NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, you have to admit, if all women abstained from sex, there's be a lot less abortions! Unless the men somehow evolved like the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, that is. :eek:

Um.. well, in that case, men would have to abstain too (unless we're supporting homosexuality now ;)).

But in that case, there's no reason to specify 'women' as abstaining. Both sexes are, you might as well just say 'if people abstained from sex, there'd be a lot less abortions'

Um.. well, in that case, men would have to abstain too (unless we're supporting homosexuality now ;)).

But in that case, there's no reason to specify 'women' as abstaining. Both sexes are, you might as well just say 'if people abstained from sex, there'd be a lot less abortions'

True true. I was just amusing myself in a fairly pointless way.

"Dan?"
"Yeah Bill?"
"I'm pregnant again."

Gaposis:: i would like to adress the opinion that a fetus is part of a woman's body. it seems to me that neither a woman's hand nor her leg has its own heart, its own brain, or its own lungs. even before the zygote develops into a fetus, it still cannot be considered a part of a woman's body for a woman's hand cannot develop into something as amazing or beuatiful as a human being I am so agreing with you right now!! DUDE!! A WOMAN'S HAND CANNOT DEVELOP INTO A BABY!!!! WE ARE NOT ASEXUALLY REPRODUCING ORGANSIMS PEOPLE!!! A hand is only part of us it is not it's own organism, a child no matter if it is inside of it's mother is it's own organism!!! yes for a short period of nine months it is inside of the mother's body developing and growing, but it spends it's life out side of the mother doing the SAME thing you are developing and growing right now, so dose that mean that you are not alive?! :headbang: This makes me angry, that people would kill a definceless child!! that depends souly on its mother, that child needs a place that it can deveolpe just like a 5 year old needs its parents to supply food to it, because it cannot get it on its own!!

Um... for a short period of time it has no brain, it has no nervous system. During that period, abortions can occur without the fetus even being aware of it's own existence. It is not a 'baby', either, that's an emotive term used to muddy the waters. It is a fetus. If I has no nervous system or brain, then yes, I would not care if you killed me. If my mother had an abortion instead of giving birth, I would not care. I would not exist to care. If the fetus lives off the mother and cannot exist without the mother, it is NOT 'its own organism'. Technically, in fact, it's a parasite.

Just like I cannot be forced to donate an organ to my own child, I cannot be forced to donate my womb to my own child. Regardless of if that denial causes its death, regardless of whether that child exists only because of my actions.

My body, my choice. You can try and convince me to do what you think is the right thing (donate an organ for it's use), but you cannot let the government force me.

True true. I was just amusing myself in a fairly pointless way.

"Dan?"
"Yeah Bill?"
"I'm pregnant again."

Hee, 'sok. I pointlessly amused myself earlier by picking on Term's grammar. I am the queen of pointless amusement :p.

Hee, 'sok. I pointlessly amused myself earlier by picking on Term's grammar. I am the queen of pointless amusement :p.

Yeah. I'm trying to stay neutral on the matter, but it seems Term's good at amusing people like that...

Yeah. I'm trying to stay neutral on the matter, but it seems Term's good at amusing people like that...

I threw away any hope of being neutral with my 'I would, in fact, be able to watch a child die' comment.

Want to take bets on how many people won't read the part about me 'not agreeing with the process leading to its death'? I've got some jaffas here I can use to keep score :D

tried readinf this thread but......well its too sodding long!

Anyway, i've seen alot of people on one side saying "oh the feotus is alive", etc.... Yes it is. They're a collection of cells, so yes alive. But they are not sentient. you know like humans. a few hundred cells are a few hundred cells! It not a human.

[QUOTE=Dakini]1. who gives a damn? and the word generally does imply a stereotype.


Does it, I think it implys a truth more than anything.

And if you dont give a damn why are you so quick to downplay strength as

having little importance when displayed by men.


2. you said that rugby players have faster reflexes.

League players.

Although rugby players skills in using their reflexes are probably just as good.


3. the way you put it was pretty much "women are good at unimportant, petty gossip" and that's it. not that that's really good communication skills...

Well how do you see women as having better communication skills then,

because to me it seems to be based on nothing more than the ability to talk

nonstop.


4. spatial abilities.. and they come in very handy for math. though they can be aquired through instrumental training as well, especially the piano.

Im quite aware of spatial abilitys, but he said special abilitys, and so far

hasnt cleared up what he meant by that, you could be just guessing what he

meant.

i'm sorry, but i don't recall saying that women are better than men, did i not say that both genders have strengths and weaknesses but that overall, they counterbalance and that members of either gender could develop the traits in question?

But why, whats it all in aid of?

These different traits are there for a reason.


you're the one on about strangth being the most important thing, about how women do nothing but gab about nothing et c.

Well I think strength is.

Women showing the ability to talk alot doesnt mean I

believe thats all their good at.

beauty is of secondary importance if any importance.

Too what?

A blind person?

in either gender. someone can be the hottest thing on two legs and still turn me off by being an idiot. and excessive muscles can be really gross.

Why because they have different opinions and beliefs to yours, does that

make them idiots?

If their carrying on drunk and agro, or being nasty in some way, then yes

their idiots I guess.


and personally, my favorite physical thing about men are hugs.

Well that suggests you like their arms the most.

If I suggest anything physical I like most about a woman it has to be

in your view something they do?

aside from that, you ignored my question. what feminie traits do you admire?

Probably their ease in social situations that involve both sexes, also their

compassion, neatness and sexiness.

i've picked up on your disdain for communication skills, physical weakness, et c.

Its not distain, just recognition.


is there anything non-physical you like?

See previous answer.

tried readinf this thread but......well its too sodding long!

Anyway, i've seen alot of people on one side saying "oh the feotus is alive", etc.... Yes it is. They're a collection of cells, so yes alive. But they are not sentient. you know like humans. a few hundred cells are a few hundred cells! It not a human.

What is it then, an alien?

Ok, I haven't read all the posts, I'm sorry for that. But I'm not quoting anyone, I'll just tell my story.

I used condoms every time (not any more, in long time relationship I'm on pills). I have never noticed that a condom had broken or that there would have been any other reason the condom would have failed. I got pregnant and made an abortion right away. I was 18 and not in a serious relationship (I knew the father though, it wasn't a one night stand). I have never felt quilt about it.

In the hospital there were 5 other women having abortion during the same day. Every single one of them was
a) married
b) had more than one children
c) used birth control.

If for some reason I would get pregnant now, I would keep the baby, as now I can. Earlier both lives would have suffered if I had'nt made the decision I made.

[QUOTE=Goed]Ah, but think about who you're arguing against. He obviously sees women as nothing more then sex machines :p

Do I , thats news to me then.



Doubtful. The ability to dumbly nod and agree with everything he days is the only one I can think of ;)

Read my reply on this to Dakini then.

If anything that would bore the living hell out of me.

[QUOTE=Dakini]never know, it's possible he's not as shallow as he's come across thus far.

Shallow, because I dont agree with your opinions, that makes me shallow

then.

according to one of my friends, there aren't many girls like me... but then he's a friend so he's supposed to say nice things like that.




Or what you'l bite his his head off?

What kind of friendship is that?


but yeah, i dunno, there's nothing like a nice, warm, comfortable hug.

Do you ever give them back or first even?

Pro-lifers: not all abortions are performed on teenagers. Get it through your sculls that sometimes ADULTS, who took EVERY precaution, decide to have an abortion. I don't care if you're against it, but stop with the bollocksy stereotypes, because they are annoying and stupid and serve no purpose

I'm pro life and I never said it was just teenagers.

Earlier from Shaed:
Hee, 'sok. I pointlessly amused myself earlier by picking on Term's grammar. I am the queen of pointless amusement .

lol what about your atrocius spelling.

'Skulls' is spelt with a k not a c.

Dont try and blame it on a typo either, the letters are too far apart on the

keyboard for that.

What is it then, an alien?

no, cells. during growth the feotus changes. At the start its only a few cells following a genetic program. Until some level "brain activity" its just a collection of replicating cells. Its not yet......greater than the sum of its part.

no, cells. during growth the feotus changes. At the start its only a few cells following a genetic program. Until some level "brain activity" its just a collection of replicating cells. Its not yet......greater than the sum of its part.

The brains are the first thing to start developing arent they?

Ok, I haven't read all the posts, I'm sorry for that. But I'm not quoting anyone, I'll just tell my story.

I used condoms every time (not any more, in long time relationship I'm on pills). I have never noticed that a condom had broken or that there would have been any other reason the condom would have failed. I got pregnant and made an abortion right away. I was 18 and not in a serious relationship (I knew the father though, it wasn't a one night stand). I have never felt quilt about it.

In the hospital there were 5 other women having abortion during the same day. Every single one of them was
a) married
b) had more than one children
c) used birth control.

If for some reason I would get pregnant now, I would keep the baby, as now I can. Earlier both lives would have suffered if I had'nt made the decision I made.

I respect your choice. How did the father feel? do you have any regrets... you know "road not taken" and all that?

The brains are the first thing to start developing arent they?

well not at the start. cell division and all that. (god, can't remember biology for crap at the moment!).

When we all talking about a few mutiplying cells, how can you call it human. it will become human, if everything goes well. Are they not using stem cells and such to try and grown organs, etc. Its just cells that do what programing tell them to do..

(bit stoned)

The brains are the first thing to start developing arent they?
no.

no.

when does mental activity start?
At the start its just multiplying cells no? until a certain amount that is...

I'm finding it hard to find sites that SPECIFICALLY detail 'coathanger' abortion statistics, but these (predominantly Anti-Abortion) sites reference the phenomenon.

http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/abortion13.html
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa022600b.htm
http://www.abortiontv.com/Archive/Archive61.htm

Note: in the abortiontv article, they talk about how 'coathanger abortions' were a statistical lie... as 90% of pre-legalisation abortions were carried out by licensed professionals. What they are conveniently ignoring, of course, is that 10% of the WERE NOT (therefore) carried out by licensed professionals.

I have heard of "coathanger abortion" but not (at least not until I follow those links I won't) know the technical details and can only imagine what happens. I imagine it as gruesome (even ignoring the fact that I'm biologically incompatible to imagine it first-hand). I don't even want to put the barest of descriptive language down on screen because I already find the mental images quite overwhelming and do not want to subject anyone to the barest hint of what I'm imagining.

Yet you just know that a significant proportion of those 10% are being performed not just by unlicenced professinals but self-administered by girls who have heard about it but don't know the details they ought to. These are the same girls who will try the gin-in-a-hot-bath and falling-down-the-stairs methods of self-abortion... They may also be in the state they are due to having used such methods of contraception as it's-my-first-time-it-won't-happen-to-me, he-promised-to-pull-out and the classic of being-totally-ignorant-about-where-babies-come-from...

This, if nothing else, is why we need to ensure that women are free to obtain properly regulated abortion services (which includes psychiatric counselling and the like, as necessary), never mind all youths needing to learn about contraception from someone other than their best mates who heard it from a guy/girl in the year above. Some girls will pursue all recourses to abort and should not be driven to damaging (and possibly even innefective) methods of 'solving' their little problem...

one thing id like to point out is that everyone is saying that a fetus is not a human being than what is it? and even if it is not a human being it still has the potentiality to become a human and if there are laws that protect turtle eggs that have the potential to become turtles than should there not be laws that protect fetuses that have the potential to become something infinitely better than a turtle, that is a human being.

I see the laws regarding turtle-eggs as protecting turtle-eggs, the same as there are laws protecting hatched turtles. For convenience they may be lumped into the same document (or even paragraph within that document), but they are distinct in most instances. Similarly there are laws that relate to the fetus, and they are largely separate from the laws that deal with birthed humans. It is not an 'anything goes' situation when it comes to dealing with fetuses, unlike some anti-pro-choicers would like to believe...

I respect your choice. How did the father feel? do you have any regrets... you know "road not taken" and all that?
Father said he would support what ever decision I'd make. (Though I think he really didn't think that way and was happy because I did it...) Never had any regrets no. Very seldom even give it a thought. It was such an easy decision for me. I know it can be an awful thing as it was for some of the moms who were in the hospital at the same time.

Yeah but women are born with these organs to help them live, as men are.

No way are babies mere body parts.

Bad descriptions there. Men and women are not born (normally, and certainly not healthily) with cancerous tumors, they grow after certain biological interactions occur. Tumors do not help a person to live. Tumors are not 'mere ' body-parts. Tumors (I'm sure you will agree) need to be removed.

Note that I'm not likening a fetus to a tumor, just attempting to show how this argument does not support your claim.

when does mental activity start?
At the start its just multiplying cells no? until a certain amount that is...
it depends on what you mean by "mental activity." hindbrain regions that control heart rate, circulation, and smooth muscle reflexes develop within a week or so of the give organ developing; the organ develops first, obviously, but the brain region that will control its function follows soon after.

brain regions responsible for human personhood (the distinctions between individuals that we call "personality" or "consciousness") do not develop until very late in the pregnancy. in fact, many of the neurological connections that define an individual aren't made until well after birth.

I'm pro life and I never said it was just teenagers.

Earlier from Shaed:


lol what about your atrocius spelling.

'Skulls' is spelt with a k not a c.

Dont try and blame it on a typo either, the letters are too far apart on the

keyboard for that.

:D. Well done. You found one spelling error in one post of mine! Now, if only you could equal the 17 or so I found in one of your earlier posts...

But hey, it's all in fun (I probably won't bother with any more anyway, since the thread's back on topic).

I've been catching up on the last few pages of posts this morning. So that means i have been reading this whole thread.

Terminalia was conceded a debating point for saying that men are stronger (i dont know why i gave him a point, since it has nothing to do with presenting the abortion argument, but i thought since it was one thing he really insisted on, and it's senseless to dispute it, he could have a point)

Since last night there have been some good posts, and some that are just fluff and flaming. Shaed in particular made some excellent arguments (4 pts to shaed for posts 1243, 1247, 1251 and 1253) Other good points were made by Grav n Idle, Red Branch, Goed, Helioterra, Daroth, and Bottle. That makes the score in the debate stand at 13-1.

I am disappointed that no one has picked up on the obvious flaw of the turtle egg argument....THE EGGS ARE PROTECTED BECAUSE THE TURTLE IS ENDANGERED.

If the human race were endangered, i would consider making abortion illegal. But does anyone really believe we are in danger of having TOO FEW people?

[QUOTE=_Susa_]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.

So you are saying it's ok to kill a child if it's father committed a crime?

I've been catching up on the last few pages of posts this morning. So that means i have been reading this whole thread.

Terminalia was conceded a debating point for saying that men are stronger (i dont know why i gave him a point, since it has nothing to do with presenting the abortion argument, but i thought since it was one thing he really insisted on, and it's senseless to dispute it, he could have a point)

Since last night there have been some good posts, and some that are just fluff and flaming. Shaed in particular made some excellent arguments (4 pts to shaed for posts 1243, 1247, 1251 and 1253) Other good points were made by Grav n Idle, Red Branch, Goed, Helioterra, Daroth, and Bottle. That makes the score in the debate stand at 13-1.

I am disappointed that no one has picked up on the obvious flaw of the turtle egg argument....THE EGGS ARE PROTECTED BECAUSE THE TURTLE IS ENDANGERED.

If the human race were endangered, i would consider making abortion illegal. But does anyone really believe we are in danger of having TOO FEW people?

OMG! Debating points for me? *starts hoarding points jealously*

ahem, sorry, I think the seriousness of the thread is getting to me. And wait... the turtle egg thing was actually meant to be a *point*? I couldn't understand a single thing in that post... I thought the reference to turtle eggs was just a chance to say "'hurrah, us humans are better than animals' <insert lack of evidence>"... hum. So kudos for a) understanding what on earth their point was and b) countering it with logic :p.

it also seems that everyone here, including the pro-choice people are referring to the early stages of pregnancy as the 'fetus'. This is inaccurate.

I will repeat something i mentioned earlier. " No one here is advocating the abortion of a fetus." Only of embryos. (with the exception of the one who advocated abortion up to the fourth year of life, who also said they were joking) Yes, Terminalia, i do think that late term abortion should be illegal except in the case of saving the mother's life, and then all attempts should be made to save the child if it is developed enough to live on its own. Never should an undeveloped human have preference over the already developed human, IMO.

The only semi-good argument that the pro-lifers have is that "it's LIFE". But to that i say, so are weeds, and you pull the weeds so your flowers may thrive. Uncontrolled population growth is not good for the whole of the human race. So do pro-lifers value one embryotic 'potentiality' more than the entire human race?

[QUOTE=_Susa_]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.

So you are saying it's ok to kill a child if it's father committed a crime?

I think it's more a matter of 'the potential psychological damage done to a woman forced to carry the child of her rapist is great enough that it classifies under 'threat to life of the mother', which is grounds for an abortion'.

I know I'd be suicidal if I were raped and forced to carry a child of my rapist. *shudders*. But then again, I'd be suicidal if I were forced to carry an unplanned child, regardless of the situation around its conception.

.........

I will repeat something i mentioned earlier. " No one here is advocating the abortion of a fetus." Only of embryos......


Ooooooh... *envies TM for being able to point out something so obvious and yet, so relevant*

I'm going to have to remember that now :p

embryos... em-bry-os... must remember...... zzzzzzzz (*runs off to get sugar*)

I think it's more a matter of 'the potential psychological damage done to a woman forced to carry the child of her rapist is great enough that it classifies under 'threat to life of the mother', which is grounds for an abortion'.

I know I'd be suicidal if I were raped and forced to carry a child of my rapist. *shudders*. But then again, I'd be suicidal if I were forced to carry an unplanned child, regardless of the situation around its conception.
Another point for Shaed! First one to bring up the mother's ability to commit suicide to end her pregnancy.

I have a point i would like to add.... the leading cause of death in pregnant women is MURDER. Generally by the father of the potential child.

Point for ME!

Thank goodness your mothers were pro life, so you could be here discussing this today. :)

And if you dont give a damn why are you so quick to downplay strength as having little importance when displayed by men.
She's not. She is counteracting a (perceived?) bias in your opinion. There's no need to come back to you with "men's strengths" details when you're stating them so obviously in the first place and is giving specific counter-arguments.

2. you said that rugby players have faster reflexes.League players.Be careful what you're saying. Union players could take this as an insult on their abilities... :)


Well how do you see women as having better communication skills then, because to me it seems to be based on nothing more than the ability to talk nonstop.Women are much more adept than us men at subtle communication and social interaction (if you'll excuse a generalisation of sorts, though it is something based upon proven male/female brain differences).
What seems to you to be "constant chatter" is a form of female bonding or even (though it can often be too subtle for an ordinary man like you or me) one woman exerting a mental dominence on the other. Taken to extremes, it's a case of "Ug hit thog with rock! Ug win!" for us on the male-side of the gender-divide, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of psychological undertones are being missed by your male psyche when you're wearily listening to "the good woman" chatter away to her sister on the old speaking-tube...

Im quite aware of spatial abilitys, but he said special abilitys, and so far hasnt cleared up what he meant by that, you could be just guessing what he meant.
I missed that part of the conversation, but 'spacial abilities' (the ability to understand how things relate to other things, either in real 3D situations or individual actions in a process) are just one of the 'special abilites' that anyone could have. I'd personally consider them 'special' if it were an ability that I had less expertise in.

beauty is of secondary importance if any importance.Too what?

A blind person?Beauty might well be the visual cue that gets two people together to chat, but personality, ability, financial security and many other factors is what keeps them together.

Two people who get to know each other over such an impersonal environment as the Internet (newsgroups, or whatever, and I know of specific examples) don't even use beauty as the primary 'getting to meet you' trigger.

someone can be the hottest thing on two legs and still turn me off by being an idiotWhy because they have different opinions and beliefs to yours, does that make them idiots?No, I think what was meant is that they could be idiots. They could share your views (maybe one reason you and they met up) but be total arseholes about it.

If their carrying on drunk and agro, or being nasty in some way, then yes their idiots I guess.If they care for the other person but are treating someone that way then they are idiots for not understanding what they are doing. If they don't care and are just being aggresively dominent against their partner's wishes then I would suggest 'criminal' would be a better description.

Thank goodness your mothers were pro life, so you could be here discussing this today. :)

She's... not, actually. She's pro-choice. So put that in your pipe and smoke it :D (not a flame! seriously! it's alll meant in good fun).

Thank goodness your mothers were pro life, so you could be here discussing this today. :)
Disregarding your smiley (not sure if you're being funny or trying to enhance your point), they could have been pro-choice or even pro-enforced-abortion-for-any-subsequent-pregancy. All we know is that that they chose (or were forced by circumstance) to carry the concerned poster to term.

Thank goodness your mothers were pro life, so you could be here discussing this today. :)

Oh look, the same old emotional blackmail argument. *yawn*

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

But it will be...
So, if you kill a man should you be held accountable for all of the possible offspring he could have had, and their offspring, and their offspring, etc.? Because eventually, they would have been alive...

Thank goodness your mothers were pro life, so you could be here discussing this today. :)
Fact is, my mother is pro-choice. She CHOSE to have her children. And because she was a willing mother, also was a good mother. THAT, my dear, is why i am here with the ability to debate so eloquently the opinions given.

Had she NOT wanted me, and had she NOT had the choice, I am sure she wouldn't have taken the time to read to me when i was little (the factor best correlated with academic skills). She probably wouldn't have been nearly as nurturing. And because she is a free thinker, she encouraged me to be the same.

She is Catholic. My younger sister got pregnant at 15. Mom really wrestled with the whole abortion thing, but she did some soul searching, and came to the conclusion that the quality of her daughter's life, and that of her unborn child would be dismal if she kept the child. It was the hardest thing she ever had to deal with, but when faced with the reality, and not just the theory, she sided with CHOICE. As it turns out, my sister was too far along to have an abortion, and the child was given up for adoption. My sister went on to marry and have another child.

When i was in college, i thought i might be pregnant. I used to be one of the moral soapboxers that said 'you play, you pay'. But when it applied to ME, i wasn't so sure that was a good idea. It wouldn't just be me who paid, but also that child, and my family, and society who would have to support mine and the baby's welfare handout. As it turns out, i was not pregnant, but the reality of the decision had already made its impact.

Funny how it's so easy to tell someone else how they should act. How men think they can ever understand pregnancy and child rearing enough to even have a valid opinion on abortion.

I have said it before, and i'll say it again... if men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would not only be legal, but provided FREE by the government.

But it will be...
So, if you kill a man should you be held accountable for all of the possible offspring he could have had, and their offspring, and their offspring, etc.? Because eventually, they would have been alive...
point to Hoboslavia. :)

On a different note: Why isn't prostitution legal throughout the U.S.? I mean it's a woman's body, how can the government tell her what she can and can't do with her body? [/sarcasm]

Well, why isn't it?

On a different note: Why isn't prostitution legal throughout the U.S.? I mean it's a woman's body, how can the government tell her what she can and can't do with her body? [/sarcasm]

Do you want the actual reasons it's not, or is this just a rhetorical question meant to prove a point of some kind?

Because I can provide many of the practical reasons it's not (brothels are legal here in Australia, and there was talk about legalising street workers in red-light districts too, so I've debated this before).

If it was just an attempt to prove a point, I agree with the above poster: why shouldn't it be? It IS her body, and her (or his, let's not forget) right to do with it as she wants.

Fact is, my mother is pro-choice. She CHOSE to have her children. And because she was a willing mother, also was a good mother. THAT, my dear, is why i am here with the ability to debate so eloquently the opinions given.

Had she NOT wanted me, and had she NOT had the choice, I am sure she wouldn't have taken the time to read to me when i was little (the factor best correlated with academic skills). She probably wouldn't have been nearly as nurturing. And because she is a free thinker, she encouraged me to be the same.

She is Catholic. My younger sister got pregnant at 15. Mom really wrestled with the whole abortion thing, but she did some soul searching, and came to the conclusion that the quality of her daughter's life, and that of her unborn child would be dismal if she kept the child. It was the hardest thing she ever had to deal with, but when faced with the reality, and not just the theory, she sided with CHOICE. As it turns out, my sister was too far along to have an abortion, and the child was given up for adoption. My sister went on to marry and have another child.

When i was in college, i thought i might be pregnant. I used to be one of the moral soapboxers that said 'you play, you pay'. But when it applied to ME, i wasn't so sure that was a good idea. It wouldn't just be me who paid, but also that child, and my family, and society who would have to support mine and the baby's welfare handout. As it turns out, i was not pregnant, but the reality of the decision had already made its impact.

Funny how it's so easy to tell someone else how they should act. How men think they can ever understand pregnancy and child rearing enough to even have a valid opinion on abortion.

I have said it before, and i'll say it again... if men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would not only be legal, but provided FREE by the government.

TOO BLOODY RIGHT!!!! but too be fair, its painful enough passing a stone (so i've been told), we should not have to pass children as well! ouch.

No, we can never understand pregnancy. But if a women is pregnant, a man has a vested interest in its future. If you want a man to be involved in other joint decisions, then a man should have a say in this.

TOO BLOODY RIGHT!!!! but too be fair, its painful enough passing a stone (so i've been told), we should not have to pass children as well! ouch.

No, we can never understand pregnancy. But if a women is pregnant, a man has a vested interest in its future. If you want a man to be involved in other joint decisions, then a man should have a say in this.
If men wanted to preserve their right to have a say, then they should:
1. marry the girl they want to bear their child
2. financially and emotionally help support the child
3. take time off work when the kid is sick
4. participate in all the activities required to bear and raise a child into a healthy adult.
5. practice abstinence if they are not willing to do the above.

Part of the reason some women choose abortion is the lack of these above-mentioned items. If men stood up to their responsibilities IN EVERY CASE, then you would see a drastic drop in abortion. Heck, if they just held up item #5, it would go a long way.

Solve the problem of lack of male responsibility before you go stepping on women's rights to make the women take the responsibility for you.

If men wanted to preserve their right to have a say, then they should:
1. marry the girl they want to bear their child
2. financially and emotionally help support the child
3. take time off work when the kid is sick
4. participate in all the activities required to bear and raise a child into a healthy adult.
5. practice abstinence if they are not willing to do the above.

Part of the reason some women choose abortion is the lack of these above-mentioned items. If men stood up to their responsibilities IN EVERY CASE, then you would see a drastic drop in abortion. Heck, if they just held up item #5, it would go a long way.

Solve the problem of lack of male responsibility before you go stepping on women's rights to make the women take the responsibility for you.

never stepped on any women rights. All i'm saying is that if women want the above (and men should supply this) then they should have a say on the fate of the embryo.

So really a man should do all of the above. But should also be included on all of the decisions.

LEGALISE 84th TRIMESTER ABORTIONS NOW!!!!

:-)

Well no, im not wrong, ive read up on partial birth abortions, first time i ever heard about it was in my science book, then i began studying it to figure it out, negligence abortion happens, it happens a lot.

And what science book was this? Was it published by Bob Jones University press? It is very comforting to know that you think it happens "a lot". Could you please define this, cite sources to back up your statements, give statistics? Most curiously, and I am not arguing that they don't happen, I would like to specifically know how many of these types of abortions occur for reasons other than the survival of the mother, or an extreme (very likely fatal) birth defect in the child that wasn't detected earlier?

As for the fetus not being alive, wrong again, its growing physicially, but how do you think it develops a nervous system in the first place? It requires nutrients from the mother to develop and grow, these are signs of life.

Fire consumes energy and grows larger, fungus consumes energy and grows larger, algae consumes energy and grows larger, plankton consume energy and grows larger. While you may or may not call these things 'alive', assigning them mystical signifigance is just plain ignorant.

A baby does react, it does feel joy and pain,

Objection, assumptions made based on unsupported evidence not supplied in court. Before about week 12, a fetus doesn't have a nervous system to react with, much less the quantifiable experience to assign the emotional signifigance of joy. Baby's smile when they have gas.

why do you think mothers talk to their stomach? Put headphones on their stomach so the child could listen to music?

Because human beings are emotional creatures who perceive what they want to believe as truth instead of simply perceiving truth.

Babies tend to kick as a reaction to the headphone music, ive seen it, im oldest of four, ive seen my share of a child moving and reacting to my mothers voice or when listening to music.

Not before they have developped ears, legs, or a brain to run them they do not. You are taking reactions from late in the pregnancy and applying them to the entire thing.

The fetus shows less reaction because it doesnt have a developed brain if little development at all,

Thank you for finally admitting that they are not completely viable human beings the second after they are conceived.

but it doesnt mean its not alive, because in a couple months it'll be squirming, kicking, moving, then in a couple more months it'll be screaming, crapping in its diaper and annoying its siblings and parents,

A chicken can squirm, kick, move, scream, crap, wear a diaper, and annoy the hell out of people. You eat chicken, right?

then it'll be running for the senate and making a life for itself,

Come now, be honest. Statistically, it's much more likely to be living off welfare, or working some dead end job straight out of highschool than to be running for senate.

I see this argument a lot, and it always confounds the hell out of me. I call it, the "How many george washington's have we aborted?" argument. This is a total disregard for reality in favor of desire. You want every kid to grow up to be a functioning, productive, and brilliant member of society, so you assume that they will.

all babies have potential for great opportunities and abortionists are destroying that before the life even has a chance to prove its worth. What justice or honor is in that?

All babies also have the potential to grow up to be serial killers, rapists, mass murderers, politicians (from the latin 'poly', meaning many, and 'tic', meaning blood sucking parasite), warmongers, or just lazy, selfish, ignorant wastes of air and space.

The justice comes from allowing people actually involved in the situation to determine for themseleves whether the lump of cells in their belly is more likely to end up with a happy and productive life or wander from day do day stuck in a living hell. They may certainly still screw up and come to the wrong conclusion, noone knows everything. But, it isn't your right (nor the right of a beaurocrat in DC) to make that decision for them, and it is arrogant of you to presume to be able to know their situation.

(for disclosure purposes: I personally find abortion in general to be a distasteful act. Beyond the first trimester, I believe that it is more often than not an inhumane act and the wrong decision for those involved. Thankfully, I have never been put in the position where me/my partner were considering it, but I would like to believe that I would push in any situation to carry the baby to term, with the understanding that it would be my partner's body and ultimately more her decision than mine. However, I also assume that other adults are capable of making their own moral decisions based on the circumstances of their own lives, and that they can be trusted to make those decisions without the rest of us yahoos getting involved. It is therefore wrong to try and limit their freedom of choice, and both arrogant and hypocritical to boot.)

never stepped on any women rights. All i'm saying is that if women want the above (and men should supply this) then they should have a say on the fate of the embryo.

So really a man should do all of the above. But should also be included on all of the decisions.
Agreed.

I would go as far as to say that men should also have the option to LEGALLY sever his responsibility for an unwanted child. If a woman has the choice in the first, say 12 weeks of pregnancy to terminate her role in the child's life, then i think the father should have the same choice.

Please don't take this to mean i think men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. I said LEGAL severence, which i intend to mean that a father can notify the future mother of his intention NOT to support the child. Then women can be better informed of what they are undertaking.

No man should be tricked into fatherhood or forced into fatherhood responsibilities that he had attempted to avoid by the use of male birth control. No one should be expected to go through life without having sex because they don't want kids. So i think men should have the same 'out' as women do.

Naturally, this brings into questions of when the father finds out he is going to be a father, and other pragmatic difficulties, but in principle i think both men and women should have a choice of whether they are parents or not.

And what science book was this? Was it published by Bob Jones University press? It is very comforting to know that you think it happens "a lot". Could you please define this, cite sources to back up your statements, give statistics? Most curiously, and I am not arguing that they don't happen, I would like to specifically know how many of these types of abortions occur for reasons other than the survival of the mother, or an extreme (very likely fatal) birth defect in the child that wasn't detected earlier?



Fire consumes energy and grows larger, fungus consumes energy and grows larger, algae consumes energy and grows larger, plankton consume energy and grows larger. While you may or may not call these things 'alive', assigning them mystical signifigance is just plain ignorant.



Objection, assumptions made based on unsupported evidence not supplied in court. Before about week 12, a fetus doesn't have a nervous system to react with, much less the quantifiable experience to assign the emotional signifigance of joy. Baby's smile when they have gas.



Because human beings are emotional creatures who perceive what they want to believe as truth instead of simply perceiving truth.



Not before they have developped ears, legs, or a brain to run them they do not. You are taking reactions from late in the pregnancy and applying them to the entire thing.



Thank you for finally admitting that they are not completely viable human beings the second after they are conceived.



A chicken can squirm, kick, move, scream, crap, wear a diaper, and annoy the hell out of people. You eat chicken, right?



Come now, be honest. Statistically, it's much more likely to be living off welfare, or working some dead end job straight out of highschool than to be running for senate.

I see this argument a lot, and it always confounds the hell out of me. I call it, the "How many george washington's have we aborted?" argument. This is a total disregard for reality in favor of desire. You want every kid to grow up to be a functioning, productive, and brilliant member of society, so you assume that they will.



All babies also have the potential to grow up to be serial killers, rapists, mass murderers, politicians (from the latin 'poly', meaning many, and 'tic', meaning blood sucking parasite), warmongers, or just lazy, selfish, ignorant wastes of air and space.

The justice comes from allowing people actually involved in the situation to determine for themseleves whether the lump of cells in their belly is more likely to end up with a happy and productive life or wander from day do day stuck in a living hell. They may certainly still screw up and come to the wrong conclusion, noone knows everything. But, it isn't your right (nor the right of a beaurocrat in DC) to make that decision for them, and it is arrogant of you to presume to be able to know their situation.

(for disclosure purposes: I personally find abortion in general to be a distasteful act. Beyond the first trimester, I believe that it is more often than not an inhumane act and the wrong decision for those involved. Thankfully, I have never been put in the position where me/my partner were considering it, but I would like to believe that I would push in any situation to carry the baby to term, with the understanding that it would be my partner's body and ultimately more her decision than mine. However, I also assume that other adults are capable of making their own moral decisions based on the circumstances of their own lives, and that they can be trusted to make those decisions without the rest of us yahoos getting involved. It is therefore wrong to try and limit their freedom of choice, and both arrogant and hypocritical to boot.)
Excellent and eloquent reply. Didn't hurt that it repeated several of my own arguments to that same post ;)

We agree entirely, and thank you for the male perspective that is respectful of women.

Agreed.

I would go as far as to say that men should also have the option to LEGALLY sever his responsibility for an unwanted child. If a woman has the choice in the first, say 12 weeks of pregnancy to terminate her role in the child's life, then i think the father should have the same choice.

Please don't take this to mean i think men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. I said LEGAL severence, which i intend to mean that a father can notify the future mother of his intention NOT to support the child. Then women can be better informed of what they are undertaking.

No man should be tricked into fatherhood or forced into fatherhood responsibilities that he had attempted to avoid by the use of male birth control. No one should be expected to go through life without having sex because they don't want kids. So i think men should have the same 'out' as women do.

Naturally, this brings into questions of when the father finds out he is going to be a father, and other pragmatic difficulties, but in principle i think both men and women should have a choice of whether they are parents or not.

agreed
i think that deserves half a point at least.

never stepped on any women rights. All i'm saying is that if women want the above (and men should supply this) then they should have a say on the fate of the embryo.

So really a man should do all of the above. But should also be included on all of the decisions.

As a man, if I enter into intercourse with the (mutually agreed) decision to procreate then I'd expect (maybe reasonably, maybe not) a say in any decision should the mother-to-be have a change of heart early on. (If it's a medical thing, danger of life to the mother and all, then I should defer tot he woman's right to choose her own fate.) The exact influence I have will be based upon the kind of relationship I have with the mother. If we have split up (prior to, not because of, the pregnancy confirmation) I expect less say about continuing but also less responsibility if she goes ahead (a controversial view, I imagine). If we are together I'd expect us to have a reasonable conversation if one of us is getting cold feet. It depends on the circumstances and I can't prescribe every response to every situation.

If I enter into intercourse with someone without either of us having the intention of procreating (in which case I would be acting under the impression that contraception is in use, which is a condom at the bare minimum), then I'd like to think I could accept the potential-mother's decision should an 'accident' happen. Again, depends on exact relationship, but if I'm not told and was unaware that contraception failed then I think I'd be unhappy if I was suddenly approached for support by someone I barely remember. (It's a matter of degrees, again.)

If I get tricked by the girl and she's using me as unwilling father then that's my own bloody fault for not following my own rule on contraception. I can't reasonably expect to be able to force her to abort (under any circumstance, even this one) but I'd hope to be able to convince her (with reason) that it isn't the way to go. I expect I'd get upset about it, but 'objective me' from this moment in time says I deserve what I get.

If I force myself on someone to try to get them pregnant against their will (whether by rape, emotional coercement or deliberately sabotaging a condom), then I don't deserve a say in what happens and I perhaps should be locked up as well.

Then there are grey areas inbetween these cardinal points, not all of which I can anticipate. Doubtless I'm not as consistent as I initially think I am, in the above, and who knows what state of mind I'll be in if I encounter any of the above situations.

I think this is an issue that is easy to look at from the abstract. I can say that my views have changed a great deal simply by my becoming a father. At about five weeks I saw the baby for the first time via ultrasound. The heart was beating clearly and vigorously. A few weeks later we could hear his heart and movements via sonogram and you could clearly see his movements via ultrasound. The thing is this, this baby is clearly going to be a person. If you are going to be supportive of abortion, you have to admit to yourself that it is taking a life. If you're okay with that and can live with this, then fair enough.

To see a child develop over nine months in the womb and then further over the last nine weeks he's been out here with us, it is clear to me that the instinct to survive is no different now than it was the first time I saw a tiny heart beating on a small monitor in the doctors office. Given what I now know, it would be impossible for me to be comfortable with the decision to terminate a pregnancy. I'm not sure its something that we can legislate, but I think its something that people need to really consider carefully from all angles and make a moral decision based on complete information instead of religious or social propoganda.

As a man, if I enter into intercourse with the (mutually agreed) decision to procreate then I'd expect (maybe reasonably, maybe not) a say in any decision should the mother-to-be have a change of heart early on. (If it's a medical thing, danger of life to the mother and all, then I should defer tot he woman's right to choose her own fate.) The exact influence I have will be based upon the kind of relationship I have with the mother. If we have split up (prior to, not because of, the pregnancy confirmation) I expect less say about continuing but also less responsibility if she goes ahead (a controversial view, I imagine). If we are together I'd expect us to have a reasonable conversation if one of us is getting cold feet. It depends on the circumstances and I can't prescribe every response to every situation.

If I enter into intercourse with someone without either of us having the intention of procreating (in which case I would be acting under the impression that contraception is in use, which is a condom at the bare minimum), then I'd like to think I could accept the potential-mother's decision should an 'accident' happen. Again, depends on exact relationship, but if I'm not told and was unaware that contraception failed then I think I'd be unhappy if I was suddenly approached for support by someone I barely remember. (It's a matter of degrees, again.)

If I get tricked by the girl and she's using me as unwilling father then that's my own bloody fault for not following my own rule on contraception. I can't reasonably expect to be able to force her to abort (under any circumstance, even this one) but I'd hope to be able to convince her (with reason) that it isn't the way to go. I expect I'd get upset about it, but 'objective me' from this moment in time says I deserve what I get.

If I force myself on someone to try to get them pregnant against their will (whether by rape, emotional coercement or deliberately sabotaging a condom), then I don't deserve a say in what happens and I perhaps should be locked up as well.

Then there are grey areas inbetween these cardinal points, not all of which I can anticipate. Doubtless I'm not as consistent as I initially think I am, in the above, and who knows what state of mind I'll be in if I encounter any of the above situations.

fair enough

I speak from experience, as I was nearly aborted. However, my mother changed her mind, allowing me to grow and take over the Earth, and become lord and ruler of such said planet.

In addition,
Had I been aborted....I wouldn't have cared. Why? BECAUSE I WOULDN'T HAVE FREAKIN' KNOWN!
A fetus has no conscious thought....therefore, IT ISN'T HUMAN. The only thought a fetus has is reaction.
How do I know this? Well......ever met someone who has remembered life in the womb? One person that wasn't a nutcase? NO...it's never been documented. And if it had...you would know about it.

I wouldn't have cared about being aborted, because I never would have thought about it. Therefore, I agree with abortion when the parents decide for it, regardless the reason.

To think that human life is sacrosanct is egotistical, arrogant, and ignorant. Especially with you corner nutcases harassing people about getting rid of a brain-dead parasite while piling on the food at the dinner table; total disregard for the millions of conscious human being starving around the world.

Technically, a fetus, or baby's life is no more valuable than a person already living, and you people are disgusting for picking one over the other.

Oh yes, and I'm a father too. Would I give up my baby now? Absolutely not. But now it's a living, thinking, comprehending baby, with a valuable existence. Much different.

came to the conclusion that the quality of her daughter's life, and that of her unborn child would be dismal if she kept the child

So how dismal is the quality of her daughter's life and the life of her child now?

Weren't there some cltures, like Sparta, that allowed the killing of children up to the age of 3, and it was criminal to give a child a name until one, or the age when you could no longer kill them?

Agreed.

I would go as far as to say that men should also have the option to LEGALLY sever his responsibility for an unwanted child. If a woman has the choice in the first, say 12 weeks of pregnancy to terminate her role in the child's life, then i think the father should have the same choice.

Please don't take this to mean i think men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. I said LEGAL severence, which i intend to mean that a father can notify the future mother of his intention NOT to support the child. Then women can be better informed of what they are undertaking.

No man should be tricked into fatherhood or forced into fatherhood responsibilities that he had attempted to avoid by the use of male birth control. No one should be expected to go through life without having sex because they don't want kids. So i think men should have the same 'out' as women do.

I would agree, but only on the premise that necessary precautions were taken, i.e. protection.

If you slap on a jimmy-hat, and the woman's taking the pill, you did everything you could to prevent it. However, if you were ignorant and were rapelling without your safety cap....well....tough teats.....you were stupid and committed an act that you must accept the consequences. Just like driving intoxicated. You kill someone...you're tried for involuntary manslaughter. You were stupid enough to commit an act that could lead to dangerous consequences....you gots to pay the reaper.

Shallow, because I dont agree with your opinions, that makes me shallow
then.


She was talking about perceptions of beauty as important or unimportant... your opinions are not what make you shallow, here.


Or what you'l bite his his head off?
What kind of friendship is that?


Bait. What does that have to do with the subject. It has nothing to do with what she said, and you have no reason to actually believe what you say. Where does that question even come from? You were just looking to stir up a response.


Do you ever give them back or first even?

Another one of those "why do you ask" questions? Are you looking to stir up another response? Try debating the point.

The brains are the first thing to start developing arent they?

No. Unless you think a six week foetus is some kind of floating brain. Most of the fundamental tissue is laid down first, as cells replicate, and some of the tissue laid down is kind of 'generic', but later develops into specific functionality... like the tissue that forms the heart, or the tissue that forms the brain.

Looking at heartbeat versus brainwaves, the brain doesn't develope until a fair amount of time after the heart... but it is the 'meat' (for want of a better word) of the foetus that is developed first.

I have heard of "coathanger abortion" but not (at least not until I follow those links I won't) know the technical details and can only imagine what happens. I imagine it as gruesome (even ignoring the fact that I'm biologically incompatible to imagine it first-hand). I don't even want to put the barest of descriptive language down on screen because I already find the mental images quite overwhelming and do not want to subject anyone to the barest hint of what I'm imagining.

Yet you just know that a significant proportion of those 10% are being performed not just by unlicenced professinals but self-administered by girls who have heard about it but don't know the details they ought to. These are the same girls who will try the gin-in-a-hot-bath and falling-down-the-stairs methods of self-abortion... They may also be in the state they are due to having used such methods of contraception as it's-my-first-time-it-won't-happen-to-me, he-promised-to-pull-out and the classic of being-totally-ignorant-about-where-babies-come-from...

This, if nothing else, is why we need to ensure that women are free to obtain properly regulated abortion services (which includes psychiatric counselling and the like, as necessary), never mind all youths needing to learn about contraception from someone other than their best mates who heard it from a guy/girl in the year above. Some girls will pursue all recourses to abort and should not be driven to damaging (and possibly even innefective) methods of 'solving' their little problem...

I totally agree... and I deliberately filtered some sites out for language... one was a girl talking about sitting on the side of the bathtub with a coathanger...well, the language got too colourful to put on a public forum...

The image of self-induced abortions, and the reality that they take place when surgical abortions aren't available, horrifies me.

But, what horrifies me more is the current 'abstinence' movement that GW Bush is such a proponent of... that is leading to schools which teach ONLY abstinence as sex education (briefly flitting over the facts that there are other things such as 'contraception').

I can't decide if it is an earnest attempt to create a more innocent generation, or a conspiracy-theory scale attempt by the christian conservatives to boost 'christian' population - by refusing information to the next generation.

I was thinking, correctly, that the fetus is not given the full rights of a human being. As a fetus develops, it is progressively given more consideration under the law. However, if it was legally a "full human being," a mother doing *anything* that she knew might endanger the life of that "human being" would be liable for its death. Since the woman might trip and fall and kill the fetus, she would be liable for walking.

Fortunately, a fetus is not given full legal rights as a human being until it is born.

Using that argument, a mother with an eight-month-foetus could currently be "liable for walking", as that foetus cannot be aborted.

Agreed.

I would go as far as to say that men should also have the option to LEGALLY sever his responsibility for an unwanted child. If a woman has the choice in the first, say 12 weeks of pregnancy to terminate her role in the child's life, then i think the father should have the same choice.

Please don't take this to mean i think men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. I said LEGAL severence, which i intend to mean that a father can notify the future mother of his intention NOT to support the child. Then women can be better informed of what they are undertaking.

No man should be tricked into fatherhood or forced into fatherhood responsibilities that he had attempted to avoid by the use of male birth control. No one should be expected to go through life without having sex because they don't want kids. So i think men should have the same 'out' as women do.

Naturally, this brings into questions of when the father finds out he is going to be a father, and other pragmatic difficulties, but in principle i think both men and women should have a choice of whether they are parents or not.
i totally agree. if a woman tells her boyfriend or partner that she is pregnant, and the partner makes it clear at that time that he has no interest in being a father, then he should have the legal opportunity to give up parental rights and responsibilities. if the woman still chooses to have the baby then that's her problem, and she has no right to complain to the guy that he left her...he told her he didn't want to be a part of it, and he gave up all the bonuses of fatherhood to prove his resolve, so if she decides to have the baby anyway then it's on her shoulders.

of course, i think this system can ONLY be implimented if a woman's right to abort is protected in any and all situations. the instant that a woman's right to choose is infringed upon or restricted in ANY WAY, the deal is off...at that point, the guy can no longer be given the option to leave, because the woman has been denied the right to "leave" if she wants.

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

how can you say that the unborn don't deserve help. how can people justify the murder of our most defenseless people?

how can you say that the unborn don't deserve help. how can people justify the murder of our most defenseless people?
until you can prove that the "unborn" are people, stop trying to use this argument. it is boring, and those who use it are embarassing themselves by flaunting their inability to debate like adults.

I really don't have the time to read through this whole thread, but I feel like spouting off anyway.
I am a Christian, and I am pro-choice.
I think abortions are bad. I think it's wrong to kill something that, even if it is not fully human yet, has the potential to become so. God made that little bundle of life, it belongs to Him.
However, God commanded us to love one another. When I read about the terrible sufferings endured by women who have backstreet abortions, or, worse, do it themselves, it shocks me. We cannot stop women wanting abortions just by making them illegal- we are just forcing them to put themselves at terrible risk. How doing such a thing can possibly be concieved as a 'loving' action is beyond me.
The way things are, abortions are going to happen however much we don't like it. Therefore, the Christian position, as I see it, would be to care for women who choose to have abortions, and make sure the procedure is safe and humane.

The brains are the first thing to start developing arent they?

Not even close.

Thank goodness your mothers were pro life, so you could be here discussing this today. :)

Of course, being pro-life and being anti-choice are two very different things, so you have made no point whatsoever here.

No, we can never understand pregnancy. But if a women is pregnant, a man has a vested interest in its future. If you want a man to be involved in other joint decisions, then a man should have a say in this.

The man absolutely should have a say in it. He can never, however, have the final say in it. Personally, I think issues like this should be discussed throughout the course of a relationship, but I realize that it doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes the man and woman have very different viewpoints on the subject.

However, when it comes down to it, it is the woman who has to go through all of the physical pains and dangers of pregnancy and birth. A man can never force her to do so, because it is not him who has to go through it. As I have pointed out before, equal rights require equal responsibility. There is no way to give a man equal responsibility in this case, so he cannot prevent the abortion if that is the woman's final decision.

Using that argument, a mother with an eight-month-foetus could currently be "liable for walking", as that foetus cannot be aborted.

No, it couldn't. You missed the entire point of the post. The fact that the fetus cannot be aborted does not give it the full rights of a human being. My point was that if you do legally consider a fetus to be the same as a born child, the woman would be liable for walking. The fact that she is not demonstrates that the law does not view the fetus as being the same as a born child.

I speak from experience, as I was nearly aborted. However, my mother changed her mind, allowing me to grow and take over the Earth, and become lord and ruler of such said planet.

In addition,
Had I been aborted....I wouldn't have cared. Why? BECAUSE I WOULDN'T HAVE FREAKIN' KNOWN!
A fetus has no conscious thought....therefore, IT ISN'T HUMAN. The only thought a fetus has is reaction.
How do I know this? Well......ever met someone who has remembered life in the womb? One person that wasn't a nutcase? NO...it's never been documented. And if it had...you would know about it.

I wouldn't have cared about being aborted, because I never would have thought about it. Therefore, I agree with abortion when the parents decide for it, regardless the reason.

To think that human life is sacrosanct is egotistical, arrogant, and ignorant. Especially with you corner nutcases harassing people about getting rid of a brain-dead parasite while piling on the food at the dinner table; total disregard for the millions of conscious human being starving around the world.

Technically, a fetus, or baby's life is no more valuable than a person already living, and you people are disgusting for picking one over the other.

Oh yes, and I'm a father too. Would I give up my baby now? Absolutely not. But now it's a living, thinking, comprehending baby, with a valuable existence. Much different.

If I killed you today, you wouldn't know either, so does that make it okay? Some people cant remember what happened a year or two ago. I don't think one's ability to remember life in the womb is really relevant, though, so psychologists feel that we carry the feeling of comfort and warmth experienced in the womb with us our entire lives along with the trauma of birth. Personally, I don't see much difference between a developing human at, say, three months and an infant. Neither has the same mental capacity of an adult. I just find it uncomfortable that some make themselves feel better about abortion by subscribing to the belief that a baby in the womb is not really alive.

Well, you have to admit, if all women abstained from sex, there's be a lot less abortions! Unless the men somehow evolved like the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, that is. :eek:

umm... if all men abstained from sex, there woudl be fewer abortions. my eggs aren't going to fertilize themselves.

The absence of one notion always comes to my attention on the topic of abortion. The soul. In general, most people still believe in the soul or spirit, yet you never here this brought into argument. B/c if people believed a fetus has a soul and doesn't have to live outside of the womb to have one, maybe some people would see it differently. For the scientifically-minded, I would say 46 chromosomes defines a human. But that would raise the question to whether or not to consider people with down syndrome 'people' and therefore included under the constitution.

what about people who are chimeras? this occurs when one fraternal twin absorbs the other in the womb, they have two types of dna. does this mean they have two souls and if someone shoots them when they're all grown up, they count as two deaths?
similarly, what about identical twins, they don't divide until a couple weeks after conception. so if you kill one adult who is one of a pair of identical twins, do you only serve half the time since they only had half a soul?

and finally, it doesn't matter how many people believe there is a soul. there is no evidence for it. do people allow female genital mutilation in western countries simply because some people believe it must be done?

Has anyone ever thought to ask a surviver of an abortion what they thought about abortion?

http://www.pregnantpause.org/fantcide/bornjes.htm

Does it, I think it implys a truth more than anything.
And if you dont give a damn why are you so quick to downplay strength as
having little importance when displayed by men.

i'm not downplaying strength, and yes, you saying that men are stronger than women is a stereotype. there are women who are stronger than men, however, men are more equipped to build mescle than women, which gives them an advantage in developing strength. does it matter?

League players.
Although rugby players skills in using their reflexes are probably just as good.

yes, people can develop and train themselves to improve in instances where the other gender may have and advantage, see the mention of women becoming stronger than men i just put out.

however, you denied that women could have better reflexes than men naturally.

Well how do you see women as having better communication skills then,
because to me it seems to be based on nothing more than the ability to talk
nonstop.

there is a difference between comminicating efficiently and just gabbing about nothing. for instance, did you not say earlier that i am a good debator?
it's not sheer quantity of responses that i bring to the table, i state my point and i back it up if necessary.
there's also the matter of putting together a persuasive argument, actually listening to the opposing side and if necessary conceding points.
i'm sure the proper spelling and occasionally eloquent phrasings don't hurt either.

Im quite aware of spatial abilitys, but he said special abilitys, and so far
hasnt cleared up what he meant by that, you could be just guessing what he
meant.[/quote[

i'm pretty sure he said spatial abilities and then he posted a link and explanation shortly after the initial post.

[quote]But why, whats it all in aid of?
These different traits are there for a reason.[/quote[

a man wishes to be an negociator. he must hone his communication skills.
a woman wished to be a theoretical mathematician, she must develop spatial thinking skills.


[quote]Well I think strength is.
Women showing the ability to talk alot doesnt mean I
believe thats all their good at.

i don't get how strength is the most important quality human beings posess.

Too what?
A blind person?

to anyone. or well, to me at least. people who are good, kind people but aren't attractive start to appear more attractive to me as i get to know them. people who are horrible, mean people start to look worse, even if it was brad pitt.

Why because they have different opinions and beliefs to yours, does that make them idiots?
If their carrying on drunk and agro, or being nasty in some way, then yes
their idiots I guess.

well, let's take a philosophical discussion:
me: so when neitzsche was declaring the death of god, he didn't really mean that there was literally a god who literally died, he was using god as a symbol of traditional christian, absolute morality and that is what died.
other person: my cat's breath smells like cat food.

Well that suggests you like their arms the most.
If I suggest anything physical I like most about a woman it has to be
in your view something they do?

the arms aren't the most important part of the hug, i think the way two people fit together is more important.
oh, and upon further reflection, smiles are also wonderful, though they don't have to be the classically beautiful smiles... any smile that lights up a person's face is beautiful.

Has anyone ever thought to ask a surviver of an abortion what they thought about abortion?

http://www.pregnantpause.org/fantcide/bornjes.htm

considering that once a fetus has developped a brain, abortions aren't allowed, this seems though it could have been done before such constraints were put in place.

i do find it funny how they quote hitler, who was almost aborted himself. his mother was talked out of it.

ive heard alot of words like " potential humans" being thrown around. So what you are saying is that it is alright to abort them because they are not human. But the funny thing is this debate somewhat occured 150 years ago... the debate on slavery. The slave owners thought blacks were not human so it is alright for them to be slaves the same way pro abortionists say the babies are not humans so they could be killed without it being a crime. Same excuses for wrong doings.



and it also seems to me that alot of women are a little paranoid when it comes to sexism. For example, when my mom saw that shwartzinager(hell if i know how to spell his name) used the term "girly men" she just instantly thought it was something making fun of women. Didn't even think about any other meanings it can POSSIBLY have. My dad had to explain to her that it was just a joke from SNL or one of those late night shows like it( Can't remember if it was SNL, MAD, or something else)

Or what you'l bite his his head off?

What kind of friendship is that?

no, i mean friends tend to say nice things about each other... why would i bite anyone's head off because they don't say nice things about me?
that has to be the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

Do you ever give them back or first even?

what? i initiate hugs all the time... and who the hell doesn't hug back, unless they don't like a person, taht is.

The brains are the first thing to start developing arent they?

no, they're actually one of the last things to develop.

a few years back there was a kid born with just a brain stem.

Thank goodness your mothers were pro life, so you could be here discussing this today. :)

my mom was married for 8 years before i was conceived. my dad had a well paying job and they had an apartment.

my mom may be pro-life, but that had no effect on whether i was aborted or not. i was a planned child. as were my three sisters.

On a different note: Why isn't prostitution legal throughout the U.S.? I mean it's a woman's body, how can the government tell her what she can and can't do with her body? [/sarcasm]

it should be. it would protect the women who choose that as their profession from abuse by pimps, give them a safe, warm place to do their business, and have them certified and tested for diseases, which makes it safer for the customers too.

hey, they could even require that the customers get tested before engaging in such activities, thus protecting the women further.

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

:D :mp5:


wow, that's just sad and pathetic. i weep for your mother, who chose not to have an abortion. well, i bet what happened was the had a partial birth abortion, and they sucked out your brain but not your body. that's why you say all these retarded things. it's okay, it's actually your mommy's fault.

Has anyone ever thought to ask a surviver of an abortion what they thought about abortion?

http://www.pregnantpause.org/fantcide/bornjes.htm

Ever check the law to discover that an abortion that late in the game requires the mother's life to be in danger?

I totally agree... and I deliberately filtered some sites out for language... one was a girl talking about sitting on the side of the bathtub with a coathanger...well, the language got too colourful to put on a public forum...

The image of self-induced abortions, and the reality that they take place when surgical abortions aren't available, horrifies me.

holy shit. it's amazing what desperation drives a person to do.

But, what horrifies me more is the current 'abstinence' movement that GW Bush is such a proponent of... that is leading to schools which teach ONLY abstinence as sex education (briefly flitting over the facts that there are other things such as 'contraception').

I can't decide if it is an earnest attempt to create a more innocent generation, or a conspiracy-theory scale attempt by the christian conservatives to boost 'christian' population - by refusing information to the next generation.

either way it's probably going to drive up the rate of unwanted tennage pregnancies and abortions in the u.s., it makes me glad that i don't live there though.

Please continue this in a new thread.
1300 post cap helps keep threads stay manageable.