NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I was basing that statement off of Roe v. Wade (which established the trimester cutoffs) and having looked into several state laws.

However, a quick search reveals that abortions in Maryland cannot be "had at any time for any reason." They are more lax than my state (GA), but do not allow all abortions.

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.

Stop listening to hype. There are medical justifications for that particular procedure (although most are very rare conditions).

and to quote your original post:


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*

I admit, people int eh 50's were WAY to optimistic. But since we landed on the moon over THIRTY years ago,a base in 12 years doesnt sound so far fetched. And besides, until around, oh, 2100 humans will only go to the moon. After 2100 humans will go to mars too. I think humans will have the whole solar system colonized by... oh 2700 :D

BTW-ill let you reply then we can stop this. Its OT.

But i wouldnt mind a robotic butt scratcher....stupid Jetsons people. They only told us LIES!

My last responses to this:

1. Gas giants are wholly uninhabitable. If you don't know why, look up the weather/pressure/atmospheric conditions sometime.
2. I agree with you on the Jetsons. Down with the writers of the LIES! ;)
3. 12 years is a lot less time than it seems to be. Particularly with the massive amount of debt we've incurred over the past few years (as a nation, that is).

Back on topic:

Why deny a person their right to choose what should happen to their body or what they can handle emotionally? Why ostricize them because they know what they are (and aren't) capable of coping with?

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!

i'm assuming you mean birth control pills. and some people do use both condoms and birth control and still get pregnant. some women aren't informed of how anti biotics, anti histimines, andacids et c interfere with the ability of the pill to work (though it's alright if you leave two hours in between the two medications) and since the birth control pill screws up fetuses, that kinda makes the case for aboriton in that case more important.

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...))

but at any rate, you need supplies for these new territories. you need water, food, heat, building materials, electricity, artificial gravity (if you ever want these people to be able to return to earth) etc. (we can't breathe out in the open like here) so there would still be a limit to the amount of population if only until all the infrastructure is in place. i'm not sure how feasable a 2016 date is for moon colonization, if it's something that's actually in the works, i'd add about 10 years to it, if it's not in the works, then yeah... don't count on it happening anytime soon.

but yeah, there's more to the pro-choice argument than over population. really, until they develop a way to harvest a fetus and incubate it in an artifical womb, or fool proof birth control that's available to everyone without side effects, proper sexual education and 0 rapes, then perhaps there will be no need for abortions except in life saving instances.

Sex isnt for pleasure, its to populate the earth.

it's for both. however we've already populated the earth rather thoroughly so yeah... guess that's done, now for the fun. :D

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.

not medically justified? what about the dead fetuses that are pulled out so they don't rot in the womb? what about instances of hydrocepahlus when the fetal skull is swollen up to 50 cm in diameter. in case you don't know, a woman's vagina dilated up to 10 cm... now, how do you plan on getting a 50 cm object through a 10 cm hole? how do you do so without killing the woman to produce a child that would die without gaining consciousness?

there are some other deformities that would make it nearly impossible to give birth without crippling or injuring a woman and would result in an infant that would die shortly after birth.

i. i'm not sure how feasable a 2016 date is for moon colonization, if it's something that's actually in the works, i'd add about 10 years to it, if it's not in the works, then yeah... don't count on it happening anytime soon.



Scientists live in space. For 1-1.5 years. If they can stay on a ship for years, then they can stay on a small base on the moon for 6 months...

People who say "fetuses aren't alive" or "they can't feel pain" are stupid.

The pain doesn't matter, the conciousness doesn't matter.

Let's say a guy knocks you unconscious. They kill you. Do you care? How is it any different from abortion?

People who say "fetuses aren't alive" or "they can't feel pain" are stupid.

The pain doesn't matter, the conciousness doesn't matter.

Let's say a guy knocks you unconscious. They kill you. Do you care? How is it any different from abortion?

Study biology. Unless you believe in the existence of a soul (which would be a religious belief), there is no reason to even view the fetus as a seperate organism until the nervous system is developed. Sorry.

Question: How many people that are pro-life, pro-death penalty?

How did you counter my argument in any way...?

But I'll counter yours.

The fetus is a seperate organism because it has different DNA. In what case other than pregnancy are cells of the same body containing different DNA? (Don't say mutation, because that is very minor changes)

And you can't defend abortion when it's not rape or the mother's life isn't at stake. In all other cases, abortion is simply selfish and nothing else. You squelch out potential life, because you did something immoral and irresponsible. I don't believe one should get an abortion from rape, but I think it should be legal. When the mother's life is at stake, well, I believe that a woman should accept the consequences of her mistake, but I believe they are human, and they make mistakes, so there should be no death penalty.

But otherwise, I believe not getting an abortion is accepting the consequences of your own actions.

ABSTINENCE = NO NEED FOR ABORTION

How hard is it for people to get this through their thick skulls?

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?

No, we can't. Frankly, I don't think there is a clear dividing line in fetal development between "person" and "not person" (as with many biological processes, it's a continuum, not a black-and-white Moment of Change) - and I don't think it matters.
After all, I am an undoubted person, but if I need to use ANY of your bodily resources to survive, even temporarily, the only person who gets any choice, any consideration in the issue is you. This is true even after your death - your choice to state before death that you will not be an organ donor overrides my desperate need for your organs even AFTER you're not using them any more.
The fetus deserves consideration on a moral level, from any decent person, certainly, just as I would deserve your moral consideration if my life were in deadly danger and I needed a blood or platelet donation from you to live. But on a legal level, the person whose body is being used is ALWAYS the only person who gets the choice, even when there is no question of the humanity and personhood of the life they could save by sharing their body. And they ALWAYS have the right to say no.

I'm sorry you think so.

So you'd force your 12-year-old daughter to risk her life and her health because some rapist planted his child in her forcibly and against her will? Because she was raped, she is now an incubating machine without the right to say no to the use of her body, and the life of her rapist's child matters more than hers does?

Stop listening to hype. There are medical justifications for that particular procedure (although most are very rare conditions).

Name one, and explain why it has to be that particular procedure.

People who say "fetuses aren't alive" or "they can't feel pain" are stupid.

The pain doesn't matter, the conciousness doesn't matter.

Let's say a guy knocks you unconscious. They kill you. Do you care? How is it any different from abortion?

First of all, it's good to know you're intelligent enough to resort to namecalling when you feel your point is threatened.

Second, regarding your question:

I would have to say, BEFORE I'm knocked unconscious, I probably care and will be very upset at my circumstances. AFTER I'm knocked unconscious, I probably don't. If I'm not aware of my surroundings or what's happening to me, what do I care if I'm killed? I won't experience the death, I just won't wake after being knocked unconscious. On that argument, my personal opinion is that if I don't mind being dead (because I'm not aware enough to struggle), probably the fetus wouldn't if it's not aware....

[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.

If that were true, we'd have estrus cycles like every other primate. Sex is indeed for pleasure and for partner-bonding in humans.
And since when was perpetual virginity required as a prerequisite for basic human rights? Would you accept that for yourself, say by saying that if you have sex, and a resulting child (even one you didn't want or know you had) EVER needed to use your body or body parts to live, you'd be that child's property, without the right to say no?

Name one, and explain why it has to be that particular procedure.

Hydrocephalus in the fetus (as many have pointed out already). A woman cannot possibly pass a fetus with severe hydrocephalus through her vagina without using the procedure of D&X. I suppose you *might* be able to do a kind of C-section instead - but that puts the mother at undue risk and the fetus would still die within minutes anyways.

not medically justified? what about the dead fetuses that are pulled out so they don't rot in the womb? what about instances of hydrocepahlus when the fetal skull is swollen up to 50 cm in diameter. in case you don't know, a woman's vagina dilated up to 10 cm... now, how do you plan on getting a 50 cm object through a 10 cm hole? how do you do so without killing the woman to produce a child that would die without gaining consciousness?

there are some other deformities that would make it nearly impossible to give birth without crippling or injuring a woman and would result in an infant that would die shortly after birth.

If the baby already died in the womb... then it's NOT an abortion, is it?

Name one deformity that would cripple the woman.

Hydrocephalus in the fetus (as many have pointed out already). A woman cannot possibly pass a fetus with severe hydrocephalus through her vagina without using the procedure of D&X. I suppose you *might* be able to do a kind of C-section instead - but that puts the mother at undue risk and the fetus would still die within minutes anyways.

Fill me in, please. What is Hydrocephalus?

The fetus is a seperate organism because it has different DNA. In what case other than pregnancy are cells of the same body containing different DNA? (Don't say mutation, because that is very minor changes)

(a) Mutations are not always as minor as you think.
(b) Something is not an organism until it meets the biological requirements to be an organism.

But otherwise, I believe not getting an abortion is accepting the consequences of your own actions.

As I am sure Bottle will point out, so is getting an abortion.

So you'd force your 12-year-old daughter to risk her life and her health because some rapist planted his child in her forcibly and against her will? Because she was raped, she is now an incubating machine without the right to say no to the use of her body, and the life of her rapist's child matters more than hers does?

I've already addressed this.

Oh, and by the way, if you don't care about being murdered while unconscious, why isn't it legal?

Hey guys, let's legalize murder while the victim is unconscious!

Oh, and by the way, if you don't care about being murdered while unconscious, why isn't it legal?

Hey guys, let's legalize murder while the victim is unconscious!

I agree(about the if you don't care about being murdered while unconscious thing. Not the legalise kill unconscious people law.)

Fill me in, please. What is Hydrocephalus?

It was addressed in an earlier post (which you replied to), but ok, sure. Hydrocephalus is a malformation in which cerebrospinal fluid begins collecting in certain parts of the brain. When developed in the fetus, it can cause a fetus' head to swell to a size much larger than the woman's vagina can really pass. Such fetuses are still considered "alive," but will never gain consciousness and will die shortly after being removed from the mother. Of course, in D&X, they die more quickly - before actually leaving the mother's body.

How did you counter my argument in any way...?

But I'll counter yours.

The fetus is a seperate organism because it has different DNA. In what case other than pregnancy are cells of the same body containing different DNA? (Don't say mutation, because that is very minor changes)

And you can't defend abortion when it's not rape or the mother's life isn't at stake. In all other cases, abortion is simply selfish and nothing else. You squelch out potential life, because you did something immoral and irresponsible. I don't believe one should get an abortion from rape, but I think it should be legal. When the mother's life is at stake, well, I believe that a woman should accept the consequences of her mistake, but I believe they are human, and they make mistakes, so there should be no death penalty.

But otherwise, I believe not getting an abortion is accepting the consequences of your own actions.

ABSTINENCE = NO NEED FOR ABORTION

How hard is it for people to get this through their thick skulls?

First of all, let's not pretend that everyone on the planet lives by the same moral code. Anybody has the right (and ability) to defend ANY point of view as long as they support their argument rationally.

For example, you cited that abortion (for reasons other than medical danger or rape) is selfish. Answer me this, then. When a woman gets an abortion she hurts herself, her fetus, and possibly the father, right?
Think about this... if the woman incubates and bears the fetus she didn't want, she:
Hurts herself, dammaging (perhaps permanently) her own psyche and ability to cope with life
Raises that baby with her emotions tainted by spite and resentment (for all the things she missed out on, whether perceived or real)
Instils in that child a sense of self-loathing
Causes that child to live life wondering why its mommy hates it so much
Causes her offspring to react negatively to other people as a result of his/her own upbringing.

That child will then fear to open up to others, may become mysogynistic (because of a lack of strong maternal leadership), may become hostile or violent (as children typically do if they're not bonded to their parents), and will most certainly have a VERY hard upbringing. If she decides to put her child up for adoption, the child will (as all adopted children do) have questions about why he/she was given away... have a fear of abandonment, etc.

Selfish, huh? What about the quality of life for the unborn baby? What about the quality of life for the mother and EVERYONE who comes in contact with the baby after it's gone into the school system. What about the teachers he/she won't trust and the classmates he/she resents?

Oh, and by the way, seperateness of an organism does not depend solely on separate DNA. If it cannot experience stimulus separate from its host, it may well be part of the host rather than its own entity.

Perhaps abstinence would solve the problem. Just keep hoping.

Fill me in, please. What is Hydrocephalus?

a fetal deformity that could kill a woman who attempts delivery. explained both in my post and by someone who responded to this directly...

Oh, and by the way, if you don't care about being murdered while unconscious, why isn't it legal?

Hey guys, let's legalize murder while the victim is unconscious!

As I see it, the initial attack is the illegal thing. Knocking the person unconscious, actively trying to cause their death, these are the things that are illegal. Frankly, though, if I'm going to be murdered, I'd rather be knocked unconscious and killed while I'm still out. There's less suffering.

You're certainly brilliant at jumping to undue conclusions. Just because my ACTUAL death didn't cause me suffering doesn't mean my friends/family don't have a right to pursue justice on my behalf. I'm sure I suffered during the initial attack, but I'm dead now, so what does it matter? I'm doing something different now. I think most of the dead would find our preoccupation with justice and mourning a little odd.

That aside, a fetus doesn't have a name. It has not experienced this life. All it knows is dark and warm. This is the extent of its experience. I have lived, learned, studied, cared for people who needed me. You tell me, which death is more criminal?

As I see it, the initial attack is the illegal thing. Knocking the person unconscious, actively trying to cause their death, these are the things that are illegal. Frankly, though, if I'm going to be murdered, I'd rather be knocked unconscious and killed while I'm still out. There's less suffering.

You're certainly brilliant at jumping to undue conclusions. Just because my ACTUAL death didn't cause me suffering doesn't mean my friends/family don't have a right to pursue justice on my behalf. I'm sure I suffered during the initial attack, but I'm dead now, so what does it matter? I'm doing something different now. I think most of the dead would find our preoccupation with justice and mourning a little odd.

That aside, a fetus doesn't have a name. It has not experienced this life. All it knows is dark and warm. This is the extent of its experience. I have lived, learned, studied, cared for people who needed me. You tell me, which death is more criminal?


Both. Think of it this way; if you have been waiting and waiting and waiting for 6 years to get a promotion to CEO of a company, and your right about to achieve it, and then a few months before you get promoted you get stabed and died "For the good of the company", how would you feel(from the standpoint of being alive of course. Dead people cant think)? Even though you have been rising through the ranks, you where killed anyhow and now no one will remember you. Instead of becoming known in this world, paving a path, and changing the course of history? If you commit abortion, you may very well just have killed the person who would unite the world under a single flag and issue in an age of peace and prosperity.

Both. Think of it this way; if you have been waiting and waiting and waiting for 6 years to get a promotion to CEO of a company, and your right about to achieve it, and then a few months before you get promoted you get stabed and died "For the good of the company", how would you feel(from the standpoint of being alive of course. Dead people cant think)? Even though you have been rising through the ranks, you where killed anyhow and now no one will remember you. Instead of becoming known in this world, paving a path, and changing the course of history? If you commit abortion, you may very well just have killed the person who would unite the world under a single flag and issue in an age of peace and prosperity.

Okay, to me, this is stretching. I mean, first of all, if I'm killed AFTER experiencing life, it's still a different situation. Second, people aren't just born to unite the world and cause world peace. That's a philosophy we grow up to nurture. Mother Theresa made CHOICES to get where she is, she didn't just get arbitrarily forced into her lot. Likewise, one could say teachers and doctors are part of a noble profession meant to serve the community for the better. Still, the decision of profession doesn't even happen until one has experienced a certain amount of life. And that changes frequently. When I was in primary and secondary school, I thought being a teacher would be the most miserable job in the world. It was my experience AFTER reaching adulthood that got me thinking about teaching.

People aren't just born uniters or warmongers. They develop their minds based on a very complicated combination of examples set for them in youth and societal circumstances. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. (one of the most noble and peace-promoting men ever) had moments in his life that lead him to the path he ended up on.

Okay, to me, this is stretching. I mean, first of all, if I'm killed AFTER experiencing life, it's still a different situation. Second, people aren't just born to unite the world and cause world peace. That's a philosophy we grow up to nurture. Mother Theresa made CHOICES to get where she is, she didn't just get arbitrarily forced into her lot. Likewise, one could say teachers and doctors are part of a noble profession meant to serve the community for the better. Still, the decision of profession doesn't even happen until one has experienced a certain amount of life. And that changes frequently. When I was in primary and secondary school, I thought being a teacher would be the most miserable job in the world. It was my experience AFTER reaching adulthood that got me thinking about teaching.

People aren't just born uniters or warmongers. They develop their minds based on a very complicated combination of examples set for them in youth and societal circumstances. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. (one of the most noble and peace-promoting men ever) had moments in his life that lead him to the path he ended up on.


It was an Analogy. You nearly got to find out what it meant to rule the company(which represents living a life) but then you die and never get to witness its glory(which is what happens when a baby is aborted). You are then forgotten and go nameless(which is the same with an aborted baby).

As for the "The way you are born doesnt affect your actions" type statement. Life is ALSO directed by genetics. Some of your actions, the way you talk, the way you look, thats all genetics. Hitler couldnt have conquered Europe without his charisma, and charisma is made (mostly) through genetics.

It was an Analogy. You nearly got to find out what it meant to rule the company(which represents living a life) but then you die and never get to witness its glory(which is what happens when a baby is aborted). You are then forgotten and go nameless(which is the same with an aborted baby).

As for the "The way you are born doesnt affect your actions" type statement. Life is ALSO directed by genetics. Some of your actions, the way you talk, the way you look, thats all genetics. Hitler couldnt have conquered Europe without his charisma, and charisma is made (mostly) through genetics.

A fetus, by my reckoning, does not know they are about to rule the company until they've experienced it first (to keep with your analogy).

Genetics have nothing to do with charisma. Your physical appearance has the most to do with your genetics than anything else does. Eye color, hair color, certain genetic predispositions to various medical disorders...etc. Charisma is a personality trait and personality traits are developed through life experiences. Hitler ruled, not only through charisma, but also through intellect, strategy, and fear. None of these are genetic traits.

It was an Analogy. You nearly got to find out what it meant to rule the company(which represents living a life) but then you die and never get to witness its glory(which is what happens when a baby is aborted). You are then forgotten and go nameless(which is the same with an aborted baby).

As for the "The way you are born doesnt affect your actions" type statement. Life is ALSO directed by genetics. Some of your actions, the way you talk, the way you look, thats all genetics. Hitler couldnt have conquered Europe without his charisma, and charisma is made (mostly) through genetics.

You assume the baby understands all of this.

In your analogy, the person dying understood what it meant.

Would the child comprehend that it is dying? Does it comprehend living?

A fetus, by my reckoning, does not know they are about to rule the company until they've experienced it first (to keep with your analogy).

Genetics have nothing to do with charisma. Your physical appearance has the most to do with your genetics than anything else does. Eye color, hair color, certain genetic predispositions to various medical disorders...etc. Charisma is a personality trait and personality traits are developed through life experiences. Hitler ruled, not only through charisma, but also through intellect, strategy, and fear. None of these are genetic traits.

((lets stop the genetics debate because the scientific community is split 50-50 baisically over if our traits are genetic or learned))

Well, neither does the Buisinessman. (Dude,i should have chosen a simple analogy. Curse my complex nature!)

But do you not agree that the gift of life is great? Even if you have spent only 20 years on this Earth, if you die and yet a new life springs from your death, your purpose will have been fufuilled. YOu may tell yourself that humans are meant for more, but we really arent. Be born, reproduce, die. Thats the life cycle, boys and girls. Humans are NO exeption.

Well, with things like rape, it's usually nurture, not nature. Very rarely is one's genes the cause of malice.

Prove it.

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%.

Speculative - ignores the wealth of evidence that suggests that most teens are underinformed about sex.

Sex is only immoral to those who have a moral code that 'outlaws' it.

This is your attempt to force your 'religious' belief on someone else.

Well, you're an immoral bitch, slut, whatever. There's more to a relationship than sex.

According to you. I will agree with the "more to a relationship than sex" - although it isn't UNIVERSALLY true - but you have no right to be calling anyone a "bitch" or "slut". As said before, your moral-code applies to you, but that doesn't make it apply to EVERYONE.

none of this would be disputed if society would just get its head on straight and practice abstinence...

Abstinence doesn't work. It is the policy that the church has always put forward, and, you may have noticed, it has NEVER worked.

It's like unilateral disarmerment - it only works if everyone is willing to LET it work.

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.


It's scary that someone who was a "school spelling bee champion" and who "did better than most at the regionals" ALSO can't spell "Misogynist".

Let me guess, you were being ironic?

And, even if you use the "effective birth control" thing, sex before marriage is immoral, plain and simple.

"Plain and simple" to you. In the biblical time, it was considered moral and right for a couple who were betrothed to have intercourse. Their 'betrothal' (which is roughly the equivalent of our modern day 'engagement') was considered grounds enough for the couple to 'act' as a married couple.

I think you need to apologise for your 'bitch' and 'slut' references.

It's scary that someone who was a "school spelling bee champion" and who "did better than most at the regionals" ALSO can't spell "Misogynist".

Let me guess, you were being ironic?


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

i'm sorry, that just amused me much. :D

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!


And a caesarian section is an invasive surgical procedure that can actually increase the possibility of loss-of-life. Congratulations... you have removed any 'protecting-life' based basis you may have been able to claim for your 'argument'.

This has been (largely) a fairly mature discussion of the issues. If you feel the need to "tee hee" at the use of the word "vagina", I think you are in a discussion that is beyond your maturity.


Blatant political insults don't prove anything. They just make you look stupid.


And yet you believe that stooping to very REAL insults is acceptable? I refer to your immature use of "bitch" and "slut".

Remember - YOU just stated that you think insults make the 'insulter' 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.

No - the stupidest argument ever, would be someone stating a case that they didn't manage to provide any evidence for, bringing nothing to the table, and launching random insults at those better qualified to debate.

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.


Your argument would be stronger if you DID know about resources, now.

There have been arguments made that the planet is currently over-populated for it's resourcing (4 billion was a tentative figure some years back - but I have seen the 1 billion figure offered as being about the highest truly sustainable world population), and that the MAIN reason that the population has been sustaining itself THUS FAR, is the great disparity between 'fed' nations (like most of the 'western' world) and 'starving' nations. The other BIG FACTOR is the use of fossil fuels, which has artificially sustained the resource debt through use of mass transportation and 'plastics' materials.

Also - if you want to see a resource that IS vastly over-stretched, try looking at the amount of water on the planet. Then look at the amount of DRINKABLE water on the planet.


4) You talk as though we have only like 50 years left of resources which is probably not true. *looks up at post 2)*


Actually - in terms of ECONOMICALLY viable resources, and taking into account the expandidng appetites for resources, 50 years is probably a very GENEROUS figure.


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.



The use of 'potential humans' to describe a foetus is nothing like the claim that 'blacks' weren't human. A 'black' is just as self-sustaining as a 'white', which is why the law was obviously flawed. A foetus cannot survive without the mother. If the mother dies, the foetus dies, too - so it's life is entirely 'potential'. (This is why most pro-choice people look for an absolute cut-off point where the foetus can survive outside the uterus).

THis is OT but...

I sure as hell hope that we humans begin to mine materials and resources off of the moon withing that 40 years Timeframe i laid out or else the 9 billion humans that will be on the earth will not ONLY have almost no-where to live but they'll have to resources. So we either expand throught the solar system, have WWIII and slow down the population so we dont achieve 9 billion till around 2100 or so, or let 3 billion people starve.... Ill go with option number 1.

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.


Whiche means, you have just admitted that the other poster was correct.

The assertion made was that: if biology were the measure, then abortion up to 3 months would be okay (because of a biological factor). Your reply says this is not so, because of a MORAL factor... morality being a societal construct, and tied to religion.

You admit that you cannot refute the biological precedent, and that your objection is 'moral'.

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?

There is no such thing as a 'partial-birth abortion'. It's a made-up term for certain types of mid-to-late-term abortions, which are theoretically outside the scope of law ANYWAY, except for medical reasons.

A) The fetus is already dead; or B) The life of the fetus must be terminated in order to save the woman’s life or to avoid very serious injury and long term or permanent disability to her.
http://www.pro-truth.net/05e-why9-12.html

The instances under which the so-called partial-birth abortion 'usually' takes place. The problem with the term 'partial birth' is that it gives the impression of a woman with a baby half-delivered... suddenly deciding to abort an otherwise healthy foetus/baby. Since the partial-birth is a mid-to-late-term procedure ('usually' taking place in or around month 5) the foetus cannot breathe independently, so is legally 'non-viable'.

In federal (and most state) law, a "live BIRTH" occurs when the baby is (1) all the way outside the mother, even if the cord is still attached, and (2) displays any respiration, heartbeat, or movement of voluntary muscles. See the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection law enacted in 2002.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html

So, the National Right to Life Commitee also agrees about what a 'viable' foetus would be. As shown above, if it can't breathe - it's not 'live'.



Incidentally, in response to several posts about the foetus being a 'baby'; The defining point IS birth:

NOTE: Legally, there is NO SUCH THING as a "fetus" who is all the way outside the mother and alive. Under federal law (and most state law), even if pre-viable, this is a pre-mature "infant," and also a "person," a "human being," and a "child."

Found on the National Right to Life Commitee site.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html

How did you counter my argument in any way...?

But I'll counter yours.

The fetus is a seperate organism because it has different DNA. In what case other than pregnancy are cells of the same body containing different DNA? (Don't say mutation, because that is very minor changes)

And you can't defend abortion when it's not rape or the mother's life isn't at stake. In all other cases, abortion is simply selfish and nothing else. You squelch out potential life, because you did something immoral and irresponsible. I don't believe one should get an abortion from rape, but I think it should be legal. When the mother's life is at stake, well, I believe that a woman should accept the consequences of her mistake, but I believe they are human, and they make mistakes, so there should be no death penalty.

But otherwise, I believe not getting an abortion is accepting the consequences of your own actions.

ABSTINENCE = NO NEED FOR ABORTION

How hard is it for people to get this through their thick skulls?

I'm sick of answering you.

You behave in a rude and unpleasant fashion.

Unless you modify this behaviour, this is the last one of your posts I will reply to. I have already objected to you saying that anyone who had sex before marriage is a "bitch" or "slut".

Now, anyone that disagrees with you is irresponsible, selfish, immoral and has a 'thick-skull'.

I will be ignoring your posts from now on.

=Bottle]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.

I accept that there are people more brilliant than others, but I believe thats got more to do with how they can use their intelligence than lack of it.
Also if you believe that their are superior brains around where do you see yourself in that scenario, would you enjoy being browbeaten by some collegues for not being as smart as them?


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.

lol were all born with different physical abilitys, women will never be as powerful as men, unless science intervenes shudder pictures bride of frankenstine
If your saying some brains are better than others, then according to you these guys will naturally gravitate to learning in Universitys, what if the person is more interested in becoming a builder, a cop, a gardener, a surfer, or worse.. a jock!
What if everyone had exceptional intelligence Bottle and passed med school, who would do all the work?
Does your theory apply to races as well?




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.

No Im more inclined to believe they couldnt use it as well, your starting to sound very elitist, do you look at street sweepers as inferior to you?

Originally Posted by Matoya
How did you counter my argument in any way...?

But I'll counter yours.

The fetus is a seperate organism because it has different DNA. In what case other than pregnancy are cells of the same body containing different DNA? (Don't say mutation, because that is very minor changes)

And you can't defend abortion when it's not rape or the mother's life isn't at stake. In all other cases, abortion is simply selfish and nothing else. You squelch out potential life, because you did something immoral and irresponsible. I don't believe one should get an abortion from rape, but I think it should be legal. When the mother's life is at stake, well, I believe that a woman should accept the consequences of her mistake, but I believe they are human, and they make mistakes, so there should be no death penalty.

But otherwise, I believe not getting an abortion is accepting the consequences of your own actions.

ABSTINENCE = NO NEED FOR ABORTION

How hard is it for people to get this through their thick skulls?


BWAHAHA! Facking idiot, seriously.

By the way you continually victimize the women who get pregnant (not ALL of whom are *sluts* and *bitches*) you show you know nothing about what it means to be pregnant against your will.

Consequences? Mistakes? What about women who get knocked up by their drunken boyfriends? What if the condom rips? What if she was drunk and her judgement was impaired? What if she was your own daughter, 14 years old, and didn't know any better because the facking religious right fights to keep complete sex ed out of schools? Would you force her to carry that baby to term? Would you destroy her life, simply to punish her for her "mistake" and cause that single fertilized egg cell deserves to grow into a baby and be born?

Hypocrite. Facking moralizing bastard. Nothing enrages me more than you kinds of people who destroy women's lives.

[QUOTE =Grave_n_idle]That's the problem with stereotyping, Terminalia... not everyone does it.... that's another one of your stereotypes.

Neither do I , stereotypings a crock anyway.


Oh, and what you refer to as extremes, are merely your posts.

Right so you dont agree with someone, so you call them extreme.



I don't think that's possible.

You have no idea.


Make up your mind. Either there IS "smart and dumb" or there isn't.

There isnt really.

Where did you get confused?

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.

What if the 'dumb' guy was black, and the 'smart' guy was white, would you tell the black guy he was dumber than the white guy? :)

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.

No silly, my point was, and I should really learn to just post my actual point on here instead of trying something like this, was that it's rather hypocritical to say most abortions are wrong, but in the case of rape they are fine.
Because, from the baby/fetus's point of view, what's the difference?
How can anyone be against abortions, but then turn around and say they are in favor when the mother was raped?

Neither do I , stereotypings a crock anyway.

Really? All of them? ;)

I accept that there are people more brilliant than others, but I believe thats got more to do with how they can use their intelligence than lack of it.
Also if you believe that their are superior brains around where do you see yourself in that scenario, would you enjoy being browbeaten by some collegues for not being as smart as them?

i know for a fact that my brain is not as able to incorporate, retain, and manipulate new information as the brains of many of my collegues. i don't enjoy being "browbeaten" about anything (who does?), but i don't see what that has to do with my points...my collegues may call attention to the fact that they are smarter than i am, simply by being smarter and better able to perform certain tasks, but that doesn't make me angry or resentful toward them. i try to do better, but i accept that i won't be the smartest or the best just like i won't be the tallest or the strongest. i don't need to be King of the Mountain to feel good about myself, since i don't measure my self worth based on other people's success.


lol were all born with different physical abilitys, women will never be as powerful as men, unless science intervenes shudder pictures bride of frankenstine

actually, we can already find women who are "better" or "more powerful" than men. for instance, women have higher pain thresholds, and are better designed for long-standing endurace of adverse conditions. also, we already know how to make a woman physically stronger than men; it would take nothing more than manipulation of a few genes, and she would build muscle mass far faster than a male. whether or not you think women would be ugly (bride of frankenstein?) if they are strong is your own pathology, and i don't know what to say about that.

If your saying some brains are better than others, then according to you these guys will naturally gravitate to learning in Universitys, what if the person is more interested in becoming a builder, a cop, a gardener, a surfer, or worse.. a jock!

not necessarily. most people tend to seek out fields where they can excel, but University is not a good example because most young people just go to college as a default these days. plenty of people i met in college were there because that's what you do after high school, not because they had any particularly academic leanings.

also, intelligence varies; there is the over-all sum of all talents, but there is also a more complex breakdown. just like one person may be physically designed to be a great gymnast while another is perfect for basketball, one person's mind may be ideal for literary pursuits while another is mathematically brilliant. the "sum" of their intelligence may be the same, but the practical application can be very different.

What if everyone had exceptional intelligence Bottle and passed med school, who would do all the work?

huh? are you saying being a doctor isn't work? or that everybody who is smart enough to go to medical school will want to do so? i am smart enough to go to business school, but i have no interest in getting a business degree, so i am not going. just because somebody is able to do something doesn't mean they want to.

Does your theory apply to races as well?

i'm not sure what you mean. yes, these properties of brain mechanics apply to all races, because the genetic variation between "race" is actually less than the variation you can find within members of a single "race." all human brains follow these rules equally, and no particular "race" is better or worse equipped based on their genetics.

several ethnic groups have been marginalized by society, and thus the environmental side of the equation can come into play. but that is a function of poverty rather than of "race," since poor white kids have the same developmental disadvantages as poor black kids.


No Im more inclined to believe they couldnt use it as well, your starting to sound very elitist, do you look at street sweepers as inferior to you?
honey, you are the one saying that intelligence is a myth and it's all motivation. if that were the case, THEN i would look down on street sweepers, because they weren't ever motivated to do anything serious with their lives. if all people had to do is choose to go to med school and they would succeed at it, then i would deeply resent every drop out who flunked and failed to become a doctor...they could have been saving lives, but they were too lazy! i would look down on anybody who failed in my program, because they weren't pushing themselves hard enough and therefore are failing to use the natural abilities they have.

now, onto the street sweeper...of course, other factors may bring somebody to be doing manual labor; they might not have had the money for schooling, or they might have had to be supporting a family at a young age, or any number of things. but i guess we are setting those aside for now...?

assuming that the ONLY reason a person is a street sweeper is that their intelligence limits them to that career, i would naturally not look down on them in the least. i wouldn't look down on somebody who is too short to be in the NBA just because they are short, and i wouldn't look down on a woman for being too slight of frame to be a linebacker in the NFL, so why would i look down on somebody for not having the physical brain properties needed to go to medical school or to be a Nobel winning writer? if they are working to the best of their abilities then more power to them, and i respect them all the more for it.

my little brother suffers from epilepsy, and the medication needed to suppress his seizures has resulted in several cognitive problems as he as grown up. he's not mentally retarded, according to legal definitions, but he has several problems that make him unable to function at the same speed as other children in his classes. most people would probably call him "dumb." i do not, nor have i EVER, looked down on my brother. he tries harder than any other kid his age, and he is always pushing himself to do better at anything he tries. he makes himself go to the limits of his abilities, and i have so much respect for him because of that. the fact that his brain isn't able to work the same way as the gifted kids in his class isn't something i fault him for, and it's not something i would EVER look down on somebody for.

it's not the differences in our intelligence that i judge people on, it's how they choose to react to how much (or how little) they are naturally given.

But otherwise, I believe not getting an abortion is accepting the consequences of your own actions.

As I am sure Bottle will point out, so is getting an abortion.
lol, indeed i shall.

the only way a female can avoid the consequences of a pregnancy is to put her fingers in her ears and go "la-la-la i'm not pregnant, nuh-uh!" for nine months until she goes into labor on the kitchen floor.

let's clear this up even more:

"her actions" = having sex, whether consentual or not, that either a) didn't involve protection or b) involved protection that failed.
"the consequences" = she's pregnant.

now, if a woman didn't accept that she was pregnant (i.e. if she didn't not accept the consequences of her actions), then why would she go get an abortion? what would she be trying to abort, if she didn't accept that she was pregnant?

the falacy is that people think the necessary consequence of having sex is having a baby...it's not. not even for those horrible slutty girls who have sex before they are wed. not even for those wicked women who wish to get their careers off the ground before producing a family. the possible consequence of sex is pregnancy, but pregnancy doesn't have to result in baby. (in fact, most of the time pregnancy doesn't result in a baby.)

people act like a woman who has premarital sex should be punished with pregnancy and motherhood, because she was wicked and therefore deserves to suffer...is that really how you want to treat parenthood? do you want a child to be a punishment to its parent?

Really? All of them? ;)

Yes, people are never stereotyped, to say a woman who prefers childbirth and keeping home is only a stereotype of the fifties and earlier and should be viewed as inferior, and not what a woman should be, is then enforcing a new stereotype on to women to be anything but that.

If a man wants to go out and hunt, and then suffer accusations of being a neanderthal and out dated, is being told to accept a new stereotype of being a man that doesnt hunt.

Basically I believe men and women despite all our knowledge are still tied in to whats viewed now as primitive ways of thinking and outdated, when its probably alot more than just ways of behaving, it could be and probably is the true nature of the sexes to stay as they have for thousands of years, and not try to be something their not.

=Bottle]i know for a fact that my brain is not as able to incorporate, retain, and manipulate new information as the brains of many of my collegues. i don't enjoy being "browbeaten" about anything (who does?), but i don't see what that has to do with my points...my collegues may call attention to the fact that they are smarter than i am, simply by being smarter and better able to perform certain tasks, but that doesn't make me angry or resentful toward them. i try to do better, but i accept that i won't be the smartest or the best just like i won't be the tallest or the strongest. i don't need to be King of the Mountain to feel good about myself, since i don't measure my self worth based on other people's success.

Me either.


actually, we can already find women who are "better" or "more powerful" than men. for instance, women have higher pain thresholds,

so why do they scream and cry when they get hurt, or is this just to get attention?


and are better designed for long-standing endurace of adverse conditions.

But isnt that a waste then?
I mean why would the fairer sex who throughout history was sheltered and protected by the other sex be genetically designed to withstand physical hardship better, if so then it would have been women exploring the world and facing its challenges throughout history, not men.
Why didnt women get together and tackle the North and South pole expeditions themselves, and other feats of hardship if their better suited to that than men.

Id say sitting around and gossiping appeals to them alot more. ;)



also, we already know how to make a woman physically stronger than men; it would take nothing more than manipulation of a few genes,

Shudder, would it really be a woman then?

and she would build muscle mass far faster than a male.

LOL are you for real?


not necessarily. most people tend to seek out fields where they can excel, but University is not a good example because most young people just go to college as a default these days. plenty of people i met in college were there because that's what you do after high school, not because they had any particularly academic leanings.

In other words their just uni bludgers.


also, intelligence varies; there is the over-all sum of all talents, but there is also a more complex breakdown. just like one person may be physically designed to be a great gymnast while another is perfect for basketball, one person's mind may be ideal for literary pursuits while another is mathematically brilliant. the "sum" of their intelligence may be the same, but the practical application can be very different.

Thats what I believe.


i'm not sure what you mean. yes, these properties of brain mechanics apply to all races, because the genetic variation between "race" is actually less than the variation you can find within members of a single "race." all human brains follow these rules equally, and no particular "race" is better or worse equipped based on their genetics.


What about the Bell curve theory, do you believe that had anything to it?



honey, you are the one saying that intelligence is a myth and it's all motivation.

I didnt say that sugarplum, I said I dont believe people are born with superior brains, not intelligence is a myth, talk about a hit into left field.

it's not the differences in our intelligence that i judge people on, it's how they choose to react to how much (or how little) they are naturally given.

You were going so well up to this end bit.

Generalisations hoooo!

In any case, eat the babies. Eat them with your mouth and teeth.

Generalisations hoooo!

In any case, eat the babies. Eat them with your mouth and teeth.

You really have to get off the drugs.

so why do they scream and cry when they get hurt, or is this just to get attention?

because girls are taught to act that way. women are socialized to be helpless and stupid, but that has nothing to do with how their physical bodies and brains are designed.

But isnt that a waste then?
I mean why would the fairer sex who throughout history was sheltered and protected by the other sex be genetically designed to withstand physical hardship better, if so then it would have been women exploring the world and facing its challenges throughout history, not men.
Why didnt women get together and tackle the North and South pole expeditions themselves, and other feats of hardship if their better suited to that than men.

because of the way human society evolved, and because of societal attitudes about reproductive behaviors. believe me, i think most women across history were weak, stupid, and pathetic, but that doesn't mean nature built them to be that way.

Id say sitting around and gossiping appeals to them alot more. ;)

again, yes, because women are raised and taught to behave that way. biology doesn't determine those behaviors.

Shudder, would it really be a woman then?

yes.

LOL are you for real?

yes.

In other words their just uni bludgers.

i don't believe so, no.

What about the Bell curve theory, do you believe that had anything to it?

if you are referring to the thoroughly refuted and ultimately poorly designed Bell Curve publication, obviously i do not. the Bell Curve was exposed as poor science with flawed methodology long ago, and the majority of the conclusions have been definatively refuted by reproduced studies.

I didnt say that sugarplum, I said I dont believe people are born with superior brains, not intelligence is a myth, talk about a hit into left field.

"Theres no such thing as smart and dumb, its only interested and uninterested."-Terminalia

gee, where would i have gotten the idea that you don't think intelligence is an objective characteristic?
You were going so well up to this end bit.
um, that end bit is what i was saying the whole time, so if you think i was doing well until the end then you weren't reading my post. not that i would be surprised by that, mind you, but you might want to disguise your ignorance a little more carefully.

The fetus is a seperate organism because it has different DNA. In what case other than pregnancy are cells of the same body containing different DNA?

Bone marrow or organ donation. And that is *completely* different DNA.

Neither do I , stereotypings a crock anyway.


And yet it was you, earlier that was talking about the stereotypes you prefer to use.



Right so you dont agree with someone, so you call them extreme.


No - you said the comment was extreme.
I pointed out that the comment was merely quotes... from what you had said.

Therefore, YOU don't agree with yourself, and have now called YOURSELF extreme.



You have no idea.


Call it an educated guess...


There isnt really.

Where did you get confused?


It is you that is confused, my friend. You argued that there was no such thing as 'smart or dumb', then talked about people being smarter than others.


What if the 'dumb' guy was black, and the 'smart' guy was white, would you tell the black guy he was dumber than the white guy? :)

I don't see why intelligence should be affected by skin pigmentation? If I encountered someone that was more intelligent than another person, it would be irrelevent to me the shade of either person's skin.

Maybe I don't stereotype that way you would like me to.

Yes, people are never stereotyped, to say a woman who prefers childbirth and keeping home is only a stereotype of the fifties and earlier and should be viewed as inferior, and not what a woman should be, is then enforcing a new stereotype on to women to be anything but that.

If a man wants to go out and hunt, and then suffer accusations of being a neanderthal and out dated, is being told to accept a new stereotype of being a man that doesnt hunt.

Basically I believe men and women despite all our knowledge are still tied in to whats viewed now as primitive ways of thinking and outdated, when its probably alot more than just ways of behaving, it could be and probably is the true nature of the sexes to stay as they have for thousands of years, and not try to be something their not.

So, you are arguing against MODERN stereotypes, but the old fashioned "Man big Hunter", "Woman home Childbirth" stereotypes sit comfortably with you?

Pick a lane, Terminalia... any lane.

so why do they scream and cry when they get hurt, or is this just to get attention?


Terminalia's second comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That women 'scream' and 'cry' for attention)


But isnt that a waste then?
I mean why would the fairer sex who throughout history was sheltered and protected by the other sex be genetically designed to withstand physical hardship better, if so then it would have been women exploring the world and facing its challenges throughout history, not men.
Why didnt women get together and tackle the North and South pole expeditions themselves, and other feats of hardship if their better suited to that than men.

Id say sitting around and gossiping appeals to them alot more. ;)


Terminalia's third comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That women 'sit around' and 'gossip').


Shudder, would it really be a woman then?


Terminalia's fourth comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That a 'strong' woman would no longer be a woman).


In other words their just uni bludgers.


Terminalia's sixth comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That people at university are 'bludgers').

I support Abortion without any limits. It's the womans body, so it's her business. I do not think that a fetus has a soul of any kind and I do believe that stem cell research could be usefull in curing severe diceaces. I believe into a God, but I do not let my religion cloud my common sense. So, in my opinion, the voice of the possible mother is the only one that matters.

I support Abortion without any limits. It's the womans body, so it's her business. I do not think that a fetus has a soul of any kind and I do believe that stem cell research could be usefull in curing severe diceaces. I believe into a God, but I do not let my religion cloud my common sense. So, in my opinion, the voice of the possible mother is the only one that matters.

Without *any* limits? Really? So you would support a woman who had carried a fetus to term and decided like two days before her due date to terminate it?

I've never actually seen anyone with such a position and would most certainly disagree with you on that part.

As for stem cell research, absolutely!

Yes, absolutely. I believe that getting emotional about abortion is not the way to go. After all, the doctor could allways decide that abortion is not the appropriate measure if there were only 2 days to the calculated day of birth. Also, I do not think that any woman would let the situation go so far. Either they would perform the abrtion at a much earlier date or decide to keep the child. Since abortion is a medical procedure, I think that it should be left ot the doctor in question to decide if the abortion can be performed.

Without *any* limits? Really? So you would support a woman who had carried a fetus to term and decided like two days before her due date to terminate it?

I've never actually seen anyone with such a position and would most certainly disagree with you on that part.

i support the woman's right to have a fetus removed from her body whenever she wants, for whatever reason. i don't really care if the fetus is killed or not, but i believe it should be removed from her whenever she wants.

of course, she doesn't get to keep it if she chooses to have it taken out prematurely :).

A bit earlier in this thread there were several people referring to fetuses as parasites, in the sense that they were of no benefit to the woman. As a mom who has been pregnant three times, I wanted to put in a good word for pregnancy.

Being pregnant causes several conditions including endometriosis and rheumatoid arthritis to go into remission. It also clears up psoriasis and recurrent apthous ulcers as well as many other minor conditions. It improves your hearing, vision, sense of taste and sense of smell. Pregnancy stops periods for a period of at least nine months -- and up to a year or two longer if you breastfeed. If you have painful periods that debilitate you for three or four days a month, pregnancy is much less of a problem. During pregnancy, there is greater flow of blood to the pelvic region, making sex great. After you have a child, usually the pain from periods decreases. If you've carried a baby to term, your risk of uterine and ovarian cancer goes down. If you breastfeed a child for at least a year, your chances of breast cancer go way down. Plus, it is not like when you're pregnant you walk around with a basketball out front and swollen ankles for nine months. For most people, the middle six-seven months are easy sailing. The less pleasant aspects are morning sickness, which not everyone gets, and the last month or so when there is some swelling which means you can't be on your feet all day. Labor is not fun, but unmediated labor is no worse than really bad period cramps -- which I had from the age of twelve on so I was pleasantly surprised that it was no worse.

Also, to clear up one point, fetuses don't "leach the calcium" from your bones unless you are malnourished -- they only require 400mg of calcium per day over the recommended daily allowance for women. That's only one glass of milk, a container of yogurt, a cup of ice cream, two ounces of cheese or a good prenatal vitamin.

The government has no right to determine what you can or can't do with your body. An institution doesn't own a womans body, its her choice to do whatever she wants with it. Its ridiculous to think otherwise. Ethical or not, no one has the right to tell you that you HAVE to have a baby. What are they going to do? Arrest you after you've aborted the fetus? I really don't think so, the whole thing shouldn't even be a question. Its simply undemocratic, its like reinstituting the draft. No matter what people say the government doesn't own you.

The government has no right to determine what you can or can't do with your body. An institution doesn't own a womans body, its her choice to do whatever she wants with it. Its ridiculous to think otherwise. Ethical or not, no one has the right to tell you that you HAVE to have a baby. What are they going to do? Arrest you after you've aborted the fetus? I really don't think so, the whole thing shouldn't even be a question. Its simply undemocratic, its like reinstituting the draft. No matter what people say the government doesn't own you.

*shifty eyes* ...that's what you think! Muahahahaha!

Anyway, more seriously, okay, the government has no right to say what a woman does with her body, right? Okay! Let's allow that woman to use her body to operate a gun and kill someone! Let's allow that woman to use her body to rob a bank!

See, the government does have a right to say what you do with your body. In fact, that's much of what the government is for.

*shifty eyes* ...that's what you think! Muahahahaha!

Anyway, more seriously, okay, the government has no right to say what a woman does with her body, right? Okay! Let's allow that woman to use her body to operate a gun and kill someone! Let's allow that woman to use her body to rob a bank!

See, the government does have a right to say what you do with your body. In fact, that's much of what the government is for.
yet the government doesn't seem to have the right to force us to donate organs to save the lives of patients who MUST have those organs. the government doesn't seem to have the right to mandate blood donation, or to force us to function as human dialysis machines for those suffering kidney failure. we aren't required to donate bone marrow to cancer victims. it's almost like the government recognizes that we have a right to withhold our bodily tissues from other people if we so choose...one might even say that our laws make a distinction between actively murdering a human being and simply refusing to allow our bodies to be used to maintain another being's life...

but no, that would interfere with the anti-choice rhetoric, so let's just pretend that the choice to rob a bank or shoot somebody with a gun is the same thing as refusing to donate your living body for the sustenance of another being.

=Grave_n_idle]And yet it was you, earlier that was talking about the stereotypes you prefer to use.

You call them stereotypes, but like I said to Bottle, I dont believe theres any such thing.
You are what nature intended you to be, anything else is false.




Call it an educated guess...

Wrong then, you failed the exam.



It is you that is confused, my friend. You argued that there was no such thing as 'smart or dumb', then talked about people being smarter than others.

No, once again you twist something around to suit your arguement, I believe theres people who can use their brains better than others, not people born with superior brains.
Grave as sly as they come.


I don't see why intelligence should be affected by skin pigmentation? If I encountered someone that was more intelligent than another person, it would be irrelevent to me the shade of either person's skin.

So you would tell the black guy he was dumber than the white guy then if that was the case, you wouldnt let his skin pigmentation worry you.

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.

OK it's like this I feel it should remain legal for the same reason I think illicit drugs and prostittution should be made legal: "If it's legal you can regulate it."

I agree that those listed by you are aceptible reasons for abortion i personaly dislike the idea of abotion however i think it should remain legal

ANd if Vaulted Knowlage posts a coment on this thread just ignore him.. he's and uniformed bible thumper

I am very nuetral on this issue as it comes to whether it should be used as a form of birth control or just in the cases of rape and incest. But I think that a woman has a right to choose therefore I am pro-choice, not really pro-abortion. If you outlaw this then you are restricting a person's rights. As for the pro-life nuts who use terrorism to scare people out of getting abortions, remember when some of them killed doctors and patients (in clinical bombings and shootings) all so they could save the 'lives' of unborn fetuses? I think someone can say, "hypocrite". If you really think killing people is going to save lives, guess again.

So, you are arguing against MODERN stereotypes, but the old fashioned "Man big Hunter", "Woman home Childbirth" stereotypes sit comfortably with you?

Pick a lane, Terminalia... any lane.

I'll stick to the truth, stereotyping of any sort is a crock.
You are what nature dictates you to be.

The government has no right to determine what you can or can't do with your body. An institution doesn't own a womans body, its her choice to do whatever she wants with it. Its ridiculous to think otherwise. Ethical or not, no one has the right to tell you that you HAVE to have a baby. What are they going to do? Arrest you after you've aborted the fetus? I really don't think so, the whole thing shouldn't even be a question. Its simply undemocratic, its like reinstituting the draft. No matter what people say the government doesn't own you.

So pay for and carry out abortion proceedures yourself then, dont rely on the government.

=Grave_n_idle]Terminalia's second comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That women 'scream' and 'cry' for attention)

So you say that its not a 'stereotype' that its natural perhaps?




Terminalia's third comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That women 'sit around' and 'gossip').

lol how is it, its what they do all the time.
And always have.


Terminalia's fourth comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That a 'strong' woman would no longer be a woman).

Ah well twisted, even for you Grave, I take my hat off to you, you truly are a master of deceit.


Terminalia's sixth comment of the post is a stereotype.
(That people at university are 'bludgers').

I was referring to the ones who just go there to avoid work, and thats not a small minority either.

[QUOTE=Bottle] because girls are taught to act that way. women are socialized to be helpless and stupid, but that has nothing to do with how their physical bodies and brains are designed.

I dont think that excuse washes anymore, the idea that women are socialised to be weak and stupid, for the last twenty years its been anything but, even you must admit that.


because of the way human society evolved,


Could it really have evolved any other way, if you think so then your dreaming.


and because of societal attitudes about reproductive behaviors.

What other attitude could they have had, there was way too much disease and war for women to have the luxury of deciding whether they wanted kids or not, how many and when they chose.



believe me, i think most women across history were weak, stupid, and pathetic,

Believe me they were probably alot tougher and deeper of character than you know.

but that doesn't mean nature built them to be that way.

Oh right, so now women are finally getting what nature intended them to have all along?

again, yes, because women are raised and taught to behave that way. biology doesn't determine those behaviors.

Sorry but if anything it does.

yes.

If they were meant to be that way, they would have been born that way.



if you are referring to the thoroughly refuted and ultimately poorly designed Bell Curve publication, obviously i do not. the Bell Curve was exposed as poor science with flawed methodology long ago, and the majority of the conclusions have been definatively refuted by reproduced studies.

Refuted very quickly too, do you think the threat and damage to reputation of being called a racist had more to do with that?





um, that end bit is what i was saying the whole time, so if you think i was doing well until the end then you weren't reading my post. not that i would be surprised by that, mind you, but you might want to disguise your ignorance a little more carefully.

This quote?


honey, you are the one saying that intelligence is a myth and it's all motivation. if that were the case, THEN i would look down on street sweepers, because they weren't ever motivated to do anything serious with their lives. if all people had to do is choose to go to med school and they would succeed at it, then i would deeply resent every drop out who flunked and failed to become a doctor...they could have been saving lives, but they were too lazy! i would look down on anybody who failed in my program, because they weren't pushing themselves hard enough and therefore are failing to use the natural abilities they have.

now, onto the street sweeper...of course, other factors may bring somebody to be doing manual labor; they might not have had the money for schooling, or they might have had to be supporting a family at a young age, or any number of things. but i guess we are setting those aside for now...?

assuming that the ONLY reason a person is a street sweeper is that their intelligence limits them to that career, i would naturally not look down on them in the least. i wouldn't look down on somebody who is too short to be in the NBA just because they are short, and i wouldn't look down on a woman for being too slight of frame to be a linebacker in the NFL, so why would i look down on somebody for not having the physical brain properties needed to go to medical school or to be a Nobel winning writer? if they are working to the best of their abilities then more power to them, and i respect them all the more for it.

my little brother suffers from epilepsy, and the medication needed to suppress his seizures has resulted in several cognitive problems as he as grown up. he's not mentally retarded, according to legal definitions, but he has several problems that make him unable to function at the same speed as other children in his classes. most people would probably call him "dumb." i do not, nor have i EVER, looked down on my brother. he tries harder than any other kid his age, and he is always pushing himself to do better at anything he tries. he makes himself go to the limits of his abilities, and i have so much respect for him because of that. the fact that his brain isn't able to work the same way as the gifted kids in his class isn't something i fault him for, and it's not something i would EVER look down on somebody for.

it's not the differences in our intelligence that i judge people on, it's how they choose to react to how much (or how little) they are naturally given.


Once again, you assert at the end that some people are born with the capacity to have superior intelligence to others, this is not what you were saying before hand at all.
Try again.

Without *any* limits? Really? So you would support a woman who had carried a fetus to term and decided like two days before her due date to terminate it?..........


Not to nitpick, but wouldn't it be easier in this case to simply have an induced birth, and then give the two day premature baby up for adoption?

I mean, if women were able legally to have abortions up to that point, wouldn't it be up to the doctors to inform them that a less stressful and dangerous operation would just be an induced birth (since otherwise they'd probably have to hack the almost-fully-grown fetus up while still inside the mother)?

I'm not saying I agree that abortions *should* be allowed up to two days before birth... I'm just saying that there's an alternative that's probably easier, which women would be more likely to use, so legalising no-limit-abortion wouldn't make that much of a difference.

*wanders off to read up on induced births to make sure I haven't said anything insanely stupid*

I dont think that excuse washes anymore, the idea that women are socialised to be weak and stupid, for the last twenty years its been anything but, even you must admit that.

no, actually i don't. i believe we still send strong messages of helplessness to girls and women, and we still encourage them to be weaker than men and more dependent on men. it's much better than it was a hundred years ago, but it certainly is still a disparity. you yourself advocate these messages, so i don't see why you would have trouble with this idea.

Could it really have evolved any other way, if you think so then your dreaming.

actually, i'm reading anthropology books. but we have already established how you feel about education, so i won't try to bore you with established fact or scientific evidence.

What other attitude could they have had, there was way too much disease and war for women to have the luxury of deciding whether they wanted kids or not, how many and when they chose.

that would require a really really really long answer, so perhaps you should start a fresh thread for it if you want to discuss it. i'm more than willing to talk about it, but it's a huge side issue that will just cloud things in this discussion even more than they are already.

Believe me they were probably alot tougher and deeper of character than you know.

that's something we will never know, so i don't think it's worth talking about.

Oh right, so now women are finally getting what nature intended them to have all along?

nature doesn't "intend" anything. nature cannot be anthropomorphized as having motives or desires. our development and evolution are shaped by the natural forces around us, but those forces don't "want" any particular outcome.


Sorry but if anything it does.

unfortunately this claim is not supported by any scientific evidence to date; it is directly refuted by both psychological studies and genetic research (like the HGP). but if you'd like to try to back up your claim, rather than just making a statement and expecting everyone to take your word as gospel, that would be much more interesting...i would like to see what you use to support your position, if anything.

If they were meant to be that way, they would have been born that way.

ahh, so you don't support performing surgery to correct congenital defects, then. you don't support treatment of any genetically-inherited condition. you clearly cannot possibly support giving artificial limbs to children born without an arm or leg. and you must not support the treatment my brother received (which saved his life by stopping his seizures), because if he was "meant" to be born healthy he would have been born that way, right?

until you can establish what "means" people to be born one way or another, i think this is a futile line for you to take.


Refuted very quickly too, do you think the threat and damage to reputation of being called a racist had more to do with that?

not at all. the data speak for themselves, and what they said was, "the Bell Curve is bad science, some of it is fabricated entirely, and most of the rest involves transparently doctored methodology." the fact that the material was conspicuously racist was what set off the initial alarm bells, since any scientist reading the work would perceive the clear bias held by the experimentor and would be very concerned about the presence of such a bias, but the methodology was flawed for reasons other than racism. like i said, it was really bad science.


This quote?
Once again, you assert at the end that some people are born with the capacity to have superior intelligence to others, this is not what you were saying before hand at all.
Try again.
um, yes, that's what i was saying all along. my point from the beginning has been that some people are naturally born with brain structures that allow them more intelligence than other people, just like how some people are born with biology that makes them taller or born with biology that makes them better at putting on muscle mass than their peers.

here's a quote from a earlier post of mine:

"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."

i don't see how you missed the fact that i was saying some people are simply born with greater intellectual potential than others. i said as much, several times in several posts. are you just playing dumb to be annoying, or are you really confused? if the former, please stop; if the latter, please tell me how i might rephrase or use different words so that you aren't confused any more.

You are what nature dictates you to be.
nature doesn't "dictate" anything. nature is not a conscious being, does not have intentions, does not have wishes, does not have goals. perhaps if you let go of that idea you wouldn't have quite so much trouble with this subject...i know it's not easy to let go of, many people in my freshman bio class took months to get past it, but you can't understand natural selection or biology if you cling to the notion that nature "wants" something.

You call them stereotypes, but like I said to Bottle, I dont believe theres any such thing.
You are what nature intended you to be, anything else is false.

i think you must not understand the meaning of the word "stereotype." whether or not "you are what nature intended you to be" (which i've already addressed in other posts) does not impact your use of stereotypes.

a stereotype is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. when you say that all women love to gossip, you are making both a false statement and a stereotype. i do not like to gossip, nor do i make friends with women who like to gossip, and my mother does not like to gossip, so i can personally account for at least a dozen women who do not like to gossip. you have made a blanket statement about the behavior of 50% of the world's population, which is a gross oversimplification, and that is called a stereotype. you may believe that all women are a certain way because nature makes them that way, but your generalization is called a "stereotype"; not all women are, in fact, the way you claim. your reasoning for making that stereotype do not change the fact that it is a stereotype, so even if we assumed you were right that nature "means" for women to gossip you would still be making a stereotype when you stated that all women like to gossip.

i think you must not understand the meaning of the word "stereotype." whether or not "you are what nature intended you to be" (which i've already addressed in other posts) does not impact your use of stereotypes.

a stereotype is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. when you say that all women love to gossip, you are making both a false statement and a stereotype. i do not like to gossip, nor do i make friends with women who like to gossip, and my mother does not like to gossip, so i can personally account for at least a dozen women who do not like to gossip. you have made a blanket statement about the behavior of 50% of the world's population, which is a gross oversimplification, and that is called a stereotype. you may believe that all women are a certain way because nature makes them that way, but your generalization is called a "stereotype"; not all women are, in fact, the way you claim. your reasoning for making that stereotype do not change the fact that it is a stereotype, so even if we assumed you were right that nature "means" for women to gossip you would still be making a stereotype when you stated that all women like to gossip.

Tut tut.... you forget that Terminalia has a phobia that prevents him from using words.

Remember, he was willing to get into a fist-fight (over the internet, somehow) with someone who used a word that he didn't understand!

You call them stereotypes, but like I said to Bottle, I dont believe theres any such thing.


You obviously don't know what the word 'stereotype' means, either.

And, just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't make it NOT SO.


No, once again you twist something around to suit your arguement, I believe theres people who can use their brains better than others, not people born with superior brains.
Grave as sly as they come.


Why WOULDN'T there be people with 'better' brains? There are people with 'better' hearts, 'better' lungs, 'better' blood vessels, 'better' bones, 'better' nervous systems.

And, of course, some people are born with 'defective' brains... or, do you argue that there is no difference there, either?

What about height? Are all people the same height, too??? Maybe they just 'use it' differently?


So you would tell the black guy he was dumber than the white guy then if that was the case, you wouldnt let his skin pigmentation worry you.

Why do you want me to tell someone they are dumb?

If I had to inform someone that they failed to meet an intelligence requirement (I am imagining, for a second, a job where IQ was a requisite - to bail you out of your idiotic concept), then I wouldn't let their skin-tone affect my decision.

Perhaps this is just my management experience speaking.

I'll stick to the truth, stereotyping of any sort is a crock.
You are what nature dictates you to be.

I agree that stereotyping is foolish - but, you seem to be denying that it exists?

You are what nature dictates? Does this mean you HONESTLY believe you cannot be any better than you are? You have no desire for self-improvement?

That explains why you seem to have such animosity for Students.

So you say that its not a 'stereotype' that its natural perhaps?


You don't know that that makes no sense, do you?

It IS a stereotype.... that's why I commented on it. You apparently think that it isn't, somehow....?




lol how is it, its what they do all the time.
And always have.


And that is a stereotype.... go grab a dictionary, please.


Ah well twisted, even for you Grave, I take my hat off to you, you truly are a master of deceit.


How is that twisted?



I was referring to the ones who just go there to avoid work, and thats not a small minority either.

How do you know? Did you attend University?

I believe the ONLY consideration necessary is whether the fetus is a thing which deserves legal protection.

I believe that prior to the development of any neural system whatsoever, it very definitely does not. Therefore I totally support abortions up until that point. I am strongly pro birth control, and while abortion isn't the easiest or simplest form of bc, I have no ethical problem whatsoever with abortion on demand pre-quickening. I do have a serious problem with people who engage in sex with no precautions taken against spreading diseases, but if you're in a monogamous and disease-free relationship and want to use abortion as your primary means of birth control, go for it.

After the fetus develops a reasonable neuro system, things start entering a grey area. I find it difficult to justify to myself giving "human rights" to a thing that has less personality, less perceptions, less self-awareness than my dog (who I could have euthanised anytime I wanted, on demand) or the pig I had part of for breakfast. In line with much of my other beliefs (I consider hunting ethical, for example, and recognise that some stray animals must be euthanised) I feel that the fetus should be aborted with as little cruelty as possible. I also feel that abortion at this point should not be used as a primary means of birth control, both because it is unfortunate and because the procedures are a lot riskier for the woman.

The best reason of all.....A woman's right to decide what to do with her body, hopefully with the consultation of her partner in the process.

To address a few other points that have been made in this long, long thread:

There's a difference, a big one, between "alimony" and "child support." Alimony is the money paid by the more financially secure person in a dissolved partnership to the person who has put his effort into the non-financial maintenance of the relationship. It is the same thing as unemployment insurance. Child support is the money paid by a non custodial parent to help support his offspring.

Also, saying that because a woman might (and that's only a possibility, there are vast numbers of women for whom abortion is not financially possible) be able to have an abortion and so end a pregnancy at a later date than the man's refraining from starting one absolves men of responsibility for any children they might father is a bit... well, wrong. Even neglecting special cases ("Let's have another baby, it will save our marriage!") let me give you the situation with a few substitutions.

You and I are sitting around one day, unpacking groceries. We find a plastic bag that says, "Not a Toy, Do Not Put On Your Head, You Idiot, Can Cause Death." We laugh about this, and wonder how long it would take to smother to death in a plastic bag. We decide to kidnap someone and find out. We grab someone out of the parking lot, bring him home, tie him to a chair, put the bag over his head and close it all up tight with duct tape. Then the doorbell rings; I answer it. It's just the neighbor with a basket of extra tomatoes from his garden, but when I try to go back into the house, the door has locked behind me. I can't get back in. I bang on the door, but you answer the door, pull me in, and bounce around saying, "Five minutes and thirty seconds!" You show me the stopwatch. The man we kidnapped is dead.

Am I less guilty of murder because I physically wasn't able to come back and stop something I helped start, whereas you could have stopped it later? Is a man absolved of responsibility for a child because he's physically unable to stop pregnancy at a later point in time than a woman?

I think children have the right to support -- financial and otherwise -- from both parents. I would also like there to be a law stating parents are obligated to provide physical medical help (blood, bone barrow, etc) to their needy children unless it would put the parents' life or health in jeopardy. If you bring a creature into the world you are responsible for its welfare until it can take care of itself. Period.

I believe the ONLY consideration necessary is whether the fetus is a thing which deserves legal protection.

I find it difficult to justify to myself giving "human rights" to a thing that has less personality, less perceptions, less self-awareness than my dog (who I could have euthanised anytime I wanted, on demand)...

i seriously doubt that a 6 month old newborn would pass your test of personality, awarness and perception as compared to your dog...
furthermore, dogs do NOT have "human rights" status,
nor does any other animal for that matter.

...or the pig I had part of for breakfast.

apparently you'd have no issues with cannibalism...
so why is cannibalism outlawd by so-called civilized society?

In line with much of my other beliefs (I consider hunting ethical, for example, and recognise that some stray animals must be euthanised) I feel that the fetus should be aborted with as little cruelty as possible.

making analogies between humans and animals is simply ludicrous and
leads to that proverbial slippery slope.

apples and oranges.

Also, saying that because a woman might (and that's only a possibility, there are vast numbers of women for whom abortion is not financially possible) be able to have an abortion and so end a pregnancy at a later date than the man's refraining from starting one absolves men of responsibility for any children they might father is a bit... well, wrong.

There is an interesting problem here though - if the man wants the woman to abort, and she decides not to, should he really have to help take care of the child for life? I think that this would be a horrible form of sexism. Personally, if I ever got pregnant unexpectedly, I would give the father the choice of being a part of that child's life, or not being a part -- before the baby was ever born.

I believe very strongly that while a woman's partner may try and convince her of his view on whether or not to abort, it is ultimately always the woman's decision. However, in order to keep thihngs on an even kiel, I also believe that men should have a legal form of "paper abortion." Basically, before a baby is born, a man should be able to sign away all rights and responsibilities to the child if he would have preferred that it be aborted. Said man would not be expected to pay any form of child support, but would also have no claim to the child whatsoever under any circumstances.

I tried to creat a resolution for the UN to vote, but look this:
NationStates Moderators
Received: 14 hours ago
Your resolution was deleted because it would repeal existing UN legislation on the matter of abortion.
I say... that's BS you now... of course I know there's a legislation on the matter, I voted against it, because that legislation is discriminatory... It doesn't think about the father's right not even the baby's right... only the mother's right... and according to the legislation, women can abort anytime they want, for any given pourpose... just read it and you will see what I mean

well... I never read this forum, so if you have any comments the best way is to warn me ingame

You are what nature intended you to be, anything else is false.
If you believe that nature has the capability of intention, then you assign nature an intelligence. Do you honestly believe nature is intelligent? Is it alive? If not, then it has no "intentions" for anyone.

so why do they scream and cry when they get hurt, or is this just to get attention?
I actually giggle when I'm in intense pain; it's a nervous habit.

But isnt that a waste then?
I mean why would the fairer sex who throughout history was sheltered and protected by the other sex be genetically designed to withstand physical hardship better, if so then it would have been women exploring the world and facing its challenges throughout history, not men.
Women are genetically designed to withstand pain better because they have to endure mensus and childbirth. The sheltering that societies of the last few Centuries have imposed on them is not indicative of all of history.

Why didnt women get together and tackle the North and South pole expeditions themselves, and other feats of hardship if their better suited to that than men.
They do, now.

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

When is a child capable of suicide?
When they understand death is final? Life is not easy? When they can look down the end of a barrel rifle and their finger slips? Drug overdose?
Or are you going generize with an age? (15 years old, or 10 or mayber 5 )

I have a better idea, take all the unwanted or abused children and shot them like Hitler did. (sarasm) does that work for you???

:sniper:

Anyway, more seriously, okay, the government has no right to say what a woman does with her body, right? Okay! Let's allow that woman to use her body to operate a gun and kill someone! Let's allow that woman to use her body to rob a bank!
Not the same thing. It's a matter of dominion of body, for better wording --a person's dominion over her own body. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

"...The right to security of the person protects both the physical and psychological integrity of the individual..." ~Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Explain myself?

Well, when I was 16 years old I thought pregnancy couldn't happen to me...then it did. I was a national merit scholar, top 5% of my class, a state awarded LD debator with a steady boyfriend of 2 years who was in his first year of college. The choice was between throwing away a full ride college scholarship (which wouldn't wait 8 months), throwing away my reputation at my high school, embarrasing my parents and my boyfriend's parents OR terminating a fetus which was barely human.

I chose termination. I saw the sonogram...the fetus was just a flicker.

I'm now 36 years old. I've been married for 13 years to a man I met in college...we have three beautiful chidren who we were ready for and love beyond reason.

I am the mother of 3 by choice.

Do I regret my choice? No. I have taken a path which has led me here. I can't regret any choices I've made...I can wonder "What if ?" but no regrets.

Oh right, so now women are finally getting what nature intended them to have all along?

If they were meant to be that way, they would have been born that way.
You believe in Fate as an intelligence, too? or if they were "meant to be", then by whom?

I believe the ONLY consideration necessary is whether the fetus is a thing which deserves legal protection.

I believe that prior to the development of any neural system whatsoever, it very definitely does not. Therefore I totally support abortions up until that point. I am strongly pro birth control, and while abortion isn't the easiest or simplest form of bc, I have no ethical problem whatsoever with abortion on demand pre-quickening. I do have a serious problem with people who engage in sex with no precautions taken against spreading diseases, but if you're in a monogamous and disease-free relationship and want to use abortion as your primary means of birth control, go for it.
I would just like to say that abortion is not any form of birth control. "Birth control" is a term that applies specifically to pre-conceptual and immediately post-conceptual controls.

I don't support abortion so much as I support choice. It is all about the freedom for a woman to choose what is right for her.

I don't support abortion so much as I support choice. It is all about the freedom for a woman to choose what is right for her.

Thats nothing but a self centered attitude and a poor one.

You believe in Fate as an intelligence, too? or if they were "meant to be", then by whom?

Fate has nothing to do with it, that comes after your born.

Thats nothing but a self centered attitude and a poor one.

That's nothing but your opinion, with all the value that entails.

Fate has nothing to do with it, that comes after your born.

So, you DO believe in Fate?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Tut tut.... you forget that Terminalia has a phobia that prevents him from using words.

Really, so what have you been responding to?

Maybe your hearing my replys in your head somehow?


Remember, he was willing to get into a fist-fight (over the internet, somehow) with someone who used a word that he didn't understand!

Let it go Grave, one day you will get over how little I care about you saying

how I don't know what 'pissant' means.

Gee for someone who prides themselves on how mature they think they are

you sure carry on with some rubbish.

Not to mention twisting peoples posts around.

Your over 18 arent you. :rolleyes:

So, you DO believe in Fate?

Yep.

[QUOTE]

Really, so what have you been responding to?

Maybe your hearing my replys in your head somehow?




Let it go Grave, one day you will get over how little I care about you saying

how I don't know what 'pissant' means.

Gee for someone who prides themselves on how mature they think they are

you sure carry on with some rubbish.

Not to mention twisting peoples posts around.

Your over 18 arent you. :rolleyes:

The "words" thing was a cheap shot. I admit it.

I apologise for my cheap shot.

Now, onto your second point... the fact remains that you consider your opinion to be superior to all others. You fly into rages at protestors (but don't look at THEIR side), you are willing to fight over an insult (but don't ACTUALLY know if the word WAS an insult), you claim that there is no such thing as stereotyping (in the middle of the same post that you stereotype two groups of people).

This isn't me twisting your words. This isn't me being immature.

You argue back and forth over the same arguments.. I get the feeling that, considering how often you contradict your OWN points... if we left you alone for long enough you would argue down all of your own arguments.

And yes, Terminalia. I am STILL over 18, as I was last time we discussed it.

I should consider myself lucky that you've stopped asking me if I'm a girl....

Yep.

How do you reconcile a belief in 'Fate', with a belief in 'God', as dictated by the Judeo-Christian scripture?

[QUOTE=Willamena]I actually giggle when I'm in intense pain; it's a nervous habit.

What intense PHYSICAL pain have you suffered?

If you can giggle your way through a dislocated shoulder or a fractured

sternum, then you would probably be the first to do so.

Women are genetically designed to withstand pain better because they have to endure mensus and childbirth.

So why do they carry on like pork chops during child birth then, if there

so much better designed to handle pain?


The sheltering that societies of the last few Centuries have imposed on them is not indicative of all of history.

Well then why didnt you go out and hunt all the food , not to mention

fending off all the wild animals as well if your so much tougher?

Not to mention all the building work through history, alot of pain there too.

Or were we repressing you girls from that too?

They do, now.

Ah yes, with all the help from the latest technology as well :)

Just out of curiosity, do you see women in general having any weaknesses or

faults at all?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]The "words" thing was a cheap shot. I admit it.

I apologise for my cheap shot.

Apology accepted.


Now, onto your second point... the fact remains that you consider your opinion to be superior to all others.


Not all others, and its mostly their views I disagree with, not because I see

them as inferior to mine but as going against mine.

So in return, I go against theirs.

You fly into rages at protestors (but don't look at THEIR side),

I have looked at their side and found it to be an incredibly shallow one.

you are willing to fight over an insult (but don't ACTUALLY know if the word WAS an insult),

Im pretty sure 'pissant' is an insult.

It doesnt sound very nice.


you claim that there is no such thing as stereotyping (in the middle of the same post that you stereotype two groups of people).

Like I said, I dont believe in stereotyping, you are what nature intended you

to be, anything else is false.





You argue back and forth over the same arguments.. I get the feeling that, considering how often you contradict your OWN points...

Like what?

if we left you alone for long enough you would argue down all of your own arguments.

No I would just agree with what I already believe.


I should consider myself lucky that you've stopped asking me if I'm a girl....

Well what ever you are, it doesnt matter.

Well then why didnt you go out and hunt all the food , not to mention

fending off all the wild animals as well if your so much tougher?

Not to mention all the building work through history, alot of pain there too.

Or were we repressing you girls from that too?

Ah yes, with all the help from the latest technology as well :)

Just out of curiosity, do you see women in general having any weaknesses or

faults at all?

Having worked on building sites, except for carrying and lifting heavy stuff (both of which women are capable of doing), I don't recall a whole lot of 'pain' stuff... maybe we are better builders, where I come from?

My wife can hunt. She is a good shot, and plenty strong enough to retrieve and dress the kill. I don't doubt for a second that she is a better hunter than I am.

You are just stereotyping again, Terminalia, and it is beginning to make you look a fool.

Incidentally, you DO know that the male 'chromosome' is a genetically INFERIOR entity to the female 'chromosome', don't you?

Our little 'Y' is nothing but a slightly deformed 'X'.

I have looked at their side and found it to be an incredibly shallow one.


Which protest? What were they protesting that you found shallow?
When I was going to the airport on one occasion, there were Nuclear Disarmament protestors blocking one of the roads. I disagree with their position (UNILATERAL disarmament), but I agree with their concept... I also don't want to be killed in a nuclear war.

I didn't think their protest 'shallow'.

Or, are you arguing that abortion is 'shallow'?


Im pretty sure 'pissant' is an insult.
It doesnt sound very nice.


It's not really an insult as such, any more than you saying you 'don't care' about someone else's opinion is an insult.

Just because you don't like the sound of it, doesn't make it an insult.

Of course, you could have avoided all the controversy by just saying "I don't know what that means", or by looking the word "pissant" up... rather than engaging in virtual 'fisticuffs'.

Like I said, I dont believe in stereotyping, you are what nature intended you
to be, anything else is false.


And that IS stereotyping. Because, you load that phrasing. You believe that nature intended women to be vessels for offspring, stay home and do the cooking, etc. Which is a stereotypical vision.

I bleieve that we can be more than the sum of our nature. I believe I start out as a 'mere' human, and have to improve on that basis myself.

No I would just agree with what I already believe.


Except that you don't. You argue against your very own points. In one thread you post about how it's okay to assault innocent pedestrians, then you redefine who you are attacking, then you redefine HOW innocent they were, then you say you don't attack innocent pedestrins, only these certain (redefined) people. You undercut your whole argument.


Well what ever you are, it doesnt matter.

It seems to matter to you, since you have a catalogue of 'stereotypes' that will define me as a person, depending on my gender, age and education.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a way to abort all those who'll end up as ignorant republicans/Tories/conservatives/right-wingers? :-D

If only there was a way to know, okay, I'm ignoring socialisation here.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Having worked on building sites, except for carrying and lifting heavy stuff (both of which women are capable of doing), I don't recall a whole lot of 'pain' stuff... maybe we are better builders, where I come from?

Yes Im continually astounded by the sheer volume of women on building

sites myself. :rolleyes:

My wife can hunt. She is a good shot, and plenty strong enough to retrieve and dress the kill. I don't doubt for a second that she is a better hunter than I am.

What does she hunt, rabbits? :)


You are just stereotyping again, Terminalia, and it is beginning to make you look a fool.

Oh sure, so your saying there were equal proportions of women then out

hunting and killing and fighting and building citys, and dams and aquetducts,

and roads, and ships, logging forests etc etc etc as there were men, its not

stereotyping Grave, its fact.

Get our of your feminist dream world about history or 'herstory' as you might

prefer it, because it never happened.


Incidentally, you DO know that the male 'chromosome' is a genetically INFERIOR entity to the female 'chromosome', don't you?


How is it inferior?


Our little 'Y' is nothing but a slightly deformed 'X'.

Yet our poor little 'y' as you loathingly call it makes a huge difference doesnt

it, for something ah inferior?

Do you ever wish you were born a woman Grave, is it that bad being a man?

Having worked on building sites, except for carrying and lifting heavy stuff (both of which women are capable of doing), I don't recall a whole lot of 'pain' stuff... maybe we are better builders, where I come from?

My wife can hunt. She is a good shot, and plenty strong enough to retrieve and dress the kill. I don't doubt for a second that she is a better hunter than I am.

You are just stereotyping again, Terminalia, and it is beginning to make you look a fool.

Incidentally, you DO know that the male 'chromosome' is a genetically INFERIOR entity to the female 'chromosome', don't you?

Our little 'Y' is nothing but a slightly deformed 'X'.
just to stir things up a bit. Women brick lays and builders have been experiencing a disproportionate amount of skeletal and join pain in the UK. Doctors as far as I can tell all agree the female physiology is less well suited to heavy manual labour.
Also men tend to make better hunters in tribal cultures because of the male tendency to aggression. Women in those cultures are better communicators.
Can we please just bloody admit, at some things, in general women are better than men and in some things men are better than women. We are built differently both mentally and physically. For starters on average a man and women of the same height and build, the man has a greater proportion of muscle, it’s fact there’s nothing you can do about it. On average a woman reactions are fractionally quicker than a mans, fact.
So yes men are better than women and women are better than men, on average at some things.

That's nothing but your opinion, with all the value that entails.

An opinion shared by a lot of others, are you saying were all wrong?

We have enough people as it is.

Seriously, do consider that not everyone really considers a human life that valuble to begin with. I think the decision to support the child should be entirely up to the mother. I mean, she has to deal with the labor and the birthing and everything, if she doesn't want to, tough shit for the kid.

We have enough people as it is.

Seriously, do consider that not everyone really considers a human life that valuble to begin with. I think the decision to support the child should be entirely up to the mother. I mean, she has to deal with the labor and the birthing and everything, if she doesn't want to, tough shit for the kid.
Which is fine as long as she then has no right to call on the father for support. Support from the father = input and choice

[QUOTE=NianNorth]just to stir things up a bit. Women brick lays and builders have been experiencing a disproportionate amount of skeletal and join pain in the UK. Doctors as far as I can tell all agree the female physiology is less well suited to heavy manual labour.

Could have something to do with their more fragile bone structure, facts

that womens libbers usually ignore.

In all my years on site, I only ever saw one woman laying bricks.




Also men tend to make better hunters in tribal cultures because of the male tendency to aggression.

Testosterone, wonderful stuff, without it humanity wouldnt have survived

prehistory.

Women in those cultures are better communicators.

With their mouths women can communicate er amazingly, they are better at

reading body language as well.

But there are other ways to communicate.


Can we please just bloody admit, at some things, in general women are better than men and in some things men are better than women. We are built differently both mentally and physically. For starters on average a man and women of the same height and build, the man has a greater proportion of muscle, it’s fact there’s nothing you can do about it. On average a woman reactions are fractionally quicker than a mans, fact.
So yes men are better than women and women are better than men, on average at some things.

I agree, and I dont believe this should be blanded out into some false PC

equality with each other, neither sex is superior or inferior to each other, but

not equal either, just different.

Yes Im continually astounded by the sheer volume of women on building
sites myself. :rolleyes:


Irrelevent. The number of people who do a thing has no bearing on how many people DID a thing historically.

Maybe the problem is our predominantly christian societies that a) have tried to contain women 'in the house' for 4000 years, and b) demonise any woman that thinks outside those constraints.


What does she hunt, rabbits? :)

More stereotyping, Terminalia? Doesn't it bore you?
No... Deer and Moose, so far, mainly.

Think you could do that, Terminalia? Think you could field dress a moose? Think you could get the 'carcass' back home?


Oh sure, so your saying there were equal proportions of women then out
hunting and killing and fighting and building citys, and dams and aquetducts,
and roads, and ships, logging forests etc etc etc as there were men, its not
stereotyping Grave, its fact.
Get our of your feminist dream world about history or 'herstory' as you might
prefer it, because it never happened.


I'm afraid this just shows how ignorant you are.
Go read some history books, Terminalia.
In fact, go read about some of the cultures in this world NOW, where the women DO all of the physical work.
You are so far up your "Men=strong hunter", "the Christian=better than the heathen", 'The WHITE world is the whole world" thing that it it scary.

And, when you take an incident (especially one that is largely untrue) and make it a generalisation that applies universally... then yes, that IS a stereotype... and you are very guilty of that particular 'crime'.

Yet our poor little 'y' as you loathingly call it makes a huge difference doesnt
it, for something ah inferior?

There is nothing 'loathing' about it. It is a scientifically observable fact that the 'Y' chromosome is a 'broken X'.


Do you ever wish you were born a woman Grave, is it that bad being a man?

No. I don't wish I was a woman. I like being me, and I am a male... so why would I change that? I do greatly appreciate the female, though.

I don't seem to have such a low opinion, or such hatred for the females of the species, as you exhibit.

It seems as though you would rather have been born dead, than born a woman.

just to stir things up a bit. Women brick lays and builders have been experiencing a disproportionate amount of skeletal and join pain in the UK. Doctors as far as I can tell all agree the female physiology is less well suited to heavy manual labour.
Also men tend to make better hunters in tribal cultures because of the male tendency to aggression. Women in those cultures are better communicators.
Can we please just bloody admit, at some things, in general women are better than men and in some things men are better than women. We are built differently both mentally and physically. For starters on average a man and women of the same height and build, the man has a greater proportion of muscle, it’s fact there’s nothing you can do about it. On average a woman reactions are fractionally quicker than a mans, fact.
So yes men are better than women and women are better than men, on average at some things.

The last line is the important one. It all comes down to generalisation and averages.

An opinion shared by a lot of others, are you saying were all wrong?

What I'm saying is that EVERBODY has opinions, and they all carry equal value to other people...

To me, any opinion that isn't based on observable facts, isn't worthy of the title - since it is actually just a prejudice.

Testosterone, wonderful stuff, without it humanity wouldnt have survived prehistory.


I wonder what you mean by that?

Many pre-modern-historic cultures were centred around and/or governed by the females, specifically because they were NOT as influenced by testosterone. The same is true in certain cultures today.

It could, in fact, be argued that: most of the world's ills today come FROM testosterone, and the male 'urge' for aggression.

In fact, a better line for you to have used MIGHT have been: Testosterone, WITH it, humanity only just managed to survive pre-history.

you guys talk about rights of the unborn child ??? :rolleyes:
what about the rights of the mother ???? :headbang:
Just because she is so unfortunate to get pregnant
she is reduced to nothing more than a baby factory !!!
what right is there in that ?? after all humans make mistakes......
as for the time of when .... thats another story
In denmark its somewhere in the first month( or second one) of pregnancy

i have listed below the objective advantages and disadvantages of having a Y chromosome, and the advantages and disadvantages of having testosterone in one's system. these are medical facts, not my opinions, and people can judge for themselves which of these issues out weigh each other. i just felt we could use a little fact to season our speculations.

also, these are NOT comprehensive lists. there are way, way, way more points for both lists than i included, so please feel free to add anything you personally know. do not assume that these lists represent the full scope of the situation; i did my best to cover the main issues, but i didn't feel like typing up a primer on biochemistry and physiology right now :).


advantages to having a "broken X" or a Y chromosome:

-for some unknown reason, women are more likely to suffer from autoimmune disorders than men are; illnesses like systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus) and rheumatoid arthritis are more commonly found in females than males, though the cause of this disparity has not been determined yet.

-because the Y chromosome is the only copy that a male will have of that chromosome (since he can only get it from his father, and not from his mother), the amount of genetic variation on the Y across time is limited when compared to X chromosomes. this means it is very easy to track liniages genetically through males, since the Y will have been passed down father to son infinitely. HOWEVER, this lack of variation is also a disadvantage, posted below

disadvantages to having a Y chromosome:

-because the Y chromosome is the only copy that a male will have of that chromosome (since he can only get it from his father, and not from his mother), the amount of genetic variation on the Y across time is limited when compared to X chromosomes. this means that female experience more genetic flexibility and recombination, and can express beneficial mutants and immune responses more quickly than males. all chromosomes in a person will exchange information except for the X and Y, so in a female there is greater information exchange and greater variation in genetics across generations; recombination is a crucial part of eliminating damaged or detrimentally mutated genes.

-recessive traits carried on only the X chromosome will be expressed in a male no matter what, since he will receive only one X chromosome. this means that traits like hemophilia A or muscular dystrophy will be expressed far more often in males, because they are statistically more likely to have one copy of the gene than a woman is to have two copies. color blindness is another example, since males are far more likely to be color blind due to the sex-linkage of the trait, and this may perhaps be at the root of social theories that man can't dress or decorate.

-the normally inactivate copy of the X chromosome in females (resulting from X-inactivation during development) may be at least partially restored as women age, allowing the inactive X to provide a good copy of a gene that was lost or altered by mutation in the other X chromosome.

-females have lower metabolic rates than men, likely leading to less oxidative damage to cells. oxidative damage results from free radicals, which alter DNA, RNA, and protein in cells. this may explain why oxidative damage is linked to diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, and atherosclerosis.



advantages of testosterone:

-increased aggression may help in situations demanding heightened aggression. this has never been established through experimental study, but can be inferred from evolutionary necessity.

-increased rate of muscle development, altered ratio of muscle-to-fat in tissues

-increased libido. i guess some people might consider this a disadvantage, but i don't. :P

-increased "energy" reported by subjects who receive testosterone injections; subjects feel more wakeful compared to their baseline. an interesting point is that females require less than half as high a dose to receive the same benefits of testosterone injections, since males have their whole lives to develop a tollerance for it.

disadvantages of testosterone:

-hair loss and hair growth; hair loss on the head, hair growth on the body. granted, there are probably some who don't see this as a disadvantage, but most people do so i have listed it here. i won't quibble about whether it is a drawback or not, so please don't waste time arguing it.

-suppressed immune system

-increase of "bad" cholesterol, decrease of HDL or "good" cholesterol.

-more rapid damage to tissues and organs, particularly the heart and cardiovascular system.

-testosterone may contribute to early death in males. the greatest difference in death rates between males and females occurs during the teen years, when males experience a surge in testosterone. this increase correlates to increases in death in males by accidents, homicide, and suicide.

-behavior-related deaths continue to contribute throughout life to male mortality more than they do to female mortality. testosterone has been implicated strongly in the difference between the sexes when it comes to high-risk behaviors and criminal activity.

-for some unknown reason, women are more likely to suffer from autoimmune disorders than men are;


Probably because they have to tolerate alien genetic material, in order to carry a foetus. Therefore, their immune system is easier to 'disrupt'.


-females have lower metabolic rates than men, likely leading to less oxidative damage to cells. oxidative damage results from free radicals, which alter DNA, RNA, and protein in cells. this may explain why oxidative damage is linked to diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, and atherosclerosis.


Which is the most probable reason why women live an average of 10% longer than men... they haven't 'burned up' their cell regeneration with high metabolic rates, so they 'last' longer.

Probably because they have to tolerate alien genetic material, in order to carry a foetus. Therefore, their immune system is easier to 'disrupt'.

unfortunately, that is not the case. it is the most obvious theory, but the reality is that the female immune system is far more difficult to disrupt than the male immune system, specifically BECAUSE of the posibility of pregnancy; a female's body is better at recognizing and identifying foreign organisms because it must be able to maintain protective immune response while carrying a fetus. the female body is, normally, much better equipped to distinguish between self and non-self than the male body, but for an as-yet-unknown reason that system doesn't seem to work right in certain cases.


Which is the most probable reason why women live an average of 10% longer than men... they haven't 'burned up' their cell regeneration with high metabolic rates, so they 'last' longer.
the difference in longevities is a combination of physiological factors like metabolic rate and the hormonal issues i described; women are biologically designed to live longer and endure more adverse conditions, and women also are less prone to risky behaviors due to lower levels of testosterone and other related hormones.

unfortunately, that is not the case. it is the most obvious theory, but the reality is that the female immune system is far more difficult to disrupt than the male immune system, specifically BECAUSE of the posibility of pregnancy; a female's body is better at recognizing and identifying foreign organisms because it must be able to maintain protective immune response while carrying a fetus. the female body is, normally, much better equipped to distinguish between self and non-self than the male body, but for an as-yet-unknown reason that system doesn't seem to work right in certain cases.



I don't know. Until some evidence comes along that DOES explain the autoimmune susceptibility... I am going to keep on suspecting that it is somehow twisted up with the reproductive hardware... like you say, in general the system works BETTER in the female, just because of the foetal chemistry... I think that that mechanism has a loophole somewhere, that lets that system be co-opted by certain TYPES of disorder.

For some reason, my brain has gone all anime on me.. I am seeing the female immune system as a big anime robot army, which blasts the hell out of all those little disease robots. But, when a certain TYPE of disease robot comes along, with it's Robot Reprogrammer software, the anime robot army becomes the worst enemy of their original controllers.

The inside of my head... welcome to it...

Fate has nothing to do with it, that comes after your born.
That's a new one. Tell me about this idea of Fate, please. Usually the concept of Fate is understood to be a force that, from the beginning of time to the end of time, has laid out everything that will happen in advance. Similar to predestination, except without God.

(I ask because another's view of Fate will help me with a website I'm working on.)

I don't know. Until some evidence comes along that DOES explain the autoimmune susceptibility... I am going to keep on suspecting that it is somehow twisted up with the reproductive hardware... like you say, in general the system works BETTER in the female, just because of the foetal chemistry... I think that that mechanism has a loophole somewhere, that lets that system be co-opted by certain TYPES of disorder.

For some reason, my brain has gone all anime on me.. I am seeing the female immune system as a big anime robot army, which blasts the hell out of all those little disease robots. But, when a certain TYPE of disease robot comes along, with it's Robot Reprogrammer software, the anime robot army becomes the worst enemy of their original controllers.

The inside of my head... welcome to it...
lol, fair enough...like i said, we just don't know yet, so your guess is as good as mine.

the "big picture," as they say, is that being female is simply healthier than being male. this holds true in most vertibrate species as well, with females generally living longer than males. now, it would be easy to say that the length of one's life isn't as important as the quality of one's life, and i would totally agree with that, so i'm not attempting to claim that it is better to be female than male. all i'm trying to do is point out that any claims of females being "weaker" or "more fragile" are refuted by scientific evidence, since female physiology directly contradicts such statements. if females BEHAVE weaker or as though they are more fragile then it cannot be due to biology, and MUST be due to psychology or sociology.

Fate has nothing to do with it, that comes after your born.
Then if they were "meant to be" that way, or "intended", ...by whom?

lol, fair enough...like i said, we just don't know yet, so your guess is as good as mine.

the "big picture," as they say, is that being female is simply healthier than being male. this holds true in most vertibrate species as well, with females generally living longer than males. now, it would be easy to say that the length of one's life isn't as important as the quality of one's life, and i would totally agree with that, so i'm not attempting to claim that it is better to be female than male. all i'm trying to do is point out that any claims of females being "weaker" or "more fragile" are refuted by scientific evidence, since female physiology directly contradicts such statements. if females BEHAVE weaker or as though they are more fragile then it cannot be due to biology, and MUST be due to psychology or sociology.

I totally agree, with all of it.

I believe that some women DO behave weaker or more fragile than men - and I believe that this is conditioning (or, in some cases, convenience... since I have known some to use it to their advantage)... largely on the part of what-has-amounted-to a male conspiracy... the phallocentric judeo-christian 'ideal' society.

One has only to look at certain areas of Africa, where the women do all of the work, construction, farming, etc. to see a female workforce that is stronger and more capable than the male workforce... not that I think that is right - it's just an example of how the roles CAN be reversed.

(Although, in that case, the females are 'dominant' in the workforce, DUE to their subordination to the males... so the same 'prejudices' are maintained, even then).

Think about this before you decide exactly where you stand on the issue of abortion.

What if your mother had had an abortion instead of having you?

I totally agree, with all of it.

I believe that some women DO behave weaker or more fragile than men - and I believe that this is conditioning (or, in some cases, convenience... since I have known some to use it to their advantage)... largely on the part of what-has-amounted-to a male conspiracy... the phallocentric judeo-christian 'ideal' society.

One has only to look at certain areas of Africa, where the women do all of the work, construction, farming, etc. to see a female workforce that is stronger and more capable than the male workforce... not that I think that is right - it's just an example of how the roles CAN be reversed.

(Although, in that case, the females are 'dominant' in the workforce, DUE to their subordination to the males... so the same 'prejudices' are maintained, even then).

my general contempt for women stems from the fact that i KNOW they are biologically not disadvantaged in the slightest. women are built to be more resiliant, more rational, more controlled, and MORE self-reliant than males, but they wimp out and act like total chumps most of the time. if women actually were weaker then men i wouldn't have a problem with them acting the part, but their laziness and mental weakness is disgusting to me because they waste all the advantages they are given. this is why i can't get along with most women, and why my bisexuality is kept strongly biased toward relationships with males...i can't stand to spend time with most females.

Think about this before you decide exactly where you stand on the issue of abortion.

What if your mother had had an abortion instead of having you?
could you people PLEASE come up with a new argument? this one has been refuted half a dozen times at least, on this topic alone...probably more, even. it's a crap argument, and a boring one, and if it's the best you can do then you need to spend a couple of hours in your Shame Corner thinking about where you have gone wrong in life.

Which is fine as long as she then has no right to call on the father for support. Support from the father = input and choice

So if I provide equal financial support for our children, do I have the right to have "input and choice" should that child need to borrow her/his father's body parts to survive?

What intense PHYSICAL pain have you suffered?
If you can giggle your way through a dislocated shoulder or a fractured
sternum, then you would probably be the first to do so.
I'd like to believe I'm unique in that regard :-) but considering the vast demographic that humanity is, I think probability is working against me, there.

Well then why didnt you go out and hunt all the food , not to mention
fending off all the wild animals as well if your so much tougher?
Not to mention all the building work through history, alot of pain there too.
Or were we repressing you girls from that too?
Who's to say ancient women didn't hunt? build? fight? History is very generalised and hardly lists all the names of the people who built the pyramids, etc.

Ah yes, with all the help from the latest technology as well :)
Just out of curiosity, do you see women in general having any weaknesses or
faults at all?
Oh, yes. As many as the rest of humanity. Egotism, emotional blackmail, addiction, laziness, tendencies to violence, etc.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a way to abort all those who'll end up as ignorant republicans/Tories/conservatives/right-wingers? :-D

If only there was a way to know, okay, I'm ignoring socialisation here.
Tories are liberal. :-)

my general contempt for women stems from the fact that i KNOW they are biologically not disadvantaged in the slightest. women are built to be more resiliant, more rational, more controlled, and MORE self-reliant than males, but they wimp out and act like total chumps most of the time. if women actually were weaker then men i wouldn't have a problem with them acting the part, but their laziness and mental weakness is disgusting to me because they waste all the advantages they are given. this is why i can't get along with most women, and why my bisexuality is kept strongly biased toward relationships with males...i can't stand to spend time with most females.

I think it is the same problem I have with many people of either gender. What I call "Free-Lunch Syndrome". Too many people will take advantage of any method, means or opening to make their own life a little easier for a while, no matter the cost to others.

In the case of some women, this is capitalising on perceived weakness or fragility. They will take advantage of a ridiculous stereotype, in order that they get what they want in the short term, and to hell with what it does to the progress of society towards a vision of equality.

Unforunately, this is compounded by the phallocentric posturings of many males.... and I think the reasoning is that old "if everyone says it, it must be true" scenario... and it ALLOWS women to feel weaker and less functional.

On top of that, there are certain areas (and especially those with high religious belief) that foster the image of weakness and subservience. Take the Bible Belt states of America, for example. A woman looking for a strong, confident image is going to have an uphill struggle, when surrounded by a local society that conditions it's youth to believe that women ARE inferior.

I cant be arsed to read the all the posts so im sorry if this has been said before, fetuses that have something wrong with them, downs syndrome etc should be terminated its not fair on the person or the parents. And dont give me all that normal life crap, if it was a wild animals baby it would be left to die.

Which is fine as long as she then has no right to call on the father for support. Support from the father = input and choice

The father should have the same basic choice as the mother. If she decides to abort it, of course, he has no choice to keep it (unless he figures out a way to carry it himself), but should not be forced to pay for something he disagrees with.

If she decides to keep it, he should also have the choice to disavow all rights and responsibilities *before* it is born.

I'd like to believe I'm unique in that regard :-) but considering the vast demographic that humanity is, I think probability is working against me, there.


Not unique... I always laugh when I get hurt, too.

Hernia surgery, for me, was a riot.... :)


Who's to say ancient women didn't hunt? build? fight? History is very generalised and hardly lists all the names of the people who built the pyramids, etc.


You don't even have to go back that far... does Terminalia honestly think that the population of the New World... fighting back the boundaries of a savage nation, were seriously worried about which person was getting the food, or putting a roof over their heads?


Oh, yes. As many as the rest of humanity. Egotism, emotional blackmail, addiction, laziness, tendencies to violence, etc.

I think he was looking for sins and vices that are specific to women, so that he can add it to his stereotype repertoire.

So.... Lesbianism then.... you don't get many male lesbians...

You don't even have to go back that far... does Terminalia honestly think that the population of the New World... fighting back the boundaries of a savage nation, were seriously worried about which person was getting the food, or putting a roof over their heads?

and you don't even have to go back THAT far! Terminalia is welcome to visit my parents and take a look at our family album, in which he would find the story of my grandmother's family struggle during the depression. a family of three males (the father and two sons) and 6 females (wife and 5 daughters) ran a farm during the Dust Bowl, and the females in the family worked every bit as hard as the male. they all had the same quota to harvest, regardless of gender, because they needed to all bring in a certain amount if they were going to avoid starvation.

and my grandmother's family is not made of large people; the women, in particular, on that side of the family are slight of frame and very short...my grandmother never hit 5 feet tall, and she never weighed more than 100 pounds in her lifetime.

i'd love to see Termie try to tell old Grandma Davis or her surviving brother that she was the weaker sex. that kind of pathetic excuse would never fly with her, or with my family.

So.... Lesbianism then.... you don't get many male lesbians...

According to Eddie Izzard, transvestites are often male lesbians. =)

So if I provide equal financial support for our children, do I have the right to have "input and choice" should that child need to borrow her/his father's body parts to survive?
But you then advocote sole rights of an unborn child to the mother? With rights come responsibilities, you can't have all the rights and only half the responsibilities.
No I do not advocate any one be forced into an unatural procedure that will reduce rather than extend thier life expectancy, e.g organ donation over child birth.
It may be the womans body but the child 'belongs' to both of them equally.

The fetus is a seperate organism because it has different DNA. In what case other than pregnancy are cells of the same body containing different DNA?

It is increasingly accepted that a whole person can consist of two separate cell-lines, e.g. blood has a different DNA from the gonads.

I think the theory is that two non-identical twins' original cells merged into one clump and then differentiatted out into different cell types for development. Because the two different types of cell 'grew up' with each other, were siblings and (most importantly of all) were of such a combination that survived all the way to birth, the resulting baby that was birthed has an immune system that is perfectly happy with itself. (Even the bits of 'itself' that didn't provide the genetic stock of the immune system.)

Except for certain circumstances, this can pass entirely unnoticed, but the phenomenon of such a chimera is being increasingly more evident. For example, during a a paternity (and, by extension, maternity) test on a child proved that it was the offspring of the suspected father but that it apparently was /not/ the child of the known mother... The blood was not of the same stock as the egg-cell had been.

Never mind that faetal cells can be found floating around in the mother's blood-stream (having passed across the placental barrier) years after the particular child has been born. I'm not sure if they 'do' anything while there (there was a suspicion that they played a part in the changing survival-rates of subsequent offspring from the mother, but I forget the details) but they are there.

What that has to do with the price of ham, I'm not sure...

Fate has nothing to do with it, that comes after your born.

That's not possible under any logical definition of 'fate'.

If there is fate, it is continuous... it doesn't stop and start to pander to people's birth. Either something is 'fated' and is so, in fact, from the beginning of time (you know... before you're born), or there is no fate. If you are fated to be <whatever it was you were arguing about>, it's still fated while you're in the womb.

This is just as illogical as people who claim that Oedipus tearing his eyes out was an act outside of fate, an act of free will (that was his claim as well)... if fate exists, EVERYTHING is fated.

Gah.

According to Eddie Izzard, transvestites are often male lesbians. =)

Okay, it's a fair cop. That was, I admit the inspiration!!!!

First I want to apolozige... I didn't understood how great this topic was, I thought it was being talked again because of my latest reply to the UN ingame (a law proposal about abortion, that UN didn't accepted, but I'll modify it in a way that they will... don't worry)... Well... on this matter all I have to say is... I was very foolish, very naive, I'm sorry.
Second... I see that many people who post on this forum topic don't have a clue of what they are talking about... I'll explain myself:

Abortion isn't a simple matter, don't matter what is your position about it, you can't think just "one way" of the subject, you got to see the big picture.
Abortion deals with religion, culture, education, civil rights... with it all.

Expressing your position about this subject is ok, but you shouldn't consider it "the only truth", because there's many different "truths" here, and I'll say mine.

Well, I don't think abortion is a good thing, I'm catholic, so I think abortion is a bad thing, non-christian like. But I'm also practical, I'm an economist, it's not worth for the state making abortion illegal, so that people will have children they don't want and the state will have to take care of them. Or people having illegal abortions and afterwards going to a public hospital to threat whatever needs threatement (usually during an illegal abortion the woman has problems, because usually the so-called doctor doesn't take care as he or she should)... That all costs to the state money, so is easier (and cheaper) to make abortion legal. But now comes me, the human being, and I think abortion should be legalized only in special occasions, like rape, or when the pregnancy means a risk to the woman... this kind of stuff... But I refuse that old unequal and discriminatory argument... "it's all the women choice". So, what about the baby, he has the right to live, right? The baby - as long as he or she is a human being - has the same rights that any of us has. Also men (the father), we have our rights too, right? What if I want to have my son or daughter, even if I'll become a lonely father...? The women has the right to have the baby even if the father doesn't want it, why can't it be vice-versa too?

But now comes the most delicate point of my argument, when the baby becames a human being? Well, to me is when the brain is formed. To me the brain is like a soul, all your hopes, your loves, your memories... everything will be stored in your brain, so as long as you don't have it is like you don't have a soul. Shakespeare wrote in one of his books, I think it was Hamlet, right? "To be or not to be, that is the question.", and I think the answer to that is whithin your soul, and as René Descates said "I think, therefore I am."
Some other people would say your a human being in the moment that the spermatozoon reachs the "ovulo" (the egg... whatever, goolgle didn't translate that for me), some other would agree with me, some other would say in the moment of birth, and there would be even other answers to this question, but In my opinion my answer is like the "middle". What I mean by "middle" is that you reach a common sense... in Brazil we have a saying "You can't please greeks and trojans at once", so what I'm trying to do is: since I can't please them both, I please none.

So, with all I said it seems that my opinion is - abortion should be legalized as long as it doesn't hurt the mother's right, the father's right and the baby's right... I would say no, that is not my opinion... but it's almost there... Man... it's hard to express yourself in such a hard subject and using another language.

Well... this is already too big, so I'll try to finish this book, lol.

This is not necessarily my opion, but here it goes:
Abortion should be legalized in special situations:
-Rape, risk to the mother, the baby has some issue that wont let he or she live (like the brain doesn't evolve), and this kind of serious stuff (editing: I still didn't formed any position about whether abortion should take place if the baby has syndrome of dawn or any other kind of sickness like that, because someone with syndrome of dawn is a human being, but still, this is "seriois stuff")
-If none of these situations are present abortion will be legalized if the baby isn't a human being yet (following that "I think, therefore I am" line of though)
-If the baby is a human being, and none of the above given situations are present abortion will only take place when authorized by a judge, this judge will analise the father right to have his baby, the mother right to have her baby, and the baby's right to live. The judge will unauthorize the abortion if the mother or the father wants the baby. If none of them wants the baby, their case will be given to a "social server", "social assistant" (I don't remember what this person job nameis, but it's a person who works for the well being of society) who will seek for someone that wants to adopt the baby. If none is found the judge will authorize the abortion. This process (the judgment) shall be as fast as it can be, so the mother won't suffer further with this matter.

Think about this before you decide exactly where you stand on the issue of abortion.

What if your mother had had an abortion instead of having you?

Then I would not be here to consider the issue, and my opinion would be wholly irrelevent.

:rolleyes: why do people keep repeating this?

I cant be arsed to read the all the posts so im sorry if this has been said before, fetuses that have something wrong with them, downs syndrome etc should be terminated its not fair on the person or the parents. And dont give me all that normal life crap, if it was a wild animals baby it would be left to die.
Yes, because wild animals know when their cubs have downs syndrome. :rolleyes:

First I want to apolozige... I didn't understood how great this topic was, I thought it was being talked again because of my latest reply to the UN ingame (a law proposal about abortion, that UN didn't accepted, but I'll modify it in a way that they will... don't worry)... Well... on this matter all I have to say is... I was very foolish, very naive, I'm sorry.
Second... I see that many people who post on this forum topic don't have a clue of what they are talking about... I'll explain myself:

Abortion isn't a simple matter, don't matter what is your position about it, you can't think just "one way" of the subject, you got to see the big picture.
Abortion deals with religion, culture, education, civil rights... with it all.

Expressing your position about this subject is ok, but you shouldn't consider it "the only truth", because there's many different "truths" here, and I'll say mine.

Well, I don't think abortion is a good thing, I'm catholic, so I think abortion is a bad thing, non-christian like. But I'm also practical, I'm an economist, it's not worth for the state making abortion illegal, so that people will have children they don't want and the state will have to take care of them. Or people having illegal abortions and afterwards going to a public hospital to threat whatever needs threatement (usually during an illegal abortion the woman has problems, because usually the so-called doctor doesn't take care as he or she should)... That all costs to the state money, so is easier (and cheaper) to make abortion legal. But now comes me, the human being, and I think abortion should be legalized only in special occasions, like rape, or when the pregnancy means a risk to the woman... this kind of stuff... But I refuse that old unequal and discriminatory argument... "it's all the women choice". So, what about the baby, he has the right to live, right? The baby - as long as he or she is a human being - has the same rights that any of us has. Also men (the father), we have our rights too, right? What if I want to have my son or daughter, even if I'll become a lonely father...? The women has the right to have the baby even if the father doesn't want it, why can't it be vice-versa too?

But now comes the most delicate point of my argument, when the baby becames a human being? Well, to me is when the brain is formed. To me the brain is like a soul, all your hopes, your loves, your memories... everything will be stored in your brain, so as long as you don't have it is like you don't have a soul. Shakespeare wrote in one of his books, I think it was Hamlet, right? "To be or not to be, that is the question.", and I think the answer to that is whithin your soul, and as René Descates said "I think, therefore I am."
Some other people would say your a human being in the moment that the spermatozoon reachs the "ovulo" (the egg... whatever, goolgle didn't translate that for me), some other would agree with me, some other would say in the moment of birth, and there would be even other answers to this question, but In my opinion my answer is like the "middle". What I mean by "middle" is that you reach a common sense... in Brazil we have a saying "You can't please greeks and trojans at once", so that's what I'm trying to do, since I can't please them both, I plase none.

So, with all I said it seems that my opinion is - abortion should be legalized as long as it doesn't hurt the mother's right, the father's right and the baby's right... I would say no, that is not my opinion... but it's almost there... Man... it's hard to express yourself in such a hard subject and using another language.

Well... this is already too big, so I'll try to finish this book, lol.

This is not necessarily my opion, but here it goes:
Abortion should be legalized in special situations:
-Rape, risk to the mother, the baby has some issue that wont let he or she live (like the brain doesn't evolve), and this kind of serious stuff
-If none of these situations are present abortion will be legalized if the baby isn't a human being yet (following that "I think, therefore I am" line of though)
-If the baby is a human being, and none of the above given situations are present abortion will only take place when authorized by a judge, this judge will analise the father right to have his baby, the mother right to have her baby, and the baby's right to live. The judge will unauthorize the abortion if the mother or the father wants the baby. If none of them wants the baby, their case will be given to a "social server", "social assistant" (I don't remember what this person job nameis, but it's a person who works for the well being of society) who will seek for someone that wants to adopt the baby. If none is found the judge will authorize the abortion. This process (the judgment) shall be as fast as it can be, so the mother won't suffer further with this matter.


I like the "To be or not to be" marreid to "I think, therefore, I am" rationale.

All in all, a very rational assessment of the situation, with an elegant conclusion.

Most of the anti-abortionists will dislike it, and not all of the pro-choice people will agree with ALL of it, but it is very well reasoned.

Well, I don't think abortion is a good thing, I'm catholic, so I think abortion is a bad thing, non-christian like.

It doesn't necessarily follow. Early term abortion was allowed within the Catholic church until 1869...

But I refuse that old unequal and discriminatory argument... "it's all the women choice". So, what about the baby, he has the right to live, right? The baby - as long as he or she is a human being - has the same rights that any of us has.

Most abortions occur before the nervous system is developed - a point which you have placed as the time when the fetus becomes a separate human life (and I would tend to agree here).

Also men (the father), we have our rights too, right? What if I want to have my son or daughter, even if I'll become a lonely father...? The women has the right to have the baby even if the father doesn't want it, why can't it be vice-versa too?

Because one person cannot force another to put their lives in danger just because they want it. The minute you (as the father) can carry that fetus to term yourself, you can have the right to keep it even if the mother does not want it. The problem here is that you cannot have equal rights without equal responsibilities - and there is no way to give you equal responsibilities. You are not the one to carry it for 9 months and then go through childbirth, putting your health and life in danger. Therefore, the final decision can never be yours.

But now comes the most delicate point of my argument, when the baby becames a human being? Well, to me is when the brain is formed. To me the brain is like a soul, all your hopes, your loves, your memories... everything will be stored in your brain, so as long as you don't have it is like you don't have a soul.

There is a scientific argument for this viewpoint as well - since your "soul" argument could not hold legal water. But I won't go into that now.

-If the baby is a human being, and none of the above given situations are present abortion will only take place when authorized by a judge, this judge will analise the father right to have his baby, the mother right to have her baby, and the baby's right to live. The judge will unauthorize the abortion if the mother or the father wants the baby. If none of them wants the baby, their case will be given to a "social server", "social assistant" (I don't remember what this person job nameis, but it's a person who works for the well being of society) who will seek for someone that wants to adopt the baby. If none is found the judge will authorize the abortion. This process (the judgment) shall be as fast as it can be, so the mother won't suffer further with this matter.

The problem here is that you are still forcing a woman to put herself in danger just because you said so. If the nervous system has already been developed (at least in pretty much all of the US), then she cannot have an elective abortion anyways. Her health must be endangered to have an abortion. And, again, how can you grant equal rights to the father when the father does not have equal responsibilities?

Abortion has occured throughout history...most of the time it was extremely dangerous to the woman...It is because of the improvement in surgical techniques that this debate even occurs...I say we go back to people dying from gall stones, heart defects, and coathanger abortions...No? :headbang:

If rape allows you to abort,
then the debate is really about punishing women for ENJOYING sex.

Abortion has occured throughout history...most of the time it was extremely dangerous to the woman...It is because of the improvement in surgical techniques that this debate even occurs...I say we go back to people dying from gall stones, heart defects, and coathanger abortions...No? :headbang:

If rape allows you to abort,
then the debate is really about punishing women for ENJOYING sex.

Good point, well made.

....
If rape allows you to abort,
then the debate is really about punishing women for ENJOYING sex.

OMG! *bounces around insanely*!!!

I want, nay, NEED, a t-shirt with this on it.

Best.Point. Ever (well, not really, but it sure would look good on a t-shirt)

I love succinct points in debates like this... they always make it worth wading through the longer points :D

Why not just "dont have sex until your married and are capable of supporting a child"?

Because one person cannot force another to put their lives in danger just because they want it. The minute you (as the father) can carry that fetus to term yourself, you can have the right to keep it even if the mother does not want it. The problem here is that you cannot have equal rights without equal responsibilities - and there is no way to give you equal responsibilities. You are not the one to carry it for 9 months and then go through childbirth, putting your health and life in danger. Therefore, the final decision can never be yours.

The problem here is that you are still forcing a woman to put herself in danger just because you said so. If the nervous system has already been developed (at least in pretty much all of the US), then she cannot have an elective abortion anyways. Her health must be endangered to have an abortion. And, again, how can you grant equal rights to the father when the father does not have equal responsibilities?

Well... I can't argue with that... as I also said "You can't please Greeks and Trojans at once", but I guess in this case you're right. Well, but still, you can't just throw away the father's right and the baby's right. I guess the best way would be trying to reach common grounds, the father and the mother, together... I mean... The law should at least enforce that the father will have the right to fight for his baby life and fight for his paternity (well... that didn't sound good).

There is a scientific argument for this viewpoint as well - since your "soul" argument could not hold legal water. But I won't go into that now.

Well... I don't know how old are you, but I'm guessing you're older than me... but I'll say this anyway... In time you will find out that not all things in life are about science and rationality. Sometimes philosophy and emotions have their role to play too.
Also... please... share your point of view with me!

Why not just "dont have sex until your married and are capable of supporting a child"?

Why not just "If you're a legal adult, you can do whatever you want" and "Not everyone shares your moral code, and happen to see sex as a tool for bonding with their partner"?

And before you bring out 'taking responsibity for actions', that's what abortion is - don't take it lightly, because it's not just a walk in the park.

.........
Well... I don't know how old are you, but I'm guessing you're older than me... but I'll say this anyway... In time you will find out that not all things in life are about science and rationality. Sometimes philosophy and emotions have their role to play too.
Also... please... share your point of view with me!

Well, I agree, but you specifically mentioned 'souls'

You cannot expect people in a secular country to accept anything to do with 'souls' as a valid argument for creating a law (separation of church and state blahblahblah fishcakes)

Why not just "dont have sex until your married and are capable of supporting a child"? Were you ever 16? Inundated with images of sexuality in every aspect of your life? Did you have a locking chastity belt? 16 year olds don't think about supporting a child...sex feels good.

I'm 36, married, 3 kids, use birth control...if it fails? You would suggest I stop engaging in sex with my husband? I'll tell him you said so. :rolleyes:

Why should abortionists have to explain themselves? I am personally against it and if my girlfriend had an abortion I would be a wreck, but I find that no matter how stupid I think something is, I believe that it should not matter to those not invovled and it is the persons own decision.

Abortion has occured throughout history...most of the time it was extremely dangerous to the woman...It is because of the improvement in surgical techniques that this debate even occurs...I say we go back to people dying from gall stones, heart defects, and coathanger abortions...No? :headbang:

If rape allows you to abort,
then the debate is really about punishing women for ENJOYING sex.

Well, if you think rape doesn't inflict psychological damage to the women, and if you also think that having a baby that is the living proof of that act of violence and also part of the violator, won't inflict even more damage and pain to the women then I guess that in your head you're maybe right. Even thou the baby is innocent you can't blame a woman for not wanting he or she.

I'm 17, so yes I'm well aware of sexual pressure. And if your birth control fails, then the way I see it you can have another child. Abortion seems to me to be a cop out of responsibility, as opposed to a method of taking responsibility.

Well, if you think rape doesn't inflict psychological damage to the women, and if you also think that having a baby that is the living proof of that act of violence and also part of the violator, won't inflict even more damage and pain to the women then I guess that in your head you're maybe right. Even thou the baby is innocent you can't blame a woman for not wanting he or she. You misunderstand my point...I believe abortion should be safe and legal...re read my post...I'm a rape survivor...I know of what I speak. :confused:

I'm 17, so yes I'm well aware of sexual pressure. And if your birth control fails, then the way I see it you can have another child. Abortion seems to me to be a cop out of responsibility, as opposed to a method of taking responsibility. So I should overload myself, my husband, our 3 bedroom home, and short the 3 I already have? Or I should break my marriage vows? Talk to me when you are 30...we'll see then .

Well, I agree, but you specifically mentioned 'souls'

You cannot expect people in a secular country to accept anything to do with 'souls' as a valid argument for creating a law (separation of church and state blahblahblah fishcakes)

Well... read it again... "soul" is part of my argument, part of the way I think, but when to comes to law I never said soul, or did I? I'll check that... hmmmm... oh yeah... It was part of my argument, but that wouldn't be a part of a law... I said "But now comes the most delicate point of my argument, when the baby becames a human being? Well, to me is when the brain is formed. To me the brain is like a soul, all your hopes, your loves, your memories... everything will be stored in your brain, so as long as you don't have it is like you don't have a soul." So if I change the last part of it... "...everything will be stored in your brain, so as long as you don't have it it is like you're not alive." now it's all right isn't it... and this modification didn't changed what I wanted to say at all... oh... how impressive isn't it... why you people are obviously picking on nomenclature and forgeting the mean. Also note that I said "To me the brain is like a soul..." like a soul doesn't necessarily mean a soul.

I'm 17, so yes I'm well aware of sexual pressure. And if your birth control fails, then the way I see it you can have another child. Abortion seems to me to be a cop out of responsibility, as opposed to a method of taking responsibility.

Dear god... are you even aware of what an abortion entails? It's not a 'cop out'. It's SURGERY for crying out loud. It's dangerous, and stressful, and psychologically traumatic; it costs money; families can be destroyed by it (if the parents are pro-life); people like YOU are constantly pushing judgements onto the women who have them.

I'm so sick of people talking like this. Go get, or even just WATCH, an abortion. THEN you can talk about how it's a 'cop out of responsibilty'

*goes off to take out my annoyance on various monsters in Morrowind*

Well... read it again... "soul" is part of my argument, part of the way I think, but when to comes to law I never said soul, or did I? I'll check that... hmmmm... oh yeah... It was part of my argument, but that wouldn't be a part of a law... I said "But now comes the most delicate point of my argument, when the baby becames a human being? Well, to me is when the brain is formed. To me the brain is like a soul, all your hopes, your loves, your memories... everything will be stored in your brain, so as long as you don't have it is like you don't have a soul." So if I change the last part of it... "...everything will be stored in your brain, so as long as you don't have it it is like you're not alive." now it's all right isn't it... and this modification didn't changed what I wanted to say at all... oh... how impressive isn't it... why you people are obviously picking on nomenclature and forgeting the mean. Also note that I said "To me the brain is like a soul..." like a soul doesn't necessarily mean a soul.

Well, I wasn't actually responding to that. I was responding to: Originally Posted by Dempublicents
There is a scientific argument for this viewpoint as well - since your "soul" argument could not hold legal water. But I won't go into that now.

Well... I don't know how old are you, but I'm guessing you're older than me... but I'll say this anyway... In time you will find out that not all things in life are about science and rationality. Sometimes philosophy and emotions have their role to play too.
Also... please... share your point of view with me!

It appeared that you were connecting your idea of the 'soul' with the statement that 'sometimes philosophy and emotions have their role to play too', thus suggesting that the notion of a soul was to be considered in the issue of the laws being made. Since that doesn't appear to have been your original intent, I can only heartily apologise :p.

Why not just "dont have sex until your married and are capable of supporting a child"?

Because sex alone is not a crime (it takes other circumstances to make it rape, incest, paedophilia or mutually under-age, whatever) and sex outside of marriage and/or not for the sake of procreation is not intrinsically wrong, just under certain 'standards'/religions.

(And yes, what age is 'under-age' differs across jurisdictions, but involves specific statutes against it, as have the other true crimes, whereas the non-law standards are subjective and have (by definition) no basis in law.)

If you do not wish to partake, then don't. If you wish to, it is a personal decision. Either way, you're entitled to a sufficient level of information about it all to make the initial decision and to allow a sufficiently safe involvement.


I think one of the problems is that certain communities:
o Wish to enforce their own standards of abstinence upon everyone else
o Deny them the best contraceptive information available to
o Further oppose abortion (because the mother 'should have known what she was doing').

My latest analogies haven't generally done what I wanted them to do, but imagine a lakeside community banning swimming in the lake, refusing to give swimming lessons then letting people who have fallen in drown because "it's all their fault they are in the water". I can still see two reasonably significant 'reality misalignments' in that example, but you should have the idea.

Instead (IMHO) they should:
o Accept that not everyone follows the same world-view
o Provide information to mitigate most undue consequences
o Within this framework, allow such cases as fall through the gaps (e.g. failed protection or whatever, as well as non-consentual/medical cases) to be dealt with properly and fairly, with a minimum of pressures in any direction, towards the end of protecting those who can be protected.

It doesn't necessarily follow. Early term abortion was allowed within the Catholic church until 1869...

Well... don't take it the wrong way, but I don't care what the catholic church did or do... I have a mind of my own... when I said I was catholic I meant I'm a person who believes in God, soul, blah blah blah, yada yada yada... But I don't think the catholic church is always right... The catholic church burned many women calling them witches and I don't agree with that... Today we have many people saying that they are wiccans, or druids, or whatever and I don't feel an urge to burn them just because the catholic church would do so back in the 1800's

Well... don't take it the wrong way, but I don't care what the catholic church did or do... I have a mind of my own... when I said I was catholic I meant I'm a person who believes in God, soul, blah blah blah, yada yada yada... But I don't think the catholic church is always right... The catholic church burned many women calling them witches and I don't agree with that... Today we have many people saying that they are wiccans, or druids, or whatever and I don't feel an urge to burn them just because the catholic church would do so back in the 1800's

I'm glad you do have your own mind and I'm not sure I ever suggested you didn't :lol:

I posted simply as a point of interest and in reference to

I'm catholic, so I think abortion is a bad thing, non-christian like.

You see? You have suggested that being Catholic implies thinking abortion "is a bad thing, non-christian like" so it is completely relevant to point out that it has only been considered so by catholics in the last 150 years or so.

Well... I can't argue with that... as I also said "You can't please Greeks and Trojans at once", but I guess in this case you're right. Well, but still, you can't just throw away the father's right and the baby's right. I guess the best way would be trying to reach common grounds, the father and the mother, together... I mean... The law should at least enforce that the father will have the right to fight for his baby life and fight for his paternity (well... that didn't sound good).

I don't advocate throwing away the father's rights. I also don't advocate throwing away the fetus' rights, once it has reached a point that most would agree it actually has some.

I just believe that equal rights have to come with equal responsibilities and there is no way to give equal responsibilities in this case. It is unfortunate that a man may feel that he has lost something if the woman ultimately decides on an abortion - and I think that he should try his best to dissuade her and convince her to carry it for him if that is his wish. However, ultimately, one cannot force another to put their health and life in danger, no matter how bad he wants it.

By the same token, I believe a man cannot force a woman to abort if she does not wish to. However, it if it his wish that he not have the responsibility of raising a child, then he should be able to sign a form giving up all rights and responsibilities associated with the child once it is born.

A fetus on the other hand, I believe should get graded rights as it matures. Once the nervous system is formed, it should have the right to continue developing unless the mother's health is in danger. Once it is viable (even with machines), it should only be removed if the mother's life is in danger otherwise, and all efforts should be made to save *both* lives (unless this is, for some reason, impossible).

We may disagree on the exact rights a father should have, but neither of us is "throwing out" the rights of the father.

Well... I don't know how old are you, but I'm guessing you're older than me... but I'll say this anyway... In time you will find out that not all things in life are about science and rationality. Sometimes philosophy and emotions have their role to play too.
Also... please... share your point of view with me!

Just about 24.

I was not meaning to state that philosophy and emotions do not have their role. What I meant was that an argument that is essentially a religious one cannot hold up to make a law - there has to be more behind it. I feel very strongly that there is an actual soul (although I don't know at what point it is present). However, that is a faith-based argument and cannot be used to force others to assent to my view, as others do not share my faith.

On the other, hand, there is a scientific argument for giving the fetus at least some consideration after the nervous system has developed. Namely, this is the point at which we can biologically call the fetus a separately functioning organism. It is still parasitic at this point, but it does begin to operate - sensing and responding to stimuli on its own. While we still cannot legally assign the same status to this fetus as we do to a born child (as there are still health issues of the mother to consider), we can assign it some status as a life at this point.

Well, if you think rape doesn't inflict psychological damage to the women, and if you also think that having a baby that is the living proof of that act of violence and also part of the violator, won't inflict even more damage and pain to the women then I guess that in your head you're maybe right. Even thou the baby is innocent you can't blame a woman for not wanting he or she.
Not all victims of rape would refuse their child, or not want it, or not love it. The child is as much a victim as the woman, and it's entirely likely she would bond with it.

To say it's okay to abort a child because he was conceived in violence is to say that his life is worth less than that of a child conceived in love. That's wrong.

Why not just "dont have sex until your married and are capable of supporting a child"?
and what if you are married but never wish to have children? i personally don't EVER want kids, so does that mean i must be celebate for my entire life?

I'm 17, so yes I'm well aware of sexual pressure. And if your birth control fails, then the way I see it you can have another child. Abortion seems to me to be a cop out of responsibility, as opposed to a method of taking responsibility.
if you think abortion is a cop-out, or that abortion doesn't represent a responsible choice, then you clearly have no clue about a) what an abortion entails, b) what pregnancy entails, and c) what child rearing entails. i suggest you get the above listed clues before you try to have discussions about abortion rights.

Not all victims of rape would refuse their child, or not want it, or not love it. The child is as much a victim as the woman, and it's entirely likely she would bond with it.

To say it's okay to abort a child because he was conceived in violence is to say that his life is worth less than that of a child conceived in love. That's wrong.

I'm not saying it's a must... I'm not even saying it should... I'm saying that if the mother wants to make an abortion because she was raped she should have the right to do so.
Let me ask you a question... if the pregnancy means a risk to the mother would you consider abortion to be legal? If yes then you must agree that the psychological damage of having a baby under those circunstances are just as bad as any physical health problem. By the way, this argument destroy yours "To say it's okay to abort a child because he was conceived in violence is to say that his life is worth less than that of a child conceived in love", because even a pregnancy of a "child conceived in love" can be aborted in case of health problems.
Also, it wont be nice for the baby either, to grow unwanted and as a remind of the act of violence.
But that's just me, if you think it can't be done it's up to you, but again, I'm not saying "if you were raped have an abortion", I'm saying "if you want to abort because you were raped and fell you can't take it, the law will be with you".

I don't advocate throwing away the father's rights. I also don't advocate throwing away the fetus' rights, once it has reached a point that most would agree it actually has some.

I just believe that equal rights have to come with equal responsibilities and there is no way to give equal responsibilities in this case. It is unfortunate that a man may feel that he has lost something if the woman ultimately decides on an abortion - and I think that he should try his best to dissuade her and convince her to carry it for him if that is his wish. However, ultimately, one cannot force another to put their health and life in danger, no matter how bad he wants it.

By the same token, I believe a man cannot force a woman to abort if she does not wish to. However, it if it his wish that he not have the responsibility of raising a child, then he should be able to sign a form giving up all rights and responsibilities associated with the child once it is born.

A fetus on the other hand, I believe should get graded rights as it matures. Once the nervous system is formed, it should have the right to continue developing unless the mother's health is in danger. Once it is viable (even with machines), it should only be removed if the mother's life is in danger otherwise, and all efforts should be made to save *both* lives (unless this is, for some reason, impossible).

We may disagree on the exact rights a father should have, but neither of us is "throwing out" the rights of the father.



Just about 24.

I was not meaning to state that philosophy and emotions do not have their role. What I meant was that an argument that is essentially a religious one cannot hold up to make a law - there has to be more behind it. I feel very strongly that there is an actual soul (although I don't know at what point it is present). However, that is a faith-based argument and cannot be used to force others to assent to my view, as others do not share my faith.

On the other, hand, there is a scientific argument for giving the fetus at least some consideration after the nervous system has developed. Namely, this is the point at which we can biologically call the fetus a separately functioning organism. It is still parasitic at this point, but it does begin to operate - sensing and responding to stimuli on its own. While we still cannot legally assign the same status to this fetus as we do to a born child (as there are still health issues of the mother to consider), we can assign it some status as a life at this point.

Well... I was right... you're older than me (I'm 20) and one more thing... I agree with every single word you said, but I could argue in one thing (not really, because my argument suck), it's that there is "kinds" of law... there's the positive law (positivism?!?!) and natural law... but that's just one thing you learn on law school, because the natural law isn't really used anymore, but anyway, the soul argument would fit just right in the natural law :)

Dear god... are you even aware of what an abortion entails? It's not a 'cop out'. It's SURGERY for crying out loud. It's dangerous, and stressful, and psychologically traumatic; it costs money; families can be destroyed by it (if the parents are pro-life); people like YOU are constantly pushing judgements onto the women who have them.

I'm so sick of people talking like this. Go get, or even just WATCH, an abortion. THEN you can talk about how it's a 'cop out of responsibilty'

*goes off to take out my annoyance on various monsters in Morrowind*

Yes I'm aware of what abortion entails, thats why I encourage AVOIDING it. Good book to read on the subject "Prophet" by Frank Perretti; fiction but gets the point across. Families CAN be destroyed by it, Lives CAN be ruined by it, it IS an incredibly traumatic experience. Thank you for proving my point, Why promote it? And I'm not judging, otherwise my rhetoric would be chocked full of phrases such as "your going to hell" or "disgusting sinners" and what not junk. I'm expressing my point of view as validly as you are yours so, stop pushing judgements on me (sarcasm).

*Heck yeah, morrowind fan. That game devoured my soul. you cant stop playing the dang thing. Elderscrolls IV 2005 baby! :D *

and what if you are married but never wish to have children? i personally don't EVER want kids, so does that mean i must be celebate for my entire life?

Get a historectomy (or however it's spelled) for crying out loud. That would also be surgury, so the argument against my argument, that abortion is not a cop out because it's surgury, is no longer valid.

I'm not saying it's a must... I'm not even saying it should... I'm saying that if the mother wants to make an abortion because she was raped she should have the right to do so.
Fair enough.

Let me ask you a question... if the pregnancy means a risk to the mother would you consider abortion to be legal? If yes then you must agree that the psychological damage of having a baby under those circunstances are just as bad as any physical health problem. By the way, this argument destroy yours "To say it's okay to abort a child because he was conceived in violence is to say that his life is worth less than that of a child conceived in love", because even a pregnancy of a "child conceived in love" can be aborted in case of health problems.
Also, it wont be nice for the baby either, to grow unwanted and as a remind of the act of violence.
But that's just me, if you think it can't be done it's up to you, but again, I'm not saying "if you were raped have an abortion", I'm saying "if you want to abort because you were raped and fell you can't take it, the law will be with you".
Fair enough, again.

Legality is decided by the courts, not by me.

I would imagine that having a baby under any circumstances are exactly as bad as having a dramatic physical health problem --even mothers in happy, loving relationships. The changes her body goes through, having to amend her whole psyche to think for two instead of one, and the stress! talk about trama.

Aborting a child under any circumstances is not a Good Thing --even pro-choice people (as I am) see this. I don't see how your statement "destroys" mine. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it?

Yes I'm aware of what abortion entails, thats why I encourage AVOIDING it. Good book to read on the subject "Prophet" by Frank Perretti; fiction but gets the point across. Families CAN be destroyed by it, Lives CAN be ruined by it, it IS an incredibly traumatic experience. Thank you for proving my point, Why promote it? And I'm not judging, otherwise my rhetoric would be chocked full of phrases such as "your going to hell" or "disgusting sinners" and what not junk. I'm expressing my point of view as validly as you are yours so, stop pushing judgements on me (sarcasm).

*Heck yeah, morrowind fan. That game devoured my soul. you cant stop playing the dang thing. Elderscrolls IV 2005 baby! :D *

So wait... you admit it's an absolutely horrific thing to have to go through with... but you ALSO see it as a 'cop out of responsibility'?

Making the choice to go through with an abortion is just as much taking responsibility for the pregnecy as having the child. It's just as hard a choice (if not more so). It entails just as much (if not more) psychological issues.

People need to stop acting like having an abortion is something women do for fun, or that it's somehow 'shunning' responsibility and realise that it's not something taken lightly, and that it IS responsible. It's saying "I cannot look after this child, I don't believe it's right to put it into the situation of adoption, so I will go through a SURGICAL PROCEDURE, at great detriment to my own well being, to avoid that occuring".

----
And yes, Morrowind = <3, muchly so :D

I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win.

Just kidding. Actually I got that from a website (http://maddox.xmission.com It's very funny).

Anyway, I think abortions are OK in the time when there's not an actual baby but rather a bunch of cells clumped together. It's not killing a baby, because it's not a baby. Saying that it's bad because it will be a baby is as logical as saying it is bad to use contraception because otherwise you would have a baby.

Also, if people don't get abortions, they will have babies, and babies grow up into people, and the world has too many damn people. Not that I have anything against people generally, there's just too many of them. We're running out of natural resources.

[QUOTE=Willamena]I'd like to believe I'm unique in that regard :-)

Look your just a human being, and one by the sounds of it yet to suffer major injury, not that I would wish that apon you, I even touched wood for you on that.


Who's to say ancient women didn't hunt? build? fight? History is very generalised and hardly lists all the names of the people who built the pyramids, etc.

Sure, its a huge vast male conspiracy through the ages to never mention that women equally participated in hunting, battles and building civilisations.



Oh, yes. As many as the rest of humanity. Egotism, emotional blackmail, addiction, laziness, tendencies to violence, etc.

Good to see you have a balanced view then.

And before you bring out 'taking responsibity for actions', that's what abortion is - don't take it lightly, because it's not just a walk in the park.

Especially for the ones that die.

That's a new one. Tell me about this idea of Fate, please. Usually the concept of Fate is understood to be a force that, from the beginning of time to the end of time, has laid out everything that will happen in advance. Similar to predestination, except without God.


Well I think people decide their own fate by their actions and thoughts, but I believe this is already decided before they even start, and that were all part of a greater fate like an incredibly complex jigsaw thats too staggering to comprehend.
And I believe God is in control of the whole lot.
Hope that helped.

Many pre-modern-historic cultures were centred around and/or governed by the females,

Sorry but that just isnt even true.

[QUOTE]It could, in fact, be argued that: most of the world's ills today come FROM testosterone, and the male 'urge' for aggression.

That is true.


In fact, a better line for you to have used MIGHT have been: Testosterone, WITH it, humanity only just managed to survive pre-history.

I doupt it.
Without male strength, aggression, superior ability to fight and invent weapons, humanity would have been wiped out by wild animals.

=Bottle]and you don't even have to go back THAT far! Terminalia is welcome to visit my parents and take a look at our family album, in which he would find the story of my grandmother's family struggle during the depression. a family of three males (the father and two sons) and 6 females (wife and 5 daughters) ran a farm during the Dust Bowl, and the females in the family worked every bit as hard as the male. they all had the same quota to harvest, regardless of gender, because they needed to all bring in a certain amount if they were going to avoid starvation.

good on her, but sorry, this wasnt the norm.

i'd love to see Termie try to tell old Grandma Davis or her surviving brother that she was the weaker sex. that kind of pathetic excuse would never fly with her, or with my family.

Physically you are the weaker sex, just accept it, then get over it and move on.

good on her, but sorry, this wasnt the norm.

so? it disproves your claims that "all women" are a certain way, and that was the point.

Physically you are the weaker sex, just accept it, then get over it and move on.
wrong. physically, i belong to the gender that builds muscle mass less efficiently, and is less able to engage in large muscle tasks. that is not the only criterion of weakness, in my esteem, and i am a member of the sex with better endurance, better pain resistence, better emotional control (i believe lack of self control is weak), and better fine motor abilities. there is no "weaker" sex, only different areas in which the respective genders are stronger.

you really seem to have a pathological need to tell people they are weaker than you. why is that?

I doupt it.
Without male strength, aggression, superior ability to fight and invent weapons, humanity would have been wiped out by wild animals.
incorrect. other higher primates do not show the testosterone imballance shown in humans, and they simply find other adaptive methods. if humans didn't have the male testosterone-driven aggression they would have adapted another way. anthropology proves there were (and are) cultures that don't rely on male aggression for survival, and most of such cultures alive today live in rainforests where there is a high concentration of predatory animals.

Get a historectomy (or however it's spelled) for crying out loud. That would also be surgury, so the argument against my argument, that abortion is not a cop out because it's surgury, is no longer valid.
having a hysterectomy is an incredibly serious surgery, much more so than having an abortion should i (god forbid) find out i am pregnant. after a hysterectomy i would have weeks of recovery, and would then have to be on hormone replacement therapy for the rest of my life. the effects of taking these artificial hormone replacements include very uncomfortable side effects, as well as increasing my likelihood of developing serious medical conditions like cancer.

it's also interesting to me that you immediately suggest i get major surgery, when you could have just suggested that my male partner get a vasectomy; that procedure is quick, pain is gone within a day, and it is reversable. but hey, punish the woman! punish her!!!!

in my case, asking my partner to get a vasectomy is not an option, because he wouldn't be comfortable with that and is still considering having children later in life. it's his body, and i am not about to suggest he modify it to suit my wishes...odd, how you cannot extend the same basic respect to total strangers.

Well I think people decide their own fate by their actions and thoughts, but I believe this is already decided before they even start, and that were all part of a greater fate like an incredibly complex jigsaw thats too staggering to comprehend.
And I believe God is in control of the whole lot.
Hope that helped.
HUH?!

people are in control of their fate, but that fate was decided before they start?! how the hell does that work? either people can change their fate through their actions, and thus are in control of it, or they cannot change it through their actions because it is predetermined, and therefore are not in control of it.

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. .

Of this quote, I highly disagree with you. The object we are dealing with is not if the being is alive, but of its consciousness. We are no more alive than a tree, but we do function at a higher level of consciousness. This can be determined by examining the basic rules of life. Moreover, a big part of abortion is focused upon when a fetus develops consciousness, which I don't think occurs until well after birth. Withstanding, I still believe abortion is wrong, ever if you are killing a being destined to be a human.

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

I'd like to see supporting information on this. I don't believe we have any information upon when the human brain develops consciousness, much less a clear defenition of what consciousness is.

[QUOTE=Bottle]so? it disproves your claims that "all women" are a certain way, and that was the point.

Wrong, I said it was the norm, I never said all.



wrong. physically, i belong to the gender that builds muscle mass less efficiently, and is less able to engage in large muscle tasks.

that is not the only criterion of weakness, in my esteem, and i am a member of the sex with better endurance, better pain resistence, better emotional control (i believe lack of self control is weak),

But havent you girls been telling guys to show more emotion, you know like

you do?

Better emotional control, depends what emotions your talking about here, be

more specific.

Better endurance, then why arent you girls doing the 5 setters at wimbledon

like we do?

Better pain resistance, men can handle it better in large amounts over a

short period, women can handle it better in a moderate amount over long

periods, I'll call that one 50/50.



and better fine motor abilities. there is no "weaker" sex, only different areas in which the respective genders are stronger.

But its muscle mass and power that counts as the bottom line in strength,

you girls dont have it, therefore physically you are weaker.

Get over it, is it really that big a deal for you to have to falsely portray

women to be as strong physically as men?

I mean arent you girls always going on about brains being what really counts

the most anyway?

you really seem to have a pathological need to tell people they are weaker than you. why is that?

I just call it how I see it.

Wrong, I said it was the norm, I never said all.

dude, do you actually need me to cut-and-paste all the times in this thread you have generalized that all women are weak? give me a break.


But havent you girls been telling guys to show more emotion, you know like
you do?
Better emotional control, depends what emotions your talking about here, be
more specific.

that whole "be more sensitive" thing is a behavioral artifact, not a biological reality. males are less able to regulate their moods, and do not have the neurological ability to suppress emotions to the degree that women do; this is based on objective measures of brain function, not based on annecdotal evidence. whether or not women choose to USE this ability is another matter, but the fact remains that women have the built-in ability to control their emotions more than men can control their own.


Better endurance, then why arent you girls doing the 5 setters at wimbledon
like we do?

again, i am talking about biological realities, not about behavioral trends in modern society. i neither know nor care how the sport of tenis is organized, or by what rules the different gender contructs are enforced.


Better pain resistance, men can handle it better in large amounts over a
short period, women can handle it better in a moderate amount over long
periods, I'll call that one 50/50.

incorrect. women have been experimentally proven to be better at enduring pain of any kind, including short-burst pain and long-term pain.


But its muscle mass and power that counts as the bottom line in strength,
you girls dont have it, therefore physically you are weaker.
Get over it, is it really that big a deal for you to have to falsely portray
women to be as strong physically as men?

again, i disagree that muscle mass counts as the bottom line in strength. you believe that, i do not...in my evaluation, women are as strong as men, because i don't believe raw muscle mass is the best criterion for determining strength. you believe that it is, so that's your opinion.


I mean arent you girls always going on about brains being what really counts
the most anyway?

another stereotype. such a waste of time.

HUH?!

people are in control of their fate, but that fate was decided before they start?! how the hell does that work? either people can change their fate through their actions, and thus are in control of it, or they cannot change it through their actions because it is predetermined, and therefore are not in control of it.

I never said they were in control at all, just that they decide their own fate

by their thoughts and actions, that necessarily isnt being in control.

What your fate is at the end of your life was predetermined by your changing

of decisions already.

Example: a man, a dishonest man decides in his fortys to become a priest and

be holy for the rest of his life, he thus believes he has changed his fate from

being a sinner and going to hell.

Two years later he goes back to his old ways and dies later of a heart attack.

This was his fate from the beginning.

You cannot change your fate, it was predetermined already, any decisions

you make along the way are all heading towards the original conclusion

anyway.

The point isn't really if the foetus is alive or concius at the moment of abotion, but if if our reasons for aborting are more important than the life that the foetus will eventually get by growing up.
The son of a raped mother could become a nobel prize winner one day or a mass murder. Aren't we being presumptuous pretending to be able to decide what is going happen even before the child has born?

My conclusion is that abortion should be legittimate in any case, but it should also be considered immoral in all the cases except severe illness or deformity of the child.

=Bottle]dude, do you actually need me to cut-and-paste all the times in this thread you have generalized that all women are weak? give me a break.

than men physically, its not a stereotype, its fact, just accept it.

Everytime you call something a stereotype you are just dodging the truth.



that whole "be more sensitive" thing is a behavioral artifact, not a biological reality. males are less able to regulate their moods, and do not have the neurological ability to suppress emotions to the degree that women do;

You sound like a sexist, any advantage I give of men having over women in

any regard, you say its a stereotype of the past, or try to whittle it down in

some way as unimportant, but your quite happy to belittle men as being

inferior in some regard to women.

this is based on objective measures of brain function, not based on annecdotal evidence. whether or not women choose to USE this ability is another matter, but the fact remains that women have the built-in ability to control their emotions more than men can control their own.

But isnt it women who get accused of being overly emotional, are you sure

about this control thing?


again, i am talking about biological realities, not about behavioral trends in modern society. i neither know nor care how the sport of tenis is organized, or by what rules the different gender contructs are enforced.

Ah I see, well if it was a biological reality then women would be due to their

greater endurance as you see it, the 5 setters, and the men would be playing

two wouldnt they?


incorrect. women have been experimentally proven to be better at enduring pain of any kind, including short-burst pain and long-term pain.

Proof.

again, i disagree that muscle mass counts as the bottom line in strength. you believe that, i do not...in my evaluation, women are as strong as men,

lol you really do live in a fantasy world bottle, sorry.

because i don't believe raw muscle mass is the best criterion for determining strength. you believe that it is, so that's your opinion.

Its not just mine.

Anway, its muscle mass x speed = power, we have it, you dont.

Anyway goodnight Bottle, I have to get up at 5.30am, so I'll talk to you more

tomorrow night or Thursday night, chow for now.

Sure, its a huge vast male conspiracy through the ages to never mention that women equally participated in hunting, battles and building civilisations.
Why does it have to be a conspiracy? It's just pragmatic. Pre-historic "Grook" and his wife build a straw hut. It goes down in history as a nameless "they" who built a straw hut.

Well I think people decide their own fate by their actions and thoughts, but I believe this is already decided before they even start, and that were all part of a greater fate like an incredibly complex jigsaw thats too staggering to comprehend.
And I believe God is in control of the whole lot.
Hope that helped.
Very much, thanks. I might use the jigsaw analogy. :-)

than men physically, its not a stereotype, its fact, just accept it.

Everytime you call something a stereotype you are just dodging the truth.

Well how about this: Would you admit that not ALL men are stronger than ALL women? If so, you should specify this, and then you'd avoid getting accused of using stereotypes.

Because, you know, NOT all men are stronger than all women. That is, my friend, what we call, in the business, a fact.


You sound like a sexist, any advantage I give of men having over women in
any regard, you say its a stereotype of the past, or try to whittle it down in
some way as unimportant, but your quite happy to belittle men as being
inferior in some regard to women.

Hehehehehehe! Ahem... nope, that won't do it.

Hehehehehehehehehehehhehehe!

So, let me get this straight. You, Terminalia, Mr Women Are Biologically Weak, are accusing Bottle, Ms/Mrs Hang On, It's More Equal Than You are Making Out, sexist.

Puh-lease. Go look up sexism. Bottle isn't saying men are inferior. She's saying they aren't superior. There is in fact a difference (although evidently you missed it... maybe we should go through and define each term for you?)

But isnt it women who get accused of being overly emotional, are you sure
about this control thing?

Accused by who? The MEN in their lives? Hmmmm. And yes, some women are overly emotional some of the time. And, you know, nervous breakdowns occur in both sexes. And girls DO use the whole 'Oh no, I'm getting in trouble, I shall cry now, and get off scott-free' thing to their advantage. That does NOT mean that they are biologically set up to be that way. Maybe you should read Bottle's post again? It already addressed this.

Ah I see, well if it was a biological reality then women would be due to their greater endurance as you see it, the 5 setters, and the men would be playing two wouldnt they?

Maybe women in general (see? that's avoiding stereotypes that are too broad)
don't give a flying toss about tennis? Maybe you purposely used a stupid example (instead of say, long distance running or sprinting?). Maybe being able to play tennis for a long period of time shouldn't be a basis for judging biological capabilities in the realm of strength? Because, you know, it's an illogical example?

lol you really do live in a fantasy world bottle, sorry.

Uh...huh...
Irony, anyone?


Anway, its muscle mass x speed = power, we have it, you dont.

That's not an accepted equation. Trying to use maths/physics/faulty equations to prove your point only makes you seem foolish to those that are actually informed. Power can be any number of things, and many of them have nothing to do with muscle mass or speed.

...........chow for now.

You mean ciao. Don't use foreign languages if you can't get it right. Spelling mistakes in English are tolerable, but this is just ridiculous (I apologise if you did in fact mean the cat food brand, and not 'goodbye' in Italian).

----------
And, just to get back on topic slighty, Bottle you really should just give up. He's not interested in reality, and the more you argue back and give him chances to be verbose in his views, the more off-topic this gets ('women are/aren't weaker than men' != related to abortion.
And while your posts are well thought out and not annoying in the least, it's getting kind of tricky with the whole two-topics-in-one-thread thing...

I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds... it's just distressing seeing you trying to debate with Terminalia (can you say :headbang:?). Plus, we need you in the abortion side of the debate :p

=Bottle]and you don't even have to go back THAT far! Terminalia is welcome to visit my parents and take a look at our family album, in which he would find the story of my grandmother's family struggle during the depression. a family of three males (the father and two sons) and 6 females (wife and 5 daughters) ran a farm during the Dust Bowl, and the females in the family worked every bit as hard as the male. they all had the same quota to harvest, regardless of gender, because they needed to all bring in a certain amount if they were going to avoid starvation. good on her, but sorry, this wasnt the norm.
It *was* the norm amongst dust-bowl farm families --my ancestors as well. It may not have been the norm in the world, but it was amongst a smaller demographic.

Yes, because wild animals know when their cubs have downs syndrome


Erm yeah wild animals know when something is wrong with there young and their cubs, and young with a deformaty is left to die.

hey, you guys have hijacked this thread and turned it into a discussion(?) about gender roles as they pertain to the survival of the species... Good topic, and maybe you should start a thread on it. Somewhere else.

OK, i am not an abortionist. I didn't even know a profession like that existed apart from M.D., OB/GYN. (jk) but i do believe in a HUMAN'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE PATH THEIR LIFE WILL TAKE, EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE WITH the choices they make. With that said, let me offer some of my opinions on abortion.

1. in the circle of life and death, some beings can complete their karmic task simply by being conceived. Ask anyone who has had a miscarriage whether that baby's being conceived affected their lives. Perhaps in both the case of miscarriage and abortion, that "being" fulfilled what it was meant to accomplish in this time-space continuum. God works in mysterious ways.

2. is it immoral? that's for you, (perhaps with the counsel of family, friends, doctors and spiritual advisors) to decide. Do you believe in separation of church and state? If so, then the government has no business legislating morality. Remember, legal and moral are NOT the same thing.

3. abortions will always be performed, whether in a safe and clean doctor's office, or with a coat hanger in the alley. Wouldn't you want your daughter to have the choice to do it safely? Or would you rather she bleed to death or have her insides rot out from infection? Sorry to be graphic, but you must face reality to make good judgements.

4. as noted, life is not a Disney movie. If a woman does not want to be a mother, and you force her into giving birth to an unintended pregnancy, will that automatically make her want to be a mother? will it make her a GOOD mother? or will she resent the child, abuse the child, neglect the child, and create one more psychotic, sociopathic criminal? Life for life's sake is silly. I am a gardener by profession, and i can tell you that for the most beautiful garden, you must CULTIVATE THE FLOWERS AND PULL THE WEEDS. Otherwise the weeds choke out everything good in the garden.

5. Okay, so you say adoption? Have all the unwilling mothers give their babies up to homes that want them? Well...this is a thought. There are 500,000 abortions A YEAR in the US. I say we make a list of all those who are against abortion, and GIVE THEM THE BABIES. See all those protesters with signs outside of clinics? Hand them a baby to take home and raise. All the pro-life judges? Hell, give them TWO. After a few years of having baby after unwanted baby show up on their doorstep, they may see that their stance is unsupportable, along with the eighty babies they have.

IN CONCLUSION; i am not PRO ABORTION--i am PRO CHOICE. I think that the solution lies in BETTER CONTRACEPTION AND EDUCATION to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Abortion should not be used as a first-line birth control method, but only as a last resort should contraceptive methods fail.
The US administration has done mankind a great disservice removing condom and other birth control information from government websites, leaving only abstinence as a choice. ADVOCATING ABSTINENCE DOESNT WORK. Especially while nearly everything in the media promotes sex.

IN HUMOR: If men were the ones who got pregnant and gave birth, abortion would not only be unquesitoningly legal, but it would be provided for FREE by the government on every street corner.

Tropical Montana - "Eho nehevehotse"

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 am not an abortionist, but I am pro-choice, so here goes...

First let me just say that you are likely a wank. I say this not because of your position, but because of the way in which you phrased your question. It's totally loaded, and an all but blatant attempt to get your jolly's at the rumble in the jungle that was sure to follow.

Second, I support a woman's right to choose for the same reason why I support an individuals right to own a firearm. Quite simply, I trust any law abiding sane adult to be better informed and more capable of running their own lifes and their own damn business than some politician in Washington (or worse, just some other state that doesn't like yours). Like Jefferson, I believe that governments (and I take it a step further to include any large group of people, any people with unchecked power, and especially any large groups of people with unchecked power) are inherintly untrustworthy, and that every effort should be made to limit the footprint of their intrusion on the rights of any individual.

Individuals are quite capable of making moral decisions based on the circumstances of their own lives. They are also quite capable of knowing when they have made a mistake or when they have commited an immoral act. Individuals can be trusted to make the decisions that directly effect their own lives. They do not need some jackoff 3 states away makeing those decisions for them. Especially when those same wanks freak out when anyone tries to tell them what to do with their own lives.

First let me just say that you are likely a wank.

The most interesting aspect of your post is the curious way you use wank. Please consult Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wank&r=f) for tips on the appropriate usage.

The most interesting aspect of your post is the curious way you use wank. Please consult Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wank&r=f) for tips on the appropriate usage.
we use euphemisms for subjects which make us uncomfortable...how many names are there for foot? how many for penis? we as humans suffer in our repression! Of course, it is also HYSTERICAL!

hey, you guys have hijacked this thread and turned it into a discussion(?) about gender roles as they pertain to the survival of the species... Good topic, and maybe you should start a thread on it. Somewhere else.

OK, i am not an abortionist. I didn't even know a profession like that existed apart from M.D., OB/GYN. (jk) but i do believe in a HUMAN'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE PATH THEIR LIFE WILL TAKE, EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE WITH the choices they make. With that said, let me offer some of my opinions on abortion.

1. in the circle of life and death, some beings can complete their karmic task simply by being conceived. Ask anyone who has had a miscarriage whether that baby's being conceived affected their lives. Perhaps in both the case of miscarriage and abortion, that "being" fulfilled what it was meant to accomplish in this time-space continuum. God works in mysterious ways.

2. is it immoral? that's for you, (perhaps with the counsel of family, friends, doctors and spiritual advisors) to decide. Do you believe in separation of church and state? If so, then the government has no business legislating morality. Remember, legal and moral are NOT the same thing.

3. abortions will always be performed, whether in a safe and clean doctor's office, or with a coat hanger in the alley. Wouldn't you want your daughter to have the choice to do it safely? Or would you rather she bleed to death or have her insides rot out from infection? Sorry to be graphic, but you must face reality to make good judgements.

4. as noted, life is not a Disney movie. If a woman does not want to be a mother, and you force her into giving birth to an unintended pregnancy, will that automatically make her want to be a mother? will it make her a GOOD mother? or will she resent the child, abuse the child, neglect the child, and create one more psychotic, sociopathic criminal? Life for life's sake is silly. I am a gardener by profession, and i can tell you that for the most beautiful garden, you must CULTIVATE THE FLOWERS AND PULL THE WEEDS. Otherwise the weeds choke out everything good in the garden.

5. Okay, so you say adoption? Have all the unwilling mothers give their babies up to homes that want them? Well...this is a thought. There are 500,000 abortions A YEAR in the US. I say we make a list of all those who are against abortion, and GIVE THEM THE BABIES. See all those protesters with signs outside of clinics? Hand them a baby to take home and raise. All the pro-life judges? Hell, give them TWO. After a few years of having baby after unwanted baby show up on their doorstep, they may see that their stance is unsupportable, along with the eighty babies they have.

IN CONCLUSION; i am not PRO ABORTION--i am PRO CHOICE. I think that the solution lies in BETTER CONTRACEPTION AND EDUCATION to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Abortion should not be used as a first-line birth control method, but only as a last resort should contraceptive methods fail.
The US administration has done mankind a great disservice removing condom and other birth control information from government websites, leaving only abstinence as a choice. ADVOCATING ABSTINENCE DOESNT WORK. Especially while nearly everything in the media promotes sex.

IN HUMOR: If men were the ones who got pregnant and gave birth, abortion would not only be unquesitoningly legal, but it would be provided for FREE by the government on every street corner.

Tropical Montana - "Eho nehevehotse"
Here! Here!

Here! Here!

Seconded :D

HUH?!

people are in control of their fate, but that fate was decided before they start?! how the hell does that work? either people can change their fate through their actions, and thus are in control of it, or they cannot change it through their actions because it is predetermined, and therefore are not in control of it.
It works for me... :) hence.

"fate in control of people" = fate. Fate is a recognition of strange coincidences that directly affect events in our lives ("fate intervened to make him King").

"people controlling fate" = destiny (often used as a synonym for fate, albeit incorrectly, in my opinion). Destiny requires human participation to affect events in their own lives --in other words, someone to destine events, or direct them towards a given outcome ("it was his destiny to be King"). (This is a much older concept of destiny than has fallen out of use for the last two millennia in our Western civilization.)

Both ideas operate at the same time to explain coincidences in a symbolic manner.

hey, you guys have hijacked this thread and turned it into a discussion(?) about gender roles as they pertain to the survival of the species... Good topic, and maybe you should start a thread on it. Somewhere else.

Lol... I think Terminalia and Bottle are in love!!! :) j/k


OK, i am not an abortionist. I didn't even know a profession like that existed apart from M.D., OB/GYN. (jk) but i do believe in a HUMAN'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE PATH THEIR LIFE WILL TAKE, EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE WITH the choices they make. With that said, let me offer some of my opinions on abortion.

agreed, but that's a dangerouss way to put it, unless you really mean it, because by saying this you lead us to think that you also think using any kind of drugs should be legal because we have to do whatever we want to do to ourselves... But this is offtopic so I won't go further on this.

1. in the circle of life and death, some beings can complete their karmic task simply by being conceived. Ask anyone who has had a miscarriage whether that baby's being conceived affected their lives. Perhaps in both the case of miscarriage and abortion, that "being" fulfilled what it was meant to accomplish in this time-space continuum. God works in mysterious ways.

It seems here that you made the same mistake as I did when using the word soul in my arguments.

2. is it immoral? that's for you, (perhaps with the counsel of family, friends, doctors and spiritual advisors) to decide. Do you believe in separation of church and state? If so, then the government has no business legislating morality. Remember, legal and moral are NOT the same thing.

I don't agree with you here... because morality and religion are also separeted things, I'm not saying religion don't has its morality, but morality has more to do with culture than with religion. Let's suppose you live in a country where everyone walks naked... to you that's totaly moral, but in other places that would be imoral.

3. abortions will always be performed, whether in a safe and clean doctor's office, or with a coat hanger in the alley. Wouldn't you want your daughter to have the choice to do it safely? Or would you rather she bleed to death or have her insides rot out from infection? Sorry to be graphic, but you must face reality to make good judgements.

4. as noted, life is not a Disney movie. If a woman does not want to be a mother, and you force her into giving birth to an unintended pregnancy, will that automatically make her want to be a mother? will it make her a GOOD mother? or will she resent the child, abuse the child, neglect the child, and create one more psychotic, sociopathic criminal? Life for life's sake is silly. I am a gardener by profession, and i can tell you that for the most beautiful garden, you must CULTIVATE THE FLOWERS AND PULL THE WEEDS. Otherwise the weeds choke out everything good in the garden.

Agreed 100% here!

5. Okay, so you say adoption? Have all the unwilling mothers give their babies up to homes that want them? Well...this is a thought. There are 500,000 abortions A YEAR in the US. I say we make a list of all those who are against abortion, and GIVE THEM THE BABIES. See all those protesters with signs outside of clinics? Hand them a baby to take home and raise. All the pro-life judges? Hell, give them TWO. After a few years of having baby after unwanted baby show up on their doorstep, they may see that their stance is unsupportable, along with the eighty babies they have.

Well... I know what you meant here, but I'll just make an observation... At first I thought if someone wanted the baby (the father, the grandparents, or anyone else wanting to adopt) abortion shouldn't be done because of the baby's right (and the father's right in case of the father wanting the baby and th mother not wanting), but then someone I don't recall the nickname gave me a different view on the matter. You can't have equal rights if you don't have equal responsabilities... Now I would say, if the mother want to have an abortion just because she doesn't want to be a mother, but there are people wanting the baby and she is willing to take the responsabilities, then she shouldn't abort... that's sound logicall, but when people are under pressure they tend to act without thinking, and in a case like this this possibility should be always remembered to the mother. I don't know if this came out clear... but I'm too tired to rephrase it right now.

IN CONCLUSION; i am not PRO ABORTION--i am PRO CHOICE. I think that the solution lies in BETTER CONTRACEPTION AND EDUCATION to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Abortion should not be used as a first-line birth control method, but only as a last resort should contraceptive methods fail.
The US administration has done mankind a great disservice removing condom and other birth control information from government websites, leaving only abstinence as a choice. ADVOCATING ABSTINENCE DOESNT WORK. Especially while nearly everything in the media promotes sex.

Very good arguments you made, and perfect conclusion... as you can see I agreed to pretty much everything you said, and this ending is a 100% again.

having a hysterectomy is an incredibly serious surgery, much more so than having an abortion should i (god forbid) find out i am pregnant. after a hysterectomy i would have weeks of recovery, and would then have to be on hormone replacement therapy for the rest of my life. the effects of taking these artificial hormone replacements include very uncomfortable side effects, as well as increasing my likelihood of developing serious medical conditions like cancer.

it's also interesting to me that you immediately suggest i get major surgery, when you could have just suggested that my male partner get a vasectomy; that procedure is quick, pain is gone within a day, and it is reversable. but hey, punish the woman! punish her!!!!

in my case, asking my partner to get a vasectomy is not an option, because he wouldn't be comfortable with that and is still considering having children later in life. it's his body, and i am not about to suggest he modify it to suit my wishes...odd, how you cannot extend the same basic respect to total strangers.

Your striking back at me like I assaulted you. I considered mentioning a vasectimy, but that doesnt apply to non-married sexually active people very well. But ok your husband can have a vesectamy, and like you said, it's reversable so you could still have children later if you wanted. And in marriage, the two become ONE. Thats the whole idea of it. You should no longer be such distinct individuals as much as you are a working unit. At 17 I've been in deep enough relationships where I would feel confortable asking the one that I love to change something to help me, and I would of course do the same for them one hundred fold. And by the way, the emotional and physical (dare I say spiritual?) problems that often follow an abortion cannot even be compared to a histerectamy.

Now really. Some debates can't be resolved. Let this thread die in piece.

And for the record, I'm pro-choice ;)

and what if you are married but never wish to have children? i personally don't EVER want kids, so does that mean i must be celebate for my entire life?

Either that, or that Holy Fro fellow is advocating same-sex intercourse for all....

Well I think people decide their own fate by their actions and thoughts, but I believe this is already decided before they even start, and that were all part of a greater fate like an incredibly complex jigsaw thats too staggering to comprehend.
And I believe God is in control of the whole lot.
Hope that helped.

So, you don't believe in "Fate"... you believe in "Predestination"?

Either that, or that Holy Fro fellow is advocating same-sex intercourse for all....

Are you a complete moron? He just made it clear that he simply believes that abortion is a terrible thing and that it would be best to avoid it in whatever manner is easiest. Dont twist peoples words.

[editted for length]

----------
And, just to get back on topic slighty, Bottle you really should just give up. He's not interested in reality, and the more you argue back and give him chances to be verbose in his views, the more off-topic this gets ('women are/aren't weaker than men' != related to abortion.
And while your posts are well thought out and not annoying in the least, it's getting kind of tricky with the whole two-topics-in-one-thread thing...

I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds... it's just distressing seeing you trying to debate with Terminalia (can you say :headbang:?). Plus, we need you in the abortion side of the debate :p
whew, i am so glad that somebody else responded to Termie...his "reasoning" makes me so dizzy that i was beginning to wonder if i stumbled into an alternate reality where down is up. i was also beginning to wonder if my writing was really so bad that it could not be understood by any reader, since Terminalia doesn't seem to understand any of the points i am making. or, perhaps, he understands and chooses to post unrelated responses?

i don't really know, and i think you've got it right...it's just not worth it. anybody who wants can read this thread and see the facts for themselves. i don't have any concern that people will think i am the one making stereotypical or sexist statements, nor do i have any fear that i will be the one people back away from with looks of pity and horror :).

Your striking back at me like I assaulted you. I considered mentioning a vasectimy, but that doesnt apply to non-married sexually active people very well. But ok your husband can have a vesectamy, and like you said, it's reversable so you could still have children later if you wanted. And in marriage, the two become ONE. Thats the whole idea of it. You should no longer be such distinct individuals as much as you are a working unit. At 17 I've been in deep enough relationships where I would feel confortable asking the one that I love to change something to help me, and I would of course do the same for them one hundred fold. And by the way, the emotional and physical (dare I say spiritual?) problems that often follow an abortion cannot even be compared to a histerectamy.
no, i wasn't striking back at you. if you think that my post was "striking" then you really need to toughen up...and lighten up, too :).

you're right that the emotional problems that follow an abortion cannot be compared to those from a hysterectomy; i would be far more bothered (both emotionally and physically) by a hysterectomy than an abortion. by far. no contest. not even on the same planet. i have absolutely no problem whatsoever having an abortion, but i have a huge problem with undergoing major surgery that would require me to permanently depend on hormone replacement and that would put my health in serious risk from many different disorders. i have no negative feelings about abortion, but i have a lot of sadness and concern over the idea of my internal organs being removed. my body is important to me (being the only one i have), and any damage to it makes me very very sad.

as for the "two becoming one in marriage" thing, i believe that is absolutely the worst possible thing a married couple could do. my parents (currently in year 28 of their first and only marriage) taught me that a married couple must ALWAYS remain the individuals they truly are, because to do otherwise is to do a serious diservice to both yourself and your partner. you work together, you live together, and you live your lives as full partners, but you NEVER allow each other to forget your individual selves and your distinct and different perspectives. my boyfriend of 4 years would never date me, nor i him, if there was any chance of us becoming a fused unit in our relationship or in marriage. if i wanted a symbiotic parasite i would go get myself a tapeworm; boyfriends and husbands are meant to be seperate individuals rather than extensions of their wives. personally i can't think of many things sadder than two people who try to become one in the name of "love."

no offense, but i am totally unsurprised that a 17 year old would have the view of marriage that you suggest. most people i know who get married young hold that view, and most of the kids who were in "serious" relationships in high school thought that stuff, too. indeed, a couple of my very good friends held your beliefs, until they were divorced at the age of 21 and learned that "becoming one" is a very unhealthy way to look at any relationship. in the biz, we call it "codependence."

The most interesting aspect of your post is the curious way you use wank. Please consult Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wank&r=f) for tips on the appropriate usage.

The word is a euphamism for 'jack-off', which in my area of the world, is used as both a verb and as a noun. I.E. "I like to jack-off" and "You, sir, are a jack-off." 'Wank', like so many other words of similar nature, can be used in a similar manner. And it sounds more amusing to me to use 'wank' than it does to use 'jack-off'.

Are you a complete moron? He just made it clear that he simply believes that abortion is a terrible thing and that it would be best to avoid it in whatever manner is easiest. Dont twist peoples words.

No, I'm not a complete moron, and I fail to see how that is connected to the issue.

Unless you lack debating skills, and have to resort to insults to attempt to make your 'point'.

So, Holy Fro is advocating avoiding abortion in 'whatever manner is easiest'? (According to you). Well, it has to be said, same sex intercourse is REMARKABLY secure in terms of pregnancy and abortion.

So, I guess YOU are advocating same-sex intercourse, also?

No, I'm not a complete moron, and I fail to see how that is connected to the issue.

Unless you lack debating skills, and have to resort to insults to attempt to make your 'point'.

So, Holy Fro is advocating avoiding abortion in 'whatever manner is easiest'? (According to you). Well, it has to be said, same sex intercourse is REMARKABLY secure in terms of pregnancy and abortion.

So, I guess YOU are advocating same-sex intercourse, also?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...Holy Fro...so young...so young...He He He

Get a historectomy (or however it's spelled) for crying out loud. That would also be surgury, so the argument against my argument, that abortion is not a cop out because it's surgury, is no longer valid.

Of course, it is a much more dangerous surgical procedure than an abortion. In addition, doctors generally will not perform one until one is older, because elective historectomies are simply not safe enough. And, finally, having your reproductive organs removed causes hormonal hell on your body, leading to health issues immediately - and possibly even more later down the line.

incorrect. other higher primates do not show the testosterone imballance shown in humans, and they simply find other adaptive methods. if humans didn't have the male testosterone-driven aggression they would have adapted another way. anthropology proves there were (and are) cultures that don't rely on male aggression for survival, and most of such cultures alive today live in rainforests where there is a high concentration of predatory animals.

Wrong as usual, it was vital for human males to be aggressive, not just for

protection against animals, but for hunting and against other human males

from other tribes.

Your theory on humans adapting other ways without an overload of

testosterone is only that, pure fantasy.

What cultures are these that dont value male aggression anyway, let me

guess, they were subdued easily by more aggressive cultures?

Your cultures that survive in the Amazon do use male aggression to defend

themselves against predators, why do you keep trying to look for reasons to

devaluate males, are you that threatened by us?

IN HUMOR: If men were the ones who got pregnant and gave birth, abortion would not only be unquesitoningly legal, but it would be provided for FREE by the government on every street corner.



This is, and always has been a stupid arguement, we dont have vaginas, comprende?

This is, and always has been a stupid arguement, we dont have vaginas, comprende?

Uh, darlin, that was the point they were making.

Wrong as usual, it was vital for human males to be aggressive, not just for protection against animals, but for hunting and against other human males from other tribes.
Your theory on humans adapting other ways without an overload of testosterone is only that, pure fantasy.
What cultures are these that dont value male aggression anyway, let me guess, they were subdued easily by more aggressive cultures?

Your cultures that survive in the Amazon do use male aggression to defend themselves against predators, why do you keep trying to look for excuses to devaluate males, are you that threatened by us?

i read in an anthropology book about a tribe where the women did all the manual labour and the men stayed home, grew out their hair and wore flowers in it and looked after the children. there's a tribe in africa where the men dress up for a beauty pagent and the women make the selection of who they would like to take as a husband based on this pagent. and we're not talking like the western typical body building contest deal, we're talking like makeup and fancy hairdos. as far as i know, both tribes exist still and haven't been subdued.

when are you going to accept that women can do anything a man can do, with the possible exception of being a sperm donor or autographing the snow with urine.

=Shaed]Well how about this: Would you admit that not ALL men are stronger than ALL women? If so, you should specify this, and then you'd avoid getting accused of using stereotypes.

Because, you know, NOT all men are stronger than all women. That is, my friend, what we call, in the business, a fact.

Yeah their known as metrosexuals, sensitive new age geeks, nerds,

nancyboys, wimps, doormats, pussys etc you cant count them, there not

men.

There an embarressment. :)



Puh-lease. Go look up sexism. Bottle isn't saying men are inferior. She's saying they aren't superior. There is in fact a difference (although evidently you missed it... maybe we should go through and define each term for you?)

I never said men were superior to women either, maybe you should go back

and read some of my facts better.


Accused by who? The MEN in their lives? Hmmmm. And yes, some women are overly emotional some of the time. And, you know, nervous breakdowns occur in both sexes. And girls DO use the whole 'Oh no, I'm getting in trouble, I shall cry now, and get off scott-free' thing to their advantage. That does NOT mean that they are biologically set up to be that way. Maybe you should read Bottle's post again? It already addressed this.


So there better at using emotional blackmail, Id agree on that.



Maybe women in general (see? that's avoiding stereotypes that are too broad)
don't give a flying toss about tennis? Maybe you purposely used a stupid example (instead of say, long distance running or sprinting?).


A stupid example?

Sorry but how stupid are you, tennis is a much bigger sport world wide, and

attracts much bigger dollars than sprinting and long distance, do the names

Agassi, Sampras or Hingis mean anything to you, try telling them, or the

millions of people of both sexes who play it around the world, that using

tennis, is a stupid example.


Maybe being able to play tennis for a long period of time shouldn't be a basis for judging biological capabilities in the realm of strength? Because, you know, it's an illogical example?

We were talking endurance here, and strength plays a big part in that

anyway, try and read the thread a bit better.


That's not an accepted equation. Trying to use maths/physics/faulty equations to prove your point only makes you seem foolish to those that are actually informed. Power can be any number of things, and many of them have nothing to do with muscle mass or speed.


Oh really, mass(muscle) x speed = power, if you cant understand the logic in

that simple and accepted equation, then theres no hope for you.

Your other number of things human biology uses naturally to generate power,

can you post them please?



You mean ciao. Don't use foreign languages if you can't get it right. Spelling mistakes in English are tolerable, but this is just ridiculous (I apologise if you did in fact mean the cat food brand, and not 'goodbye' in Italian).

Yeah I meant the catfood brand, all catfood the same anyway, just different

wrapper :)


And, just to get back on topic slighty, Bottle you really should just give up. He's not interested in reality,


I have a much better handle on that than you.

trying to debate with Terminalia (can you say :headbang:?). Plus, we need you in the abortion side of the debate


Go team baby murder

not.

than men physically, its not a stereotype, its fact, just accept it.

Everytime you call something a stereotype you are just dodging the truth.

you've been saying that all women are weak this whole time.

You sound like a sexist, any advantage I give of men having over women in

any regard, you say its a stereotype of the past, or try to whittle it down in

some way as unimportant, but your quite happy to belittle men as being

inferior in some regard to women.

have you actually been listening? bottle has been saying that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. men tend to have better spatial abilties than women, women tend to have better verbal abilities, men are better at building muscle, women are better at gaining flexibility, men are better at dealing with stress, women are better at dealing with sleep deprivation. it all balances out to a point where everyone's pretty much on equal footing. although it is difficult to tell which differences are the result of gender directly and which aren't. for instance, when boys fail at something, usually they're taught that it's because it was a lack of motivation, girls tend to be told tehy're incapable of doing so.

But isnt it women who get accused of being overly emotional, are you sure

about this control thing?

who gets in more violent altercations, men or women?
how many women do you see picking fights vs how many men? i'll tell you, i've never seen two girls go at each other but i've seen many guys wailing on each other or trying to start shit with each other. you call that emotional control?

Anway, its muscle mass x speed = power, we have it, you dont.

actually power=work/time. as a physics student, i can tell you you're way the hell off on your equation there.

Uh, darlin, that was the point they were making.

So why bother making it sweetiepie, its never going to physically happen.

=Dakini]you've been saying that all women are weak this whole time.

Compared to men in a lot of physical areas already discussed you are.

have you actually been listening?

Have you, just because someone doesnt want to go along with all the PC girl

power garbage for once, there accused automatically of being sexist, your

views on what you think is right or wrong dont seem to be able to handle any scrutiny.


who gets in more violent altercations, men or women?
how many women do you see picking fights vs how many men? i'll tell you, i've never seen two girls go at each other but i've seen many guys wailing on each other or trying to start shit with each other. you call that emotional control?

Is that the only example for emotional control you have, anger?

Men fighting is as much a biological thing as an emotional one.


actually power=distance/time. as a physics student, i can tell you you're way the hell off on your equation there.

Well on your theory, women who Bottle says have superior endurance to

men, should be doing 5 sets of tennis not 3 as a max, instead of men.

=Dakini]i read in an anthropology book about a tribe where the women did all the manual labour and the men stayed home, grew out their hair and wore flowers in it and looked after the children. there's a tribe in africa where the men dress up for a beauty pagent and the women make the selection of who they would like to take as a husband based on this pagent. and we're not talking like the western typical body building contest deal, we're talking like makeup and fancy hairdos. as far as i know, both tribes exist still and haven't been subdued.

Well dont you think the women of these tribes are incredibly sexist then

Dakini?

You would be foaming at the mouth wouldnt you if it was the other way

around.



when are you going to accept that women can do anything a man can do,

Come and do my job then, if you can do roof tiling for four years I'll accept

what you say.

Ive yet to see a woman doing it, so where are they Dakini?



with the possible exception of being a sperm donor or autographing the snow
with urine.

Actually I did see a woman attempt that once, she was a shocking speller lol

Your over 18 arent you. :rolleyes:

you're* and i certainly hope that you're not. the average 6th grader should know their homonyms...

you're* and i certainly hope that you're not. the average 6th grader should know their homonyms...

OMG split that hair Dakini!

I'll be on your case for any spelling mistakes you make from now on, so keep

it neat girl lol

Well dont you think the women of these tribes are incredibly sexist then

Dakini?

You would be foaming at the mouth if it was the other way around I would

bet.

what? first off, where i am foaming at the mouth?
i mean, first of all, i've never said anything about female beauty pagents in the western world, personally i think they're stupid, but hey, men have their body builder competitions so the objectification isn't limited to one gender, i really don't give a damn to be honest. it's like strippers... they do what they do and i really couldn't care less.

Come and do my job then, if you can do roof tiling for four years I'll accept

what you say.

try doing my optics homework and see how great that is.

and i've done manual labour before. i worked in a factory in the summer... i just don't handle heat very well, but i'm sure i could manage. i'm sure you don't even use a hammer, but a nail gun, this facilitating the work even more, though hammers are so much more fun and feel so much better to use. oh, have i mentioned that i've helped my dad frame out the basement of my house? including putting up drywall? the only things i haven't helped with are the electicity and insulation (only one set of gloves for it) oh, and i haven't laid floor, but that's not exactly rocket science. but yeah, give me some tools and i'm sure i can handle it.

OMG split that hair Dakini!

I'll be on your case for any spelling mistakes you make from now on, so keep

it neat girl lol

there's a difference between spelling errors caused by typing errors and spelling errors caused by a loose grasp of the english language.

[QUOTE=Parcheezi]we use euphemisms for subjects which make us uncomfortable...how many names are there for foot? how many for penis?

How many for vagina? :)

there's a difference between spelling errors caused by typing errors and spelling errors caused by a loose grasp of the english language.


Loose, I think your over exagerating, I have an excellent vocabulary.

So any spelling errors you contribute will be typos from now on I take it?

lol

=Dakini]what? first off, where i am foaming at the mouth?
i mean, first of all, i've never said anything about female beauty pagents in the western world, personally i think they're stupid, but hey, men have their body builder competitions so the objectification isn't limited to one gender, i really don't give a damn to be honest. it's like strippers... they do what they do and i really couldn't care less.

Good to see you have nothing against beauty pagents, but this all female

ruled tribes in Africa was abit more than that wasnt it?




try doing my optics homework and see how great that is.

No thanks.

and i've done manual labour before. i worked in a factory in the summer... i just don't handle heat very well, but i'm sure i could manage. i'm sure you don't even use a hammer, but a nail gun, this facilitating the work even more,

Yes we do use nail guns, but I do have to use my hammer and other tools

still, nail guns dont do everything, much as I wish and cant get everywhere.

Although this does make the work easier, its more a case of making it quicker

than anything else, I am good with a hammer, but it would be hell on the

wrists using it that much, the guys in the old days must have had wrists like steel.


but that's not exactly rocket science. but yeah, give me some tools and i'm sure i can handle it.

Can you handle heights?

Walking up and down steep roofs carring heay tools and bundles of tiles over

your shoulder that weigh 40 kgs?

Every working day for ten hours?

For years and years?

No matter how hot or cold it gets?

Do you really think you can handle that?

Yeah their known as metrosexuals, sensitive new age geeks, nerds,

nancyboys, wimps, doormats, pussys etc you cant count them, there not

men.

There an embarressment. :)

1. oh gee, another stereotype. all men who are weaker than any woman must be geeks, nerds, metrosexuals, wimps, doormats, pussies et c. well i've got news for you. did you see the snatch clean and jerk at the olympics? the women's competition? the last place woman in that competition is probably stronger than you are.
2. pussies*
3. they're*
4. so i suppose real men don't know how to spell either?

I never said men were superior to women either, maybe you should go back

and read some of my facts better.

hahahahahahahahahaha. last i checked, you never said that men should have to produce children for women. you never said that men had to stay at home and sacrifice a career for a family. yet you expect a woman to do that.

So there better at using emotional blackmail, Id agree on that.

Oh really, mass(muscle) x speed = power, if you cant understand the logic in

that simple and accepted equation, then theres no hope for you.

Your other number of things human biology uses naturally to generate power,

can you post them please?

i'm telling you that the actual formula for power is work/time.
here is a basic physics site that explains this http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/energy/u5l1e.html

now, how do you derive your equation... because if you wish, i can derive that one for you... it's not hard really.

Loose, I think your over exagerating, I have an excellent vocabulary.

So any spelling errors you contribute will be typos from now on I take it?

lol

well, there's a difference between typing: "teh" and typing their instead of there or they're. in one instance it is obvious that the person writing knows what they mean to write, in the other it is not so obvious.

Good to see you have nothing against beauty pagents, but this all female

ruled tribes in Africa was abit more than that wasnt it?

the beauty pagent one, as far as i know all the women do is express dominance when choosing a mate, i don't know about the rest.

Yes we do use nail guns, but I do have to use my hammer and other tools

still, nail guns dont do everything, much as I wish and cant get everywhere.

Although this does make the work easier, its more a case of making it quicker

than anything else, I am good with a hammer, but it would be hell on the

wrists using it that much, the guys in the old days must have had wrists like steel.

forearms too.

Can you handle heights?

Walking up and down steep roofs carring heay tools and bundles of tiles that

weigh 40 kgs?

Every day for ten hours?

For years and years?

No matter how hot or cold it gets?

i can handle heights (though that's not related to gender) i naturally have the benefit of a lower centre of gravity due to my gender, so chances are i'd be able to master the art of balancing on such slants much more naturally than a man. i can carry 40 kgs (had to carry a bag of ice that big 1.5km last summer for my catering job) and i could do it for some time, but the question is: why the hell would i want to? the way i see it, i'm going to grad school after this hopefully and i'll get a nice research/teaching position. no manual labour, and plenty of experimental and theoretical fun. :D

Compared to men in a lot of physical areas already discussed you are.

do men have naturally better balance? no, women do. we have a lower centre of gravity, thus naturally better balance.
are men naturally more flexible? no, women are.
men are inferior physically in other ways.

Have you, just because someone doesnt want to go along with all the PC girl

power garbage for once, there accused automatically of being sexist, your

views on what you think is right or wrong dont seem to be able to handle any scrutiny.

you said that women are supposed to push out babies and that women who don't are selfish in your initial post.
that's not a matter of being pc, that's a matter of being a chauvist.

Is that the only example for emotional control you have, anger?

Men fighting is as much a biological thing as an emotional one.

which is a better form of control? letting your feelings out in small more frequent, non-violent doses or bottling it up until you beat someone?
men may not completely lose control of their emotions often, but when they do, it's quite a spectacle... i'm not just talking anger. i've seen men break down in frustration, sadness, sometimes along with obsessive almost scary behaviour (i.e. some guy kept me on the phone for 2 hours crying because he had a thing for me and i didn't reciprocate. he also wrote 3 poems going on about how much he loved me [he hardly knew me] and how i broke his heart)

Well on your theory, women who Bottle says have superior endurance to

men, should be doing 5 sets of tennis not 3 as a max, instead of men.

i don't think anyone but you gives a damn about tennis here.

i have to go to bed as i have class tomorrow.

Dakini]1. oh gee, another stereotype. all men who are weaker than any woman must be geeks, nerds, metrosexuals, wimps, doormats, pussies et c. well i've got news for you. did you see the snatch clean and jerk at the olympics? the women's competition? the last place woman in that competition is probably stronger than you are.

So what shes probably plugged up to the eyeballs on roidjuice too.



2. pussies*
3. they're*
4. so i suppose real men don't know how to spell either?

lol like I said, just dont make any errors yourself, I'll be watching.

hahahahahahahahahaha. last i checked, you never said that men should have to produce children for women.


How can they, its not possible biologically so its not even relevant.

you never said that men had to stay at home and sacrifice a career for a family. yet you expect a woman to do that.

Yes, women are biologically and emotionally suited better to raise children.

If another guy wants to do that, then thats his decision, its not something I

would do, I suppose Im now an evil sexist achronism.



So there better at using emotional blackmail, Id agree on that.

Do you find that admirable?

now, how do you derive your equation... because if you wish, i can derive that one for you... it's not hard really.

OK, League player weighing in at 102 kg of muscle, runs fast at another

footballer and with superior strength and technique runs over him, therefore

he has more power than the other guy.

Thus mass x speed = power

[QUOTE]the beauty pagent one, as far as i know all the women do is express dominance when choosing a mate, i don't know about the rest.

And this isnt sexist to you of course, what if it was the men expressing

dominance, that would be sexist then probably.


forearms too.

No really?

Dont forget biceps and shoulders and back muscles etc

The steel bit was because wrists and hands are where you can do the most

damage.


i naturally have the benefit of a lower centre of gravity due to my gender, so chances are i'd be able to master the art of balancing on such slants much more naturally than a man.

Maybe, but although good balance is important its not the main part of the

job, could you carry heavy loads at the same time, all day if necessary, thats

where mens greater physical strength and higher centre of

gravity masters this kind of work much more naturally than a woman can.



i can carry 40 kgs (had to carry a bag of ice that big 1.5km last summer for my catering job) and i could do it for some time, but the question is: why the hell would i want to?

Its not about asking whether you wanted to, its about whether you think

your capable of it anyway.

=Dakini]do men have naturally better balance? no, women do. we have a lower centre of gravity, thus naturally better balance.
are men naturally more flexible? no, women are.
men are inferior physically in other ways.

Yes but strength is what counts the most.


you said that women are supposed to push out babies and that women who don't are selfish in your initial post.
that's not a matter of being pc, that's a matter of being a chauvist.


Harshly worded, women are suposed to 'push out babies', as you derogatorly

put it, thats why you have a womb, it wasnt put there as an option.

You call me a chauvist if you want, I cant see anything sexist about simply

stating the prime reason for women in life.

To do deny something as natural and beautiful as this is PC.


which is a better form of control? letting your feelings out in small more frequent, non-violent doses or bottling it up until you beat someone?
men may not completely lose control of their emotions often, but when they do, it's quite a spectacle... i'm not just talking anger. i've seen men break down in frustration, sadness, sometimes along with obsessive almost scary behaviour (i.e. some guy kept me on the phone for 2 hours crying because he had a thing for me and i didn't reciprocate. he also wrote 3 poems going on about how much he loved me [he hardly knew me] and how i broke his heart)

Um being obsessive isnt limited to men, I had the same problem with a girl

once, and had to get the police to talk to her.

And Ive seen some huge explosions of pentup rage from women as well,

maybe not as potentially dangerous as a guys could be, but still chilling stuff,

I think your views on who has better emotional control are to use a word you

like 'stereotyped', in saying that I still believe stereotyping is bullcrap, hence

my disagreement with you.

i don't think anyone but you gives a damn about tennis here.
i have to go to bed as i have class tomorrow.

Nice dodge, when men out perform women at something in sport, which is a

lot, its automatically discarded as unimportant lol

Have a good class.

You know, I read the first page of this post and then skipped to the last page. Can you say "Threadjack?"

You know, I read the first page of this post and then skipped to the last page. Can you say "Threadjack?"

Yeah, it's basically become "Termy, you're a stupid pig!" "Shut up, your a woman and that makes me better then you!"

actually power=distance/time. as a physics student, i can tell you you're way the hell off on your equation there.
Well on your theory, women who Bottle says have superior endurance to men, should be doing 5 sets of tennis not 3 as a max, instead of men.

What's that to do with the price of fish? The physical laws of the universe are one thing, whilst the social convention that women don't play five-set tennis is another.

Men (at least in my culture) don't tend to talk to each other in public lavatories/restrooms whereas I'm reliably informed that women do. I don't, however, think that has anything to do with the relative frequency ranges of masculinised and feminised vocal chords (for example)...

What's that to do with the price of fish? The physical laws of the universe are one thing, whilst the social convention that women don't play five-set tennis is another.

Men (at least in my culture) don't tend to talk to each other in public lavatories/restrooms whereas I'm reliably informed that women do. I don't, however, think that has anything to do with the relative frequency ranges of masculinised and feminised vocal chords (for example)...
precisely. i don't understand why Terminalia is finding it so difficult to make that distinction; could somebody perhaps give me suggestions as to how i might phrase things more clearly? i cannot believe Terminalia is really so stupid that he can't grasp the difference between biology and social convention, and therefore i must simply be doing a bad job of communicating my points...did anybody else understand the things i was trying to say to Terminalia, or was it really a total bust?

OK, League player weighing in at 102 kg of muscle, runs fast at another footballer and with superior strength and technique runs over him, therefore he has more power than the other guy.

Thus mass x speed = power

Way to go for showing your grasp of the concept of "deriving an equation". Not.

In fact, you've only provided one value (useless because there are no others to quantify it against), one item of circumstance, two relationships between randomly arbitrary values, a preliminary result that sounds logical but unproven and a conclusion that is not obtainable from the result.

Let's try a little script. It won't work. Much apart from any typos or coding errors I've introduced, it's woefully lacking the basis of the mathematics and in fact all but one initial value. You can probably skip to the end of the post and ignore it, in fact, but here it is anyway...

#### Begin Code ####
#!/user/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Terminalia::concepts;

$Muscle_Mass_of_player_1 = 102; # in kg
$Muscle_Mass_of_player_2 = $unknown1; # in kg
@Velocity_of_player_1 = ($fast,@unknown2); # in m/s and suitable direction coordinates
@Velocity_of_player_2 = ($unknown3,@unknown4); # in m/s and suitable direction coordinates
@Starting_position_of_player_1 = @unknown5; # suitable positional coordinates for time 0;
@Starting_position_of_player_2 = @unknown6; # suitable positional coordinates for time 0;
@Player_1_volume_of_reach = @unknown7; # Suitable descripter of player1's (maximum) volume
@Player_2_volume_of_presence = @unknown8; # Suitable descripter of player2's (minimum) volume
@Collision_details = Calculate(\@Velocity_ofplayer_1,
\@Velocity_ofplayer_2,
\@Starting_position_of_player_2,
\@Starting_position_of_player_2,
\@Player_1_volume_of_reach,
\@Player_2_volume_of_presence);
# Units are in seconds since time 0;
if (defined($Collision_details)) { # They could miss, you know, or be on different continents
$Strength_of_player_1 = FNKgMusc2Strngth($Muscle_Mass_of_player_1); # units to be decided
$Strength_of_player_2 = FNKgMusc2Strngth($Muscle_Mass_of_player_2); # units to be decided
if ($Strength_of_player_1 <= $Strength_of_player_2) { # More bounds checking
print "Please ensure player 1 is stronger next time\n";
} else { # Player 1 _is_ stronger, good
$Technique_of_player_1 = $unknown9; # units of measurement also unknown
$Technique_of_player_2 = $unknown10; # units of measurement also unknown
if ($Technique_of_player_1 <= $Technique_of_player_2) { # More bounds checking
print "Please ensure player 1 has superior technique next time\n";
} else { # Player 1 _has_ superior technique
$Result_of_collision = CalcCollision($Strength_of_player_1,
$Strength_of_player_2,
$Technique_of_player_1,
$Technique_of_player_2,
\@Collision_details); # arbitrary result format
if ($Result_of_collison eq "runs over him") { # Just checking
print "mass x speed = power\n" # proven! Terminalia is right!
} else { # Could not be derived from all those unknowns
die "Terminalia is not necessarily right\n"; # profess ignorance and terminate program
} # End of collision determination check
} # End of tecnnique check
} # End of strength check
} else { # Not a collision
print "Please ensure players collide next time\n";
} # End of collision check
#### End Code ####

Nope, not the neatest code. Probably doesn't wrap and indent too well, either, but hey-ho!

Harshly worded, women are suposed to 'push out babies', as you derogatorly put it, thats why you have a womb, it wasnt put there as an option.

You call me a chauvist if you want, I cant see anything sexist about simply stating the prime reason for women in life.

To do deny something as natural and beautiful as this is PC.

Women are able to have babies where men cannot, certainly. Women do not have to do so, however, and can be productive members of the human race (who, beyond being an intelligent species, is actually an extelligent one where ideas and memes are as important as blood-lines and genes). You mistake is in suggesting that the only thing a woman can do in life to better the species is to bear and nurse children. By that measure, the only think in life that a man can do is father children. Much as a lot of us might wish it were that simple, we've got a whole lot of different qualities and benefits to the world at large, so reducing an entire sex (or indeed both of them, by extension) to the level you are doing so is offensive. I'd go so far as to say I'm offended, and yet not offended on behalf of the female contingent but offended on behalf of every human here.

That's about as strong as I'm ever going to convey myself on this forum, so just think about it.

Yeah, it's basically become "Termy, you're a stupid pig!" "Shut up, your a woman and that makes me better then you!"

BTW, apologies if my contributions have added to the threadjack. I could have perhaps been more succinct and all. (Especially with the pseudo-perl... :) )

Women are able to have babies where men cannot, certainly. Women do not have to do so, however, and can be productive members of the human race (who, beyond being an intelligent species, is actually an extelligent one where ideas and memes are as important as blood-lines and genes). You mistake is in suggesting that the only thing a woman can do in life to better the species is to bear and nurse children. By that measure, the only think in life that a man can do is father children. Much as a lot of us might wish it were that simple, we've got a whole lot of different qualities and benefits to the world at large, so reducing an entire sex (or indeed both of them, by extension) to the level you are doing so is offensive. I'd go so far as to say I'm offended, and yet not offended on behalf of the female contingent but offended on behalf of every human here.

That's about as strong as I'm ever going to convey myself on this forum, so just think about it.

very well put; by Terminalia's "logic," the only thing men should do is sit around making sperm all day, since that's what their bodies are designed to do. they shouldn't engage in any activity that puts their testicles at risk, since Nature put the testicles outside in such a vulnerable place with the obvious INTENTION of making men do nothing but sit very still and let the testicle work.

here that, guys? you don't have to work any more! Terminalia has proven that your only function is to make sperm and father offspring, so take the day off to get it on!

So why bother making it sweetiepie, its never going to physically happen.

Because the point they were making was that this is still a world mainly run by men, who have no clue what is truly involved in bearing a child. If men had to go through all of it (which we all admit they don't), then abortions would be quite easy to get - and probably free. This is like men and viagra - men need a male birth control pill more than old guys need to get it up - but look what came out first.

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.
Where do you get off on telling people they have to explain themselves? It is not our business what a women does with her body. She has to deal with both the before and after of the situation not me or you. Are you male or female? If you are male then you have any less of a right to even be in this discussion.