for good reason, because you are then absolved from any guilt you might feel, its very PC to have no guilt isnt it?
What about people who die and decay, are they any less human to you for no longer being alive, because they no longer have flesh and organs?


You use PC like it is an insult. You also apply that 'insult' to any opinion that doesn't fit your narrow perspective. You are like the Anti-Abortionists who always complain about those 'liberals' to mean Pro-Choice.

I didn't start on the 'it' label. I observed you saying "...murder 'it'..." and pointed out that an 'it' can't be murdered.

And, of course people who die and decay are less human! They are dead! That doesn't mean they weren't human while alive, but, now that they are dead... I imagine this is your idea of funny?


Well what ever it means its obviously not complimentary, as for flying off into a rage about it, as you like to imgine I would, I would more likely probably laugh then see what happens, and I have given you examples of alternatives I use to pissant in another thread about this, so whether Im not fluent in its exact meaning, I can pretty much guess the drift of it, your a bit hungup on this pissant thing arent you?


So, you still don't know what it means. Would have taken you how long to look it up in the dictionary? A few seconds? But, no - you would rather attempt to intimidate someone (that you have never met, and probably never will) over an alleged insult.

Both of your alternatives to 'pissant', while colourful, were entirely irrelevent to the meaning of the word.

I'm not hung up on it, but you seem willing to brandish ignorance as a badge of authority.

damnant quod non intelligunt


I take women as they come, I dont form an opinion of dislike or like, just because of their sex.
And Im happy to be seen as old fashioned, better than whats excepted now.


I think you mean "Accepted". "Excepted" would mean the 'stuff that's left out'. And being proud to be a neanderthal isn't actually a good thing.

Yet you still talk to me about different subjects, if I was as unknowing as you think, being so superior in intelligence as you like to believe yourself to be, you then wouldnt bother in the first place.


You are making me seem more intelligent, I suspect. I still talk, in different subjects, and you insist on posting inanity, or on replying to my posts with inanity - so, I am compelled to at least attempt to correct your errors.

Call it my Christian duty.

Yeah I just like messing with peoples minds for the hell of it. :rolleyes:

I wish I could believe that THAT was the truth of the matter.

As to the Southern Baptist, i am not but i am Independant Fundamental Baptist.

1) i mean this not to sound as though people outside of my religion are not loved by God. God loves all people and wants all people to accept him as their personal Saviour.

2) premarital sex is not Biblical, and any church that is allowing young girls to be raped and then allows the murder of the child is not of God.

1) According to your religion. To Moslems, your god is blasphemy. To Hindus, your god is non-existant. To atheists, your god is imagination.

But it's a lovely thought, all the same.

It's a a pity the bible doesn't back up your claim.

2) Actually, Mary and Jospeh were only betrothed. Betrothal was an acceptable point for couples to have intercourse, since the couple were 'promised to each other'. So, premarital intercourse was actually the norm.

Orgainsed religion that places men above women fosters rape. All of them. They might not want to admit it, but try reading your bible some time.

What is the punishment for rape? You have to marry the girl???

The sick thing is that christianity perpetuates a policy of rape, and then removes the rights of the female to rid herself of the child.

For you christians, here's a biblical overview of the pro-life stance:


Isaiah 44:2 states, "The Lord who made you, formed you from the womb." Psalms 139:13-16 states, "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst cover me in my mother's womb." Luke mentions in 1:35 that what was being formed in Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in fact, "the holy offspring, the Son of God," not mere fetal tissue. Mary was "with child" (Matthew 1-18). Luke further states in 1-41, The babe in Elizabeth's womb (John the Baptist) "leaped for joy when Mary came carrying Jesus in her womb." Blobs don't leap and have joy, neither do tissue and tumors or things - only life leaps and has joy.


The Bible constantly refers to the unborn child precisely as that: an unborn child. The Greek word "brephos" and the term "huios," are used to describe a child in the womb or one that is born. The Hebrew words "yeled" and "geber" mean a child either inside or outside the womb. (Those wishing to check this may reference the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Nestle and Marshal, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, etc.). The personal pronouns "I", "me", or "thee" are always used referring to a person and not a thing. Further more, we are told in Scripture (Jeremiah 1:5) that Jeremiah was sanctified or consecrated from his mother's womb, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you." You don't consecrate or sanctify a "thing", a "blob of tissue", but a person. No, the Bible is clear, it's a person, not a thing, in the womb. The nebulous concepts of quickening, viability, or of personhood occurring at some stage after conception cannot be found in the Bible. God could not be more emphatic. "... and Rebekah his wife conceived, and the children struggled together within her..." (Genesis 25:21-23). "And the woman conceived, so she sent and told David, and said, I am with child" (2 Samuel 11:5). In today's deceptive language, "fetus" is simply the Latin word for baby. Some people quote Genesis 2:7, arguing that the time of personhood is when a child takes his first breath. But it is false to suggest this, as Professor John Davis points out, "while breathing in the usual sense doesn't begin until birth, the process of respiration in the more technical biological sense of the transfer of oxygen from the environment of the organism occurs from the time of conception. " Thus it is the mode, not the fact of this oxygen transfer, which changes at birth.

Exodus 21:22-25 in the Mosaic law refers to punishment for causing the death of the unborn, equal to the crime, a capitol offense, punishable by death.

Recent studys, thats pretty much been common knowlege since Adam and Eve.


Yes, except that most of the world views those two figures as imaginary.

And, we aren't talking about the myths of a few thousand years ago, we are talking about abortion, in the modern world, right now... and the society that it takes place in.


Poverty is not wide spread where Abortion is, and this is not a good reason of course then to have mass abortions in third world countrys.


Wrong. You either made this up, or you know better, but lie just the same.


Both spouses could be a lot more comfortable if they didnt fall for consumerism, and feel they have to buy their kids everything so there not at a disadvantage with other kids who are spoilt rotten, thus creating more of the same and making the problem bigger.



You have a basic misunderstanding about the word "poverty", I think.


Yeah you have to wonder about women like this, personally I would like to see them steralised as incompetent idiots, still not a good reason to abort a human being, but by all means give the baby after treatment for any damage done, to a woman more loving and responsible, someone who is not so incredibly self centered.



And there are many people who would like to see "small-minded bigots with outmoded visions of the world" sterilised - for fear that they might spread their poison into the minds of the innocent.

Maybe it has escaped your notice, but not all drug-addicts are addicts by choice?

And, hey - even if the mother DOES have an addiction 'by choice', it's her body, and she's entitled to abuse it if she wishes.

Do You Know? That the taking of a human life by abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON!
Do You Know? At 18 days after conception, a baby has a heartbeat.
Do You Know? At 6 weeks following conception, the babies brain waves can be measured. At 8 weeks after conception, the stomach, liver, and kidneys of the baby are functioning, and fingerprints have formed. At 9 weeks, the unborn child can feel pain.
Do You Know? That 700,000 abortions are performed each year in America after 9 weeks into the pregnancy.
Do You Know? The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control. Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest; 1% because of fetal abnormalities; 3% due to the mother's health problems.
Do You Know? For every two babies born another baby dies in an abortion


The distinction made between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-choice omits the choice of the baby. We don't get the choice to murder adults no matter how much they piss us off. When a mother is having trouble raising her children, she can't just kill them off (and rightfully so). So why is it legal to kill an unborn baby?

Then we should ask, when is a baby alive? Why do some people claim to be such an authority on this? Once concieved, a baby will grow into an adult if noone kills it. That seems to be pretty straight forward to me.

As far as the world being overpopulated, why does that make any difference? How would you feel if someone wanted to kill you to free up some space on this planet. As far as worrying about how the baby will not have a good life, who are you to make that decision? If I see a bum on the street, I don't kill him to put him out of his misery. Also, there are countless (I forget the exact number) of people who are on a waiting list to adopt at least one child.

Overall, I think abortion is one of the most morally bankrupt pracitces that the world has seen. Let's face it, abortion is about placing the convinience of the parents over the life of the unborn baby. I think the vast majority of people feel at least a little guilty about it, but rationalize their choice with rhetoric about "the choice of the woman" or "the government can't tell me what to do with my body!" when in fact, the body of the baby is what's important.

For those who think it is wrong, but don't think they should impose on others, let me ask you this question. Would you sit by and let others murder? After all, it's their choice who they murder, right?

I realize that if abortion became illegal our country would have a lot of work to do. We should be supportive of single and impoverished mothers, both at the personal level with our friends and family, and with daycare at work programs and things like that. It would be difficult, but worth it.

Finally, I just want to say one thing to those considering an abortion. Listen to your conscience. If it feels wrong, don't do it! It's the moral logic we all learn before grade school and it works. You'd be surprised at what you can do, even in the worst circumstances.

Your statistics are untrue. That is never a good way to start.
Post some links, maybe... see if you can manage to find anything like what you claim on a site that isn't 'anti-abortion'. Heartbeat at 18 days? And you believe that?

Jumping straight to the end of your post... all the 'good christian' people weren't dealing with the problems BEFORE surgical abortion became an option. They won't if it becomes illegal again. They will preach at the unfortunate about how they should have acted better, but they will basically blame the girl everytime, and will offer no real support.

Looking at the historical precedent, on average, the new mother will be shunned by her 'christian neighbours', and, in a surprisingly large number of cases, be forced into prostitution to feed her child.

Look at your 'golden christian era' before preaching about how it should be returned to.

One more thing. I urge anyone who is pro-life to not about the subject or insult or make fun of those who believe in abortion. That will make matters worse and give people the impression that pro-lifers are insensitive and help maintain stereotypes that people who are pro-life are bigots and anti-women. It's also not good to berate those responsible for the conception of an unwanted child. We all make mistakes and the sex urge is certainly no weak force. What pro-lifers should do is encourage these people and support them in raising their child.

Sometimes it's hard to be patient when arguing with someone, but just remember to take a few seconds and think about what you're going to type.

excuse me while I go :headbang: but, all this repeating myself is getting old.

abortion is morally wrong to a christian like myself, however, I believe a certain autonomy has been given to humans. I firmly believe that the god I choose to believe in (the judeo-christian God) allowed for free will, it's just that simple: we humans can do and think what we please (within physical limitations.)

Christianity is about a choice: a choice within a person's "heart." Making the choices that coincide with Christian beliefs and morals (for the right reasons) bring glory to God (supposing that there is a higher being, and it is the god I choose to believe in.) That's my first point (it'll come in later)

Government's function is to perpetuate society. It is to legislate that which causes society to operate in its most efficient capacity, not to legislate morality.

Common sense will tell us that if a woman wants to abort a pregnancy bad enough, she'll do it one way or another (be it walking in to an abortion clinic; starving herself; or under the cover of darkness, walking into a dark alley with a clothes-hanger and disposing of the baby in a dumpster.) You may argue that after willingly killing another, her life is not worth living and not care if she dies do to lack of medical treatment (assuming abortion would be illegal.) However, if you wish for her to die, you've commited a sin yourself, and have abandoned the very essence of humanity. As long as there is breath in her body, she could repent, accept Jesus as her Lord and personal savior, go, and sin no more. We, as Christians are charged with a higher calling, to love, accept, and show the love of Jesus Christ to all those "living in sin." Nobody's won over by hatred, violence, or bigotry.

Here's where my argument comes together. We as humans have the right to chose our actions. If our actions are restricted by the threat of punishments, others will never know whether we have made the right decision because we truely believed, or because we were afraid of the consequences. We as Christians are charged with being the "shining city on the hill," the "guiding light" if you will. The only way we could ever be able to truely show that we are excersizing our faith is to have all the rights in the world and choose our actions according to our morals.

At the end of the day, we're also charged with hating the sin, but loving the sinner.




P.S. Why is it some "liberals" will not support the death penalty because of the sacredness of life, but support abortion? How, at the same time, can some "conservatives" be pro-life, but also pro-death penalty? Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy here? Has "pro-life" become its own oxy-moron?

Psalms 139:13-16 states, "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst cover me in my mother's womb." Luke mentions in 1:35 that what was being formed in Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in fact, "the holy offspring, the Son of God," not mere fetal tissue. Mary was "with child" (Matthew 1-18). Luke further states in 1-41, The babe in Elizabeth's womb (John the Baptist) "leaped for joy when Mary came carrying Jesus in her womb." Blobs don't leap and have joy, neither do tissue and tumors or things - only life leaps and has joy.


First... who says that the baby in Elizabeth leaped? Just because Elizabeth said it, doesn't make it true. Maybe she had gas. You are free to believe that a foetus could 'leap', if you so choose...

Psalms "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst cover me in my mother's womb". This is poetry... these are songs of praise. They are under no constraint to be true.

At this point, the Hebrews (along with the rest of the 'civilised' world, no doubt) believed that babies were formed whole in the mother. They knew no better, they had no medical expertise to match that of the modern world.

Much of their text is, therefore, flavoured with "babies in bellies". Since it was all written retrospectively, when a baby is born, it is easy to deduce that earlier in the same story, the mother must have been 'carrying it'.

'Babies in Bellies' is as irrelevent as the 'Pillars' on which the world stands, or the solid canvas of sky which the stars are stuck to. It is an image. A figure of speech, and you take it as 'gospel' (for want of a better word) at your peril.


Further more, we are told in Scripture (Jeremiah 1:5) that Jeremiah was sanctified or consecrated from his mother's womb, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you." You don't consecrate or sanctify a "thing", a "blob of tissue", but a person.

Not true. It is totally possible for a 'thing' to be sanctified: Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?"


Some people quote Genesis 2:7, arguing that the time of personhood is when a child takes his first breath. But it is false to suggest this, as Professor John Davis points out, "while breathing in the usual sense doesn't begin until birth, the process of respiration in the more technical biological sense of the transfer of oxygen from the environment of the organism occurs from the time of conception. " Thus it is the mode, not the fact of this oxygen transfer, which changes at birth.

And Professor John Davis gets to overrule the word of the bible, why?
According to Genesis, it is the breath going into the nostrils of Adam that make him alive. There is no good christian authority that can over-rule that, except for desire of convenience.

Exodus 21:22-25 in the Mosaic law refers to punishment for causing the death of the unborn, equal to the crime, a capitol offense, punishable by death.

You have obviously not read it properly, then. Exodus 21:22 specifically states that there will be retribution on the 'abortionist' if the 'husband' agrees, and that, when appropriate, the judges will decide what punishment.

Exodus 21:23 says "If any mischief follow" - so, if the woman is harmed, then there shall be reciprocation.

Exodus 21:24-25 are the old measure for measure.

You place your emphasis incorrectly, I believe. And willfully so, in order that it further your argument.

Note that 'god' actually uses Abortion as a punishment: Hosea 9:14 "Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts".

Why is it some "liberals" will not support the death penalty because of the sacredness of life, but support abortion? How, at the same time, can some "conservatives" be pro-life, but also pro-death penalty? Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy here? Has "pro-life" become its own oxy-moron?

This is why stereotyping is a double-edged sword.

Being 'liberal' has nothing to do with your stance on abortion or the death penalty. You could be liberal and favour choice in both instances, or liberal and oppose both. Or you could favour choice for one, but oppose the other.

Many liberals are for the death-penalty because they see it as the one sure way of preventing really bad people from re-offending.

Many liberals oppose the death penalty, because of the 'sanctity' of human life.

Many liberals are pro-choice for abortion, because they believe that a woman has the right to chose what she will do with her own body.

Many liberals oppose abortion, because of the 'sanctity' of human life.

Many non-liberals share all those same views.

Pro-life isn't an oxymoron... it is 'advertising'... it is 'marketing'. It is more "PC" to say pro-life than to say anti-abortion. People like to be 'pro' something, and dislike being classed as 'anti' something. So, if you oppose something, and want to popularise your view, you rename yourself.

Silly example: People who don't want to put man on the moon:

Anti-Moonman: Sets up a negative agenda... which is viewed as destructive.

or:

Pro-Earthman: Sets up a positive agenda. People will more happily buy into this camp, more happily invest.

Your statistics are untrue. That is never a good way to start.
Post some links, maybe... see if you can manage to find anything like what you claim on a site that isn't 'anti-abortion'. Heartbeat at 18 days? And you believe that?


Yes, I do. I've seen it in multiple credible sources. On the internet, at church, etc. Pro-choice sites wont post this, of course. So where else can one get this information? Anyway, this stat is more of an eye-opener for people than the main argument. The baby is alive and will stay alive after conception if nobody kills it (or if there are complications). Let's face it, a sperm is from the father, an egg is from the mother. Once fertilized, it is it's own thing with it's own DNA. Let me ask you this, who's to say that this isn't human life? Is it not life because it is less developed than an adult? Is it not life because it is not as developed as it will be in two months, or in nine months? Who can say when this is alive? I've heard all sorts of arbitrary things. Some say after child birth, some say after a heart beat. Why? Who are they to judge? Here's another way of looking at it. The law today (see the Laci Peterson case) says that if I kill a pregnant woman, I murdered two individuals. So now an unborn child's "humanity" or "aliveness" is based on whether or not the mom wants the child? Laci Peterson wanted her child, so it was murder when her child died. But when people who don't want their child get abortions, it's just a "procedure". Don't you see the danger of this arbitrariness? What some consider alive is based simply on what is convinient.


Jumping straight to the end of your post... all the 'good christian' people weren't dealing with the problems BEFORE surgical abortion became an option. They won't if it becomes illegal again. They will preach at the unfortunate about how they should have acted better, but they will basically blame the girl everytime, and will offer no real support.

Looking at the historical precedent, on average, the new mother will be shunned by her 'christian neighbours', and, in a surprisingly large number of cases, be forced into prostitution to feed her child.

Look at your 'golden christian era' before preaching about how it should be returned to.

Yes, you are right, in the past this did happen. But this is no reason to not carry a child to term. Also, this is part of what I meant when I said we have a lot of work to do. We have to educate people and turn them away from hate. No, it wont always be rosey for single mothers and there will always be anomosity towards them from some people, but that doesn't change that the mother has a responsiblity (and the father too- at the very least to track him down and make him pay child support. Unfortunately, that's all the law can do). No amount of struggle and heartache can ever be worth killing an unborn child for.

So the main point is: nothing, be it poverty, over population, or anything else can stand up to the importance of human life.

That's why the only time abortions should ever be considered is when the life of the mother is at risk. This is because the only earthly thing that compares to the value of human life is another human life.

I really do urge you to reconsider what you view as human life. Ask yourself this, "Do I believe what I believe because it's simply the most convinient thing?" Morals aren't meant to be convinient. That's the realm of relativism, and I think it's an easy trap for any of us (myself included) to fall into.

First... who says that the baby in Elizabeth leaped? Just because Elizabeth said it, doesn't make it true. Maybe she had gas. You are free to believe that a foetus could 'leap', if you so choose...

Psalms "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst cover me in my mother's womb". This is poetry... these are songs of praise. They are under no constraint to be true.

At this point, the Hebrews (along with the rest of the 'civilised' world, no doubt) believed that babies were formed whole in the mother. They knew no better, they had no medical expertise to match that of the modern world.

Much of their text is, therefore, flavoured with "babies in bellies". Since it was all written retrospectively, when a baby is born, it is easy to deduce that earlier in the same story, the mother must have been 'carrying it'.

'Babies in Bellies' is as irrelevent as the 'Pillars' on which the world stands, or the solid canvas of sky which the stars are stuck to. It is an image. A figure of speech, and you take it as 'gospel' (for want of a better word) at your peril.


Not true. It is totally possible for a 'thing' to be sanctified: Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?"



And Professor John Davis gets to overrule the word of the bible, why?
According to Genesis, it is the breath going into the nostrils of Adam that make him alive. There is no good christian authority that can over-rule that, except for desire of convenience.


You have obviously not read it properly, then. Exodus 21:22 specifically states that there will be retribution on the 'abortionist' if the 'husband' agrees, and that, when appropriate, the judges will decide what punishment.

Exodus 21:23 says "If any mischief follow" - so, if the woman is harmed, then there shall be reciprocation.

Exodus 21:24-25 are the old measure for measure.

You place your emphasis incorrectly, I believe. And willfully so, in order that it further your argument.



First, I think I should point out the danger of bible misinterpretations. White supremacists used quotations from the bible to prove many of their points. Does this mean the bible supports racism? No. But it can be twisted by those who want it to. This is something we should both be aware of.

The personal pronouns "I", "me", or "thee" are always used referring to a person and not a thing. Further more, we are told in Scripture (Jeremiah 1:5) that Jeremiah was sanctified or consecrated from his mother's womb, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you."

I think the key here is that personal pronouns aren't used for things, but for people. He says I knew "you", not "the blob that would become you". As for your other rebuttles, they seem reaching(yes, I realize that that is how some of my rebuttles must seem to you).


Note that 'god' actually uses Abortion as a punishment: Hosea 9:14 "Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts".

We both know that the Old testament is filled with "fire and brimstone" passages where God threatens the destruction of a city or a people. Does that mean it's ok for us to destroy cities? I don't think so. Also, I find it interesting that abortions are considering such harsh punishments. You'd think if fetuses were just matter, the parents would just say "Oh shoot! three months of morning sickness for nothing" and then casually proceed to get pregnant again. I'm sure that's not how they viewed it back then, and that's not how it's viewed today.

That's all for me for tonight. I have a class in 7 hours.

Yes, I do. I've seen it in multiple credible sources. On the internet, at church, etc. Pro-choice sites wont post this, of course. So where else can one get this information?

I hardly consider that a church is going to be the least biased source available for information on abortion. Have you tried looking at medical sites?


Let's face it, a sperm is from the father, an egg is from the mother. Once fertilized, it is it's own thing with it's own DNA. Let me ask you this, who's to say that this isn't human life?


I am. Merely being made of DNA doesn't make you a life-form. No more does being made of human-DNA make you a human life. Perhaps you are ignoring the fact that the same splitting cells form the placenta and the umbilical cord... are they humn lives? When you dispose of the 'afterbirth' are you murdering it?

Also, every live cell in the human body has functional DNA... if you implant that DNA into a sex-cell, it will function as a sex cell. That means that the lining of your stomach is as much a human life as a foetus during the early stages of replication.


Who can say when this is alive? I've heard all sorts of arbitrary things. Some say after child birth, some say after a heart beat.


The argument I would use is the presence of a functioning nerve system. The reason? Until there is a nerve system, there can be no sense, no sensitivity. The foetus cannot feel pain, or any other feeling or emotion. Until it has that neural net, it has no way to store memory, no way to 'think', no way to process an external stimulus. It is, quite literally, slightly baby-shaped tissue.


The law today (see the Laci Peterson case) says that if I kill a pregnant woman, I murdered two individuals. So now an unborn child's "humanity" or "aliveness" is based on whether or not the mom wants the child?


And the Peterson case was an abomination, in which the judge has far over-stepped the boundaries of his job description... and the only reason that he has been allowed (thus far) to get away with it, is that Bush is a keen anti-abortionist, and has a vested interest in that 'precedent' on the books.

Same with the 'partial-birth abortion' fallacy... it doesn't happen, but, by getting a law forbidding it on the books anyway, the anti-abortionists set up precedent for later parallel laws.


Yes, you are right, in the past this did happen. But this is no reason to not carry a child to term. Also, this is part of what I meant when I said we have a lot of work to do. We have to educate people and turn them away from hate. No, it wont always be rosey for single mothers and there will always be anomosity towards them from some people, but that doesn't change that the mother has a responsiblity.


In the past it happened, and in the future it happened. The one lesson to learn is that: those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

And, while 'fathers' are not obligated to hang around, the 'mother' is stuck with the 'baby'. It shouldn't happen, but it does.

But hey, if we had our world all cleaned up, maybe there wouldn't be so many abortions.


So the main point is: nothing, be it poverty, over population, or anything else can stand up to the importance of human life.


Not true. The world has already passed the sustainable population. Every extra mouth we bring into this world is causing another death elsewhere. Every extra mouth brought into the West (at least, above the poverty line), is causing dozens of deaths elsewhere.

You are placing the rights of the individual above the rights of the species - which is surely totally anathema to the argument Pro-Life is supposed to make?

"Do I believe what I believe because it's simply the most convinient thing?" Morals aren't meant to be convinient. That's the realm of relativism, and I think it's an easy trap for any of us (myself included) to fall into.

I don't think abortion is convenient. I think it is a surgery, and therefore carries risks. I think it is expensive in many places, and therefore carries financial burden. I think it is a moral decision for the individual... and they have to live with that choice. But, I still argue that that choice SHOULD be their choice.

First, I think I should point out the danger of bible misinterpretations. White supremacists used quotations from the bible to prove many of their points. Does this mean the bible supports racism? No. But it can be twisted by those who want it to. This is something we should both be aware of.


The bible does, quite openly, support racism. I wouldn't have liked to have been an inhabitant of Canaan when Joshua and his army came to 'claim their promised land'. You can run through the book and find dozens of examples of people who "thou shalt not suffer to live" or who should have their childrens heads dashed against rocks. Times were hard, yes, and there is no point trying to blanket over it... but if you are going to say "This must be so, it says so in the bible"... then you are stuck with all the OTHER things it says, too.

The personal pronouns "I", "me", or "thee" are always used referring to a person and not a thing. Further more, we are told in Scripture (Jeremiah 1:5) that Jeremiah was sanctified or consecrated from his mother's womb, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you."


The use of "I", "Me" and "Thee" is still that way today, and that is, I'm afraid, irrelevent. Example: "Who do you think you were, in a former life?" Does that simple question MEAN you had a former life? Even if true... was that YOU?

Clearly in the case of Jeremiah, he is being told that God had perceived him BEFORE he had created him. This is obviously a 'spiritual' reference... since there can have been nothing before god created it... so, god 'shaped' the body, and inserted the 'soul' of Jeremiah... with which he was already acquainted.

I am finding it hard to think of an example where "I" or "Me" would be used for a thing???

I think the key here is that personal pronouns aren't used for things, but for people. He says I knew "you", not "the blob that would become you". As for your other rebuttles, they seem reaching(yes, I realize that that is how some of my rebuttles must seem to you).


It is a matter of understanding that, even if the bible WAS the absolute word of god, it is a) written by men and b) written FOR men. Some of it is metaphor. The earth isn't flat... there is no mountain high enough to see the whole world... there are no 'windows' in the sky that let rain fall in. Couple this with the barbarian medical knowledge of the time, and you have an easily understandable reason for the descriptions of women "with Child". Especially since, the bible records the pregnancy of some of these women AS SOON AS THEY CONCEIVED... and there is no way the mother could have known, and CERTAINLY no way that external witnesses could have known. This must be conjecture...shaping earlier (chronological) text by the events that were to unfold later.

We both know that the Old testament is filled with "fire and brimstone" passages where God threatens the destruction of a city or a people. Does that mean it's ok for us to destroy cities? I don't think so. Also, I find it interesting that abortions are considering such harsh punishments. You'd think if fetuses were just matter, the parents would just say "Oh shoot! three months of morning sickness for nothing" and then non chalantly proceed to get pregnent again. I'm sure that's not how they viewed it back then, and that's not how it's viewed today.



Actually, yes. It is okay for us to destroy a city. Jericho, for example.

Abortions are considered a harsh punishment, I would assume, for the same reason they would be nowdays. Pro-Choice is one thing... if you began positive programs of abortion... aborting all foetuses, whether or not the woman wanted an abortion... I imagine many of the 'mothers-to-be' would be unhappy.

Ok, one more post, though I should be in bed.

I hardly consider that a church is going to be the least biased source available for information on abortion. Have you tried looking at medical sites?
Until I hear something else, this is what I'm going with. Feel free to bring to my attention another credible source.


I am. Merely being made of DNA doesn't make you a life-form. No more does being made of human-DNA make you a human life. Perhaps you are ignoring the fact that the same splitting cells form the placenta and the umbilical cord... are they humn lives? When you dispose of the 'afterbirth' are you murdering it?

That wasn't my point. I think we can both agree that an unborn child is different than the afterbirth, right? However, having it's own DNA is certainly one sign that it is alive.



The argument I would use is the presence of a functioning nerve system. The reason? Until there is a nerve system, there can be no sense, no sensitivity. The foetus cannot feel pain, or any other feeling or emotion. Until it has that neural net, it has no way to store memory, no way to 'think', no way to process an external stimulus. It is, quite literally, slightly baby-shaped tissue.QUOTE]

Completely and utterly arbitrary. So if I drug someone to sleep, I can kill them? They wont feel pain, they wont feel emotions. One might say, "that's silly, the person will wake up eventually." So I'll say "the baby will develop this ability eventually." Also, the idea of thought making a baby alive is still just as arbitrary as the idea of a baby being alive when his kidney's develop or when he learns to tie his shoes.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
And the Peterson case was an abomination, in which the judge has far over-stepped the boundaries of his job description... and the only reason that he has been allowed (thus far) to get away with it, is that Bush is a keen anti-abortionist, and has a vested interest in that 'precedent' on the books.

Same with the 'partial-birth abortion' fallacy... it doesn't happen, but, by getting a law forbidding it on the books anyway, the anti-abortionists set up precedent for later parallel laws.
QUOTE]

Saying he overstepped is you opinion. Regardless, this is just as much a part of our law history as Roe vs. Wade. You don't think the political and cultural climate of the time affected that decision? Of course it did, no judge (or man) is an island. You spout that the law says this and that, and so can I.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
In the past it happened, and in the future it happened. The one lesson to learn is that: those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

And, while 'fathers' are not obligated to hang around, the 'mother' is stuck with the 'baby'. It shouldn't happen, but it does.

But hey, if we had our world all cleaned up, maybe there wouldn't be so many abortions.


As I said before, this is only semantics, really. I agree with you about how if we all cleaned up, there'd be fewer abortions.


Not true. The world has already passed the sustainable population. Every extra mouth we bring into this world is causing another death elsewhere. Every extra mouth brought into the West (at least, above the poverty line), is causing dozens of deaths elsewhere.

You are placing the rights of the individual above the rights of the species - which is surely totally anathema to the argument Pro-Life is supposed to make?



I'm not sure where you got this information, but I've heard much different. I've heard that starvation problems are more to do with the transportation, monetary cost, and overall logistics of getting food to where it is needed. This point comes down to the fact that neither one of us has a source. However, it doesn't intuitivly make sense to me at all that the world is "taxed" and can't feed anyone else.


I don't think abortion is convenient. I think it is a surgery, and therefore carries risks. I think it is expensive in many places, and therefore carries financial burden. I think it is a moral decision for the individual... and they have to live with that choice. But, I still argue that that choice SHOULD be their choice.

This stinks of relativism. We've spent how much time arguing the morality of this subject and you still say something like this? It's either right or wrong. This is why I say so many people make decisions based on convinience (abortion is much cheaper and easier than raising a child!). People don't get the decision on whether or not to steal, rape or murder. So why do they get the decision on abortion? Abortion is either wrong, or not. If it's wrong, then that means that there is a clear victim. If it's not wrong, then there is no tough decision, except for what is convinient, to make is there?

One last thing. Of course, you are right about the bible being largely metaphor, written by man, etc.

I think we can both agree that years of studying, historical cross examining, and apologetics can (and have) been used to gain a better understanding of what the bible means. I don't have any first hand experience with this, but I've talked to people who have and they were stoutly pro-life. Of course, I'm sure some bible researchers are also pro-choice. So who are we to believe?

Despite the destructive nature of many parts of the bible, the old testemant's angry God in particularly, most people would say that the resounding message of the bible is that of love. Loving your neighbor, self sacrafice in the service of others, etc. To me the pro-life message is in accordance to that, and the pro-choice message isn't.

One last example. Let's say reproduction occured like this: A couple willingly flips a switch, and ten minutes later, they have a baby. Let's say that there was a law stating that once the switch was turned, you had to take care of that baby and that the baby could not be terminated under any circumstances during the ten minute wait to birth.

How many people would have a problem with that law? Would there be big protests talking about the woman's right to choose if she can or cannot stop the birth of her child during that ten minutes? No. The couple's will have already thought all this through. If they want to have a child, they'll flip the switch, if they don't, they wont. Obviously life isn't like this. So what's the point of the story?

People are pro-choice based on convinience. If child birth wasn't difficult and if it wasn't so easy to get accidently pregnent, then abortion wouldn't be an issue. Considering this, how could one say that the pro-choice stance is based off of anything but convinience or in some cases desperation? As sad as those desperate cases are, desperation is not the motive we need to consider when we make moral decisions.

One last story. This applies to morals, rationalization and relativism. When I was in middle school, I would bang up against the vending maching to try to get any lose candy bars for free. Boy, did I try to rationalize the "do not steal rule". The "thou shall not murder rule", that seemed fine with me, but "do not steal", that didn't apply to me, did it? Certainly not to my situation. The candy bar was coming down one way or another, I might as well get it for free, right?

The point of this story is to point our how people (myself included) are perfectly fine with a rule until it applies to them. When talking about the "thou shall not murder" rule, people get into the same sort of mentality. "The candybar was just hanging there anyway, it's not really stealing!"

I find that there are situations where I'm trying to judge whether a rule applies to me in a certain situation. If the rule not applying to me would be more convinient, I find that that's when the rule just about always does apply to me. Eventually, you have to say "no" to trying to get a free candy bar because just because it is easier, doesn't make it right.

Note that I'm not saying that just because something is easy or convinient, that it is automatically wrong. However, I'm saying that the fact that the pro-choice argument is based around convinientness, that is an indicator that it is wrong.

That's why listening to your conscience is important. The idea of "conscience" is so abstract, yet it's something everybody can identify with.

I stick by my argument that I hold for many things. If it has not experienced life, it has no right to it. Up to second term, yes, despite some opposition that free range abortion would have from me, I still believe it should be allowed for the mere point of what I first said. Once the abortion can actually damage the mother, then no, it means keeping it and/or adopting it out is the only thing that should be allowed, mainly for the mothers safety (unless a condition requires it after such time).

The most loose and somewhat ridiculous example would be to raise a child in a small containment room, without any outside contact other then what was engineered to happen, something like that means that that (as it would grow up) man, has no right to the world or the rights imposed on mankind, only the things that its keeper decides. This is only because it has yet to have an effect on the world, to be in the world, or even know of it. Its at its keepers mercy simply because it knows nothing else. A unrelated example would be how communism can work. People would not be soo gun ho to change to the better lifestyle of capitalism had they not actually known that life existed outside of communism.

Anyway, on topic. Had this man been somehow able to escape from his keepers and finds anything outside of his engineered surroundings. Be it the lab outside of the walls, another man who was not meant to meet or even the sky. Then he has taken effect upon the world, he has won his rights to life. That is how someone becomes a human, in the womb they are simply a life, waiting to be born, not a life within itself.

Until I hear something else, this is what I'm going with. Feel free to bring to my attention another credible source.


Okay. Well, Let's just pick the first statistic you mentioned... the heartbeat of the foetus... now, when did you say it was first observable, a matter of only a few days, I think. (16 did you say? Curses, I can't remember).

Well, your figure is far, far on the low side. First... without special imaging technology, it is almost impossible to 'hear' a decent 'heartbeat' before 8 weeks, and most commercially available monitors won't pick anything up till 12 weeks.

The actual 'activation' point for 'heartbeat' (I use the term advisedly, because although it beats, it is very unlike what we would call a proper heart) is round about the 5-7 weeks mark. Almost no heartbeats are seen before 5 weeks... most start 'during' that week or after.

The human embryonic heart rate (EHR) accelerates at 3.3 beats per minute per day during the first month of beating. Beginning at a rate near the mother’s, at approximately 80-85 B/M at the start of the 5th week, the heart rate accelerates to a mean of 175 B/M (+/-20 = 2SD) at 9.2 LMP weeks. It then abruptly begins to decelerate. This increase is approximately 10 beats every 3 days until the early 9th week.

http://www.obgyn.net/english/pubs/features/dubose/ehr-age.htm


That wasn't my point. I think we can both agree that an unborn child is different than the afterbirth, right? However, having it's own DNA is certainly one sign that it is alive.


But the afterbirth and the foetus are both formed from the same tissue. How do YOU explain that life begins at conception, when half of the tissue forms a interface for the other half? By your definition that placenta is a human life, since it contains the right DNA, is formed at conception, and is clearly live tissue.

I argue that, until a milestone is reached that definitively differentiates between the two (and, sorry, but the shape won't do it... all mammalian foetuses look pretty similar), the placenta and the foetus are equal in 'human life' status. For me, the difference would be a nervous sytem.


As I said before, this is only semantics, really. I agree with you about how if we all cleaned up, there'd be fewer abortions.


Then the anti-abortionists should divert their attention elsewhere. If they spent less time worrying about the insides of other people's uteri, and more time trying to improve the lot of those already alive, they would see a greater return in number of un-aborted 'babies'.


I'm not sure where you got this information, but I've heard much different. I've heard that starvation problems are more to do with the transportation, monetary cost, and overall logistics of getting food to where it is needed. This point comes down to the fact that neither one of us has a source. However, it doesn't intuitivly make sense to me at all that the world is "taxed" and can't feed anyone else.


I got the information from the fact that the current world population is three or more times that which the world can sustain. We are only 'surviving' so far because fossil fuels have displaced a lot of the problems... but these are temporary fixes, the issues will still remain after fossil fuels expire.

The other reason is that, while those in the west have a somewhat acceptable lifestyle (for the most part... even those below the poverty line are in relative comfort compared to some...) most of the rest of the world is starving.

http://www.sunpath-designs.com/maxpop/

Now - part of this is due to the economics of the situation, yes. The poor of most nations cannot afford food, but even this is linked to populations... if the west were not so heavily populated, countries in the third world would not be doing such brisk business with them - and more of the resources would stay where they are arguably needed most... in the west itself, there is a huge disparity between availabilty of food for the rich and the poor.


This stinks of relativism. We've spent how much time arguing the morality of this subject and you still say something like this? It's either right or wrong. This is why I say so many people make decisions based on convinience (abortion is much cheaper and easier than raising a child!). People don't get the decision on whether or not to steal, rape or murder. So why do they get the decision on abortion? Abortion is either wrong, or not. If it's wrong, then that means that there is a clear victim. If it's not wrong, then there is no tough decision, except for what is convinient, to make is there?

I am just arguing that abortion ISN'T convenient. I disagree with your assertion that abortion - per se - is wrong. I am, therefore, forced into another camp... where I believe abortion MAY be right.
But, I am not arguing that convenience is the big factor.

Many women DO NOT WANT A CHILD. They amy want one later, but they may not want one now. They may not have the resources to cope with pregnancy, let alone childbirth.

To attempt to airbrush the whole spectrum of abortion as 'people CHOOSING to abort, because then they can go out on saturday nights' is, you must realise, a ridiculous trivialisation of the issue.

One last example. Let's say reproduction occured like this: A couple willingly flips a switch, and ten minutes later, they have a baby. Let's say that there was a law stating that once the switch was turned, you had to take care of that baby and that the baby could not be terminated under any circumstances during the ten minute wait to birth.

How many people would have a problem with that law? Would there be big protests talking about the woman's right to choose if she can or cannot stop the birth of her child during that ten minutes? No. The couple's will have already thought all this through. If they want to have a child, they'll flip the switch, if they don't, they wont. Obviously life isn't like this. So what's the point of the story?


In your idyllic world, there is no rape... there is no coercion, and both of the people in your 'couple' want the same thing. So - it bears no relation to the real world - 10 minute switch, or not.


People are pro-choice based on convinience. If child birth wasn't difficult and if it wasn't so easy to get accidently pregnent, then abortion wouldn't be an issue. Considering this, how could one say that the pro-choice stance is based off of anything but convinience or in some cases desperation? As sad as those desperate cases are, desperation is not the motive we need to consider when we make moral decisions.


Childbirth is difficult, you can die. It's easy to make a decision by just writing-off factors as irrelevence to get to the result you want. Sometimes, abortion is about survival... a girl can see that she will be dead if she tries to bring that child into the world, or she might as well be dead for the life she would inflict on herself and her child.

Sometimes abortion IS about desperation. Desperation for food, desperation for security. Not everyone has the cosy life you seem to have. Desperation to get rid of the constant gnawing painful sickening reminder of the night she got raped. Desperation to blank the horror and betrayal, and how dirty she still feels for the coercion that led to the girl succumbing to her own father. Desperation to run away from the knowledge that, because she was unlucky enough to be born in Texas, she was never taught enough about sex to know what was going on until it was too late.

YOU do not have the right to decide who has a good enough reason.

You have the ability to be there for the distraught woman, regretting her choice. Be her shoulder to cry on. But, don't you dare ever presume to judge her. You have the ability to help the girl who aborted, and KNOWS that it was right, but still feels sad. You have the ability to be an ear for some of those countless thousands every year who suicide, over this issue or one like it... because they can't take the pressure of a world of condemnation.

If there is a lesson of good to be learned from the bible, it isn't love. Love, we can do anyway. It is compassion. It is mercy. It is forgiveness.

It is you sacrificing your religious 'correctness' to help those who truly are less fortunate.


Note that I'm not saying that just because something is easy or convinient, that it is automatically wrong. However, I'm saying that the fact that the pro-choice argument is based around convinientness, that is an indicator that it is wrong.


You see the argument as based on convenience. Others see it differently.
So, by your token, that is an indicator that it is right?


That's why listening to your conscience is important. The idea of "conscience" is so abstract, yet it's something everybody can identify with.

Except that my conscience tells me very different things to yours. And, someone else can have a very different view again.

The kid at school who has NO money. Is it as 'wrong' for him to want that candy bar? He last ate a meal a week ago... tell me how his conscience identifies with yours?

If there is a lesson of good to be learned from the bible, it isn't love. Love, we can do anyway. It is compassion. It is mercy. It is forgiveness.

It is you sacrificing your religious 'correctness' to help those who truly are less fortunate.

Nice. I really don't care for this thread much, as everything's pretty much getting repeated over and over. But nice touch on the religious correctness.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It doesn't mean you go to hell while meaning well. It means you willingly march into hell to spare someone else the same journey. Abortion ties in closely with this mini-philosophy.

If it's about survival or desperation, fine. I personally consider it extremely irresponisble if the woman had consentual sex, but that's just my opinion. Again, nice spin on the 'compassion' aspect of the arguement/discussion.

Do You Know? That the taking of a human life by abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON!

wrong. in the US, third-trimester abortions are ONLY performed in cases of medical necessity (when failing to do so would put the woman at significant risk) or in cases where the fetus is already dead.

Do You Know? At 18 days after conception, a baby has a heartbeat.

at 18 days after conception the embryonic area is shaped like a pear, and doesn't even have blood vessels, let alone anything resembling a heart that can beat.

Do You Know? At 6 weeks following conception, the babies brain waves can be measured.

nope. at six weeks, ridges demarcating the three future sections of the brain (midbrain, forebrain and hindbrain) will have appeared; the spinal cord wall at this stage contains three zones: the ventricular, the mantle and the marginal. the ventricular zone will form neurons, glial cells and ependymal cells, the intermediate mantle will form neuron clusters and the marginal zone will contain processes of neurons. there is NO brain function because neurons have not formed yet. it would be impossible to measure "brain waves," since the structures that produce them don't exist in the fetus at
this stage.


At 8 weeks after conception, the stomach, liver, and kidneys of the baby are functioning, and fingerprints have formed.

wrong. at 8 weeks those structures BEGIN forming, as the intestine lengthens and reteric bud lengthens and its tip expands. those organs are NOT functioning, since they have just barely begun to differentiate. hell, the ureter (which will later become the tube that takes material out of the kidneys) hasn't even started forming, so the kidneys couldn't possibly be functioning.

as for fingerprints, the hands have yet to differentiate to the point with decisive fingers. the hand region of the upper limb bud has differentiated to form a central carpal part and a digital plate, but there are no fingers yet. so i'd like to know exactly how that would work.


At 9 weeks, the unborn child can feel pain.

unknown. no brain activity is even possible until about two months after conception, and therefore it is not possible for a fetus at 9 weeks to experience pain the way a human being does. however, even single-cell organisms will recoil from aversive stimulation, so if you want to call that "feeling pain" it is more a matter of opinion than of science.


Do You Know? That 700,000 abortions are performed each year in America after 9 weeks into the pregnancy.
sure, and almost a million before 9 weeks. so?


Do You Know? The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control. Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest; 1% because of fetal abnormalities; 3% due to the mother's health problems.


well, it's close to 4% for fetal abnormalities, 2% for rape/incest, and another 4% for mother's heath problems. but yes, the majority of American abortions are performed for elective reasons.


Do You Know? For every two babies born another baby dies in an abortion

i have yet to hear any stories of babies dying during abortions. no baby is present at abortion procedures, so i don't see how one could be injured or killed.

i have yet to hear any stories of babies dying during abortions. no baby is present at abortion procedures, so i don't see how one could be injured or killed.

Wow. Way to completely miss the point.

Wow. Way to completely miss the point.
there was a point under all that rhetoric?

there was a point under all that rhetoric?

It seems to me that just a little bit of compromise would go a long way. He was saying that out of the "possibly-soon-to-be-but-not-yet-actually-living-yet-but-still-pretty-close-babies" (politically correct enough for everyone?), 1 out of 3 are killed outright. Of that third, roughly 90% are killed because the parents wanted sex for pleasure and wound up with a pregnancy.

Why can't we just say that abortion is legal for emergancies like rape or a mother who probably wouldn't survive pregnancy. Most pro-life people, I imagine, would agree that the main reason abortion is bad is because the whole problem could be avoided with a little bit of maturity. I'm 22, and I've had 4 very beautiful girlfriends. I have had AMPLE chances to have sex. I have chosen not to, because I knew full well that I might create life I couldn't hope to support.

To put yourself above another potential life is unethical, whether it has a heart or nerves or whatever. If it's about necessity, fine. Do what needs to be done. If it's about rape or survial, fine. But most of the time it's NOT about those things. It's about people putting themselves first. That's the point.

It seems to me that just a little bit of compromise would go a long way. He was saying that out of the "possibly-soon-to-be-but-not-yet-actually-living-yet-but-still-pretty-close-babies" (politically correct enough for everyone?), 1 out of 3 are killed outright. Of that third, roughly 90% are killed because the parents wanted sex for pleasure and wound up with a pregnancy.

Why can't we just say that abortion is legal for emergancies like rape or a mother who probably wouldn't survive pregnancy. Most pro-life people, I imagine, would agree that the main reason abortion is bad is because the whole problem could be avoided with a little bit of maturity. I'm 22, and I've had 4 very beautiful girlfriends. I have had AMPLE chances to have sex. I have chosen not to, because I knew full well that I might create life I couldn't hope to support.

To put yourself above another potential life is unethical, whether it has a heart or nerves or whatever. If it's about necessity, fine. Do what needs to be done. If it's about rape or survial, fine. But most of the time it's NOT about those things. It's about people putting themselves first. That's the point.
if you acknowledge that a pile of nails and lumber is a house, i will acknowledge a fetus is a baby.

but beyond that, to me it doesn't matter if the fetus is a baby or not, i would still support abortion rights for ANY reason at ANY time. no human being can be forced to co-opt their body for the maintenance of another, no matter what the circumstances, so a woman has the right to have a fetus removed from her body at any time. i think that once a fetus reaches the point of viability it should be removed intact when possible, and allowed a chance to survive and develop into a person, but the woman has the right to have it removed one way or another at any time she pleases.

It seems to me that just a little bit of compromise would go a long way. He was saying that out of the "possibly-soon-to-be-but-not-yet-actually-living-yet-but-still-pretty-close-babies" (politically correct enough for everyone?), 1 out of 3 are killed outright. Of that third, roughly 90% are killed because the parents wanted sex for pleasure and wound up with a pregnancy.

Why can't we just say that abortion is legal for emergancies like rape or a mother who probably wouldn't survive pregnancy. Most pro-life people, I imagine, would agree that the main reason abortion is bad is because the whole problem could be avoided with a little bit of maturity. I'm 22, and I've had 4 very beautiful girlfriends. I have had AMPLE chances to have sex. I have chosen not to, because I knew full well that I might create life I couldn't hope to support.

To put yourself above another potential life is unethical, whether it has a heart or nerves or whatever. If it's about necessity, fine. Do what needs to be done. If it's about rape or survial, fine. But most of the time it's NOT about those things. It's about people putting themselves first. That's the point.

You are part of a minority, my friend.

Unfortunately, most guys want to have sex. Pretty much all the time. And, while many don't, all the time. Some do, all the time.

The problem arises that the man puts himself first, and the woman is left holding the baby.

As I have said a fair few times... I believe there are different delineations of rape.

There is the out-and-out rape, where there is a violent sex attack.

There is rape, which people don't think is rape: e.g. rape IN marriage... which finally has legal recognition, but STILL many women don't think they can claim it as rape, because of their 'vows', etc.

There is rape, with 'consent': This is coercion... this is where the girl is pestered, tricked, etc. into sex that is 'legally speaking' consensual.

There is rape, through ignorance: this is where a girl doesn't say know because either a) she doesn't know HOW to stop a sexual advance, b) she isn't aware that it IS a sexual advance until it is too late or c) she was unlucky enough to be raised in an area where they avoid discussing sex-education, and she wasn't even aware that she was having sex until way too late, if at all.

You are part of a minority, my friend.

Unfortunately, most guys want to have sex. Pretty much all the time. And, while many don't, all the time. Some do, all the time.

The problem arises that the man puts himself first, and the woman is left holding the baby.

As I have said a fair few times... I believe there are different delineations of rape.

There is the out-and-out rape, where there is a violent sex attack.

There is rape, which people don't think is rape: e.g. rape IN marriage... which finally has legal recognition, but STILL many women don't think they can claim it as rape, because of their 'vows', etc.

There is rape, with 'consent': This is coercion... this is where the girl is pestered, tricked, etc. into sex that is 'legally speaking' consensual.

There is rape, through ignorance: this is where a girl doesn't say know because either a) she doesn't know HOW to stop a sexual advance, b) she isn't aware that it IS a sexual advance until it is too late or c) she was unlucky enough to be raised in an area where they avoid discussing sex-education, and she wasn't even aware that she was having sex until way too late, if at all.


I won't disagree with any of that. It just seems like this whole thread has come to a straightforward conclusion:

You and Bottle say abortion is ok because it is sometimes necessary.

The other guy (too lazy to look it up, sorry other guy) says abortion is not ok because it is mainly unnecessary and selfish. It seems like a lot of teeth-gnashing and headache would be avoided if everyone agreed upon these conditions and boundries.




Feel free to respond, that's perfectly fair. But I'm going home now, so don't expect a response. No offense. G'night.

You and Bottle say abortion is ok because it is sometimes necessary.

i say abortion is okay for the same reason any medical procedure is okay; sometimes it is necessary, sometimes it is simply desired by the patient. i think having breast implants put in is okay, even though that is not a necessary procedure, and i believe ending a healthy pregnancy is okay even if it is not medically necessary.

You and Bottle say abortion is ok because it is sometimes necessary.



Actually... although that IS true, and a fair representation of my view... my biggest thing is that nobody else should have the right to decide what goes on inside a woman's uterus. Certainly not for reasons as subjective as an uneasy feeling about what 'abortion' is, or what one person's faith tells them.

It is bad enough that our culture is (still) geared so heavily towards men, and it is even worse that our society tries to foster ignorance, and laud guilt.

In a society as far from perfect as ours (and we all know, it could be much closer to ideal, with just a little effort...) I argue that the right to control her uterus is a necessity for the 21st century woman.

Sorry but thats just sexist rubbish and a huge generalisation, cleanliness is up to the individual, its not determined by what sex you are.

I suppose it wouldn't make any difference to tell you that I was a man and every man I know can't keep his home clean....

yeah, I didn't think that would matter.

Okay, time for a comparative analogy (because they're ever so fun)

I'm going to put the literal counter-part to various metaphorical devices in brackets, to help everyone follow :p.

Imagine for a moment that everytime you shook hands with someone (intercourse) there was a chance of a being (fetus) forming due to the intermingling of your sweat (sex cells). People would wear gloves (condoms :p) and deoderant (the pill, or similar measures) to prevent this happening, but would continue shaking hands because it's now socially acceptable and aids relationships forming. But if the gloves/deoderant fails, you get lumped with this 'being'. In this example there's no 'womb'. It starts off as a lump at the base of your neck. As it grows, it lives off your blood. It sucks the calcium right out of your bones. It causes hormonal changes in your body that cause you to feel violently ill, gain weight to the point you can barely function in society. It contributes nothing to your life at this point.

Now, you could either wait until it gets larger, and becomes a full-grown humanoid. Or you could have it removed. Up to a point, it is mindless (literally, having no nerve system to process sensations), and is nothing more than a parasite, living off what your body gives it.

If you want to keep it, or are squemish about killing things, then yes, by all means raise the being and try and give it a good life in the world. But if you do not want that thing, why on earth should you give it your BLOOD and CALCIUM and any other number of resources, just because preventative measures failed?

Because it might one day live seperate from you? Well, if it is surgically removed, it shan't. So... what, exactly? It is not currently able to live seperate, so as long as it's disposed of NOW and not later (when it's fully conscious), what exactly is the problem? I can't claim disability welfare just because one day I MIGHT injure myself (and probably will). Why should a parasitic entity, devoid of anything resembling self-awareness, get rights that INFRINGE on my ability to have a parasitic growth removed, based on what MIGHT happen?

-------------------
And this rant is brought to you by 1 and 1/2 hours sleep, and a whoooole bunch of sugar. But I'll stand by most of it anyway :p

(I also want to thank Grave n Idle, Goed and Bottle for being the lights of hope in this forum... in these long threads I tend to jump around looking for posts from you three 'cause they're always such a pleasure to read)

Hmm, sugar + sleep deprivation -> idol worship? In-t-eresting...

Susa states she's opposed to abortion, but doesn't state the reason(s). Then Susa goes on to make exceptions to the opposition in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.

If we assume Susa's objections to abortion are because the procedure ends a human life (the most common reason for opposing abortion) then we have to question why Susa then goes on to allow exceptions? In all the allowed exceptions the procedure still ends the life(/chance for life) of an equivalent entity. A fetus created through rape or incest is no different than one created through consentual intercourse.

Personally I would prefer no person ever have an abortion, but I also prefer that there are no laws preventing it. I think the best way to realize this is for people to work to alleviate the numerous causes that lead to a pregnancy being unwanted. This is where the real pro-life effort lies. The group bearing that name is more about pro-law than pro-life.

Okay, time for a comparative analogy (because they're ever so fun)

I'm going to put the literal counter-part to various metaphorical devices in brackets, to help everyone follow :p.

Imagine for a moment that everytime you shook hands with someone (intercourse) there was a chance of a being (fetus) forming due to the intermingling of your sweat (sex cells). People would wear gloves (condoms :p) and deoderant (the pill, or similar measures) to prevent this happening, but would continue shaking hands because it's now socially acceptable and aids relationships forming. But if the gloves/deoderant fails, you get lumped with this 'being'. In this example there's no 'womb'. It starts off as a lump at the base of your neck. As it grows, it lives off your blood. It sucks the calcium right out of your bones. It causes hormonal changes in your body that cause you to feel violently ill, gain weight to the point you can barely function in society. It contributes nothing to your life at this point.

Now, you could either wait until it gets larger, and becomes a full-grown humanoid. Or you could have it removed. Up to a point, it is mindless (literally, having no nerve system to process sensations), and is nothing more than a parasite, living off what your body gives it.

If you want to keep it, or are squemish about killing things, then yes, by all means raise the being and try and give it a good life in the world. But if you do not want that thing, why on earth should you give it your BLOOD and CALCIUM and any other number of resources, just because preventative measures failed?

Because it might one day live seperate from you? Well, if it is surgically removed, it shan't. So... what, exactly? It is not currently able to live seperate, so as long as it's disposed of NOW and not later (when it's fully conscious), what exactly is the problem? I can't claim disability welfare just because one day I MIGHT injure myself (and probably will). Why should a parasitic entity, devoid of anything resembling self-awareness, get rights that INFRINGE on my ability to have a parasitic growth removed, based on what MIGHT happen?

-------------------
And this rant is brought to you by 1 and 1/2 hours sleep, and a whoooole bunch of sugar. But I'll stand by most of it anyway :p

(I also want to thank Grave n Idle, Goed and Bottle for being the lights of hope in this forum... in these long threads I tend to jump around looking for posts from you three 'cause they're always such a pleasure to read)

Hmm, sugar + sleep deprivation -> idol worship? In-t-eresting...

I agree...to a point. In a 9 1/2 - 10 month pregnancy....there is plenty of time to decide that it is not wanted. A ban on late term abortion is important I think, as at that point there has been sufficient time to decide whether to keep the undeveloped child, and it can possibly survive once it hits that point (7 months I believe)

Something else to rembember for those against abortion...just because someone is pro choice does not mean they are pro abortion. I believe strongly in a woman's right to choose, though I don't think abortion is the right choice.

Something else to rembember for those against abortion...just because someone is pro choice does not mean they are pro abortion. I believe strongly in a woman's right to choose, though I don't think abortion is the right choice.

I don't get this stance, although it was shared by many in this forum. I think there's one reason to be against abortion, and that's because one thinks it is killing. So how can a person recognize it as killing and still think it's ok? Obviously, if one believes that abortion if murder, it's also plain to see that the victims of the crime cannot defend themselves.

This is why I don't get the "Abortion is wrong, but I believe in the right to choose" stance. In fact, I think it's worse that being pro-choice because you acknowledge the worth of the baby, yet think it's ok for the killing of it to go on.

Okay, time for a comparative analogy (because they're ever so fun)

I'm going to put the literal counter-part to various metaphorical devices in brackets, to help everyone follow :p.

Imagine for a moment that everytime you shook hands with someone (intercourse) there was a chance of a being (fetus) forming due to the intermingling of your sweat (sex cells). People would wear gloves (condoms :p) and deoderant (the pill, or similar measures) to prevent this happening, but would continue shaking hands because it's now socially acceptable and aids relationships forming. But if the gloves/deoderant fails, you get lumped with this 'being'. In this example there's no 'womb'. It starts off as a lump at the base of your neck. As it grows, it lives off your blood. It sucks the calcium right out of your bones. It causes hormonal changes in your body that cause you to feel violently ill, gain weight to the point you can barely function in society. It contributes nothing to your life at this point.

Now, you could either wait until it gets larger, and becomes a full-grown humanoid. Or you could have it removed. Up to a point, it is mindless (literally, having no nerve system to process sensations), and is nothing more than a parasite, living off what your body gives it.

If you want to keep it, or are squemish about killing things, then yes, by all means raise the being and try and give it a good life in the world. But if you do not want that thing, why on earth should you give it your BLOOD and CALCIUM and any other number of resources, just because preventative measures failed?

Because it might one day live seperate from you? Well, if it is surgically removed, it shan't. So... what, exactly? It is not currently able to live seperate, so as long as it's disposed of NOW and not later (when it's fully conscious), what exactly is the problem? I can't claim disability welfare just because one day I MIGHT injure myself (and probably will). Why should a parasitic entity, devoid of anything resembling self-awareness, get rights that INFRINGE on my ability to have a parasitic growth removed, based on what MIGHT happen?

-------------------
And this rant is brought to you by 1 and 1/2 hours sleep, and a whoooole bunch of sugar. But I'll stand by most of it anyway :p

(I also want to thank Grave n Idle, Goed and Bottle for being the lights of hope in this forum... in these long threads I tend to jump around looking for posts from you three 'cause they're always such a pleasure to read)

Hmm, sugar + sleep deprivation -> idol worship? In-t-eresting...


You make it sound as if the baby is no better than a tapeworm. See my previous posts as to why I don't think this is true, and why any attempt to classify as such is arbitrary.

I don't get this stance, although it was shared by many in this forum. I think there's one reason to be against abortion, and that's because one thinks it is killing. So how can a person recognize it as killing and still think it's ok? Obviously, if one believes that abortion if murder, it's also plain to see that the victims of the crime cannot defend themselves.

This is why I don't get the "Abortion is wrong, but I believe in the right to choose" stance. In fact, I think it's worse that being pro-choice because you acknowledge the worth of the baby, yet think it's ok for the killing of it to go on.
let's see if i can be of any help:

1. not all killing is murder, and many people believe there are times when killing is justified.

2. one does not have to believe abortion is murder to believe it is wrong. many people (including one of my close friends) believe that ending the life of a fetus is NOT as wrong as ending the life of a person, but that ending the life of a fetus is still tragic because it denies all the possibilities that might come from that fetus if it were allowed to develop.

3. many people also believe that abortion is very wrong, and they would love to stop it, but they agree that making abortion illegal is not the way to stop it. as we saw with Prohibition, making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, it just makes the conditions for doing that thing much less safe and also results in the punishment of those who engage in the given behavior.

for instance, many people believe (as history supports) that abortion would still occur if it were made illegal, but that the conditions would be horrific and would most often result in both woman and fetus dying or suffering significant injury. some think that it is important to protect the health of women, and that it is better for a woman to have a safe abortion than a dirty one (if she is going to get it).

also, many people believe that the way to stop women from having abortions is not to take away their human rights, but rather to eliminate the circumstances that lead to a woman seeking an abortion. instead of telling women to stop having sex (which they won't) or telling them to have babies they don't want (which is a hideously immoral position), many people believe that it would be better to educate women and provide them with better access to contraception. combatting rape and dating abuse problems will also help, as will efforts to stop intrafamily sexual crimes. many people believe that all the effort Pro-Life America puts in to taking women's rights away should be better spent making sure women are in a position to exercise those rights in the best possible way.

hope that helps. of course, none of these positions is my own, so if somebody else would like to correct me they should feel free to do so.

I don't get this stance, although it was shared by many in this forum. I think there's one reason to be against abortion, and that's because one thinks it is killing. So how can a person recognize it as killing and still think it's ok? Obviously, if one believes that abortion if murder, it's also plain to see that the victims of the crime cannot defend themselves.

This is why I don't get the "Abortion is wrong, but I believe in the right to choose" stance. In fact, I think it's worse that being pro-choice because you acknowledge the worth of the baby, yet think it's ok for the killing of it to go on.

is it worse? I think that the killing of a baby in the womb is atrocious. But I live in America. I think taking away someone's right to choose is just as atrocious. This country stands for freedom, and for every law that is made restricting that freedom, this country becomes less free. I advocate freedom.

People are free to make their own choices. There is maybe 10 people in life that it would affect me directly if they had an abortion. Only one with whom I have any real say (my wife). Why should I fight for and push for a blanket resolution that would affect everyone? That would open the door to those who would want to restrict my freedom to worship, to choose which religion and which church I take part in.

Abolishing the freedom to choose, in any situation, is rarely the right choice...

I stand by what I said before though, by the 7 month mark a woman has had plenty of time to decide if she will keep the child or not. After that point abortions should not be allowed as the child could be self sustaining, and thus be murder.

Actually... although that IS true, and a fair representation of my view... my biggest thing is that nobody else should have the right to decide what goes on inside a woman's uterus. Certainly not for reasons as subjective as an uneasy feeling about what 'abortion' is, or what one person's faith tells them.

It is bad enough that our culture is (still) geared so heavily towards men, and it is even worse that our society tries to foster ignorance, and laud guilt.

In a society as far from perfect as ours (and we all know, it could be much closer to ideal, with just a little effort...) I argue that the right to control her uterus is a necessity for the 21st century woman.

Ok, now you're back to rhetoric. What if I said, I'm pro-choice, too? I'm all for the baby's right to choose whether or not she lives. I place the baby's right to live, and anyone's right to live over anything else. I would feel the exact same way about abortion if it were men who had to have babies and not women. To say that Pro-lifers are anti-women is just stupid. I'm all against abortion no matter what the gender of the baby.

Say that a family member has serious head injury, but appears to be recovering slowly. Can I just kill him because afterall, he isn't conscience to make the decision and can't even think for himself. Also, he's costing me thousands of dollars and a bunch of heartache and hard work having to come visit him. You don't see a problem with that?

is it worse? I think that the killing of a baby in the womb is atrocious. But I live in America. I think taking away someone's right to choose is just as atrocious. This country stands for freedom, and for every law that is made restricting that freedom, this country becomes less free. I advocate freedom.

People are free to make their own choices. There is maybe 10 people in life that it would affect me directly if they had an abortion. Only one with whom I have any real say (my wife). Why should I fight for and push for a blanket resolution that would affect everyone? That would open the door to those who would want to restrict my freedom to worship, to choose which religion and which church I take part in.

Abolishing the freedom to choose, in any situation, is rarely the right choice...

I stand by what I said before though, by the 7 month mark a woman has had plenty of time to decide if she will keep the child or not. After that point abortions should not be allowed as the child could be self sustaining, and thus be murder.

Let me ask you this. Are we free to murder people? No. Why? Because in murder, there are victims. If you believe abortion is wrong, you also believe that there are victims there, too. Murder is illegal because you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't have both the right to kill and the right to live. This is obvious. With abortion, you don't have to give up your right to life to support it. This is because you're already born and abortion doesn't apply to you. This is why it's so easy to adopt a casual attitude toward abortion, even if you think it's wrong. Abortion cannot directly affect us who are already born, so it's easy to not care about it.

How would you feel is someone killed your parents, but got off scott free because this is america and we're free to do what we want. If you believe that abortion is wrong, you should see that there are victims to this crime, too. In fact, it's probably more important to speak out against abortion because obviously the babies can't do it themselves.

Anyway, it's something to think about. Perhaps it's time to reconsider what "freedom" truly is and to think about the freedom of the unborn baby.

I'm sorry if I sounded accusitory in my previous post. It's just been an issue that I've seen lately, especially in recent politics.

Let me ask you this. Are we free to murder people? No. Why? Because in murder, there are victims. If you believe abortion is wrong, you also believe that there are victims there, too. Murder is illegal because you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't have both the right to kill and the right to live. This is obvious. With abortion, you don't have to give up your right to life to support it. This is because you're already born and abortion doesn't apply to you. This is why it's so easy to adopt a casual attitude toward abortion, even if you think it's wrong. Abortion cannot directly affect us who are already born, so it's easy to not care about it.

How would you feel is someone killed your parents, but got off scott free because this is america and we're free to do what we want. If you believe that abortion is wrong, you should see that there are victims to this crime, too. In fact, it's probably more important to speak out against abortion because obviously the babies can't do it themselves.

I posted this earlier, but it got missed:


murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice"

human is defined as "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. "

killing is defined as: "To put to death."

Therefore, we have murder defined as: The unlawful putting to death of one member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Abortion cannot be murder, as it is not unlawful.

**definitions provided by dictionary.com


People have the choice to commit murder as well. There are consequences for following through with that choice though.

I cannot take such a firm stance on abortion because up until 6/7 months of age the child cannot live on its own. It is dependant upon the woman it is in to survive. Once this point has passed, however, then it becomes murder.

And abortion does have consequences. Just ask anyone who's had one. Ask them how old their little boy or girl would be today if they hadn't had an abortion. Abortion is not without its consequences.

Note: The unborn child mentioned above is referred to as 'it' in order to avoid teh whole he/she mess....(what can I say, I'm lazy)

This is why I don't get the "Abortion is wrong, but I believe in the right to choose" stance. In fact, I think it's worse that being pro-choice because you acknowledge the worth of the baby, yet think it's ok for the killing of it to go on.

Do you acknowledge the worth of a five-year-old child, or of an adult? Yet this society says it's just fine to kill any born human being if they need to use a part of your body to survive, and you don't want to give it.
It might be wrong to deny a helpless five-year-old a pint of blood (which costs you an hour's time and a pinprick), but it's legal. Similarly, it may be wrong to deny a fetus the right to use your entire body, for nine months, costing you a great deal of energy, effort, and pain, but it's legal.
Funny how you anti-abortion types will go on and on about the humanity of the fetus, but are perfectly willing to treat the adult woman as a mindless incubating machine who has no say in how her body is used.

I posted this earlier, but it got missed:



People have the choice to commit murder as well. There are consequences for following through with that choice though.

I cannot take such a firm stance on abortion because up until 6/7 months of age the child cannot live on its own. It is dependant upon the woman it is in to survive. Once this point has passed, however, then it becomes murder.

And abortion does have consequences. Just ask anyone who's had one. Ask them how old their little boy or girl would be today if they hadn't had an abortion. Abortion is not without its consequences.

Note: The unborn child mentioned above is referred to as 'it' in order to avoid teh whole he/she mess....(what can I say, I'm lazy)

As far as calling the fetus an "it", it's ok, I do the same thing. It's easy to get a bit lazy in our language.

A child cannot live on it's own until, oh I don't know how many years old. 5 years old maybe? Some might say more. Anyway, a newborn baby cannot take care of itself and will die if neglected. Technically, we're all dependent on each other. Many would starve if farmers stopped producing food or doctors stopped perfroming surgeries. Is dependence on others really a good way of determining it's worth?

As for consequences, I agree. I've seen couples devestated after having an abortion. This doesn't make it less wrong. Do you think it would be ok if the only consequence of murder is having a "bad feeling". "Sorry, I killed your wife, but I feel really, really bad about it".

Do you acknowledge the worth of a five-year-old child, or of an adult? Yet this society says it's just fine to kill any born human being if they need to use a part of your body to survive, and you don't want to give it.
It might be wrong to deny a helpless five-year-old a pint of blood (which costs you an hour's time and a pinprick), but it's legal. Similarly, it may be wrong to deny a fetus the right to use your entire body, for nine months, costing you a great deal of energy, effort, and pain, but it's legal.
Funny how you anti-abortion types will go on and on about the humanity of the fetus, but are perfectly willing to treat the adult woman as a mindless incubating machine who has no say in how her body is used.

No, I'm saying that the value of the human life inside of her is of far greater importance than the troubles she has to endure during the pregnency. I recognize that it's difficult. Also, like I said earlier, I would feel the same way if men carried the babies or if I myself were pregnent. Also, I know a lot of women who are completely pro-life.

Also, it is very unfortunate when there is not enough blood to go around. That doesn't change abortion being wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right...

As far as calling the fetus an "it", it's ok, I do the same thing. It's easy to get a bit lazy in our language.

A child cannot live on it's own until, oh I don't know how many years old. 5 years old maybe? Some might say more. Anyway, a newborn baby cannot take care of itself and will die if neglected. Technically, we're all dependent on each other. Many would starve if farmers stopped producing food or doctors stopped perfroming surgeries. Is dependence on others really a good way of determining it's worth?

As for consequences, I agree. I've seen couples devestated after having an abortion. This doesn't make it less wrong. Do you think it would be ok if the only consequence of murder is having a "bad feeling". "Sorry, I killed your wife, but I feel really, really bad about it".

See above about the definitions, abortion cannot be called murder. Not according to present day definitions.

However, a newborn can be cared for outside of the womb by...well, anyone with the time and patience to do it. A 4 month old unborn child (fetus) can only exist in the womb. That's it. 7 month old fetus can exist on machines and with enough care. That is where the distinction lies.

The old and infirm need the same amount of care in order to survive, I'm not saying to off them (though it would bring insurance rates down I think...)

I'm not saying that 'feeling bad' excuses murder. I'm saying there are consequences to our actions.

Do you acknowledge the worth of a five-year-old child, or of an adult? Yet this society says it's just fine to kill any born human being if they need to use a part of your body to survive, and you don't want to give it.
It might be wrong to deny a helpless five-year-old a pint of blood (which costs you an hour's time and a pinprick), but it's legal. Similarly, it may be wrong to deny a fetus the right to use your entire body, for nine months, costing you a great deal of energy, effort, and pain, but it's legal.
Funny how you anti-abortion types will go on and on about the humanity of the fetus, but are perfectly willing to treat the adult woman as a mindless incubating machine who has no say in how her body is used.

careful...that's close to insulting the arguer and not the arguement. You shouldn't stereotype anti abortionists (I myself am one) unless you're willing to say that all pro choice people are liberal kooks that don't value human life...

And the woman did have a choice before she even became pregnant...yet she engaged in sex in the first place, starting the whole reason for the need for this discussion in the first place. Yes, it takes two, but all the men in teh world can have sex and not have a baby....one woman says yes and the possibility exists...

See above about the definitions, abortion cannot be called murder. Not according to present day definitions.

However, a newborn can be cared for outside of the womb by...well, anyone with the time and patience to do it. A 4 month old unborn child (fetus) can only exist in the womb. That's it. 7 month old fetus can exist on machines and with enough care. That is where the distinction lies.

The old and infirm need the same amount of care in order to survive, I'm not saying to off them (though it would bring insurance rates down I think...)

I'm not saying that 'feeling bad' excuses murder. I'm saying there are consequences to our actions.

Now we're back to the "present day definitions" and how arbitrary they are. See some of my previous posts to see why I don't agree with those definitions. When I was writing to you before, I was writing under the assumption that you believed abortion was wrong, but it was ok for others to do. Now I see that our true difference in opinion lies in whether or not abortion is wrong. In your case, you've put the label of "before 7 months" is ok. Again, see my previous posts to see why I think it's dangerous to be so arbitrary.

Now we're back to the "present day definitions" and how arbitrary they are. See some of my previous posts to see why I don't agree with those definitions. When I was writing to you before, I was writing under the assumption that you believed abortion was wrong, but it was ok for others to do. Now I see that our true difference in opinion lies in whether or not abortion is wrong. In your case, you've put the label of "before 7 months" is ok. Again, see my previous posts to see why I think it's dangerous to be so arbitrary.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I also don't see abortion as ok, at any time frame. I would never counsel anyone to go have one.

But...I live in a country of freedom. I live in a country where restricting that freedom is always costly (see Bush's Patriot Act and overtime laws for example)....

I cannot say "No, you chose to have sex, now you're damned for the rest of your life." or for the next year, or for the next...whatever.

I am against abortion and think it is wrong and heinous, but I have to choose where to draw the battle line. Abortion will never be made illegal, so logically pursuing that tactic will result in frustration and heartache. I will always fight for the unborn child, but making a law to do it is stupid and friviolous. If we are debating the law, no later than 7 months. If we're talking personal philosophy...then never, except in extreme cases....

and now that you know where I stand....are you going to write to me different? Do I not deserve respect to you? Am I no longer acceptable as a human being?

Is it possible to abort a baby after it has been born?? Pardon my stupidity but if it is possible,how could anyone even consider killing a child when its up to 4 years old? Its sick. Why is that baby any less important than any other person on the planet?? During Pregnancy, Babies can only be aborted under 28 weeks. At the time, the Fetus is big enough that rather then just taking it out of the womb during an abortion, the have to cut of its limbs to get it out. Its practically brutul murder. That is why i am against abortion.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I also don't see abortion as ok, at any time frame. I would never counsel anyone to go have one.

But...I live in a country of freedom. I live in a country where restricting that freedom is always costly (see Bush's Patriot Act and overtime laws for example)....

I cannot say "No, you chose to have sex, now you're damned for the rest of your life." or for the next year, or for the next...whatever.

I am against abortion and think it is wrong and heinous, but I have to choose where to draw the battle line. Abortion will never be made illegal, so logically pursuing that tactic will result in frustration and heartache. I will always fight for the unborn child, but making a law to do it is stupid and friviolous. If we are debating the law, no later than 7 months. If we're talking personal philosophy...then never, except in extreme cases....

and now that you know where I stand....are you going to write to me different? Do I not deserve respect to you? Am I no longer acceptable as a human being?


I think you're still a bit confused. Yes, I still think you're acceptable as a human being, don't be silly.

But let's look at what you said:

"I cannot take such a firm stance on abortion because up until 6/7 months of age the child cannot live on its own. It is dependant upon the woman it is in to survive. Once this point has passed, however, then it becomes murder."

I also don't see abortion as ok, at any time frame. I would never counsel anyone to go have one.

"I think that the killing of a baby in the womb is atrocious."

"See above about the definitions, abortion cannot be called murder. Not according to present day definitions."

So I don't get what you're saying. I still think you think it's wrong, but don't want to impose? Why do you think it's wrong? It seems like you're just reaching for something but haven't gotten it yet.

Let me ask you:
Do you think abortion is wrong? If there are conditions to its wrongness, explain.
If so, why is it wrong?
If so, why shouldn't we try to stop it?

life is not sacred.

I want to keep abortion legal because it will make my life easier. I can think of no instance where having abortion legal would have a negitive effect on my life.

I place no value on another persons life unless their well-being positively affects me. (i.e. family, friends, etc)

Besides, overpopulation is a problem and I encourage population reduction.

To be perfectly honest, I have NEVER seen ANY woman walk into an abortion clinic with a smile on her face. It's a hard enough decision to make for a woman without the usually male right wing cabal trying to make it for her. If you want fewer abortions, then stop making life so miserable for women from an economic standpoint. Tell your Congress people to quit attacking social programs that help these women and increase the amount of funding so more can be done for single moms. And finally, get these deadbeat dads to cough up the $$ they are supposed to.

To be perfectly honest, I have NEVER seen ANY woman walk into an abortion clinic with a smile on her face. It's a hard enough decision to make for a woman without the usually male right wing cabal trying to make it for her. If you want fewer abortions, then stop making life so miserable for women from an economic standpoint. Tell your Congress people to quit attacking social programs that help these women and increase the amount of funding so more can be done for single moms. And finally, get these deadbeat dads to cough up the $$ they are supposed to.

Earlier, I talked about listening to one's conscience when making a decision. I think the fact that the women are so grave about getting abortions shows something about the morality of the issue.

As far as helping mothers and making father's accountable, I agree 100%.

I think you're still a bit confused. Yes, I still think you're acceptable as a human being, don't be silly.

But let's look at what you said:

"I cannot take such a firm stance on abortion because up until 6/7 months of age the child cannot live on its own. It is dependant upon the woman it is in to survive. Once this point has passed, however, then it becomes murder."

I also don't see abortion as ok, at any time frame. I would never counsel anyone to go have one.

"I think that the killing of a baby in the womb is atrocious."

"See above about the definitions, abortion cannot be called murder. Not according to present day definitions."

So I don't get what you're saying. I still think you think it's wrong, but don't want to impose? Why do you think it's wrong? It seems like you're just reaching for something but haven't gotten it yet.

Let me ask you:
Do you think abortion is wrong? If there are conditions to its wrongness, explain.
If so, why is it wrong?
If so, why shouldn't we try to stop it?

are we talking politically or personally?

personally: abortion is wrong. regardless of why, abortion is wrong. It may be necessary in some cases, but it is still wrong.
It is wrong for many reasons, but primarily because the ending of human life, potential or otherwise, is not right. Despite definitions and despite what I may say to the contrary, abortion is never the right choice. It is also wrong for religious reasons...but that's another point entirely.
However, I would never pursue legal means to put a stop to it (and this crosses to political as well). For one it would never work, and if you're going to pick a battle to fight then pick one you stand a chance of winning. I would never pursue a legal method to restrict choice because it opens up to restrict choice in other areas of my life. I choose to be fat. I choose to drive a pickup. I choose to be a Christian, I choose to attend a Missionary church. Because of these choices I make, I cannot force the choice on others, many of whom are non believers in Christ.

Politically...I support the woman's right to choose. And for many reasons stated before now, I support that right up until 6/7 months of pregnancy. By then she has had plenty of time to choose. This is a battle that can and has been won. I will continue to fight this battle.

It is sometimes hard to sort out the whys and hows of political v. personal views. However, to co-exist with our fellow country men, we must.

I'm not confused, not really. I just don't know how to explain what I'm trying to say....

if you support the woman's right to choose you should submit the man's right to choose as well.

a man shouldn't have to pay unless he wants to be a part of the baby's life...

(this wasn't directed at anyone, i removed the quote)

if you support the woman's right to choose you should submit the man's right to choose as well.

a man shouldn't have to pay unless he wants to be a part of the baby's life...

(this wasn't directed at anyone, i removed the quote)

A very interesting point. Equal rights for all! Yay! (Oh, lets not forget: this would let lots of those naughty accidental dads hide from taking responsability.) (sp?)

But really, that is an interesting point. If a woman falls pregnant by accident, the father should be able to choose too: If he does not want the child, she should abort or sign a waiver releasing him from any costs that may be incurred. (I'm not sexist btw, and to be honest would take responsability for any consequences I may cause myself, but there are some people out there who are arseholes, and to accomodate these people is sometimes the only way to keep the relative peace)

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: This whole abortion issue is pointless anyway. I should not even comment on it...

I bet your boyfriend asks you for permission before he farts :) ;)

actually, no, usually he'll warn me though or try to slip it by hoping i won't notice and then we'll laugh about it afterwards. we tend to joke about silly things like that...

You watch way too much Simpsons.

no, i think you watch too much simpsons because that's what you think all men are supposed to do in order to be straight. i also find it funny how you took two cheap, stupid, innacurate shots at the same statement of mine.

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).


Havent you seen the pics of the fetus smiling ?

For me the whole is it human debate is pointless because it is really impossible to tell. Research has supported both sides arguments on that front because both sides are biased. But really as far as I am concirned it is a question of freedom, not right and wrong. If the government tells you what you can and cannot do when it comes to your own body where do we draw the line. As the old expression goes, if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

No Im capable of cleaning up after myself, women if anything seem to be just as messy as us.

as someone who lives with two boys and another girl right now... the guys seem to be creating a bigger mess and they also clean it up less, though that could just be the two of them who are slobs. you also failed to answer bottle's question.

You seem to have a very low opinion of men too.
your answer to that of course: no just ones like you
my reply: I couldnt care less.

i don't think bottle has a low opinion of men, i think that you just take yourself to be the standard of what a man is and so when someone has a low opinion of you, you assume that they must have a low opinion of all but the "sissiest" of men. just because you're a chauvist doesn't mean every other man is.

Ah when it comes to the heavy stuff, not that theres as much now, we usually do.

my mom and dad usually do the heavy stuff together, especially when it comes to bringing furniture up or down stairs.
see, you seem to have this vision of home life where the men do one thing and the women do other things and they never help each other out, but that's simply not how it works, women can help men with the moving of heavy objects just as easily as men can help women do some cleaning. hell, even being kept company during such activities is nice.

and also, you still ignore the study i linked demonstrating that when men help out with the housework, women will have more children.

Well you can have the old stereotypes or the new ones people are being asked to accept, forced might be a better word, I'll take the old ones anyday.

or you could you know, just not stereotype people.
you stereotype your own gender, calling any man who tidies up after himself gay, saying that men who respect women have to ask permission to fart, saying that women are here to procreate et c. not everyone fits conveniently into one category.

If all men were like me, women wouldnt have such low opinions of men, despite the unintelligent thug who beats women up you like to conjure of me, I am sorry to dissapoint, anything but.

if all men were like you, the birthrate would drop to zero as they would have alienated every self respecting woman and would be in teh dog house permanently.

Right, no disrespect but shes not the norm is she.

oh, another stereotype: women can't be strong.

No I clearly said anyone who spends half their lives in Unis is just hiding from the world, going to Uni continuously just for the sake of going to Uni is a waste of time.

1. i'm not hiding from the world. i'm still living in the world, still working, still interacting with other people, educated people and people who are like me, on the way to becoming educated professionals.
2. i'm not just here for the sake of going here. i'm here for the sake of learning and eventually to pursue a career in something i love and am passionate about. hopefully a job where i can learn more and make new, discoveries.
3. don't be hatin' because you aren't smart enough to attend an institute of higher learning. and yes, i'm aware of the slang i used, i figure that perhaps i should dumb my speach down a bit when conversing with you.

"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."

hehe, sorry, that quote was awhile ago... but I'd just like to say (it might have already been said) that abortion causes just as much pyschological pain as pregnancy. Personally, I'm pro-life (though I'm not sure how I feel about abortions for other women... both sides have good points). I think there should be a LOT more teaching of safe sex in school and that men should have to pay up if it's their kid, despite whether they wanted it or not. If it's an accidental pregnancy, I doubt the woman wanted to keep it, but did because of morals... she had to go through all of the pain of pregnancy and delivery (plus any shame or pyschological pain) so the man shouldn't be able to walk away without any responsibility. It just doesn't make sense! Well, anything else I wanted to say must have been already said... so I'll leave it at that. Oh yeah, it seems like a lot of people are ignoring the possibilities of adoption... why?

a fetus is human at conception. not a fish or a tree. that is why it is murder.

it's like saying it's ok to end the life of someone who is old if they don't have full mental capacity.


is an acorn an oak tree?

you see, like an acorn, a fetus only has potential to become a human life, thousands of things can happen in between conception and birth to prevent it from becoming an individual human life.

You label a developing human being as an 'it' for good reason, because you are then absolved from any guilt you might feel, its very PC to have no guilt isnt it?
What about people who die and decay, are they any less human to you for no longer being alive, because they no longer have flesh and organs?

well, a corpse is the remains of a human being. while it is a human corpse, it is not really a human being anymore, it is meerly an empty vessel. there is also a difference here, as the corpse belonged to a human being who was born, whereas the fetus never was.
and calling a fetus an it rather than he or she has a parctical reason: when elective abortions occur, the sex is still indeterminate. if there are no sex organs, then you can't really call it a he or a she.

Well what ever it means its obviously not complimentary, as for flying off into a rage about it, as you like to imgine I would, I would more likely probably laugh then see what happens, and I have given you examples of alternatives I use to pissant in another thread about this, so whether Im not fluent in its exact meaning, I can pretty much guess the drift of it, your a bit hungup on this pissant thing arent you?

why are you using words that you don't know the meaning of? do you think it makes you sound smart?
if you don't know what word someone is using on you, there's a very valuable tool... it's called a dictionary and it's filled with words and what they mean. this way you can get an idea of why you're mad rather than simply assume it's an insult.

And Im happy to be seen as old fashioned, better than whats excepted now.

oh, you mean treating women as equals rather than lower beings? wow, you're right, the old ways were so much better. man, i wish i was still considered property [/sarcasm]

No, I'm saying that the value of the human life inside of her is of far greater importance than the troubles she has to endure during the pregnency. I recognize that it's difficult. Also, like I said earlier, I would feel the same way if men carried the babies or if I myself were pregnent. Also, I know a lot of women who are completely pro-life.

Also, it is very unfortunate when there is not enough blood to go around. That doesn't change abortion being wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right...
Example:

say you hit somebody with your car, and the impact does critical damage to their kidneys. to survive, they must have a kidney transplant, and--by remarkable coincidence--you are a perfect match for them as an organ donor. no other donor can be found in time. guess what? you CANNOT be forced to donate your organ against your will, even if it will save their life, even if it could be proven you intentionally ran them down. you can NEVER be forced to co-opt your body to keep another alive. the troubles you might or might not face during the transplant are immaterial; you can never be forced to undergo the procedure against your will.

i don't think bottle has a low opinion of men, i think that you just take yourself to be the standard of what a man is and so when someone has a low opinion of you, you assume that they must have a low opinion of all but the "sissiest" of men. just because you're a chauvist doesn't mean every other man is.

Dakini is right; i generally get along with men better than with women, and have only one close female friend compared to half a dozen close male friends.

since Terminalia is not a man, his behavior does not in any way impact my opinion of men.

Do You Know? That the taking of a human life by abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON!

i think that stops after the first 6 months. after that it's only ones that are necessary to save a woman's life.

Do You Know? At 18 days after conception, a baby has a heartbeat.

that happens after 6 weeks, which if you do your math isn't 18 days, but 42. more than double the time you claim.

Do You Know? At 6 weeks following conception, the babies brain waves can be measured.

that's after 20 weeks. the nervous system doesn't begin to work until 20 weeks.

At 8 weeks after conception, the stomach, liver, and kidneys of the baby are functioning, and fingerprints have formed.

8 weeks is still in the first trimester, the organs are specialised cells, but they're not working as organs yet.

At 9 weeks, the unborn child can feel pain.

that's at 22 weeks.

my source is webmd if you'd like to check. i would love to know what your source is.

Do You Know? That 700,000 abortions are performed each year in America after 9 weeks into the pregnancy.

10% are done after the first trimester, which ends at 12 weeks... which means that 90% are done before brain waves can be detected.

Do You Know? For every two babies born another baby dies in an abortion

do you know? it's not a baby until it has exited the womb. and that's a matter of definitions.

The distinction made between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-choice omits the choice of the baby. We don't get the choice to murder adults no matter how much they piss us off. When a mother is having trouble raising her children, she can't just kill them off (and rightfully so). So why is it legal to kill an unborn baby?

1. it's not a baby.
2. you anti-choicers seem to be rather iffy about getting the truth about fetal development...
3. the fetus is in the woman, it is living off her body, it is up to her whether she wants it there or not.

Then we should ask, when is a baby alive? Why do some people claim to be such an authority on this? Once concieved, a baby will grow into an adult if noone kills it. That seems to be pretty straight forward to me.

not true. 50% of fertilized ovum don't implant themselves in the uterine lining, expelling themselves naturally with a woman's menstural cycle. 25% of those that implant themselves abort themselves before a woman has even skipped a period. there are more that miscarry after that. and i take it you've never heard of a stillborn?

Dakini is right; i generally get along with men better than with women, and have only one close female friend compared to half a dozen close male friends.

since Terminalia is not a man, his behavior does not in any way impact my opinion of men.

yeah, i get along with men much better than women too. plus i'm one of 3 girls in my program in school... everyone else is a guy... i pretty much have to be able to get along with men. :)

but yeah, i don't think i've come accross anyone in real life who goes on like terminalia.

Until I hear something else, this is what I'm going with. Feel free to bring to my attention another credible source.


ok, how's this: this is directed to potential mothers who want to know how far along their offspring should be. it is written by medical professionals who don't have any adgenda other than informing a potential, future mother.
http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/18/102573.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

they're not going to give false numbers to say "hey, let's push everything back so people can have abortions."

and also, your model should feel wrong, the gestation period is nine months, why on earth do you think that the grand majoirty of the development happens in the first 9 weeks? if it did, then i'm sure people who were born premature at 22 weeks wouldn't be clinging to life right off the bat, but thriving.

Before I go ahead and smash your opinions about this subject and leave them to try to fend for themselves much like a bloody dolphin in a pool of sharks, let me tell you a story:
I went on a 9 month drinking, smoking, and drug binge...then i was born. You see, my mother was a heroin whore and slept around a lot with many guys for drugs. How does this pertain to the issue, you ask? Simple. I could have been aborted. You think a drug addict WANTS a kid? No, that would mean she has to spend money on something other than her addictions. Oh well, so i was born. 2 years later, i was adopted to a former Nun.
Now, im 19 yrs old. I am happy i wasnt aborted, and also, happy i was adopted. My life has been good to me.
When reading post i got to questioning things. Now i urge you to do the same:
Think about your best friend. Think of all the good times, all the bad times, all the times youve had. Think of all the laughs, and all the tears. Think of a time when theyve helped you, or maybe youve helped them, through a very hard time in life, in which neither of you could have gotten through without the other.
Think of your parents. Think of all the help they have given you, even if you are a 12 yr old kid who thinks their parents are evel, you must understand that they have given up their lives, so you could have one.
Think of you....yourself....all your friends, family, brothers, sisters. Now just take one of them....just one...and erase them completly from your life. Think of what would have happened if your brother wasnt there so you could blame him for lighting the house on fire when you were 14. Or think of your best friend...what if they werent there when Bobby or Stephanie dumped you in the 7th grade and you were distraught. oh, you might counter with "well youd have someone else to lean on" Yes, but it wouldnt have been the same. Your life would be totally different qithout any aspecpt of anyone you know
What people fail to realize, or fail to do in their everyday lives, is think of others. When you drive down the road and you see another car just passing you by, you just think of it as another person driving....But you dont realize ITS ANOTHER PERSON! Another person with a whole nother life. A whole nother home to go to. Other friends, another family. You dont realize that that person has A WHOLE NOTHER LIFE! thats just a person driving down the road
Now let me ask you this....am I just another person driving down the road?
And you might still think strongly of your opinion, and still be pro-choice. But thats the good of life, we can have our opinions....
But....Had I been aborted....you wouldnt be reading this....and you wouldnt be re-thinking your position on the matter. Whatchu think about that?
::Takes a breath::

But....Had I been aborted....you wouldnt be reading this....and you wouldnt be re-thinking your position on the matter. Whatchu think about that?
::Takes a breath::
you were born, you posted this, i'm reading it, and i'm still not re-thinking my position...your tactic is old, tired, trite and totally boring. plus, it's already been addressed about half a dozen times. if you truly cherish the life you have then please use it; learn to make real arguments, to think like a conscious being, and try to be at least minimally original every now and again.

Abortion is the best way to save the government money. If you repbulicans were truly "Conservative" you'd be for abortion.


INSTEAD YOU PISS MONEY AWAY ON THE MILLITARY AND ON WELFARE. BECUASE THE LITTLE BASTERDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED ANYWAYS. AND WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY IF ALL LIFE IS PRESCIOUS? HYPOCRITICAL SCUMBAGS.

Personally I'm for the death penalty.

Anyone who doesn't support Stem Cell research WILL go to HELL.

Think about your best friend. Think of all the good times, all the bad times, all the times youve had. Think of all the laughs, and all the tears. Think of a time when theyve helped you, or maybe youve helped them, through a very hard time in life, in which neither of you could have gotten through without the other.
Think of your parents. Think of all the help they have given you, even if you are a 12 yr old kid who thinks their parents are evel, you must understand that they have given up their lives, so you could have one.
Think of you....yourself....all your friends, family, brothers, sisters. Now just take one of them....just one...and erase them completly from your life. Think of what would have happened if your brother wasnt there so you could blame him for lighting the house on fire when you were 14. Or think of your best friend...what if they werent there when Bobby or Stephanie dumped you in the 7th grade and you were distraught. oh, you might counter with "well youd have someone else to lean on" Yes, but it wouldnt have been the same. Your life would be totally different qithout any aspecpt of anyone you know
What people fail to realize, or fail to do in their everyday lives, is think of others. When you drive down the road and you see another car just passing you by, you just think of it as another person driving....But you dont realize ITS ANOTHER PERSON! Another person with a whole nother life. A whole nother home to go to. Other friends, another family. You dont realize that that person has A WHOLE NOTHER LIFE! thats just a person driving down the road
Now let me ask you this....am I just another person driving down the road?
And you might still think strongly of your opinion, and still be pro-choice. But thats the good of life, we can have our opinions....
But....Had I been aborted....you wouldnt be reading this....and you wouldnt be re-thinking your position on the matter. Whatchu think about that?
::Takes a breath::


see the thing is that all my friends weren't aborted. if they had been, then i wouldn't be aware of what i would be missing now would i? and who knows, perhaps if someone who annoys me in my neighbourhood had been aborted, then someone who would have become my best friend could have moved in instead. maybe if the girl who killed my boyfriend's brother had been aborted, then he'd be a much happier person...

the thing is, things are how they are and if they were differnet, then we wouldn't have the same reality, we wouldn't know them to start with, we might know other people, we might not, no one really knows and you didn't really contribute any more to the discussion that was already in place.

i mean, what about the person on here whose best friend's mom had an abortion before she met the guy's father. had she not had that abortion, then the best friend and his little brother wouldn't have been born. at the cost of one aborted fetus, two healthy, happy young adults are in existance.

..........
Say that a family member has serious head injury, but appears to be recovering slowly. Can I just kill him because afterall, he isn't conscience to make the decision and can't even think for himself. Also, he's costing me thousands of dollars and a bunch of heartache and hard work having to come visit him. You don't see a problem with that?

Edited to add: Alright, finished reading the thread - Bottle gave a better example quite a few pages back about how you can't be forced to donate organs to save someone's life, even if it's your fault they *need* those organs. But I'll leave my example too, because it's along slightly different lines. So...:

You could not *kill* the family member outright. But you WOULD have the right to cease paying their bills. Your money is a resource that belongs soley to you. And if you remove the money to pay the bills, chances are the family member will die. But you still have that right, because your money belongs to you, and you are under no obligation to share it with anyone, even if their life depends on it. Sure, you may. But does the government have the right to FORCE you to?

A woman's womb, blood, calcium, hormones ad et are HER RESOURCES. If she does not wish to let a fetus use them, she has every right to remove them from it's use. However, a woman cannot carry a child inside her, alive, without it using her resources, hence she has the right to remove it.

Okay, time for a comparative analogy (because they're ever so fun)

I'm going to put the literal counter-part to various metaphorical devices in brackets, to help everyone follow :p.

Imagine for a moment that everytime you shook hands with someone (intercourse) there was a chance of a being (fetus) forming due to the intermingling of your sweat (sex cells). People would wear gloves (condoms :p) and deoderant (the pill, or similar measures) to prevent this happening, but would continue shaking hands because it's now socially acceptable and aids relationships forming. But if the gloves/deoderant fails, you get lumped with this 'being'. In this example there's no 'womb'. It starts off as a lump at the base of your neck. As it grows, it lives off your blood. It sucks the calcium right out of your bones. It causes hormonal changes in your body that cause you to feel violently ill, gain weight to the point you can barely function in society. It contributes nothing to your life at this point.

Now, you could either wait until it gets larger, and becomes a full-grown humanoid. Or you could have it removed. Up to a point, it is mindless (literally, having no nerve system to process sensations), and is nothing more than a parasite, living off what your body gives it.

If you want to keep it, or are squemish about killing things, then yes, by all means raise the being and try and give it a good life in the world. But if you do not want that thing, why on earth should you give it your BLOOD and CALCIUM and any other number of resources, just because preventative measures failed?

Because it might one day live seperate from you? Well, if it is surgically removed, it shan't. So... what, exactly? It is not currently able to live seperate, so as long as it's disposed of NOW and not later (when it's fully conscious), what exactly is the problem? I can't claim disability welfare just because one day I MIGHT injure myself (and probably will). Why should a parasitic entity, devoid of anything resembling self-awareness, get rights that INFRINGE on my ability to have a parasitic growth removed, based on what MIGHT happen?

-------------------
And this rant is brought to you by 1 and 1/2 hours sleep, and a whoooole bunch of sugar. But I'll stand by most of it anyway :p

(I also want to thank Grave n Idle, Goed and Bottle for being the lights of hope in this forum... in these long threads I tend to jump around looking for posts from you three 'cause they're always such a pleasure to read)

Hmm, sugar + sleep deprivation -> idol worship? In-t-eresting...

*takes a bow*... I think you mean 'idle' worship... ;)

I agree with you, though... most anti-abortion argument centres around the sacred sanctity of human life, and that seems to be based on (largely) human reproduction as ordained by the bible. Take away the 'christian' mechanism, and something of a different light shines on the sanctity of the thing... at least to me.

I second your applause for Goed and Bottle, too... you can usually expect something pretty good from them, regardless of the thread.

Well, dictionary.com defines 'idle' as 'not employed or busy' or 'lazy', and 'idol' as 'an image used as an object of worship' or 'One that is adored, often blindly or excessively'.

I have seen 'idle' being used more and more frequently for the latter meaning though, so maybe it's just a common shift in the language :p

English = teh crazyness.

Actually... although that IS true, and a fair representation of my view... my biggest thing is that nobody else should have the right to decide what goes on inside a woman's uterus. Certainly not for reasons as subjective as an uneasy feeling about what 'abortion' is, or what one person's faith tells them.

It is bad enough that our culture is (still) geared so heavily towards men, and it is even worse that our society tries to foster ignorance, and laud guilt.

In a society as far from perfect as ours (and we all know, it could be much closer to ideal, with just a little effort...) I argue that the right to control her uterus is a necessity for the 21st century woman.

Hey, I remember this thread! Sorry about the delay.

as always, I agree with your literal words, but I have problems with the deeper meaning. I agree that a woman's body is her own, and the choice is indeed hers to make. With that said, I still think of abortion as a necessity, but an unacceptable social norm. It shouldn't be seen as "no big deal" or "just another medical procedure". As with most threads here, it's the mindset I disagree with. Abortion should be an absolute-bottomline-necessity in my mind. Many posts here seem to disagree with that by discrediting the value of life in any form.



Sorry, most of that wasn't directed at you. Your post was just the starting point.

Well, dictionary.com defines 'idle' as 'not employed or busy' or 'lazy', and 'idol' as 'an image used as an object of worship' or 'One that is adored, often blindly or excessively'.

I have seen 'idle' being used more and more frequently for the latter meaning though, so maybe it's just a common shift in the language :p

English = teh crazyness.

Nah, I know I know... but I am "grave n idle"... so the idol worship should be idle worship because... oh never mind, it wasn't that funny anyways....

let's see if i can be of any help:

1. not all killing is murder, and many people believe there are times when killing is justified.

2. one does not have to believe abortion is murder to believe it is wrong. many people (including one of my close friends) believe that ending the life of a fetus is NOT as wrong as ending the life of a person, but that ending the life of a fetus is still tragic because it denies all the possibilities that might come from that fetus if it were allowed to develop.

3. many people also believe that abortion is very wrong, and they would love to stop it, but they agree that making abortion illegal is not the way to stop it. as we saw with Prohibition, making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, it just makes the conditions for doing that thing much less safe and also results in the punishment of those who engage in the given behavior.

for instance, many people believe (as history supports) that abortion would still occur if it were made illegal, but that the conditions would be horrific and would most often result in both woman and fetus dying or suffering significant injury. some think that it is important to protect the health of women, and that it is better for a woman to have a safe abortion than a dirty one (if she is going to get it).

also, many people believe that the way to stop women from having abortions is not to take away their human rights, but rather to eliminate the circumstances that lead to a woman seeking an abortion. instead of telling women to stop having sex (which they won't) or telling them to have babies they don't want (which is a hideously immoral position), many people believe that it would be better to educate women and provide them with better access to contraception. combatting rape and dating abuse problems will also help, as will efforts to stop intrafamily sexual crimes. many people believe that all the effort Pro-Life America puts in to taking women's rights away should be better spent making sure women are in a position to exercise those rights in the best possible way.

hope that helps. of course, none of these positions is my own, so if somebody else would like to correct me they should feel free to do so.

Totally agree. If 'Pro-lifers' spent more time on actual fighting the CAUSES of abortion, rather than just trying to legislate it out of existence (as if that even COULD work), they would find the gap between pro-life and pro-choice to be much narrower than they had previously reckoned.

Ok, now you're back to rhetoric. What if I said, I'm pro-choice, too? I'm all for the baby's right to choose whether or not she lives. I place the baby's right to live, and anyone's right to live over anything else. I would feel the exact same way about abortion if it were men who had to have babies and not women. To say that Pro-lifers are anti-women is just stupid. I'm all against abortion no matter what the gender of the baby.

Say that a family member has serious head injury, but appears to be recovering slowly. Can I just kill him because afterall, he isn't conscience to make the decision and can't even think for himself. Also, he's costing me thousands of dollars and a bunch of heartache and hard work having to come visit him. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not saying that pro-life = anti-woman... although there is a correlation between factions of those two arenas. What I'm saying is a) our culture(s) is (are) still geared towards a predominantly male viewpoint. b) That predominantly male viewpoint is robbing women of freedoms and rights, and limiting their choices. c) One of the rights infringed (already) by the male is the right to reproduce - which is largely at the discretion of our male-dominated society.

Example: In our western cultures... which partner gets blamed for an unplanned pregnancy... be honest. In our western cultures, a man who has sex with many different women is viewed with respect (by a large part of the population), whereas a woman in the same position is a 'whore'. If you don't believe that, look at legal cases where women have had a rape case overturned by the fact of their number of intimate partners, or the last time they had sex.

Babies have no legal rights to life. People have no legal rights to life. There are no 'god-given' rights, except what a society imposes or allows. Put one unarmed man in a jungle full of lions and see how long his "right to life" lasts him. Similarly, take one 6 week foetus, put it in a room and see how long it's "Right to life" lasts it. It only has as many rights as the 'mother' can secure, and is only a beneficiary of HER rights... it has no rights of it's own.

The person in your example is recovering, but slowly? The amount of brain damage you imply suggests that that person will never properly recover. I say, in that case... the nearest 'intimate' should have the right to decide whether or not to keep that person 'alive'.

If they are actually recovering, and seem to be on the road to a decent recovery, then maybe there is more justification to keep them alive... but still... money IS a factor - whether you like that or not.

And, to rebutt arguments of "convenience" for saying money is a factor....
If I have cancer and need medical treatment, my insurance will pay a proportion of the costs... but far from all of it. If I cannot afford to cover the rest of the costs, I am going to die without treatment. Tough Buns. Unfortunately, many societies are geared toward this idea (if they don't ACTIVELY embrace it already). Our culture will let me die for want of money... which kind of eradicates the merit of the "convenience" argument against abortion.

Life begins at conception. That is the biological/medical definition. Given the right support, a fertilised egg will yield a viable foetus/child/human, Something no other cell can achieve. The legal standpoint is that allowing abortion is the lesser of two evils (backstreet abortions, etc), which is arguable.

As regards the so-called 'sanctity of a woman's body' and her 'right to choose', that choice is made at the moment of consenting to unprotected sex, as everyone knows the logical consequence of the act. So that argument (as far as I am concerned) is blown out the water.

The remaining options are where the woman did not give consent, was not capable of giving consent, or where subsequent discovery (of disease, defection) was made. I challenge the pro-abortionists to survey any group of adults who was born with a defect (or there families) if they would rather have been killed before birth. Let that answer dictate our policy.

The question also has to be asked ... are there any members of society around today who would not be if there mothers had been given a choice? If given the chance, would they choose to have rather died before birth? Does it necessarily follow that a child of unwanted pregnancy will be a social misfit and have a terrible life? No. So arguing that its better for the child to die is also non-arguable, because there is no guarantee of how that child's life will turn out.

The world is full of people today who gave up their children at birth, and many of those children lead well-adjusted and productive lives, and often child and parent would seek each other out when given the opportunity years later. Should those children have been killed?

Lastly, consider a pregnant woman who is assaulted and miscarries as a result .... does she consider the miscarriage no more or less than a fleshwound? The excision of excess flesh? Or does she feel the trauma of a mother who has lost a child? Was this murder or common assault?

Life begins at conception. That is the biological/medical definition. Given the right support, a fertilised egg will yield a viable foetus/child/human, Something no other cell can achieve. The legal standpoint is that allowing abortion is the lesser of two evils (backstreet abortions, etc), which is arguable.

Actually, the biological view is that both the egg and the sperm are alive before conception, so if you're going to talk about the fertilised egg as 'alive', you have to be against masturbation and the female ovulation cycle as well.

As regards the so-called 'sanctity of a woman's body' and her 'right to choose', that choice is made at the moment of consenting to unprotected sex, as everyone knows the logical consequence of the act. So that argument (as far as I am concerned) is blown out the water.

What about woman who DON'T have unprotected sex, but still get pregnent? what about woman who are raped? They didn't consent to anything. What about the fact that now one of the main forms of protection (the pill) is being lobbied against by anti-abortion groups? Your point only blows one very specific segment of the debate out of the water.

The remaining options are where the woman did not give consent, was not capable of giving consent, or where subsequent discovery (of disease, defection) was made. I challenge the pro-abortionists to survey any group of adults who was born with a defect (or there families) if they would rather have been killed before birth. Let that answer dictate our policy.

The fetus' that are aborted will never have the chance to 'rather NOT have been killed', so this is a pointless and emotive argument. At the point they are being aborted, they have no functional identity that would 'perfer not to be killed before birth'. As long as they are killed before this point, the potential for them to regret being killed is elminated'.

The question also has to be asked ... are there any members of society around today who would not be if there mothers had been given a choice? If given the chance, would they choose to have rather died before birth? Does it necessarily follow that a child of unwanted pregnancy will be a social misfit and have a terrible life? No. So arguing that its better for the child to die is also non-arguable, because there is no guarantee of how that child's life will turn out.

No, there isn't. But that's a very minor point on the pro-choice side. Usually it's only used to argue against the 'but they might grow up to cure cancer' non-point. And yes, there are people who "would not be if there mothers had been given a choice". And yes, there are a percentage of them that commit suicide. Whether you want to agree that their upbringing is a cause of that is probably a matter for a different thread though. But yes - some people who would have been aborted DO kill themselves. There you go. Pro-lifers promote suicide :rolleyes: <sarcasm


The world is full of people today who gave up their children at birth, and many of those children lead well-adjusted and productive lives, and often child and parent would seek each other out when given the opportunity years later. Should those children have been killed?

Often they aren't well adjusted and don't live productive lives. The point os moot. Often child and parent *don't* seek each other out, or do, and feel a large amount of resentment. Another moot point. They were not children when they would have been aborted. They were fetal matter. They were not aborted, so it's pointless to ask *now* if they should have been. There is only one reality; making allusions to what 'might' or 'should' have been is pointless.

Lastly, consider a pregnant woman who is assaulted and miscarries as a result .... does she consider the miscarriage no more or less than a fleshwound? The excision of excess flesh? Or does she feel the trauma of a mother who has lost a child? Was this murder or common assault?

For a start - if that woman WANTED her child this scenario is in no way comparable to elective abortion. If she did NOT want the child, her trauma would be considerable less, and mainly due to hormones and the actual attack, rather than grief for the child. It would be common assault (ignoring the ridiculous law that allows for the killing of a pregnent woman to be double-murder). So there you go.

As far as calling the fetus an "it", it's ok, I do the same thing. It's easy to get a bit lazy in our language.

A child cannot live on it's own until, oh I don't know how many years old. 5 years old maybe? Some might say more. Anyway, a newborn baby cannot take care of itself and will die if neglected. Technically, we're all dependent on each other. Many would starve if farmers stopped producing food or doctors stopped perfroming surgeries. Is dependence on others really a good way of determining it's worth?

As for consequences, I agree. I've seen couples devestated after having an abortion. This doesn't make it less wrong. Do you think it would be ok if the only consequence of murder is having a "bad feeling". "Sorry, I killed your wife, but I feel really, really bad about it".

I have seen individuals devestated for the exact opposite reasons. I have seen people 'persuaded' to keep a child they really didn't want... for whatever reason.... who suffer because of their decision to follow what they were told and keep the child. I have seen unhappy parents, unhappy children, broken families. I have seen a young mother suicide because she couldn't handle the stress of her situation... and the bitterest thing is that she KNEW she couldn't handle it.

The difference between a baby and a foetus of say 6 weeks, is that the baby can live on it's own... oh, maybe not for years, but it is VIABLE. The foetus, if removed from the protection of the uterus, is dead.

Actually, the biological view is that both the egg and the sperm are alive before conception, so if you're going to talk about the fertilised egg as 'alive', you have to be against masturbation and the female ovulation cycle as well.
A sperm/ovum would not develop beyond that point, so you are misrepresentign what I said.

What about woman who DON'T have unprotected sex, but still get pregnent? what about woman who are raped? They didn't consent to anything.
Apparently you are unable to read properly? I specifically referred to CONSENTING sex, and dealt separately with NONCONSENTING sex. Does the larger letters help you any?

At the point they are being aborted, they have no functional identity that would 'perfer not to be killed before birth'. As long as they are killed before this point, the potential for them to regret being killed is elminated'.
Someone in a coma is no better off. Hell, anyone who is killed has no way of coming back to express their regrets. Pointless argument.


Often they aren't well adjusted and don't live productive lives.
Sarcasms and snide comments aside, the fact that some fall on the "wrong side" of the equation doesn't mean they should have no chance at all. Even planned children sometimes turn out bad. The thing is, it is not up to anyone else to play God/Arbiter over that life.

For a start - if that woman WANTED her child this scenario is in no way comparable to elective abortion. .... It would be common assault (ignoring the ridiculous law that allows for the killing of a pregnent woman to be double-murder). So there you go.
Not saying its comparable directly, but it goes towards illustrating the unconscious relation between parent/child. And I don't think that law is ridiculous. If my wife lost an unborn child as a result of someone's deliberate action, I would consider that person a murderer just as much as if they had killed one of my other kids. It would be an insult if the law didn't offer families in that position its protection.

The difference between a baby and a foetus of say 6 weeks, is that the baby can live on it's own... oh, maybe not for years, but it is VIABLE. The foetus, if removed from the protection of the uterus, is dead.

And what stage of foetus are we talking here? 7 months? 6? 5? Point is, with science advancing all the time, there will be a point where ANY foetus can survive outside the womb. What then?

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.

Years ago, I'd thought I'd rather first shoot myself than to say this, but I'm a changed person since then.
To the abortion issue I say: It is the decision of the woman to bear the fetus or abort it. In my belief, it will be in the woman's karma whatever she decides. All decisions have consequences, and not all consequences are inherently bad or evil. I also agree with Trotterstan, this world is imperfect, not all of us can make perfect decisions and lead perfect lives while we're here. Still, I cannot stress enough the importance of sexual responsibility on the world today. I think there are far too many of us humans here already, and we should, collectively, think about what we're doing to the Earth and enact some plan, though, in my current, cynical world-view, we're far, far away from ever doing a thing like that.

Who am I? I'm Pagan and I vote.

A very interesting point. Equal rights for all! Yay! (Oh, lets not forget: this would let lots of those naughty accidental dads hide from taking responsability.) (sp?)

But really, that is an interesting point. If a woman falls pregnant by accident, the father should be able to choose too: If he does not want the child, she should abort or sign a waiver releasing him from any costs that may be incurred. (I'm not sexist btw, and to be honest would take responsability for any consequences I may cause myself, but there are some people out there who are arseholes, and to accomodate these people is sometimes the only way to keep the relative peace)

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: This whole abortion issue is pointless anyway. I should not even comment on it...

Why should the 'father' (as you call him... high title for someone who managed the 'difficult task' of ejaculating, I feel) have any say? If the woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term, why should she be forced to do so, just because the guy says "sure, why not"? So - she's stuck with the morning sickness, the inflated body, the pain, the wonder of childbirth, and all the joys of having a small baby as a single mother, when the guy decides he's not that bothered anyway, and heads out of state....

Why should the 'father' (as you call him... high title for someone who managed the 'difficult task' of ejaculating, I feel) have any say? If the woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term, why should she be forced to do so, just because the guy says "sure, why not"? So - she's stuck with the morning sickness, the inflated body, the pain, the wonder of childbirth, and all the joys of having a small baby as a single mother, when the guy decides he's not that bothered anyway, and heads out of state....

and why should the ejaculating member (new title then...) be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want and wants nothing to do with? If the ejaculation receiver wants to keep the fetus/child, then why should the ejaculator be forced to accept her decision?

And what stage of foetus are we talking here? 7 months? 6? 5? Point is, with science advancing all the time, there will be a point where ANY foetus can survive outside the womb. What then?

I'm actually glad you asked that... maybe you can work out the obvious answer on your own, but, here goes...

At the point at which a foetus of ANY age CAN be sustained outside of the uterus, we will be able (scientifically speaking) to finally free women from the 'stereotyping' of being 'gestation units for the next generation'.

Some people would still like to keep women pregnant anyway, no doubt... to fit in with their world view.

But - at that point... a woman can CHOOSE to carry a child... if she wants to, she can.

If she doesn't want to, it can he 'harvested' and raised in your laboratory (or however you were suggesting we sustain them).

It's a lovely solution. I can't wait.

Incidentally - maybe Pro-Lifers should be focusing on THIS as their goal... after all, why would a woman abort the baby, when she could have it harvested, and someone else can have it? No pain, no mess, no psychological trauma.

Thus, the only abortions that need ever take place would be for medical grounds - or maybe, for victims of rape, etc... but even then - the 'mother' might not be so 'messed up' if she doesn't have to endure a full pregnancy after rape.

A big part of the abortion debate is morality, ya? Why are we judging people by our morals, when chances are, they aren't the same? No one person can make the decision for any other person. Don't bother trying. So you don't like abortion, ok. Don't have one. Don't try to restrict who can have one. If a woman feels in necissary for her to have an abortion, then she should be able to get one, provided all the clinics haven't been bombed for the sake of saving a fetus. Pregnancy and abortion can both change a woman's life forever. It's probably best just to use BC, but they can and will fail. One of my friends was a "mistake". His mother doesn't love him any less, but medicine is not infallible. Sometimes, your penis just isn't getting any bigger, no matter how much enzyte you consume.

My body, my choice. And before we get into all the "What about the father?!" arguements.. Chances are, the male doesn't want the kid either. I, personally, am not going to bring a kid into the world that I'm not prepared to care for. It would have a completely shit life, I would have a completely shit life. And I'm on birth control. It's not like all these girls are out there going "Let's get pregnant so I can run off and pay tons of money for an abortion!"

And what stage of foetus are we talking here? 7 months? 6? 5? Point is, with science advancing all the time, there will be a point where ANY foetus can survive outside the womb. What then?
personally i think that a fetus should be removed at any time, for any reason, if the woman decides she doesn't want it in her body. if some pro-lifer wants to pay to have the fetus removed intact and grown in a tube then that's fine with me...the woman has the absolute right to deny the use of her body for incubation, but if science figures out ways to safely remove the fetus alive then that's fine with me, so long as the woman isn't expected to foot the bill if that procedure would be more expensive and she doesn't want to pay for it.

My body, my choice. And before we get into all the "What about the father?!" arguements.. Chances are, the male doesn't want the kid either. I, personally, am not going to bring a kid into the world that I'm not prepared to care for. It would have a completely shit life, I would have a completely shit life. And I'm on birth control. It's not like all these girls are out there going "Let's get pregnant so I can run off and pay tons of money for an abortion!"
for me the man's opinion has nothing to do with it; if he wants the fetus he is welcome to have it, once i have it removed from my body. he can do whatever he pleases with it, but he cannot force me to incubate it for him.

or you could you know, just not stereotype people.
you stereotype your own gender, calling any man who tidies up after himself gay, saying that men who respect women have to ask permission to fart, saying that women are here to procreate et c. not everyone fits conveniently into one category.

if all men were like you, the birthrate would drop to zero as they would have alienated every self respecting woman and would be in teh dog house permanently.

oh, another stereotype: women can't be strong.

1. i'm not hiding from the world. i'm still living in the world, still working, still interacting with other people, educated people and people who are like me, on the way to becoming educated professionals.
2. i'm not just here for the sake of going here. i'm here for the sake of learning and eventually to pursue a career in something i love and am passionate about. hopefully a job where i can learn more and make new, discoveries.
3. don't be hatin' because you aren't smart enough to attend an institute of higher learning. and yes, i'm aware of the slang i used, i figure that perhaps i should dumb my speach down a bit when conversing with you.

Take a bow, Dakini.

Totally agree, and still laughing about the "birthrate would drop to zero"...

*Applause*

and why should the ejaculating member (new title then...) be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want and wants nothing to do with? If the ejaculation receiver wants to keep the fetus/child, then why should the ejaculator be forced to accept her decision?

See, I kind of agree with you here... I think there has to be responsible action on both sides... the difference is, with society as it is today... who gets LEFT with the baby? The man opts out, and decides he wants nothing to do with it... the woman has the baby. The mother is automatically going to be 'with' the child, since she is the one who has to carry the gestating foetus, she is the one who will give birth, she is the one who will (if the situation remains constant) be supporting the child. It seems only fair that the male should have to take equal responsibility for the 'accident' that both of them had. And, since many women become pregnant due to things like 'the guy doesn't like wearing condoms', the fact that males tend to tilt the odds in favour of pregnancy suggests that they should take at least half of the 'blame'.

See, I kind of agree with you here... I think there has to be responsible action on both sides... the difference is, with society as it is today... who gets LEFT with the baby? The man opts out, and decides he wants nothing to do with it... the woman has the baby. The mother is automatically going to be 'with' the child, since she is the one who has to carry the gestating foetus, she is the one who will give birth, she is the one who will (if the situation remains constant) be supporting the child. It seems only fair that the male should have to take equal responsibility for the 'accident' that both of them had. And, since many women become pregnant due to things like 'the guy doesn't like wearing condoms', the fact that males tend to tilt the odds in favour of pregnancy suggests that they should take at least half of the 'blame'.

but it's her choice. She chose to keep the baby. If it's a woman's uterus, therefore her choice, then why should a man be held responsible because of her choice? Our society too often seems pro choice for women, and pro-alimony for men...

And if 'the guy doesn't like wearing condoms' and one still jumps in the sack with him, who's fault is it really?

A big part of the abortion debate is morality, ya? Why are we judging people by our morals, when chances are, they aren't the same? No one person can make the decision for any other person. Don't bother trying. So you don't like abortion, ok. Don't have one. Don't try to restrict who can have one. If a woman feels in necissary for her to have an abortion, then she should be able to get one, provided all the clinics haven't been bombed for the sake of saving a fetus. Pregnancy and abortion can both change a woman's life forever. It's probably best just to use BC, but they can and will fail. One of my friends was a "mistake". His mother doesn't love him any less, but medicine is not infallible. Sometimes, your penis just isn't getting any bigger, no matter how much enzyte you consume.

My body, my choice. And before we get into all the "What about the father?!" arguements.. Chances are, the male doesn't want the kid either. I, personally, am not going to bring a kid into the world that I'm not prepared to care for. It would have a completely shit life, I would have a completely shit life. And I'm on birth control. It's not like all these girls are out there going "Let's get pregnant so I can run off and pay tons of money for an abortion!"

Well said, Oshirii.

Your morals are YOUR morals, just as mine are MINE.

You don't want me imposing MY morals on you, you need to reciprocate.

but it's her choice. She chose to keep the baby. If it's a woman's uterus, therefore her choice, then why should a man be held responsible because of her choice? Our society too often seems pro choice for women, and pro-alimony for men...

And if 'the guy doesn't like wearing condoms' and one still jumps in the sack with him, who's fault is it really?

Well, I think I covered that, though... the woman is ALREADY going to be supporting the result of their union, why SHOULDN'T the man help?

In this scenario, she understood the risks, she gets stuck with the child, she has to support it.

He understood the risks, he may not want the child - but he can't really claim he didn't know it was a possibility, why shouldn't he help support it?

I realise there is an extreme possibility... the girl DELIBERATELY gets pregnant, without telling the guy she wanted to, and he is left paying fior support.... In this situation, I guess it's tough luck for him - because he didn't spend enough time getting to know the girl before he chose to jump into her bed.

Over the condom thing.... our phallocentric society doesn't leave it's women (conventionally) with the illusion of choice about such matters. I've kind of brushed on this subject before, with what I consider as different 'levels' of rape... the 'consent' of the female is an arena with quite a lot of space for interpretation.

And if 'the guy doesn't like wearing condoms' and one still jumps in the sack with him, who's fault is it really? Both of them, surely? So, why would you argue that only the female should take responsibility for the results?

Well, I think I covered that, though... the woman is ALREADY going to be supporting the result of their union, why SHOULDN'T the man help?

In this scenario, she understood the risks, she gets stuck with the child, she has to support it.

He understood the risks, he may not want the child - but he can't really claim he didn't know it was a possibility, why shouldn't he help support it?

I realise there is an extreme possibility... the girl DELIBERATELY gets pregnant, without telling the guy she wanted to, and he is left paying fior support.... In this situation, I guess it's tough luck for him - because he didn't spend enough time getting to know the girl before he chose to jump into her bed.

Over the condom thing.... our phallocentric society doesn't leave it's women (conventionally) with the illusion of choice about such matters. I've kind of brushed on this subject before, with what I consider as different 'levels' of rape... the 'consent' of the female is an arena with quite a lot of space for interpretation.



They both knew the consequences, the risks, the possibilities involved in having sex, and yet in your scenario, if the woman chooses to keep the child, regardless of what the man wants, he is liable for support. If she chooses to abort the fetus, regardless of what the man wants, well, it doesn't matter because the object that would require support no longer matters.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to make this fair for both sides, then the man should have some say in his support of the child. Granted he didn't 'contribute his blood, guts, and life' to the child, but if he doesn't want it, the woman does, he's screwed. Reverse the situation, the woman gets what she wants. It's a bit one sided.


Both of them, surely? So, why would you argue that only the female should take responsibility for the results?

Yes, ultimately, and I wouldn't push it all of on one or the other, but a woman does have the choice to say no. If she does, it becomes rape, and that's a whole other issue.

and i've read your standpoints on them, and have agreed with most of them, but I wonder this: how equal are we making the women of our society if we are telling them that it is expected that they will have sex, that they can't say no, and it's ok because it cleans up well afterwards (through abortion) if something should happen that was unexpected?

I haven't read all of this, but:
Stop with the girls Vs. boys argument. We're all responsible for ourselves. Guys, use a condom, girls, get the Pill. If you're really serious about not having kids, you'll use both.
Teenagers get pregnant through ignorance and our shame and embarrasment. By telling a child to go and ask someone else a question that you may find embarrasing, you are automatically implying that it is a dirty thing to be asking about, and therefore should not be asked about.
This then moves through a childs life to when they mature and get perfectly natural sexual urges, and for want of a better explanation, has unprotected sex. Bingo, fertile teenagers= baby.
NO AMOUNT of sex education etc. will stop this from happening.
So you get different types of unwanted pregnancy.
1. Teenagers who didn't know any better.
2. Young people who can't support/cope with a baby
3. Older people who already have children they can't support.

(I'm not taking into account sexual assaults and rape, as that's a different story)

There is no easy answer to this, but has anyone considered temporary sterilisation for pubescent teenagers? What about men using condoms? What about young women using birth control pills? How about using both at the same time? Guys can't sit there and whinge about "girls who get themselves pregnant, because NEWSFLASH! You were there too!
Both men and women can be sterilised, and in cases of a change of heart, this can be reversed.
By arguing about the "is abortion murder?" thing, all you're doing is deflecting the social responsibilities we all have to prevent this from happening. The whole thing is about being pro-active, not re-active.
And for all you people out there that think it's possible for women to have abortion after abortion, then it's not. After a while, everything inside gets so messed up, chances are you'd never conceive again, and be living in agony. All this for the sake of a condom, or a packet of birth control pills. Yes, accidents do happen, but, how about the morning after pill? This prevents the sperm meeting the egg, and does not cause a chemically assisted miscarriage which can be termed as an abortion, by the way. There are a thousand arguments for and against abortions, and the use of contraception. The bottom line is: stop whinging and start acting.
I would never presume to say who is and who is not able to have an abortion, and is it not by being part of a free and democratic society that I can pass this job onto those who are more qualified than I to assess these situations?
I have been having sex for the last ten years, and I haven't got pregnant, through the correct and regimented use of contraception.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but for what it's worth, that's my opinion.
And by the way, I'm married, so it's with my spouse.

*applauses*

They both knew the consequences, the risks, the possibilities involved in having sex, and yet in your scenario, if the woman chooses to keep the child, regardless of what the man wants, he is liable for support. If she chooses to abort the fetus, regardless of what the man wants, well, it doesn't matter because the object that would require support no longer matters....
and i've read your standpoints on them, and have agreed with most of them, but I wonder this: how equal are we making the women of our society if we are telling them that it is expected that they will have sex, that they can't say no, and it's ok because it cleans up well afterwards (through abortion) if something should happen that was unexpected?

If I have a kid with a man, and leave him with the kid because I no longer want the child, I have to pay child support. On the other hand, if the child needs my husband's blood or kidney or bone marrow to survive, I cannot force my husband to make that donation, regardless of what I want.
In other words, we can compel financial support from parents - BOTH parents - for an existing child. However, we cannot compel one parent to give up or lend out their body or body parts to their child, even if their refusal kills the child, no matter how desperately the other parent wants the child to survive. It's consistent, really - it's just that under current biological (only women can be pregnant) and financial (men in general still tend to make more money than women in general) conditions, women tend to be asked more often for a bodily donation (i.e. the work and resources involved in pregnancy) and men for the financial (i.e. child support).
And who tells a woman she can't say no to sex? The whole message of the feminist movement is that women and men both have every right to say yes or no to sex as they please, not that both have to have it at every opportunity...

All I'm saying is that if we're going to make this fair for both sides, then the man should have some say in his support of the child. Granted he didn't 'contribute his blood, guts, and life' to the child, but if he doesn't want it, the woman does, he's screwed. Reverse the situation, the woman gets what she wants. It's a bit one sided.


If he does want it, and the woman doesn't... in order for him to get his child, she has to go through a pregnancy (with all the risks, inconvenience and hardship) in order to give him what he wants. He doesn't even have to come near her in that 9 months - she is the one doing the 'work', feeling the pain.

If she does want it, and he doesn't, in the large proportion of cases, he leaves without giving her his forwarding address.

If the roles were equal, the responsibility equal, and the time and energy equal (including things like pain, sickness, discomfort, 9 months of life given away, and finally - not being able to fit into her old dresses anymore...) then I would back you all the way. But it isn't like that.


Yes, ultimately, and I wouldn't push it all of on one or the other, but a woman does have the choice to say no. If she does, it becomes rape, and that's a whole other issue.


Like I said... rape is a grey area. There is rape that IS rape, and a hundred lines of 'almost' rape below that. As I pointed out previously... most married women don't realise that being forced to have sex when they'd rather not is actually rape. So, every year, hundreds of husbands rape their wives, and the wife doesn't think she has a legal recourse.


and i've read your standpoints on them, and have agreed with most of them, but I wonder this: how equal are we making the women of our society if we are telling them that it is expected that they will have sex, that they can't say no, and it's ok because it cleans up well afterwards (through abortion) if something should happen that was unexpected?

The problem is, with the holdovers from more primitive times still hanging about us... women ARE told that they are expected to have sex (Go forth and multiply), ARE told that they can't say no (or not told that they can, thank you 'abstinence programs... examples of Deep South, where the girls are told in Church every day that they are EXPECTED to defer to the superior man, as the curch does to Christ, etc.).

And then, the rightwing (predominantly) tells them that they can't rid themselves of the mistake they are lulled into.

Until our society gets a whole lot better, we NEED abortion.

Why should the 'father' (as you call him... high title for someone who managed the 'difficult task' of ejaculating, I feel) have any say? If the woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term, why should she be forced to do so, just because the guy says "sure, why not"? So - she's stuck with the morning sickness, the inflated body, the pain, the wonder of childbirth, and all the joys of having a small baby as a single mother, when the guy decides he's not that bothered anyway, and heads out of state....

hey ... firstly, all the woman did was lie back and enjoy it, the guy had the hard work in the ejaculating. Even after that, the ovum stays in pretty much one place while the poor sperm has to race like hell to beat his buddies to ovum. Lastly, have you ever tried to LIVE with a pregnant woman? Mood swings and hormonal tides up the ying-yang, and all you had BETTER say is 'yes, dear', 'right away, dear', 'of course dear', 'anything you want, dear' and get it out with a straight face or risk having your eyes scraped out of your skull.

Mexico or Abortion clinic, here I come!

If she doesn't want to, it can he 'harvested' and raised in your laboratory (or however you were suggesting we sustain them).

It's a lovely solution. I can't wait.

Incidentally - maybe Pro-Lifers should be focusing on THIS as their goal... after all, why would a woman abort the baby, when she could have it harvested, and someone else can have it? No pain, no mess, no psychological trauma.

Thus, the only abortions that need ever take place would be for medical grounds - or maybe, for victims of rape, etc... but even then - the 'mother' might not be so 'messed up' if she doesn't have to endure a full pregnancy after rape.

hey, i wouldn't mind that, passing on my genes without the effort, most excellent.

if i was raped and impreganted, i wouldn't do that though, no way does that scum deserve to pass on his genes.

Take a bow, Dakini.

Totally agree, and still laughing about the "birthrate would drop to zero"...

*Applause*

*blushes*

thanks.

And if 'the guy doesn't like wearing condoms' and one still jumps in the sack with him, who's fault is it really?

well, you see, the world isn't perfect and while it's not always rape, some men make it hard or impossible to say no. it's called coersion. while one would think that smart women should be able to hold their position on a subject such as protection, it doesn't always work like that in practise. sometimes women are afraid to rock the boat and so they say nothing...

while it's not always a man's fault either, sometimes communication between partners doesn't happen very clearly and things happen.

hey ... firstly, all the woman did was lie back and enjoy it, the guy had the hard work in the ejaculating.

you've obviously never done it cowgirl style or standing up, or doggie style, on a desk, or even spooning (when both parties get to be lazy asses) or really any position other than missionary. there are many ways of having sex and not all of them involve hard work on the part of the man.
and you know, if ejaculating is such hard work, then you try having multiple orgasms... see what that takes out of you.

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. :)

prochoice is just a word they throw around to sugarcoat the truth that it is really pro MURDER of babies. Life starts at conception end of story. In the catholic religion why do you think we celebrate the emaculate CONCEPTION??

If a woman is raped she has many other choices then abortion. Abortion has killed more human being than hitler in WWII and the houlocaust.
Our population would also be bigger if we didnt have abortion which is a good thing. Life is NEVER a bad thing. No matter how much of it there is.

I dare you to go to google.com and type in abortion under pictures. You will see how it is.
This is what happens during an abortion. This is how low abortion stoops.

prochoice is just a word they throw around to sugarcoat the truth that it is really pro MURDER of babies.

they're not babies until they exit the womb.

Life starts at conception end of story. In the catholic religion why do you think we celebrate the emaculate CONCEPTION??

which is why the catholic church allowed women to abort fetuses using poisons up until 40 days after conception for centuries... that's it.

If a woman is raped she has many other choices then abortion. Abortion has killed more human being than hitler in WWII and the houlocaust.
Our population would also be bigger if we didnt have abortion which is a good thing. Life is NEVER a bad thing. No matter how much of it there is.

well, fetuses are potential human beings. abortion simply removes that potential.

Our population would also be bigger if we didnt have abortion which is a good thing.

As it stands the world isn't going to be able to support the human population for more than a couple hundred more years unless we completely revolutionize the way we produce food. You think even more people than we already have would be better?

oh, and i found this (among many others) when i searched for abortion images.

http://hem.passagen.se/woodbit/abortion.jpg

^i found that one most interesting thus far.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/pics/2002/anvmarchFEB/frontclose.jpg

i found this as well.

and yeah, as for the pro-choice side sinking so low, who do you think is displaying aborted fetuses or stilborn fetuses portrayed as aborted? i tell you, it's not the people advocating freedoms and rights for women.

oh, and no worries if you're eating, the images are clean.

oh, and one of the sites that did have the gory pics, well, first of all, they presented an inaccurate timeline of fetal development, the heart does not beat at 18 days... it's not until 6 weeks or 42 days... for instnace.

at any rate, many of the bigger fetuses appeared to be decayed and black... not like black as in a natural skin pigmentation, i mean like most of the skin was white and there were large black patches as though it was patialally decayed... so do anti-choice people dispprove of a woman's right to have a dead, rotting fetus removed as well?

they're not babies until they exit the womb.

The technical term is not babies, but they are babies.



well, fetuses are potential human beings. abortion simply removes that potential.

Fetuses are human beings. Not potential humans. sperm and eggs are potential human beings. Fetuses ARE humans. Even your beloved Kerry thinks that life starts at conception... or is that one of his flip-flops?

and did you go to google pictures? or do you not want to know how they do it? Just check it out and tell me what you think about it.

oh, and i found this (among many others) when i searched for abortion images.

http://hem.passagen.se/woodbit/abortion.jpg

^i found that one most interesting thus far.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/pics/2002/anvmarchFEB/frontclose.jpg

i found this as well.

and yeah, as for the pro-choice side sinking so low, who do you think is displaying aborted fetuses or stilborn fetuses portrayed as aborted? i tell you, it's not the people advocating freedoms and rights for women.

oh, and no worries if you're eating, the images are clean.

Pro LIFE shows the pictures to show us what happens during abortions.

the pictures you gave are sugarcoated. why not show the other ones? Look around here to see unsugarcoated pictures:

Note: may make you lose your lunch.


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ourchurch-graphics.com/member/x/xtiancrusader/FETAL-ABORT7MONTHS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ourchurch.com/member/r/RobertBaral/&h=371&w=500&sz=54&tbnid=3GnuVcNXAQ0J:&tbnh=94&tbnw=126&start=52&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dabortion%26start%3D40%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

Life starts at conception end of story. In the catholic religion why do you think we celebrate the emaculate CONCEPTION??

Who knows? But you also celebrate a woman who claims to have been bedded by a dove, so the term 'cause you're crazy' comes to mind.

Abortion has killed more human being than hitler in WWII and the houlocaust.
Probably, yes. And by people I assume we talk about cognitive women dying from unclinical abortions in countries where abortion is illegal.

I dare you to go to google.com and type in abortion under pictures.
No thank you, not interested in seeing such things. Nor will you find me rummaging the web for pictures of car crashes.

The technical term is not babies, but they are babies.

no they're not. when they exit the womb alive, they're babies.

Fetuses are human beings. Not potential humans. sperm and eggs are potential human beings. Fetuses ARE humans. Even your beloved Kerry thinks that life starts at conception... or is that one of his flip-flops?

and did you go to google pictures? or do you not want to know how they do it? Just check it out and tell me what you think about it.

umm... let's see, if life becan at conception, then 50% of life is destroyed before it even becomes a pregnancy. that's right, 50% of fertilized ovum are expelled through the vagina without implanting themselves in the uterine wall. also, if life began at conception, then it would be alright to murder one identical twin, afterall, they dont' divide until 5 days after conception, the two of them are therefore one life, one human being so if one of them is killed at 20 years of age, then it's not murder becaue the other one is still alive.
and there are so many things that can happen between conception and birth that can prevent a fetus from reaching its full development.
furthermore, it is living off a woman's resources, her food, her oxygen, her hormones, if she doesn't want it to be there, she has the right to remove it.

secondly, i am not american and both democrats and republicans are being childish and immature in this election, i would probably do a write in ballot for myself if i could. and while i would prefer kerry to win, it is simply for the fact that he probably wouldn't want to go on with that dumbass star wars missile defense program that my government is probably going to get roped into helping fund.

furthermore, if you read my last posts, you'd know that i have looked at the images and the only people who are making use of the gory images are the anti-choicers. which is really funny in a way because you claim that the pro-choicers are stooping low.

Pro LIFE shows the pictures to show us what happens during abortions.

the pictures you gave are sugarcoated. why not show the other ones? Look around here to see unsugarcoated pictures:

Note: may make you lose your lunch.


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ourchurch-graphics.com/member/x/xtiancrusader/FETAL-ABORT7MONTHS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ourchurch.com/member/r/RobertBaral/&h=371&w=500&sz=54&tbnid=3GnuVcNXAQ0J:&tbnh=94&tbnw=126&start=52&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dabortion%26start%3D40%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

umm, that's what i'm looking at and i viewed the images while i was eating and was perfectly fine. that's actually where i got the images i posted links to. i didn't post links to the gory ones in case others don't want to look at them, it's common courtesy.

and seriously, the half decayed fetuses that are still on an operating table... those seem to be recently removed and are already decaying, suggesting that they were dead before removed, you would force a woman to carry a dead and decaying fetus around until it gets infected and she dies?

As long as it is attached to the mother, its part of the mother, she decides what to do with it. My organs are not alive, but if you take them out and put them in someone else, they can still function on their own. If I say I want the organs to stay in me, they stay in. The baby is just an enormous tumor right up until the umbilical cord is cut.

Pro LIFE shows the pictures to show us what happens during abortions.

the pictures you gave are sugarcoated. why not show the other ones? Look around here to see unsugarcoated pictures:

Note: may make you lose your lunch.


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ourchurch-graphics.com/member/x/xtiancrusader/FETAL-ABORT7MONTHS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ourchurch.com/member/r/RobertBaral/&h=371&w=500&sz=54&tbnid=3GnuVcNXAQ0J:&tbnh=94&tbnw=126&start=52&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dabortion%26start%3D40%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

Ok. First point - Christian, anti-abortion site. It's called a 'bias' you see. I wouldn't trust a site like that a) not to edit photos, b) to present an accurate description of the circumstances of the picture (that fetus appears to be rotting, and was most likely already dead inside the womb), c) to provide accurate ages of the corpses (it's amazing how often you see partial birth abortions labled as 'elective abortions'. Hello, partial births are illegal unless the life of the mother is at risk).

Now, how about this scenario. You've had a child with someone. The child needs an organ to live. Without the organ, the child will die for certain. You cannot provide the organ (wrong bloodtype), but your partner can. Do you seriously think you can legally force your partner to donate part of their BODY to keep your child alive? The answer is, in a sane world, a resounding NO. Even though your partner CREATED the child and is RESPONSIBLE for the child, you cannot force them to give up their organs for it. If you suggested that the government should step in and force parents to donate organs to their children, you'd get trampled by pissed off parents.

You. Can. Not. Force. A. Woman. To. Donate. Her. Womb. To. Anyone.

Not even her child. If she wants it out, she has the right. If you can keep it alive outside of her, then fine, do that. But there is no legal reason why she has to donate her womb, calcium and blood to what she most likely considers a parasitic growth (before you argue, go look up the definition, please)

Even to suggest making abortion is immoral, and unethical, and a whole bunch of other similar synonyms. Unless you want to be forced to give away parts of your own body, don't try and demand it of others.

Who asked you?

You've already been born.

Just because life took its turn on you doesn't give anyone an excuse to decide whether or not they are all-knowing and could determine the outcome of their child's happiness and life.

If you Think wrong..you will be wrong...but for some of you 'thinking' it just not your strong suit. So instead always choose positive over negative, good over evil, light over dark and think about others more often than yourself.

Don't make excuses..let live.

And by the way...the only way you stop an egg from hatching is if you break it too soon...everything needed for life is sustained...there's just a point to birth. Who would have thought someone was blatant enough and ignorant enough to give humanity an excuse to incapacitate iteslf.

kill the mother and then see if the baby survives

kill the mother and then see if the baby survives

You are so worthy of your screen name.

Who asked you?
I am a member of a democratic society. I am female. Any laws passed to abolish abortion DIRECTLY EFFECT me. By anti-abortionists taking steps to have abortion abolished, they are indirectly asking me.

You've already been born.
And? If I hadn't, I'd have no opinions. I'd be dead. I wouldn't regret being dead (I'd be dead), I would have no opinion (I'd be dead). Don't try and imply that only the fetus is affected, because it isn't.

Just because life took its turn on you doesn't give anyone an excuse to decide whether or not they are all-knowing and could determine the outcome of their child's happiness and life.
It is NOT only about the child. The mother has the right to remove her organ and resources from the fetus' use. Unless you want to create a law that makes donating organs to your children mandatory, you cannot demand women let fetus' use their wombs (and blood and calcium)

If you Think wrong..you will be wrong...but for some of you 'thinking' it just not your strong suit. So instead always choose positive over negative, good over evil, light over dark and think about others more often than yourself.
Oooh, way to insult people based on your own opinion. Hurrah for closed-mindedness! I am choosing positive over negative... forcing woman to donate their body to raise what they see as a parasite is disgusting and shows zero amount of humanity. It's barbaric. 'Good over evil' eh? Forcing a pregnent woman to let something suck the calcium from her bones counts as 'good' then? I am thinking of others. I am thinking of the WOMAN who should NOT have to carry a being she does not want - her organs are her own, just as I cannot force you to give a child your liver - even if she may die because of it.

Don't make excuses..let live.
Don't make excuses.. let people have the right to their own organs.

And by the way...the only way you stop an egg from hatching is if you break it too soon...everything needed for life is sustained...there's just a point to birth. Who would have thought someone was blatant enough and ignorant enough to give humanity an excuse to incapacitate iteslf.
Mammalian eggs don't 'hatch'. You need a biology course. In mammals, the fetus survives by using the resources of the mother. They are not self-sustaining in any way. A woman carrying a fetus is losing the iron in her blood, the calcium in her bones, and the energy from food she eats. If she does not want the fetus doing what all parasites do (you know, taking resources without giving anything in return), she has the right to stop it from doing so. Not only that, but where exactly do you think 'everything need for life' comes from in avian and reptilian eggs? (Hint: it's the mother)
And are you aware that in nature, adult animals will often kill off young (young too undeveloped to support themself). It's called 'population control' and it's what stops the adults from dying off while the young are still too small to reach breeding age alone. By performing abortions now, we are preventing the world from collapsing inder the weight of our own species. The instant all the problems like: limited food supply; limited water; limited space; limited energy; etc: go away, I will be more likely to be sympathetic to your cause (providing by that point we've developed to the point where fetuses can be removed immediately and raised outside the body, that is). Until then, we won't agree.

Again, read my post. You ignored every single point in it to blather.

i say we kill all unbown cnhildren who don't have blue hair and blonde eyes
:eek: :sniper:

i say we kill all unbown cnhildren who don't have blue hair and blonde eyes
:eek: :sniper:

That's not... you know, related to abortion. Pro-choice is about every woman's right to keep her organs and body to herself, and not be a slave to a lump of cells.

What your suggesting wouldn't be pro-choice, because it would involve forcing abortion on women... you know... removing the choice to *keep* the child? Not... pro-choice... and.... all?

Pro LIFE shows the pictures to show us what happens during abortions.

the pictures you gave are sugarcoated. why not show the other ones? Look around here to see unsugarcoated pictures:

Note: may make you lose your lunch.


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ourchurch-graphics.com/member/x/xtiancrusader/FETAL-ABORT7MONTHS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ourchurch.com/member/r/RobertBaral/&h=371&w=500&sz=54&tbnid=3GnuVcNXAQ0J:&tbnh=94&tbnw=126&start=52&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dabortion%26start%3D40%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN
want me to show you some pictures of an appendectomy? i can promise you, from personal experience, they are much much grosser. last time i checked, we weren't determining the morality of medical procedures based on how icky they look to lay people.

want me to show you some pictures of an appendectomy? i can promise you, from personal experience, they are much much grosser. last time i checked, we weren't determining the morality of medical procedures based on how icky they look to lay people.

Actually, it appears many pro-lifers are. Go check the In Vitro thread: apaprently, even though 'life begins at conception', it's perfectly ok to throw away 6 or 7 fertilised eggs which could survive if they had a womb to be implanted into.

So apparently abortion is only wrong when it's icky.

Actually, it appears many pro-lifers are. Go check the In Vitro thread: apaprently, even though 'life begins at conception', it's perfectly ok to throw away 6 or 7 fertilised eggs which could survive if they had a womb to be implanted into.

So apparently abortion is only wrong when it's icky.
ahhhhhhh, gotcha. it is also, therefore, wrong to remove large tumors, since those are REALLY icky. and totally wrong for people to undergo heart surgery, since that is seriously icky. don't even get me started on the intestines...anything having to do with them is wrong, because even the healthiest intestine looks really icky.

if everyone was left handed socilaists we would all live happily ever after hooray.

also. writing. words. as. sentences. looks. fun.

if everyone was left handed socilaists we would all live happily ever after hooray.

also. writing. words. as. sentences. looks. fun.

it. is. isn't. it?

:D

[QUOTE =Dakini]or you could you know, just not stereotype people.
you stereotype your own gender, calling any man who tidies up after himself gay, saying that men who respect women have to ask permission to fart, saying that women are here to procreate et c. not everyone fits conveniently into one category.

Thats right grab the extreme end to any point being made to make your arguement sound valid.
And speaking of people wanting everything to fit into one catorgary, have a good look at what you expect all men to be like, and what all women should be like.

if all men were like you, the birthrate would drop to zero as they would have alienated every self respecting woman and would be in teh dog house permanently.

pfft, dont underestimate my charm ;)


oh, another stereotype: women can't be strong.

-as men.
Sorry but this is generally accepted world wide, and has been for some time, get used to it and move on.

i'm not hiding from the world. i'm still living in the world, still working, still interacting with other people, educated people and people who are like me, on the way to becoming educated professionals.

At what, being a pretentious pain in the arse? :)


don't be hatin' because you aren't smart enough to attend an institute of higher learning. and yes, i'm aware of the slang i used, i figure that perhaps i should dumb my speach down a bit when conversing with you.

Theres no such thing as smart and dumb, its only interested and uninterested.
What you see as a career has got nothing to do with varying levels of intelligence, only different interests.
If you were half as smart as what you think you are, you wouldnt be trying to mock someone elses intelligence.
Especially someone as smart as me ;)

im sure this has been said but i didnt read everything...

according to biological standards of classiflying any type of organism, a fetus is alive, it is more complex than a single celled organism, it lives off of the mother much like a parasite, and it is developing much like a child develops at any part of their growth period, inside or outside of the womb it still depends on the mother for its nutrition, safty, nurturing, at any part of the pregnancy. The only dependancy a fetus has on the mother is food and safty, similar to culturing a dish of bacteria, but yet they are considered alive although a much complex creature than a fetus. The only active part a mother has is providing an egg and a safe environment. The fetus develops its own means of obtaining fuel and does not really even need the mother, it could be in the father just as well.

To respond to the statement about the baby must have organs to be classified as alive...
What organ would you designate? The placenta is the first organ it develops as soon as the fetus finds a spot to attach (not long after conception), and dont forget, even skin is classified as an organ.
There are also some organs that do not develop or fully develop until after birth.

and yes, it has organs, at least organelles until it develops organs, which are considered to be organs in many animals.

Forgive the lecture, but being in a medical field, I felt the urge :)

Theres no such thing as smart and dumb sweety, its only interested and uninterested.
What you see as a career has got nothing to do with varying levels of intelligence, only interest.
If you were half as smart as what you think, you wouldnt be trying to mock someone elses intelligence. ;)
i've got to disagree there, sorry. my lab is located in a teaching hospital, and every day i watch medical students wash out. these are kids who want to be a doctor more than anything in the world, who have spent years preparing for medical school and for training to become a doctor, and who have put everything else in their life on hold for it. but they simply don't have what it takes to make it through the med school, because not everyone is as intelligent as everyone else.

if you don't believe there are varrying levels of intelligence then how can you believe there are varrying levels of strength? women are just as strong as men, they just aren't as interested in lifting those things. i'm just as fast as that olympic athelete, i just am not interested in running right now.

the reality is that people have different cognitive abilities to work with. basic neuroscience could help you understand this, because our different brain connectivities (determined by both genetics and our experiences as we grow up) lend different abilities to our minds. some people are not born with the raw matterial to be as intelligent as other people, just like some people are born with physiology that makes them better disposed to be atheletes...you must still USE that potential, sharpen it and focus it, but two people who put equal effort into such training will usually not end up on equal footing because they didn't have equal material to work with.

im sure this has been said but i didnt read everything...

according to biological standards of classiflying any type of organism, a fetus is alive, it is more complex than a single celled organism, it lives off of the mother much like a parasite, and it is developing much like a child develops at any part of their growth period, inside or outside of the womb it still depends on the mother for its nutrition, safty, nurturing, at any part of the pregnancy. The only dependancy a fetus has on the mother is food and safty, similar to culturing a dish of bacteria, but yet they are considered alive although a much complex creature than a fetus. The only active part a mother has is providing an egg and a safe environment. The fetus develops its own means of obtaining fuel and does not really even need the mother, it could be in the father just as well.

To respond to the statement about the baby must have organs to be classified as alive...
What organ would you designate? The placenta is the first organ it develops as soon as the fetus finds a spot to attach (not long after conception), and dont forget, even skin is classified as an organ.
There are also some organs that do not develop or fully develop until after birth.

and yes, it has organs, at least organelles until it develops organs, which are considered to be organs in many animals.

Forgive the lecture, but being in a medical field, I felt the urge :)

I think the best standard would be the point at which the nervous system forms - before that it can't deal with stimuli in a complex way.

And the mother should not be forced to provide the fetus with the use of any of her organs. The womb is hers. If the fetus can survive out of it, it's all good. But if a woman wants it out of her body, she should be allowed to do so. I couldn't force the father of a hypothical child to donate one of his organs to save it's life... why should I be held to the different standard just because I'm female?

im sure this has been said but i didnt read everything...

according to biological standards of classiflying any type of organism, a fetus is alive, it is more complex than a single celled organism, it lives off of the mother much like a parasite, and it is developing much like a child develops at any part of their growth period, inside or outside of the womb it still depends on the mother for its nutrition, safty, nurturing, at any part of the pregnancy. The only dependancy a fetus has on the mother is food and safty, similar to culturing a dish of bacteria, but yet they are considered alive although a much complex creature than a fetus. The only active part a mother has is providing an egg and a safe environment. The fetus develops its own means of obtaining fuel and does not really even need the mother, it could be in the father just as well.

To respond to the statement about the baby must have organs to be classified as alive...
What organ would you designate? The placenta is the first organ it develops as soon as the fetus finds a spot to attach (not long after conception), and dont forget, even skin is classified as an organ.
There are also some organs that do not develop or fully develop until after birth.

and yes, it has organs, at least organelles until it develops organs, which are considered to be organs in many animals.

Forgive the lecture, but being in a medical field, I felt the urge :)
being in "a medical field" i am surprised you would make a claim like "the fetus could just as well be in the father," since medical science has proven that to be impossible. your "medical field" wouldn't happen to be a Mexican plastic surgeon's office, would it? ;)

If he does want it, and the woman doesn't... in order for him to get his child, she has to go through a pregnancy (with all the risks, inconvenience and hardship) in order to give him what he wants. He doesn't even have to come near her in that 9 months - she is the one doing the 'work', feeling the pain.

If she does want it, and he doesn't, in the large proportion of cases, he leaves without giving her his forwarding address.

If the roles were equal, the responsibility equal, and the time and energy equal (including things like pain, sickness, discomfort, 9 months of life given away, and finally - not being able to fit into her old dresses anymore...) then I would back you all the way. But it isn't like that.


I see what you're saying here. And what's even more scary is I think I'm starting to agree with you on this point. :eek:

However, after that 9 months, she's done. The man takes the baby, she never has to worry about it again. I know it's a 9 month commitment on her part, but the man just made an 18 year commitment of raising a baby.

Reverse that, and the woman keeps the baby, the man didn't want, he either has to move and rearrange his whole life and hide from the woman and the alimony system, or is stuck for the next 18 years paying support for a child he didn't want, and doesn't want anything to do with. The roles may not be equal at the same time, but in the end they do tend to balance out (in my black and white view of things, I know there are tons of gray areas that I'm leaving out for now)


Like I said... rape is a grey area. There is rape that IS rape, and a hundred lines of 'almost' rape below that. As I pointed out previously... most married women don't realise that being forced to have sex when they'd rather not is actually rape. So, every year, hundreds of husbands rape their wives, and the wife doesn't think she has a legal recourse.


Well...yes. I guess. (I have no comeback, shocking!)

This is gettin scary Grave, two points I agree with you on!


The problem is, with the holdovers from more primitive times still hanging about us... women ARE told that they are expected to have sex (Go forth and multiply), ARE told that they can't say no (or not told that they can, thank you 'abstinence programs... examples of Deep South, where the girls are told in Church every day that they are EXPECTED to defer to the superior man, as the curch does to Christ, etc.).

And then, the rightwing (predominantly) tells them that they can't rid themselves of the mistake they are lulled into.

Until our society gets a whole lot better, we NEED abortion.

They're also told in our high schools 'we know you can't say no to sex, so at least have him wear this condom' and they are also told in those churches that sex before marriage is bad.

I'm not about to defend the church or any of its actions. I can't, it would be foolish to try. The church has a lot of interesting ideas that just don't work in the real world and many times it forgets that it is part of the whole wide world, instead of its own little world. It tends to forget that at times.

Please don't let the modern day church turn you away from true Christian thought...(another post though).

I have never claimed that we should get rid of abortion at this point, just trying to point out that it isn't always the best choice.

want me to show you some pictures of an appendectomy? i can promise you, from personal experience, they are much much grosser. last time i checked, we weren't determining the morality of medical procedures based on how icky they look to lay people.

that is very true. hell, isn't birth a pretty damn messy thing to go through too? i saw them do surgery on a guy who fell on a tree which pepetrated him through the torso, showing the branch inside him wasn't terribly pleasant either.
it's a good thing doctors have strong stomachs.

The technical term is not babies, but they are babies.

Fetuses are human beings. Not potential humans. sperm and eggs are potential human beings. Fetuses ARE humans. Even your beloved Kerry thinks that life starts at conception... or is that one of his flip-flops?

and did you go to google pictures? or do you not want to know how they do it? Just check it out and tell me what you think about it.

I am human, certainly. If I need organs or blood or bone marrow from you in order to survive, do I have the right to protect my life by taking your body parts without your permission? Of course not, because you are a human and therefore have the _human_ right to determine who may or may not use your body or body parts.
You argue so vehemently for the full human rights of a fetus (indeed, you argue for giving them special rights that no other human has), but you're willing to completely ignore the human rights of an adult woman, to treat her as a mindless, soulless incubator without the right to authority over even her own body.
I don't care whether you want to believe that a two-celled blastula becomes a full human being at the instant of conception. But I cannot and will not accept that, at the same moment, its mother ceases to be human.

Pro-choice simply means giving the choice to abort or not. They are not stating we should run out and abort all fetuses.

Pro-life fights for a right to life for all fetuses, but doesn't seem to care what happens once the fetus is born. (Hence our inadequate social welfare systems and churches frowning at poor people)

Given the choice, I'd pick pro-choice anyday...

The flaw that I have noticed in a great many of these arguments is the position that the mother has the right to determine whether or not her body is used by this growing fetus for its survival. The analogy is drawn that people would never dream of forcing the father or some other person to donate organs to keep somebody alive and yet the mother is expected to do exactly that. :rolleyes:

This argument is flawed for 2 reasons:

1)Nothing is being "donated". Barring complications, no organs are removed from the mother as a result of pregnancy. Granted, she goes through some irreversible changes, but to say that something has been "donated" or "taken away" is a distortion of the facts. :confused:

2)Barring rape cases, the decision is already made the night she took off her clothes. There is a reason why safe sex is so highly emphasized, and social norms ideally include only married couples doing it. People constantly have sex, taking the risk of pregnancy when their circumstances make pregnancy unfeasible, and then if they get pregnant, expect people to be sympathetic. Here's a hint: Don't have sex until you can handle the consequences! It's not like eating, breathing or shelter. It is not necessary for survival. :headbang:

Before anybody jumps on me for being over simplistic or judgmental, when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 16, we started sleeping together. She became pregnant. In keeping with this philosophy we took responsibility for our actions. She's now my wife of 12 years. Our son is a Boy Scout and has dreams of going to the Air Force Academy, and our other 2 kids are every bit as wonderful. We were fortunate that our parents raised us to be responsible. Yes, we were careless but we did what was right. :cool:

Don't believe in shotgun weddings? Then KEEP YOUR PANTS ON and be patient! :headbang:

666 replies in this thread.

The analogy is drawn that people would never dream of forcing the father or some other person to donate organs to keep somebody alive and yet the mother is expected to do exactly that. :rolleyes:

This argument is flawed for 2 reasons:

1)Nothing is being "donated". Barring complications, no organs are removed from the mother as a result of pregnancy. Granted, she goes through some irreversible changes, but to say that something has been "donated" or "taken away" is a distortion of the facts. :confused:

You have a spare room in your house. You plan to make it into a gallery to keep your paintings in it when you get the leisure time to take up the brushes and oils. You show visitors this room with a whistful sigh of "one day... one day...". One of your visitors hangs up his own art in there, perhaps Damien Hurst's pickeld Shark. You'd be entitled to be at the very least confused and probably angry. What if you were forced to give up your job to ensure the art is never left unguarded, told that you have to get exorbitant home-insurance and find that the perpetual smell of formaldahyde isn't helping much either. Even if you're allowed to move the art outside after several months, you have people insisting you ensure it stays safe and clean or else they are going to sue you for abusing fine art. Ok, so there's only so far I can take this analogy, but is the point made?

2)Barring rape cases, the decision is already made the night she took off her clothes. There is a reason why safe sex is so highly emphasized, and social norms ideally include only married couples doing it.
Safe sex is not 100%. Sex between two people, married or otherwise, can be social and yet socially responsible by usng two or more forms of contreception, all of which fail. This does not always happen (is probably an extreme minority) but there's precedent and the decision when she (and he) took off clothes was not actually "let's invoke a pregnancy" because people in love (or, even more so, in lust) aren't always that rational, especially if they think they are using some form of contreception. (Condoms aren't allowed under at least one major religious institution. The rhythm method is notoriously unreliable and even an attempt at technical abstinence with 'heavy petting' can result in pregnancy in certain circumstances.) Mistakes are made, we are an imperfect race and though there are blatantly times when a couple is being stupid and should have known they were behaving 'dangerously' I don't think you could possibly justify a situation where every casual sexual encounter (including casual encounters between spouses) is 'rewarded' by an irreversible pregnancy.


People constantly have sex, taking the risk of pregnancy when their circumstances make pregnancy unfeasible, and then if they get pregnant, expect people to be sympathetic. Here's a hint: Don't have sex until you can handle the consequences! It's not like eating, breathing or shelter. It is not necessary for survival. :headbang:
I can just imagine a couple, both of whom are w.r.t. contraception. They both like sex, in my world, and they have a happy relationship, they go on to have children when they are ready. By the rules of your world one of the partners is especially responsible and will bear in mind the "no sex unless intending to procreate" rule. Whether or not the other partner (man or woman, doesn't matter) is like-minded or just still as responsible as they were in my world, it's perfectly feasible that the sexual tensions between them cause either an abuse of some kind (enforced intercourse) or a rift that causes them to break up. They cannot start a family for various reasons and so cannot even mutually enjoy each other sexually. Maybe that's something you and your partner can handle, but from my experience an enforced absence is damaging enough without having an enforced celibacy whilst in the presence of the object of your desire... Something bad is going to happen, and the best I can hope for is for them to split up and suffer alone rather than startt bouncing off the walls.

(It takes all sorts and that may not be typical, but it's an extrapolation of a hypothetical projection based upon my experience.)

Before anybody jumps on me for being over simplistic or judgmental, when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 16, we started sleeping together. She became pregnant. In keeping with this philosophy we took responsibility for our actions. She's now my wife of 12 years. Our son is a Boy Scout and has dreams of going to the Air Force Academy, and our other 2 kids are every bit as wonderful. We were fortunate that our parents raised us to be responsible. Yes, we were careless but we did what was right. :cool:

Good for you. Good for your wife. Good for your kids. My friend of 30 and his wife of 21 have a 5yo and a 2yo kid. They have been married for just 4 years, but were living together (full time) before the 5yos came along. Yes, not a typical situation, and not entirely a laudible one under a lot of people's values. 5yo was a mistake, but the relationship wasn't and the marriage was only an afterthought because they felt it was time to make it 'official'. 2yo was deliberate and apparently a long-term effort to produce (excuse the inherant mental images I might invoke there), but that's the luck of the draw. They aren't too concerned about (neither pursuing nor completely avoiding the possibility of) a 3rd child, at the moment.

You have a spare room in your house. [...]Even if you're allowed to move the art outside after several months, you have people insisting you ensure it stays safe and clean or else they are going to sue you for abusing fine art. Ok, so there's only so far I can take this analogy, but is the point made?

That analogy only applies to rape. In your analogy the art seems to have been brought in without consent. It would be a very different story if you had somehow engaged in some activity that you knew might result in your bearing the responibility for this art.


Safe sex is not 100%. Sex between two people, married or otherwise, can be social and yet socially responsible by usng two or more forms of contreception, all of which fail. This does not always happen (is probably an extreme minority) but there's precedent and the decision when she (and he) took off clothes was not actually "let's invoke a pregnancy" because people in love (or, even more so, in lust) aren't always that rational, especially if they think they are using some form of contreception.
Fine, so what you're saying is that abortion should be allowed in order to protect irrational people from the mistakes they make while being irrational, while engaging in an activity that isn't NECESSARY.


I can just imagine a couple, both of whom are w.r.t. contraception. They both like sex, in my world, and they have a happy relationship, they go on to have children when they are ready. By the rules of your world one of the partners is especially responsible and will bear in mind the "no sex unless intending to procreate" rule.


Don't distort what I said. I said only those who are prepared to accept the possible consequences should go forward. Sex is not exclusively for procreation, but does sometimes result in it. Using abortion to undo that is essentially alleviating people of bearing the burden of responsibility for the decisions they make, which in turn, provides no incentive whatsoever to avoid repeating it or having others learn from it.


Maybe that's something you and your partner can handle, but from my experience an enforced absence is damaging enough without having an enforced celibacy whilst in the presence of the object of your desire... Something bad is going to happen, and the best I can hope for is for them to split up and suffer alone rather than startt bouncing off the walls.


By saying this you're reducing rational, intelligent human beings to the level of animals who are wholly unable to conrtol their urges.


My friend of 30 and his wife of 21 have a 5yo and a 2yo kid. They have been married for just 4 years, but were living together (full time) before the 5yos came along. Yes, not a typical situation, and not entirely a laudible one under a lot of people's values.

Nevertheless, I applaud them for following through by raising the child. The marriage issue is for another board, but they were together, had the child, stayed together, raising the child. Most excellent.

So in essence, your argument appears to be that human beings are, in the end, doomed to give in to sexual urges and desires, and cannot be counted upon to take any personal responsibility. Therefore, let us relieve them of the consequences of these urges by providing a means to destroy the unborn life in order to preserve their lifestyle. Perhaps they'll even go on to get pregnant again and again! And why not? There's certainly no incentive not to besides a little inconvenience and some money spent.

Thats right grab the extreme end to any point being made to make your arguement sound valid.
And speaking of people wanting everything to fit into one catorgary, have a good look at what you expect all men to be like, and what all women should be like.


That's the problem with stereotyping, Terminalia... not everyone does it.... that's another one of your stereotypes.

Oh, and what you refer to as extremes, are merely your posts.


pfft, dont underestimate my charm ;)


I don't think that's possible.


At what, being a pretentious pain in the arse? :)


Non-constructive. Just flaming. Weak.


Theres no such thing as smart and dumb, its only interested and uninterested.
What you see as a career has got nothing to do with varying levels of intelligence, only different interests.
If you were half as smart as what you think you are, you wouldnt be trying to mock someone elses intelligence.
Especially someone as smart as me ;)

Make up your mind. Either there IS "smart and dumb" or there isn't.

Not true, anyway... except perhaps in the literal "absolute sense of the words". Some people ARE more intelligent than others. Some less so. To deny that is to try to impose an artificial equality.

I see what you're saying here. And what's even more scary is I think I'm starting to agree with you on this point. :eek:

However, after that 9 months, she's done. The man takes the baby, she never has to worry about it again. I know it's a 9 month commitment on her part, but the man just made an 18 year commitment of raising a baby.

Reverse that, and the woman keeps the baby, the man didn't want, he either has to move and rearrange his whole life and hide from the woman and the alimony system, or is stuck for the next 18 years paying support for a child he didn't want, and doesn't want anything to do with. The roles may not be equal at the same time, but in the end they do tend to balance out (in my black and white view of things, I know there are tons of gray areas that I'm leaving out for now)

Well...yes. I guess. (I have no comeback, shocking!)

This is gettin scary Grave, two points I agree with you on!

They're also told in our high schools 'we know you can't say no to sex, so at least have him wear this condom' and they are also told in those churches that sex before marriage is bad.

I'm not about to defend the church or any of its actions. I can't, it would be foolish to try. The church has a lot of interesting ideas that just don't work in the real world and many times it forgets that it is part of the whole wide world, instead of its own little world. It tends to forget that at times.

Please don't let the modern day church turn you away from true Christian thought...(another post though).

I have never claimed that we should get rid of abortion at this point, just trying to point out that it isn't always the best choice.


Don't worry, we are ALLOWED to agree, occasionally. Just make sure it doesn't happen too often! ;)

We agree on the final paragraph as well.... there are some ideas (which may be good ideas or not) that work in theory, but do not really apply in practice. Because the world is a big, complex place... and people want to do what people want to do.

That's the real reason why I argue that Pro-Life (if they are REALLY pro-life, and not just anti-abortion) should fight the CAUSES of abortion, rather than the symptoms. It would be a better use of energy, would be a more effective way of drastically reducing the number of abortions, would actually find sympathy WITHIN the pro-choice camps, and would improve the world for all... which seems like a pretty good deal to me. Still looking for the 'catch'.

2)Barring rape cases, the decision is already made the night she took off her clothes. There is a reason why safe sex is so highly emphasized, and social norms ideally include only married couples doing it. People constantly have sex, taking the risk of pregnancy when their circumstances make pregnancy unfeasible, and then if they get pregnant, expect people to be sympathetic. Here's a hint: Don't have sex until you can handle the consequences! It's not like eating, breathing or shelter. It is not necessary for survival.

one distinction: choosing to have sex is NOT the same thing as choosing to get pregnant. your claim that "the decision is already made the night she took off her clothes" would lead us to the conclusion that we should not allow somebody to have their bone set if they break their leg while skiing. after all, they chose to go skiing, and skiing isn't an essential activity, so they shouldn't be allowed to have medical treatment...they should just accept that when they chose to go skiing they made the choice to break their leg, and should live with the resulting pain and any potential deformity of impropper healing on their own.

Personally I think abortion should be allowed, up to and including 10 months past the birth of the child itself. Frankly, there are many children that should have been aborted post-partum that never were. I don't consider them viable humans until they show signs of rational thought.




Pre-emptive "Yeah, like you!" that I know is coming.

Don't worry, we are ALLOWED to agree, occasionally. Just make sure it doesn't happen too often! ;)

We agree on the final paragraph as well.... there are some ideas (which may be good ideas or not) that work in theory, but do not really apply in practice. Because the world is a big, complex place... and people want to do what people want to do.

That's the real reason why I argue that Pro-Life (if they are REALLY pro-life, and not just anti-abortion) should fight the CAUSES of abortion, rather than the symptoms. It would be a better use of energy, would be a more effective way of drastically reducing the number of abortions, would actually find sympathy WITHIN the pro-choice camps, and would improve the world for all... which seems like a pretty good deal to me. Still looking for the 'catch'.

No worries, I don't think it would happen TOO often...;-)

I like to point out to so-called 'pro-lifers' that they are not pro-life, they are pro-birth. They're all gung ho about getting that baby born, and once that happens everyone seems to give up. Look at our adoption system (in the US at least, I can't speak for other nations). Look at the social service system. People have to stand in line for hours, spreading meetings accross days, just to see if they're eligible for support.

While all this is going on we have people arguing that every 'sperm-egg hybrid' must become a baby.

It's enough to make me sick.

I've always been against abortion, but I am a firm believer in choice.

how would you define rational thought? I look at my seven and a half month old son and I watch him figure out that if he climbs the bookshelf and falls off, it hurts.
if he screams long enough, mommy or daddy comes running.
if he throws something on the floor, someone will pick it up.
if he grins really big, he gets lots of attention.

that seems rational to me.

I don't understand people who can't figure out in 9 months of being pregnant that they didn't want the child that they were pregnant with and ended up going through the process of birth for. What's the point?
yeah, for me the right to abortion is about the woman's right to her body, and has nothing to do with the "child." once the baby is born, the woman's body is no longer in the picture, and therefore if she decides she doesn't want it she still doesn't have the right to end its life. she can give it up for adoption if she likes, but cannot kill it.

Personally I think abortion should be allowed, up to and including 10 months past the birth of the child itself. Frankly, there are many children that should have been aborted post-partum that never were. I don't consider them viable humans until they show signs of rational thought.




Pre-emptive "Yeah, like you!" that I know is coming.

how would you define rational thought? I look at my seven and a half month old son and I watch him figure out that if he climbs the bookshelf and falls off, it hurts.
if he screams long enough, mommy or daddy comes running.
if he throws something on the floor, someone will pick it up.
if he grins really big, he gets lots of attention.

that seems rational to me.

I don't understand people who can't figure out in 9 months of being pregnant that they didn't want the child that they were pregnant with and ended up going through the process of birth for. What's the point?

one distinction: choosing to have sex is NOT the same thing as choosing to get pregnant. your claim that "the decision is already made the night she took off her clothes" would lead us to the conclusion that we should not allow somebody to have their bone set if they break their leg while skiing. after all, they chose to go skiing, and skiing isn't an essential activity, so they shouldn't be allowed to have medical treatment...they should just accept that when they chose to go skiing they made the choice to break their leg, and should live with the resulting pain and any potential deformity of impropper healing on their own.

I just want to say (and then I'm done with my post frenzy) that this is the best analogy anyone has made with regards to the 'if she kept her legs closed, then...' arguement.

Ok, carry on.

how would you define rational thought? I look at my seven and a half month old son and I watch him figure out that if he climbs the bookshelf and falls off, it hurts.
if he screams long enough, mommy or daddy comes running.
if he throws something on the floor, someone will pick it up.
if he grins really big, he gets lots of attention.

that seems rational to me.

I don't understand people who can't figure out in 9 months of being pregnant that they didn't want the child that they were pregnant with and ended up going through the process of birth for. What's the point?

Sometimes the child is simply defective, and there are some serious mental disorders that don't really manifest until several months after birth. As for deciding what's rational thought, that's a bit more of a grey area. I don't know of any good way to test for complex thought processes, but simple memorization of cause and effect isn't it.

Sometimes the child is simply defective, and there are some serious mental disorders that don't really manifest until several months after birth. As for deciding what's rational thought, that's a bit more of a grey area. I don't know of any good way to test for complex thought processes, but simple memorization of cause and effect isn't it.

well God, how rational do you want a 7 1/2 month old to be?
...

...I'm gonna say stuff I'll regret, so I'm going to just leave this alone.

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 will explain mine by refuting yours.

Isn't the child of that raped person considered having a "soul"? Isn't that baby that was "kept in the family" also considered a person? Either keep to one side of the issue or the other. The middleground doesn't work. Human life is when the child can think for itself, (IE - developed brain).

one distinction: choosing to have sex is NOT the same thing as choosing to get pregnant. your claim that "the decision is already made the night she took off her clothes" would lead us to the conclusion that we should not allow somebody to have their bone set if they break their leg while skiing. after all, they chose to go skiing, and skiing isn't an essential activity, so they shouldn't be allowed to have medical treatment...they should just accept that when they chose to go skiing they made the choice to break their leg, and should live with the resulting pain and any potential deformity of impropper healing on their own.

I'm really glad you used this particular analogy, because it lays bare the core of the argument. You've just compared a pregnancy to an injury. You've completely de-humanized the unborn baby as some kind of harm that should be extracted.

The tragedy is that this sort of thinking is necessary. Pro-Abortionists are not evil people. They are not out to kill babies. The believe in the sanctity of life. The issue is that in order to make their arguments they have to completely ignore the nature of a human fetus. They have to ignore the fact that the heart is beating within a very few weeks of conception, that he or she can react to external stimulus, that they yawn, move, kick, make facial expressions and even suck their thumbs months before they're born.

Human beings are very good at believeing only that which is convenient, and ignoring unpleasant or inconvenient truths. This is only an example. I don't hate pro-abortion people. I know they just don't see things from the same worldview that pro-life people do.

In order to make your point you completely removed the humanity of the fetus from the equation so that your broken leg analogy would stick. If a fetus were no more than an unpleasant injury, I'd agree with you. Reality, however, does not.

I'm really glad you used this particular analogy, because it lays bare the core of the argument. You've just compared a pregnancy to an injury. You've completely de-humanized the unborn baby as some kind of harm that should be extracted.

The tragedy is that this sort of thinking is necessary. Pro-Abortionists are not evil people. They are not out to kill babies. The believe in the sanctity of life. The issue is that in order to make their arguments they have to completely ignore the nature of a human fetus. They have to ignore the fact that the heart is beating within a very few weeks of conception, that he or she can react to external stimulus, that they yawn, move, kick, make facial expressions and even suck their thumbs months before they're born.

Human beings are very good at believeing only that which is convenient, and ignoring unpleasant or inconvenient truths. This is only an example. I don't hate pro-abortion people. I know they just don't see things from the same worldview that pro-life people do.

In order to make your point you completely removed the humanity of the fetus from the equation so that your broken leg analogy would stick. If a fetus were no more than an unpleasant injury, I'd agree with you. Reality, however, does not.
and you utterly fail to address the point. whether or not pregnancy is as negative as a broken leg (and many would argue it can be far, far worse) is not the point, so you wasted 4 paragraphs...try again, please.

I will explain mine by refuting yours.

Isn't the child of that raped person considered having a "soul"? Isn't that baby that was "kept in the family" also considered a person? Either keep to one side of the issue or the other. The middleground doesn't work. Human life is when the child can think for itself, (IE - developed brain).


The "soul" thing is only relevent if you believe in the "soul".

Since the modern Judeo-Christian concept of the soul actually comes from about 3000 years of misunderstanding, I argue that nobody has a "soul" as it is commonly taken to mean.

The foetus conceived "in the family" isn't a person, and won't be a person until it is born. It will be a foetus. Then, after it has cleared the birth-canal (or been surgically removed in the case of C-section) it will be a baby... and that baby could be argued to be a 'person'.

I'm really glad you used this particular analogy, because it lays bare the core of the argument. You've just compared a pregnancy to an injury. You've completely de-humanized the unborn baby as some kind of harm that should be extracted.

The tragedy is that this sort of thinking is necessary. Pro-Abortionists are not evil people. They are not out to kill babies. The believe in the sanctity of life. The issue is that in order to make their arguments they have to completely ignore the nature of a human fetus. They have to ignore the fact that the heart is beating within a very few weeks of conception, that he or she can react to external stimulus, that they yawn, move, kick, make facial expressions and even suck their thumbs months before they're born.

Human beings are very good at believeing only that which is convenient, and ignoring unpleasant or inconvenient truths. This is only an example. I don't hate pro-abortion people. I know they just don't see things from the same worldview that pro-life people do.

In order to make your point you completely removed the humanity of the fetus from the equation so that your broken leg analogy would stick. If a fetus were no more than an unpleasant injury, I'd agree with you. Reality, however, does not.

There are no Pro-Abortionists. Such people would be 'in favour' of abortions, as a positive state. I think you mean "Pro-Choice", which is the faction that demands women have the CHOICE to abort...

Your argument that the foetus can react to stimuli, while intended to strengthen your claim, (which it may to a certain class of people) is irrelevent. A bean-plant can react to external stimulus - that doesn't make it human... or even a foetus.

A foetus has no humanity. It is a foetus. Therefore, your last point is built on a fallacy.... next question.

The "soul" thing is only relelvent if you believe in the "soul".

Since the modern Judeo-Christian concept of the soul actually comes from about 3000 years of misunderstanding, I argue that nobody has a "soul" as it is commonly taken to mean.

The foetus conceived "in the family" isn't a person, and won't be a person until it is born. It will be a foetus. Then, after it has cleared the birth-canal (or been surgically removed in the case of C-section) it will be a baby... and that baby could be argued to be a 'person'.

It all boils down to whether or not the fetus/child was wanted or unwanted. If it's wanted, then the mother will fight to the death to protect it. If it's unwanted, then no one can make her keep it.


Since the modern Judeo-Christian concept of the soul actually comes from about 3000 years of misunderstanding, I argue that nobody has a "soul" as it is commonly taken to mean.


I would love to talk to you about this concept in a civilized (and uninterrupted) setting. Would you consider emailing me regarding it grave?
nationstates@deviationpoint.cjb.net

....right.

There are no Pro-Abortionists. Such people would be 'in favour' of abortions, as a positive state. I think you mean "Pro-Choice", which is the faction that demands women have the CHOICE to abort...

i identify as pro-abortion, though i don't believe that ALL women should ALWAYS be forced to abort. i believe that increasing the number of aborted pregnancies in the world today would be a very very very good thing, and i believe many women need to be encouraged to have abortions.

i've got a buddy who believes even more strongly than i do; she believes bearing a pregnancy to term with the intention of giving the baby up for adoption should be ruled a criminal offense, and that abortion should be enforced upon any woman who has already done that one time and is planning to do so a second time. on my angry days, i agree with her :).

there ARE pro-abortion people, so it is wrong to refer to pro-choice people using the label of "pro-abortion" because that is inaccurate for most of them.

what i don't understand is why pro-life ppl are left alone while pro-choice ppl get their cars keyed. why is pro-life an "acceptable" stance by general society while "pro-choice" is not. i mean, you don't see pro-life ppl's houses being blown up.

eh, i skipped the middle...45 pages, but what i read on the 1st page was rather...frightening. i've never heard of ppl saying that you can "abort" someone after they're born. isn't that just infanticide? while i'm pro-choice b/c well, hey, it's america...and to put it simply, isn't a baby basically kinda like a parasite, living off of the mother until it is able to be born? so until it can support itself (well...breathe and basic life functions like that), abortion really should be up to the mother cuz the baby is technically part of the mother's body.

I'm really glad you used this particular analogy, because it lays bare the core of the argument. You've just compared a pregnancy to an injury. You've completely de-humanized the unborn baby as some kind of harm that should be extracted.

it's not a baby until it leaves the womb.

The tragedy is that this sort of thinking is necessary. Pro-Abortionists are not evil people. They are not out to kill babies. The believe in the sanctity of life. The issue is that in order to make their arguments they have to completely ignore the nature of a human fetus. They have to ignore the fact that the heart is beating within a very few weeks of conception, that he or she can react to external stimulus, that they yawn, move, kick, make facial expressions and even suck their thumbs months before they're born.

pro-abortion is not the same as pro-choice. pro-abortion woudl imply that even women who want to reproduce should be forced to have abortions. in essence the exact opposite stance as the "pro-life" movement.
as i said a number of times in this thread alone: heartbeat isn't until 6 weeks, brain waves and stimulus response isn't until 22. similarly with the thumb sucking and the like. the majoity of abortions (90%) happen in the first trimester, i.e. the first 12 weeks. and at that point, you've got a bunch of somewhat differentiated cells grouped off for organs that aren't working or developped. i can't even recall if it looks human then.
and yeah, the abortions preformed after brain waves are detected are to save the mother's life only.

In order to make your point you completely removed the humanity of the fetus from the equation so that your broken leg analogy would stick. If a fetus were no more than an unpleasant injury, I'd agree with you. Reality, however, does not.

tell that to a rape victim.

i identify as pro-abortion, though i don't believe that ALL women should ALWAYS be forced to abort. i believe that increasing the number of aborted pregnancies in the world today would be a very very very good thing, and i believe many women need to be encouraged to have abortions.

i've got a buddy who believes even more strongly than i do; she believes bearing a pregnancy to term with the intention of giving the baby up for adoption should be ruled a criminal offense, and that abortion should be enforced upon any woman who has already done that one time and is planning to do so a second time. on my angry days, i agree with her :).

there ARE pro-abortion people, so it is wrong to refer to pro-choice people using the label of "pro-abortion" because that is inaccurate for most of them.

I recant my position on the Pro-Abortionists.

I would argue that your strong feeling friend was something other than pro-abortion... and that she is only 'pro-abortion' under some circumstances...

Maybe she's anti-abandonment?

But, anyways... if you call yourselves 'pro-abortion'... I step back, and recant.

I'd like to try and turn this around


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..

progress when used below refers to morally good progress
1. each new person has the possibility to make a new contribution to society
1a. This contribution happens sometime after birth
2. society progresses by new contributions building on previous ones
3. the more new persons there are, that can be supported by available resources(whole different ball of wax), the more possibilities there are for new contributions and therefore more possibilities for progress
4. abortion prevents a person from reaching the point of 1a when the contribution happens -- even if you don't believe it was a person when aborted, after abortion it no longer can be a person who reaches the point where they can make that contribution
5. by limiting the number of possibilities for contribution abortion limits the possibilities for progress
6. laws are meant to assist in societal progress
7. abortion should be illegal

progress when used below refers to morally good progress
1. each new person has the possibility to make a new contribution to society
1a. This contribution happens sometime after birth
2. society progresses by new contributions building on previous ones
3. the more new persons there are, that can be supported by available resources(whole different ball of wax), the more possibilities there are for new contributions and therefore more possibilities for progress
4. abortion prevents a person from reaching the point of 1a when the contribution happens -- even if you don't believe it was a person when aborted, after abortion it no longer can be a person who reaches the point where they can make that contribution
5. by limiting the number of possibilities for contribution abortion limits the possibilities for progress
6. laws are meant to assist in societal progress
7. abortion should be illegal

let's try this again.

1. each new person has the potential to be a burden on society.
1a. those who are born into poverty and improper care are more likely to be such.
2. the more persons there are, the fewer resources there are to go around.
3. abortion often prevents someone being born into the state 1a, thus prevents more burdens on society.
4. abortion decreases teh number of people using our valuable resources and the potential number of people becoming a burden on society.


blah. i'm bored of this.

at any rate, if you read the post you quoted, you would see that the person was in favor of abortions in instances where the woman's health was in danger, if the woman dies, then a fully developped human being is lost, which is really a tad worse than a potential human being.

If teenage girls are stupid enough to get pregnant they should suffer the consequences of their stupid actions (not using a condom or birth control of some sort).
The human population is indeed grossly over inhabiting this tiny planet we call Earth and we should kill a few humans, but that is immoral, so the next best thing is fetices!
I do think that if one is pregnant because of rape, or if it endangers the mother, then that is fine and dandy to have an abortion, but I oppose idiotic teenage girls from getting them, it is ridiculous if you are that slutty or careless.

it's also the boy's fault, ass. i say we force him to undergo hormone therapy for 9 months and put on 40 lbs, then shit out a watermelon. and hey, if you're willing to subject women to this kind of punishment for a mistake, why the hell do guys get off scott-free.

Well, guess what? Life isn't always fair. It's the girl's fault.

personally, if i was raped and impregnated, i wouldn't carry the child for one simple reason: i don't want that bastard to have his genes live on to the next generation. hell, rapists should probably be castrated as it is.

Well, with things like rape, it's usually nurture, not nature. Very rarely is one's genes the cause of malice.

abortions that late in pregnancy aren't done unless they're medically necessary. are you saying that a woman must die giving birth because the fetus is more important than she is?

Well, I would say the fetus is more important than the woman is. But, I will say that is okay, because it is the woman's right there.

my parents were married for 9 years before i was even conceived and i was a planned pregancy. had i been aborted, i wouldn't have had a life to begin with and i wouldn't have reached this stage of development where i could really give a damn, now would i have?

okay... well, you're just weird.

what if she was pressured? some guys don't let up on girls until they submit to sex. what if she was unaware that antibiotics nullified the effects of the pill (which is why you have to leave two hours between anti-anything pills and taking the birth control pill... for refrence for you all) what if it takes mroe than one person to impregnate? what if you know, there is a partner in all this? ass. it takes two to tango, if i could impregnate myself, then it would be my fault entirely if i were to find myself in such a situation, however, i can't do that, now can i?

The girl knows the risk. The guy knows the risk. If the girl knows the risk (which 99.999 percent of them do), then she should have the sense not to do it. Btw, sex is immoral, and birth control isn't 100%.

i've probably had premarital sex a hundred times thus far with my boyfriend. i've never been pregnant. i'm on the birth control pill and we make sure we have condoms as well. the probability of a pregnancy is pretty damn low and we've already discussed what we would do should such a situation arise. and believe me, you wouldn't like it.

Well, you're an immoral bitch, slut, whatever. There's more to a relationship than sex.

there you go again, blaming the woman.

yup.

it's not a life yet. life is defined as from birth to death. you don't say that by killing one bacteria, you've killed millions, do you? even though one bacteria could potentially preproduce and result in a million bacteria.
a fetus is a potential life, just as one bacteria cell is potentially a million bacteria cells. there are a million possible things that could happen from conception to birth to prevent it from becoming an infant. i.e. 50% of all fertilized ovum don't even attach themselves to the uterine wall, resulting in the expulsion of the fertilized egg.
and by the way, whose body is it growing in? not yours, that's for damn sure. how's this, if you don't want a woman to "kill a baby" then you can remove it from her womb and implant it in yourself. ok?

none of this would be disputed if society would just get its head on straight and practice abstinence...

And it's potential life, is my point. You're squelching out someone's chance at life before they even get a chance.

that you're an insensitive bastard?

And a woman who kills potential life isn't? And I believe in the saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." or maybe more like "don't do the sex if you can't do the consequence." It doesn't rhyme, but whatever.

and i'm sure every woman out there wants to earn the respect of such a mysoginist as yourself.

You misspelled "mysogynist." I don't hate women. I never said that. They should just take consequences they begged for.

NEVER use big words you're not sure of the spelling of against a sixth grade school spelling bee champion. And who did better than most at the regionals.

again, you're an idiot.

meh. whatever. I don't need the respect of an infanticidal moron like you.

And, even if you use the "effective birth control" thing, sex before marriage is immoral, plain and simple.

i'm posting twice in a row because I think i've just realized something, Part of the problem seems to be men not wanting to be men. First let me clarify I am a man, as much of one as God and my earthly father can make me.

but browsing through the posts i found two very interesting arguements in favor of abortion

1. if she doesnt want it and he does, she still has to go through the ordeal

2. if he doesnt want it and she does, he leaves the picture faster than you can say "poser"

these two arguements have the same root, my fellow men aren't being very manly. if they were they wouldn't put themselves in a position to impregnate a woman until they could support her through the ordeal of pregnancy and were sure they both wanted a child (and don't give me sometimes the condom breaks, abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed method, anything else and there's a possibility for her to become pregant with a baby human)

and yeah you can say i can't help it if she comes on to me, but you can always say no. So to my brothers out there, start being freaking responsible

If teenage girls are stupid enough to get pregnant they should suffer the consequences of their stupid actions (not using a condom or birth control of some sort).
The human population is indeed grossly over inhabiting this tiny planet we call Earth and we should kill a few humans, but that is immoral, so the next best thing is fetices!
I do think that if one is pregnant because of rape, or if it endangers the mother, then that is fine and dandy to have an abortion, but I oppose idiotic teenage girls from getting them, it is ridiculous if you are that slutty or careless.



hell, our planet is so overpopulated, why not get rid of people over 70? That would take care of overpopulation.

Why stop there, why not scale back to 60?

or 50?

hell, why have a birthrate at all...

I'm getting upset...I should shut up.

i'm posting twice in a row because I think i've just realized something, Part of the problem seems to be men not wanting to be men. First let me clarify I am a man, as much of one as God and my earthly father can make me.

but browsing through the posts i found two very interesting arguements in favor of abortion

1. if she doesnt want it and he does, she still has to go through the ordeal

2. if he doesnt want it and she does, he leaves the picture faster than you can say "poser"

these two arguements have the same root, my fellow men aren't being very manly. if they were they wouldn't put themselves in a position to impregnate a woman until they could support her through the ordeal of pregnancy and were sure they both wanted a child (and don't give me sometimes the condom breaks, abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed method, anything else and there's a possibility for her to become pregant with a baby human)

and yeah you can say i can't help it if she comes on to me, but you can always say no. So to my brothers out there, start being freaking responsible

If someone doesn't want to abort the baby, they're right. Make the girl go through it. If it's the guy who wants it, the girl's an irresponsible slut, oh well, who cares? If it's the girl who wants the baby, great, keep it!

any respect I may have had for you has now been lost based on your last two posts...

w00t, I don't care.

nice argument there.

If someone doesn't want to abort the baby, they're right. Make the girl go through it. If it's the guy who wants it, the girl's an irresponsible slut, oh well, who cares? If it's the girl who wants the baby, great, keep it!

any respect I may have had for you has now been lost based on your last two posts...

any respect I may have had for you has now been lost based on your last two posts...

w00t, I don't care. I expect to lose the respect of all pro-choice people here. I never had any respect for any of you anyway!

I shall forever be:

anti-choice
anti-abortion
pro-life
pro-anti-choice
anti-pro-choice
anti-anti-life
pro-anti-abortion, and
pro-anti-choice!

(P.S. I liked your argument! It proved a lot to me! [/sarcasm])

it's not a baby until it leaves the womb.


Define for me then, if you would please, the biological difference between a baby 30 seconds before he/she clears the birth canal, with 30 seconds after.

Hint:Taking a breath is not a biological difference. I'm looking for a definition here that goes beyond semantics.

Hey, all you fascists... join The Fascist Haven.

w00t, I don't care. I expect to lose the respect of all pro-choice people here.

I shall forever be:

anti-choice
anti-abortion
pro-life
pro-anti-choice
anti-pro-choice
anti-anti-life
pro-anti-abortion, and
pro-anti-choice!

(P.S. I liked your argument! It proved a lot to me! [/sarcasm])


if you were truly anti-choice then you would support one government sponsered religion, and everyday you would get up and put on your pre approved government sponsored clothing and go to your pre chosen job and do your pre chosen task...

I don't think you're really anti-choice in the grand scheme of things.

oh, and one thing I forgot mentioning, is that there's a thing called a cesarean section. it's a magical way to deliver a baby not by way of the *tee hee* ...vagina. So, very rarely is a woman's life endangered by pregnancy in that way.

believe it or not, I myself was delivered by this procedure!

if you were truly anti-choice then you would support one government sponsered religion, and everyday you would get up and put on your pre approved government sponsored clothing and go to your pre chosen job and do your pre chosen task...

I don't think you're really anti-choice in the grand scheme of things.

Well, not in the grand scheme of things, but in abortion.

I don't care if people call me anti-choice instead of pro-life. Because that is what I am!

Hey, all you fascists... join The Fascist Haven.

oh, wow, you opened up a new light to me by calling me a fascist! i now realize the errors of my ways! [/sarcasm again]

Blatant political insults don't prove anything. They just make you look stupid.

And no one say, "if you don't like it, don't do it!" Because that is the stupidest argument ever. If some idiot wants me to explain, go on, ask me. I won't get that bothered.

oh, and one thing I forgot mentioning, is that there's a thing called a cesarean section. it's a magical way to deliver a baby not by way of the *tee hee* ...vagina. So, very rarely is a woman's life endangered by pregnancy in that way.

believe it or not, I myself was delivered by this procedure!

yes, because the worst part is vaginal delivery.
the recovery time for cesarian secrtion is much longer than the recovery time for vaginal delivery not to mention the risk of infection that there is for any surgery that involves cutting a person open.

but yeah, i don't know where you got that birthing is the most difficult part of pregnancy.

when did I suggest it was the worst part?

that's right, NEVER.

quit putting words in my mouth. This was about the "life-in-danger" thing.

If a couple's contraception attempts fail :( , for whatever reason, the morning after pill :fluffle: is not 'killing a human baby'... Even after 3 days most human zygotes are only a mass of 8 undifferentiated cells. Saying that this is 'killing a baby' is just one small step from claiming that masturbating on the ground is killing a million human babies. :eek: Nothing in life is as black and white as the monarchs who have interpreted the Christian religious texts over the years claim. ;)

If a couple's contraception attempts fail :( , for whatever reason, the morning after pill :fluffle: is not 'killing a human baby'... Even after 3 days most human zygotes are only a mass of 8 undifferentiated cells. Saying that this is 'killing a baby' is just one small step from claiming that masturbating on the ground is killing a million human babies. :eek: Nothing in life is as black and white as the monarchs who have interpreted the Christian religious texts over the years claim. ;)

If you're masturbating, those cells aren't really potential life. Besides, sperm are meant to be wasted. Out of the millions a man releases during sex, only one gets the egg.

Its amazing how immoral people have become that they haphazardly have sex and then don't act responsibly when they get pregnant. If you get pregnant than have the baby and put it up for adoption. Abortion is the irresponsible thing to do. It is a quick fix to a problem you brought upon yourself. At the very least this country should outlaw partial birth abortions unless there are EXTREME circumstances. No one has the right to kill an almost fully formed baby with a pair of scissors.

Its amazing how immoral people have become that they haphazardly have sex and then don't act responsibly when they get pregnant. If you get pregnant than have the baby and put it up for adoption. Abortion is the irresponsible thing to do. It is a quick fix to a problem you brought upon yourself. At the very least this country should outlaw partial birth abortions unless there are EXTREME circumstances. No one has the right to kill an almost fully formed baby with a pair of scissors.

Are you from the US? The US has banned partial birth abortions except in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure about other countries.

In my opinion fetus' are alive from time of conception. It's just like killing any other human being or living thing. Abortions are only right in my opinion if the mother is in any harm from the pregnancy or if it is 100% positive the child will not beable to do ANYTHING at all by themselves when they get older(serious birth defects, mental retaedation, etc.). Rape, incest are also reasons for abortion but, i believe that if u dont want the child there are adoptions agencies for a reason. I know someone who was victim of incest and they r raising their kid and the kid has no problems mentally or physically. So thats my opinion. BAN ABORTIONS UNLESS LIFE THREATENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sniper:

let's try this again.

1. each new person has the potential to be a burden on society.
1a. those who are born into poverty and improper care are more likely to be such.
2. the more persons there are, the fewer resources there are to go around.
3. abortion often prevents someone being born into the state 1a, thus prevents more burdens on society.
4. abortion decreases teh number of people using our valuable resources and the potential number of people becoming a burden on society.


blah. i'm bored of this.

at any rate, if you read the post you quoted, you would see that the person was in favor of abortions in instances where the woman's health was in danger, if the woman dies, then a fully developped human being is lost, which is really a tad worse than a potential human being.


1) it doesn't matter if they have "potential" to be a burden on society. Potential means they are not yet so why kill someone for what they can possibly be before he IS. hell it think you are a potential burden on society, so should i kill you? No. You still have the right to live as do other "potential burdens."

2) i don't know how are resources are now but it seems like it wont be any time soon before we lose it all. You can always replant farms for food so at least we will have food and water. We may need to build more farms though if the population dramatically rises somehow. Energy isnt a problem because of new hydrogen technologies coming out and whatnot. Hydrogen is, i think, the most abundant element in the universe.

3) So you are saying that all poor family's children should be killed because they may be a POTENTIAL burden on society?*looks at 1)*

4) You talk as though we have only like 50 years left of resources which is probably not true. *looks up at post 2)*

And for the women who have a life threatening pregnancy is a good issue. Because if you commit an abortion it will be killing a human life( NOT A POTENTIAL HUMAN), but if you dont the mother will die. But one thing is if the baby is going to die anyway you go, abortion or just sit it out, then abortion should be used to save the mother if the baby has no chance of survival anyway.

Note: ive heard alot of words like " potential humans" being thrown around. So what you are saying is that it is alright to abort them because they are not human. But the funny thing is this debate somewhat occured 150 years ago... the debate on slavery. The slave owners thought blacks were not human so it is alright for them to be slaves the same way pro abortionists say the babies are not humans so they could be killed without it being a crime. Same excuses for wrong doings.

And if fetus' are not humans then what are they? If they are not alive nor dead then... THEY MUST BE UNDEAD!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ZOMBIES!!!!!!!! When a sperm and an egg unite it creates life. Not an empty shell until the 9th month of pregnancy then POOF!!!! IT... IS.......... ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you from the US? The US has banned partial birth abortions except in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure about other countries.

Abortions in the early stages are just as worse. They stick a tube in there and suck in the baby and it grinds it up!! Imagine yourself going into the engine of a 777 jet... VROOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when did I suggest it was the worst part?

that's right, NEVER.

quit putting words in my mouth. This was about the "life-in-danger" thing.

a woman's life doesn't have to be in danger at the end of the term. there are some women with heart conditions who have problems very early on. there are some fetuses that are dead in the womb and it's easier to get them out vaginally than by cutting through the abdominal wall.

If you're masturbating, those cells aren't really potential life. Besides, sperm are meant to be wasted. Out of the millions a man releases during sex, only one gets the egg.

so? 50% of fertilized ovum are wasted. half of all fertilized ovum pass out of a woman without implanting themselves in the uterine wall.

Abortions in the early stages are just as worse. They stick a tube in there and suck in the baby and it grinds it up!! Imagine yourself going into the engine of a 777 jet... VROOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Late stages. That rarely happens anymore anyway...

The flaw that I have noticed in a great many of these arguments is the position that the mother has the right to determine whether or not her body is used by this growing fetus for its survival. The analogy is drawn that people would never dream of forcing the father or some other person to donate organs to keep somebody alive and yet the mother is expected to do exactly that. :rolleyes:

This argument is flawed for 2 reasons:

1)Nothing is being "donated". Barring complications, no organs are removed from the mother as a result of pregnancy. Granted, she goes through some irreversible changes, but to say that something has been "donated" or "taken away" is a distortion of the facts. :confused: .........

Her blood, calcium, energy... would you enforce MANDATORY blood donations then? Because that's what you're implying.

That analogy only applies to rape. In your analogy the art seems to have been brought in without consent. It would be a very different story if you had somehow engaged in some activity that you knew might result in your bearing the responibility for this art.
It was not intended to apply only to rape. It wasn't, like, an intruder who put in the artworks. I admit the analogy wasn't exactlybrilliant, but surely you get that the owner of the house enjoyed 'showing around' visitors (but only visitors).

Fine, so what you're saying is that abortion should be allowed in order to protect irrational people from the mistakes they make while being irrational, while engaging in an activity that isn't NECESSARY.
Erm... no. I first of all point out one end of the spectrum where the activity is pursued by couples who are being rational (and as for necessarry, is it necessary to watch TV together, go down the pub, go on holiday? I assume you have no objection over any of these 'unnecessary' activies that a couple might partake in as a normal part of a relationship). I do drift into the people being less rational (in re-reading, I do it more suddenly than I had intended so I suppose I can't blame you for only seizing on that end of the argument) but I intended to indicate that couples could still be believe themselves protected with just one method of contraception (e.g. rhythm/withdrawl) and not intend a pregnancy and then there's the issue of insufficient sex education (not just accidental pregnancy but one through ignorance) that seems to happen more in areas roughly correlating with anti-abortion stances, but that was a different thread.

Don't distort what I said. I said only those who are prepared to accept the possible consequences should go forward. Sex is not exclusively for procreation, but does sometimes result in it. Using abortion to undo that is essentially alleviating people of bearing the burden of responsibility for the decisions they make, which in turn, provides no incentive whatsoever to avoid repeating it or having others learn from it.
If abortion were not available (at all, in any way) there might be less sex going on. Might. I was trying to indicate (maybe clumsily) how I saw a 'commandment'-style situation causing more serious erosion of the family-structure.

By saying this you're reducing rational, intelligent human beings to the level of animals who are wholly unable to conrtol their urges.
Nobody is 100% rational 100% of the time, but I don't believe that has any part in the argument I was trying to make. I think we've got a bit of a conceptual gap here which I can't really resolve in this reply.

Nevertheless, I applaud them for following through by raising the child. The marriage issue is for another board, but they were together, had the child, stayed together, raising the child. Most excellent.
I thought you'd like that. Not meaning to spoil the mood, I had also meant to add that the fact that abortion was an option helped them come to terms with the situation and allowed them to make a logical decision together (though it was of course her final decision in the end, anyway) without feeling as pressured and helped them (IMHO) to remain together to bring up the first child together. I haven't got access to the parallel universe where it was not available, so who knows what would have happened there. I have my suspicions, but...

So in essence, your argument appears to be that human beings are, in the end, doomed to give in to sexual urges and desires, and cannot be counted upon to take any personal responsibility. Therefore, let us relieve them of the consequences of these urges by providing a means to destroy the unborn life in order to preserve their lifestyle. Perhaps they'll even go on to get pregnant again and again! And why not? There's certainly no incentive not to besides a little inconvenience and some money spent.
Definitely a problem with my intended explanation (or perhaps with me) if that's what you saw in it.

Edit: Ooops, I missed a couple of bits of sentence!

yes, because the worst part is vaginal delivery.
the recovery time for cesarian secrtion is much longer than the recovery time for vaginal delivery not to mention the risk of infection that there is for any surgery that involves cutting a person open.

but yeah, i don't know where you got that birthing is the most difficult part of pregnancy.
For those who think C-sections are a harmless, easy way to have kids, allow me to relate a recent annecdote.

My friend went into labor and the doctors discovered the baby was in breech position (feet down), and concluded that it would be very dangerous to try to deliver vaginally. She had a C-section, and her healthy baby boy was born on a Friday in early July. Her C-section wound was closed, and she was sent home.

All was well for about a week. Then, one night, she woke up to go to the bathroom, and when she bent over the sink he incision burst open. Blood and pus "gushed" out of the wound (her words), and she collapsed in terror, screaming for her husband. He called 9/11 and she was rushed to the hospital. They discovered that her C-section wound had become seriously infected, and that she was roughly 48 hours from dying of the infection. She had not had any unusual symptoms until the incident in the bathroom, and there was no warning anything was wrong.

Now, granted, this is not the average case, but I think far too many people are underestimating how serious a procedure the C-section is. It is MAJOR SURGERY, and involves cutting through many layers of tissue to pull a baby out of a woman; think how large that is, and think about what kind of cuts they have to make to accomodate it. It's not an easy procedure, and not some magical way to make birth easy.

Abortions in the early stages are just as worse. They stick a tube in there and suck in the baby and it grinds it up!! Imagine yourself going into the engine of a 777 jet... VROOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
over 50% of third trimester "abortions" are performed on fetuses that are already dead. which is grosser to you, sucking a dead fetus out with a vacuum, or requiring a woman to carry a tiny corpse around inside her, rotting and endangering her reproductive abilities or even her life?

The girl knows the risk. The guy knows the risk. If the girl knows the risk (which 99.999 percent of them do), then she should have the sense not to do it.
right, so if somebody breaks their leg while skiing they should not be allowed medical treatment or painkillers or to have the bone set. they knew the risks and chose to take those risks, so they shouldn't be allowed to have any medical help with the consequences. they should just have to suffer, because skiing is a selfish and immoral pasttime that people spend money on instead of spending money to help the poor. they deserve to be in pain and suffer for being immoral.

Her blood, calcium, energy... would you enforce MANDATORY blood donations then? Because that's what you're implying.

Actually... The baby's blood supply is completely independent of the mother's. The Placenta is where the two systems interact to exchange nutrients and waste, but the blood itself is not shared.

You're comparing the loss of energy to donating a kidney?

I just want to take a moment to thank E B Guveggra for discussing this issue rationally without a bunch of rhetoric and anger. We disagree but are still keeping it cordial.

Thanks! :)

Actually... The baby's blood supply is completely independent of the mother's. The Placenta is where the two systems interact to exchange nutrients and waste, but the blood itself is not shared.

You're comparing the loss of energy to donating a kidney?

So go tell your wife that you don't think pregnancy requires any REAL effort or has any REAL physical cost to the woman. Go ahead. I dare you. Pregnancy DOES require the loss of many vital physical resources, which is why it is extremely dangerous to women who don't have access to decent nutrition.
Donating a kidney is far quicker, and at least you get to sleep through it. Donating blood, in comparison to either, is a cakewalk. (I do it regularly - never once would I suggest to any of my friends who have been pregnant that the experiences are even REMOTELY comparable.)
And you will never ever be forced to do any of these things, even for YOUR child whom YOU created through YOUR choice to have sex, unless you give explicit consent - and even after you give explicit consent, you may withdraw it at any time during the process. (And that's true even in situations like the donation of bone marrow, where your consent is the trigger for the patient being placed on a drug regiment that will kill them unless they get a donation soon. In other words, your withdrawal of consent will kill someone whom your initial consent placed in a position of utter dependence on your body, just as with a woman conceiving a fetus - yet you may say no at any time and kill that patient. Even your own child. Even though yours was an EXPLICIT consent, not one merely implied by your particiption in a risky activity.)
Yet you're perfectly comfortable requiring a far greater physical effort from a woman, just because she refused to remain a perpetual virgin (something even St. Paul considered difficult if not impossible for most people). You can't be forced to go through with a trivial procedure that takes an hour, like blood donation, even if you'd explicitly consented beforehand, but the implicit consent to pregnancy inherent in sex is binding for nine full months, though it may risk a woman's very life and/or cause permanent damage to her health? Funny how the situation changes when it's someone else's body you're blithely handing over to be used.

I just want to take a moment to thank E B Guveggra for discussing this issue rationally without a bunch of rhetoric and anger. We disagree but are still keeping it cordial.

Thanks! :)

No problem. I just hope I make some sort of sense and don't inadvertantly fall into the traps inherant in an asynchronous text-only medium.

(We now return you to your regular scheduled programme.)

So go tell your wife that you don't think pregnancy requires any REAL effort or has any REAL physical cost to the woman. Go ahead. I dare you. Pregnancy DOES require the loss of many vital physical resources, which is why it is extremely dangerous to women who don't have access to decent nutrition.
Donating a kidney is far quicker, and at least you get to sleep through it. Donating blood, in comparison to either, is a cakewalk. (I do it regularly - never once would I suggest to any of my friends who have been pregnant that the experiences are even REMOTELY comparable.)
And you will never ever be forced to do any of these things, even for YOUR child whom YOU created through YOUR choice to have sex, unless you give explicit consent - and even after you give explicit consent, you may withdraw it at any time during the process. (And that's true even in situations like the donation of bone marrow, where your consent is the trigger for the patient being placed on a drug regiment that will kill them unless they get a donation soon. In other words, your withdrawal of consent will kill someone whom your initial consent placed in a position of utter dependence on your body, just as with a woman conceiving a fetus - yet you may say no at any time and kill that patient. Even your own child. Even though yours was an EXPLICIT consent, not one merely implied by your particiption in a risky activity.)
Yet you're perfectly comfortable requiring a far greater physical effort from a woman, just because she refused to remain a perpetual virgin (something even St. Paul considered difficult if not impossible for most people). You can't be forced to go through with a trivial procedure that takes an hour, like blood donation, even if you'd explicitly consented beforehand, but the implicit consent to pregnancy inherent in sex is binding for nine full months, though it may risk a woman's very life and/or cause permanent damage to her health? Funny how the situation changes when it's someone else's body you're blithely handing over to be used.
Prosimiana, will you marry me?

So go tell your wife that you don't think pregnancy requires any REAL effort or has any REAL physical cost to the woman. Go ahead. I dare you.

By your logic then, my wife could not possibly be Pro-Life, nor could any woman who has ever had a child.

You can massage the details all day long any way you want to, but at the end of the day the idea that pregnancy is somehow equivalent to the loss of a kidney is laughable. You're going by the very same mentality that has created laws that say if my daughter wants an abortion she can do wo without my knowledge or consent even if she's a minor, but the school nurse can't give her an aspirin.

Everybody's perspective on this issue, on both sides of the aisle, will naturally be somewhat distorted by their own beliefs and worldview. I am prepared to admit that. Ultimately however, the Pro-Life side is based upon a set of observable data. Examples like how many weeks until heartbeat begins, etc. The Pro-Abortion side (Yes, I said Pro abortion and not Pro-choice on purpose. I refuse to argue semantics) is based upon a set of ideas of privacy and choice that ultimately are designed more to preserve lifestyles and feelings.

Think about that carefully before you respond.

Before anybody jumps on me, my points exclude extreme cases like rape or life-threatening scenarios. They have been all along.

Before anybody jumps on me, my points exclude extreme cases like rape or life-threatening scenarios. They have been all along.

So you'd look a baby conceived by rape in the eyes and say "Sorry, but because your daddy forced himself on your mommy, we are going to kill you now."?

So you'd look a baby conceived by rape in the eyes and say "Sorry, but because your daddy forced himself on your mommy, we are going to kill you now."?

What is this about? All I said was that may arguments were not focusing on that scenario, because I was making specific points. What's your problem?

I acutally have several points to bring up here.

1. I have a cousin (not on good terms) who gave birth to a crack baby. He is now 6 years old and struggles with every single day as though world tragedy is occurring. He is an angry, unfocused, and tragic little boy. I love him, but his life is much harder than it could've been. What's more, he has NO contact with his mother. The courts awarded him into the custody of his grandmother who now has an anxiety disorder as a result of the excess stress of court preceedings with her daughter (who left this young boy in a house alone with a pedophiliac heroine junkie so she could go out and screw her dealer for more rock). She decided to bear that child. That was her choice. Still, she wasn't the only one who suffered from her choice. Her mother and that child have a lifetime of work ahead of them to help him come to terms with his difficult youth.

I'm not saying that crack babies should be terminated, only that watching him struggle for life makes me think a little differently than I used to.

2. Pregnancy is not a breeze. Some women love it and do very well. Others grow increasingly bitter towards the new life growing inside them. The relationship between mother and fetus can be described as parasitic. (I expect to get flamed for this, but please hear me out.) The baby eats her food, uses her energy, sustains life from her, moves her organs around inside her body, stretches muscle, bone, and skin to the limits, and then is finally brought into the world through a difficult and painful ordeal. Even after the child is born, it feeds off the mother. Some women are cut out for that kind of selfless sacrifice. Some are not. I think that mothers are a remarkable group of people who suffer deeply for the rewards they get from their children. It's a rewarding and difficult experience, motherhood. I commend all mothers for it. Still, those of them who are NOT able to deal with the pressure of being a mother do far more harm than an abortion.

Children of abusive parents live their lives disconnected from the world. Mothers have been known to murder their own children in horrible and cruel ways. Children of mothers who are emotionally detached are far more likely to exhibit signs of sociopathy than children of nurturing parents. Even reasonably well-adjusted children suffer with their parents' distance. They live with daily guilt for even existing. As a teacher, I see kids like this every day. While I love and educate every student I can, I have to wonder what's worse? A parent raising a child they resent (and possibly turning that child into a monster), or a woman with the wisdom to know that she cannot raise a child in her present state of mind? (Adoption, you say? Okay, but we've already got millions of kids in the state system who don't have parents. Furthermore, there's a lot of suffering involved in pregnancy. If a woman wants to spare herself that as well as motherhood, who am I to decide she can't?)

--Laurelin

So you'd look a baby conceived by rape in the eyes and say "Sorry, but because your daddy forced himself on your mommy, we are going to kill you now."?

And here I always thought the point behind abortion was to stop the birth from happening. Apparently, according to you, the child is born, raised to the point where it can understand such concepts, then killed. Silly me.

By your logic then, my wife could not possibly be Pro-Life, nor could any woman who has ever had a child.

You can massage the details all day long any way you want to, but at the end of the day the idea that pregnancy is somehow equivalent to the loss of a kidney is laughable. You're going by the very same mentality that has created laws that say if my daughter wants an abortion she can do wo without my knowledge or consent even if she's a minor, but the school nurse can't give her an aspirin.

Everybody's perspective on this issue, on both sides of the aisle, will naturally be somewhat distorted by their own beliefs and worldview. I am prepared to admit that. Ultimately however, the Pro-Life side is based upon a set of observable data. Examples like how many weeks until heartbeat begins, etc. The Pro-Abortion side (Yes, I said Pro abortion and not Pro-choice on purpose. I refuse to argue semantics) is based upon a set of ideas of privacy and choice that ultimately are designed more to preserve lifestyles and feelings.

Think about that carefully before you respond.

Before anybody jumps on me, my points exclude extreme cases like rape or life-threatening scenarios. They have been all along.

Oh, sure, women can believe that they will never be in a situation where abortion would be thinkable, let alone necessary (thank heaven, it never is, for most of us), women can be self-righteous and think that because THEY chose to have kids, any woman who makes the other choice is Bad...women can be anti-abortion. But that doesn't mean that they're right to be so - you can donate the use of your own body all you like, but you've no business handing over another woman's against her will.
There were women who were anti-women's-suffrage, too. So?
And your reliance on "observable facts" has missed the following:
1. A woman is a human being.
2. When one human being needs to use the body of another, regardless of how trivial you think the cost to them "really is", the person being used MUST CONSENT to such use and HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW CONSENT at any time. This is true of ALL such instances in our laws. I don't CARE how easy you, who have never done it and CAN never do it, think pregnancy is. I happen to think blood donation, which I do regularly, is very easy - but I can't force you to do it, not even for your own kid. I can't even use your body, even temporarily, after you're DEAD, when you aren't feeling anything at all, at least not physically...

I think all the anti-abortionists would shut up if their 12 year old daughter got raped.

In a short note of support for Prosimiana, I'd like to add common complaints of healthy pregnant women...

Many women experience bladder or kidney infection during the course of pregnancy due to the extra pressure on the entire urinary system.
Many women suffer from diabetes during the course of their pregnancy (due to the chemical changes in the body).
Most women experience insomnia, sleeplessness, and have difficulty getting a full night's rest.
Most women experience serious lower back pain, swelling, nausea, and excess tension.
Most women suffer from hemmorhoids during pregnancy, experience stool softening, or experience constipation.
Migraine sufferers can no longer take any medications meant to quell the excruciating pain of a migraine headache.

Anyway, I'm sure some of the rest of you could think of a few more health problems that are likely to exist primarily in pregnant women.

I wonder if giving blood has these kinds of side effects...

Everybody's perspective on this issue, on both sides of the aisle, will naturally be somewhat distorted by their own beliefs and worldview. I am prepared to admit that. Ultimately however, the Pro-Life side is based upon a set of observable data. Examples like how many weeks until heartbeat begins, etc. The Pro-Abortion side (Yes, I said Pro abortion and not Pro-choice on purpose. I refuse to argue semantics) is based upon a set of ideas of privacy and choice that ultimately are designed more to preserve lifestyles and feelings.

If the anti-choice side were really basing things on biology, they wouldn't have any problem at all about most abortions that occur during the first trimester. Don't be silly, most anti-choice people base their ideas completely on either religion or personal emotion. Observable data demonstrates that the fetus cannot even be termed a separate organism until the nervous system is functional -- after most abortions occur.

As for your pro-choice/pro-abortion semantic debate - consider this. I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Interesting, eh?

Think about that carefully before you respond.

Prosimiana, will you marry me?

Flattering, but about seven months too late. Sorry...

Oh, sure, women can believe that they will never be in a situation where abortion would be thinkable, let alone necessary (thank heaven, it never is, for most of us), women can be self-righteous and think that because THEY chose to have kids, any woman who makes the other choice is Bad...women can be anti-abortion. But that doesn't mean that they're right to be so - you can donate the use of your own body all you like, but you've no business handing over another woman's against her will.
There were women who were anti-women's-suffrage, too. So?
And your reliance on "observable facts" has missed the following:
1. A woman is a human being.
2. When one human being needs to use the body of another, regardless of how trivial you think the cost to them "really is", the person being used MUST CONSENT to such use and HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW CONSENT at any time. This is true of ALL such instances in our laws. I don't CARE how easy you, who have never done it and CAN never do it, think pregnancy is. I happen to think blood donation, which I do regularly, is very easy - but I can't force you to do it, not even for your own kid. I can't even use your body, even temporarily, after you're DEAD, when you aren't feeling anything at all, at least not physically...

This argument speaks to the fundamental difference in our positions. Your perspective is based upon the idea that the only body deserving of consideration in this issue is that of the mother, whiule mine is based upon the idea that the baby's body desrves consideration as well. I stated this before. After sweeping away all the politics and hypotheticals, at the end of the day the issue is about whether a fetus is a person or not. We simply disagree on this definition.

Can we agree on this statement?

I think all the anti-abortionists would shut up if their 12 year old daughter got raped.

I'm sorry you think so.

Oh, sure, women can believe that they will never be in a situation where abortion would be thinkable, let alone necessary (thank heaven, it never is, for most of us), women can be self-righteous and think that because THEY chose to have kids, any woman who makes the other choice is Bad...women can be anti-abortion. But that doesn't mean that they're right to be so - you can donate the use of your own body all you like, but you've no business handing over another woman's against her will.


Just because a woman disagrees with you, it does not make her self-righteous. In the case of my wife, she doesn't push her beliefs on anybody. Neither does anyone else I know on this side of the issue. It is possible to have strong moral convistions without resorting to sneering at the opposition.

I also still find it fascinating that you still characterize pregnancy as something that just happens to people without warning...

If the anti-choice side were really basing things on biology, they wouldn't have any problem at all about most abortions that occur during the first trimester.


Not so. Drawing an arbitrary line at 3 months is exactly that: An arbitrary line. It's no more morally justifiable than at any other time.


most anti-choice people base their ideas completely on either religion or personal emotion.
I'll concede that point to you if you'll concede that both sides are guilty of emotionalism. (Just look at some of the angry posts on this board...)


Observable data demonstrates that the fetus cannot even be termed a separate organism until the nervous system is functional -- after most abortions occur.

Who's applying the term, and who set that standard?

Also, maybe MOST take place in the first trimester, but how do you feel about ones that take place later, or even partial-birth abortion?

From a PERSONAL Standpoint, I think all Abortionists, people who have abortions(unless their life is in danger), or These so called "Pro-choice" people should be shot. I mean, COME ON! If you didnt want a baby, why didnt you take anti-pregnancy pills? Or use Condoms? Its common sense!

From a Technical standpoint, i guess its neccesary. The Earth is already 30% overpopulated, adn we need less people. HOWEVER, in 50-60 or so years(when humans begin Colonization of other heavenly bodies, NOT counting by scientists), the so called "Pro-choice" people will lose the overpopulation argument, seeing how we will have more land to settle.


((BTW- Scientists have plans to colonize the moon as early as 2016. Of course, it will be like Antarctica with the people living there for only a few months but hey, its a start. Of course, that will only happen if we dont knock ourselves back to the stone-age after WWIII...))

[QUOTE=Bottle]the woman has the absolute right to deny the use of her body for incubation,

...............ummmmmmm...........true.......soooooo they shouldnt get pregnant to begin with then....eh?
Maybe, if they cant handle having a kid, they shouldnt be having sex. Becuase if you arent responsible to raise a kid, why take that first step? go get a dildo and do yourself. Sex isnt for pleasure, its to populate the earth.

I'm sorry you think so.

Are you telling me honestly that if your 12 year-old daughter was brutally raped (and got pregnant because of it), that you would force her to bear the child against her will? Why would you make her suffer through 9 more months of discomfort if she didn't want to?

As a rape survivor, I can honestly say that forcing a woman to carry the child of a rapist AGAINST HER WILL is almost as cruel and violent as the original offense. The second act is cut from the same cloth as the first. The first is an act of power, removing the choices and rights of the victim from her and forcing her to have intercourse against her will. The second is an act of self-righteousness, removing the choices and rights of the victim and forcing her to bear a child that was the result of a violent crime against her. No, the fetus didn't have a choice, but the mother didn't choose to get raped any more than the child chose to be born.

Why, exactly, should a fetus (whose awareness is questionable) have more rights than a woman with a whole lifetime of experiences and trials of her own?

It's just sad that women can be so disrespected even now.

Not so. Drawing an arbitrary line at 3 months is exactly that: An arbitrary line. It's no more morally justifiable than at any other time.

You said you were basing your opinion on "observable facts" like when organ systems begin to work. The nervous system (the development of which marks the point at which the fetus really starts behaving as a seperate entity) develops just around this time. I agree that the 3 month line is arbitrary - which is why I advocate coming up with a medical test for whether or not the nervous system is functional and ending elective abortions at that point.

I'll concede that point to you if you'll concede that both sides are guilty of emotionalism. (Just look at some of the angry posts on this board...)

Oh, I never said that some people on both sides don't base everything off of emotion. I, however, base my pro-choice opinion on scientific fact.

Who's applying the term, and who set that standard?

Well, having studied biology for years, I can tell you what the requirements to be termed an organism are. One of them is a functional system for sensing and responding to stimuli. In the human system, that would be at the devlopment of the nervous system. And that development is really the reason for the 1st trimester cutoff.

Also, maybe MOST take place in the first trimester, but how do you feel about ones that take place later, or even partial-birth abortion?

All *elective* abortions take place in the first trimester (at least in this country). 2nd trimester abortions require that the mother have some sort of health risk. 3rd trimester abortions require that the mother's life is in danger.

Personally, I think the trimester distinctions, while convenient, are a bit arbitrary. I think the cutoffs should be quickening (after which elective abortions would not be allowed) and viability (after which only pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother would be aborted).

Are you telling me honestly that if your 12 year-old daughter was brutally raped (and got pregnant because of it), that you would force her to bear the child against her will? Why would you make her suffer through 9 more months of discomfort if she didn't want to?

I have specifically avoided this aspect because it opens up a whole new range of debatable issues of its own. When I responded that I was sorry this person thought I would absolutely have her get an abortion, my point was that I am sorry people assume that my moral convictions are based soely upon convenience.

I'm very sorry that you experienced that... it is, in my opinion, the most vile crime a person can commit against another. This is one of the reasons I haven't wanted to go there in this discussion. It's not an experience I can share, and so no, I wouldn't presume to pretend to be an expert.

All *elective* abortions take place in the first trimester (at least in this country). 2nd trimester abortions require that the mother have some sort of health risk. 3rd trimester abortions require that the mother's life is in danger.

The laws of when abortions can be had and why vary form state to state. Here in Maryland, abortions can be had at any time for any reason.

Sad, but true. Especially when you consider partial birth abortions, which is a procedure that is never medically justified, and therefore is elective by definition.

From a PERSONAL Standpoint, I think all Abortionists, people who have abortions(unless their life is in danger), or These so called "Pro-choice" people should be shot. I mean, COME ON! If you didnt want a baby, why didnt you take anti-pregnancy pills? Or use Condoms? Its common sense!

Do I really need to point out the hypocracy in this statement? Guns don't kill people, radical pro-lifers with guns kill people. *rolls eyes* You can't really be taking yourself seriously can you? First of all, why is it okay to murder a grown woman and not an infant whose conciousness is questionable? It sounds like you'd like to save the fetus and kill the mother. If that could happen, who would raise the child?

From a Technical standpoint, i guess its neccesary. The Earth is already 30% overpopulated, adn we need less people. HOWEVER, in 50-60 or so years(when humans begin Colonization of other heavenly bodies, NOT counting by scientists), the so called "Pro-choice" people will lose the overpopulation argument, seeing how we will have more land to settle.

Assuming that sex is only for procreation is a bit of a mistake, if you ask me. Otherwise, men and women who were UNABLE to have children would remain celibate for the rest of their lives (and I think we ALL know that's not the way it works). Sex is an exchange between two people that can mean a great many DIFFERENT things... things that may have nothing to do with creating a child. Oh, and if you aren't counting by scientists (regarding colonization of other planets/moons), what are you counting by? Who will colonize those "heavenly bodies" if the SCIENTISTS aren't building the TRANSPORTATION vessels? Are you going to flap your arms and fly there?)

((BTW- Scientists have plans to colonize the moon as early as 2016. Of course, it will be like Antarctica with the people living there for only a few months but hey, its a start. Of course, that will only happen if we dont knock ourselves back to the stone-age after WWIII...))

You go right ahead and hold your breath until 2016 when people begin to colonize other planets/moons.

When I responded that I was sorry this person thought I would absolutely have her get an abortion, my point was that I am sorry people assume that my moral convictions are based soely upon convenience.

I noticed that you avoided the debate in that circumstance and was therefore surprised when you responded the way you did. I would like to point out, however, that having an abortion because of a rape isn't really a matter of convenience. It is a matter of mental and emotional health. And if mental and emotional health can be taken into consideration after a woman has been the victim of a violent crime, why can those not be factors in deciding whether or not to have an abortion in another circumstance?

If a woman's mental or emotional health and well being are at stake, why must society force them to carry a child to term? That's really been my question all along. Further, why exactly should I (or you, or anyone else) get to decide what any other person should have to endure? All I've ever intended, in the abortion debate, is to point out that women are sovereign entities with their own unique circumstances and beliefs. Forcing ALL women to carry pregnancies to term (excluding rape and health issues, of course) is tantamount to saying ALL women with blue eyes MUST bear children and ALL women with brown eyes MUST marry men with blue eyes.

#1 Do I really need to point out the hypocracy in this statement? Guns don't kill people, radical pro-lifers with guns kill people. *rolls eyes* You can't really be taking yourself seriously can you? First of all, why is it okay to murder a grown woman and not an infant whose conciousness is questionable? It sounds like you'd like to save the fetus and kill the mother. If that could happen, who would raise the child?



#2 Assuming that sex is only for procreation is a bit of a mistake, if you ask me. Otherwise, men and women who were UNABLE to have children would remain celibate for the rest of their lives (and I think we ALL know that's not the way it works). Sex is an exchange between two people that can mean a great many DIFFERENT things... things that may have nothing to do with creating a child. Oh, and if you aren't counting by scientists (regarding colonization of other planets/moons), what are you counting by? Who will colonize those "heavenly bodies" if the SCIENTISTS aren't building the TRANSPORTATION vessels? Are you going to flap your arms and fly there?)



# 3You go right ahead and hold your breath until 2016 when people begin to colonize other planets/moons.

Ok....

#1 I said in MY OPINION. BEsides, i stated before, if the persons life IS IN DANGER OR WAS RAPED(which counts as being in danger) THE BABY MAY BE ABORTED. I was SERIOUS. Exiling them would be MUCH better.(BTW- The part about sex wasnt said by me...)

#2 I meant SOLELY Scientific explorations. The Scientists are planning to build a BASE on the moon by 2016 which will be used for scientific stuff ONLY. Then Colonization will probably start 20-30 years later.

#3 Of course there will be scientists! I never said there wouldnt be ANY scientists, just it would be with regular people trying to go start a new life on a new world!

Ok....

#1 I said in MY OPINION. BEsides, i stated before, if the persons life IS IN DANGER OR WAS RAPED(which counts as being in danger) THE BABY MAY BE ABORTED. I was SERIOUS. Exiling them would be MUCH better.(BTW- The part about sex wasnt said by me...)

It wasn't said by you, but it was implied when you said that abortions should only be legal as long as the world was overpopulated. Also, would you consider emotional or mental anguish a dangerous situation? Women don't normally just up and decide to have abortions without considering their options. They tend to weigh the factors carefully. Who are you to decide whether they should have to bear a child? When it's your body, I'll consider your opinion a little more carefully.

#2 I meant SOLELY Scientific explorations. The Scientists are planning to build a BASE on the moon by 2016 which will be used for scientific stuff ONLY. Then Colonization will probably start 20-30 years later.

Okay, admittedly, I didn't quite get what you meant in that sentence.

#3 Of course there will be scientists! I never said there wouldnt be ANY scientists, just it would be with regular people trying to go start a new life on a new world!

and to quote your original post:
((BTW- Scientists have plans to colonize the moon as early as 2016. Of course, it will be like Antarctica with the people living there for only a few months but hey, its a start. Of course, that will only happen if we dont knock ourselves back to the stone-age after WWIII...))

Colonization implies that there will be people living there. A base is not the same as a colony. You might also want to consider the energy costs to shuttle people back and forth from earth to the moon and back twice a year. Between that and the financial considerations, I still don't see it happening. Hell, weren't we all supposed to be living like the Jetsons by now? The year 2000 came and went, and we still don't have cars that fold into briefcases, or washing machines that fold the laundry and put it away, or food replicators. *shrugs*