NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Continue.

I still don't understand why pro-lifers make an exception for rape. It's either, "The mother has no rights to do with her body what she wants at the expense of the child's life! But if she's been raped, then okay, she can have some rights. Go ahead, kill the kid."

The other side of this is of course, "The kid must be protected at all costs! The mother can put the kid up for adoption if she doesn't want it! But wait... if the mother was raped, then we'd better kill it."

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

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


first, that is a fictional story, since what that person decribes could not medically occur. second, do you really want to listen to somebody who says, "I am so thankful for my Cerebral Palsy. It allows me to really depend on Jesus for everything"? this is a person who is happy to have a horrible, debilitating illness so that they can be utterly dependent on an imaginary friend...not exactly a reliable source for ANYTHING, even if their story were possible.

do you trust the credibility of a source who thinks Hell is obviously proven because the Bible says a sinner spoke from beyond the grave and said, "I am tormented in this flame"? this is a person who says all morality must be based on a book about talking snakes, zombie demi-gods, transmutation, and magic spells...do you think this is somebody who has the mental capacity to weigh complex moral issues? this is a person who believe that the "soul" of America lies in giving the government the power to dictate what individual citizens are allowed to do with their own bodies...do you think this is somebody who has the faintest concept of American law and justice, let alone the idea of Constitutional rights?

i am utterly disgusted that somebody would make up a story like the one you posted. i am even more disgusted at the state of our education system; if there are people who are so ignorant that they believe that story is possible then America is obviously a total failure when it comes to basic education.

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


my mom is pro-choice.

also, my friend Dan wouldn't be alive today if his mother were pro-life; if she hadn't chosen to have an abortion when she was 16 then she never would have gone to college when she did, never would have met Dan's father, and never would have had Dan.

so much for your attempt at humor. so sad when reality stomps all over a cute comment, isn't it?

Pro-choice does not inherently mean pro-abortion. You can opt to never have an abortion performed on your own body, but still respek the rights of others to have that choice.

Abortion is neat!

But illegal abortions are teh best because they are very gorey and stuff. I think abortions shoudl be illegal because I liek the fact that it puts the mothers life at risk too when they go for those back-alley abortions. Also, there shoud be a way to bet on if the mother lives or not or maybe even get some sort of dibilitating infection.

It's really a person's own choice. I don't think God should have much of a say (for the Christians who say it's God's child) because he doesn't have to raise the child, pay for food, clothing shelter, maybe post secondary education. Abortion should not be used as a first resort. A woman considering it should seek counciling (not for insanity but for help in making her choice) and discuss with them as well as her family the best possible option. Utlimatly it is her choice but she should at least hear others out.

Wait a minute... someone actually doesn't know that there are people alive today that survived being aborted? Hold on. What country are you from?

ALSO - It is absolutely necessary to listen to the advice of someone with such a unique perspective.

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

first, that is a fictional story, since what that person decribes could not medically occur. second, do you really want to listen to somebody who says, "I am so thankful for my Cerebral Palsy. It allows me to really depend on Jesus for everything"? this is a person who is happy to have a horrible, debilitating illness so that they can be utterly dependent on an imaginary friend...not exactly a reliable source for ANYTHING, even if their story were possible.

Not to mention that CP is rarely, if ever, caused by anything that happens during birth. It usually is caused much, much earlier in development.

i am utterly disgusted that somebody would make up a story like the one you posted. i am even more disgusted at the state of our education system; if there are people who are so ignorant that they believe that story is possible then America is obviously a total failure when it comes to basic education.

I still have a problem with the fact that no one in this country seems to recognize that a 7-month fetus couldn't be legally aborted anyways.

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

Yup, sure do. Of course, my reasoning for why it is wrong is purely religious, with nothing scientific to back it up. Therefore, as an American, I recognize that I cannot (and should not) force my religious belief upon others. Grow up.

I, personally, am pro-choice, anti-abortion in all but the most extreme of cases, and pro-life.

Wait a minute... someone actually doesn't know that there are people alive today that survived being aborted? Hold on. What country are you from?

ALSO - It is absolutely necessary to listen to the advice of someone with such a unique perspective.
there are instances where abortions have failed and the fetus has survived. the story you posted is impossible and false, and anybody with a rudamentary understanding of abortion procedures can see that. it is disgusting that somebody would lie in order to play on emotions to sway people on such a critical topic. it's a low, cowardly, pathetic tactic, and i have no respect for the "advice" of somebody with that "perspective."

I still have a problem with the fact that no one in this country seems to recognize that a 7-month fetus couldn't be legally aborted anyways.
indeed. further proof that the person making up that story is a flat out liar.

and you fart from your mouth.

Since children are basically parasites up until the day the can leave home and get a job... why not just abort them up to the age of 12? Let's say I don't want the kid I've got now - she's a burden on me and I just can't raise her anymore... "yeah, honey could you hand daddy the coathanger?"

and you fart from your mouth.

no need to get angry and attack someone when you cant defend your positions.

MY REAL Political party believes that woman should decide what they want to do with their bodies. Visit our website and post your comment and what u agree with or not http://civilist.blogspot.com/

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.
wrong. many people believe abortion is very wrong for them, but don't believe it is their right to dictate other people's lives.

for example:

i am very strongly anti-heroine. i think heroine is horrible, dangerous, and using heroine is one of the worst things a person could choose to do. yet i completely and totally support legalizing heroine use in all its forms. this is because i believe that each human being must make CHOICES about what is right for them, and i don't think i have the right to parent other adults and tell them they can't do something just because it is wrong for me. this is an example of how somebody can be very anti-X but still support other people's right to choose X for themselves.

now, if you want to talk about pro-abortion, you want to talk to me. most people around here are pro-CHOICE, and don't think abortion is, in itself, a good thing. i, on the other hand, think more women need to be encouraged to abort, and if the number of abortions in the world increased today i would be delighted. ideally, of course, there would be no need for abortion because we would have perfect contraception, but barring that i am totally in support of increasing the number of abortions performed world-wide. i am an example of PRO-ABORTION, and i am a very different animal than the pro-choice individuals around here.

and you fart from your mouth.
careful, if you keep up with that sort of behavior Mummy will take away your computer.

I view it as a necessary evil to protect women's freedom.

Since children are basically parasites up until the day the can leave home and get a job... why not just abort them up to the age of 12? Let's say I don't want the kid I've got now - she's a burden on me and I just can't raise her anymore... "yeah, honey could you hand daddy the coathanger?"
children are not paracites in any way once they leave their mother's body. please try again.

It's odd you use heroin as a metaphor to abortion.

You should tell that too women going on their 4th abortion.

I view it as a necessary evil to protect women's freedom.
see? this is a pro-CHOICE person, because they believe abortion is a necessary evil. a pro-ABORTION person wouldn't see abortion as evil at all.

(hope you don't mind me using you as an example, Letila, i'm just trying to clear up the distinction for our friend here.)

It's odd you use heroin as a metaphor to abortion.

You should tell that too women going on their 4th abortion.
why? unless the women getting her 4th abortion is on heroine, i don't see why my feelings on that subject would be relavent at all. and since i wouldn't try to prevent her from using heroine simply because i don't think it's right, why would me telling her that be a boon to your cause? then i would just be further emphasizing my message that the woman's body belongs to her, and she can take out or put in whatever she pleases.

I'm not attempting to convince you of your own invalidities, you're doing a great job all on your own. If you want to kill your own babies, then please do so - it'll keep people like you from annoying our future.

(hope you don't mind me using you as an example, Letila, i'm just trying to clear up the distinction for our friend here.)

I don't mind.

I'm not attempting to convince you of your own invalidities, you're doing a great job all on your own. If you want to kill your own babies, then please do so - it'll keep people like you from annoying our future.
i remain unconvinced of my own "invalidities," to the best of my knowledge, but if you are able to see into my subconscious well enough to tell me what i am REALLY convinced of then perhaps you could also tell me why i keep dreaming about Brad Radke making out with my high school chemistry teacher.

Of course, if we didn't love our own children, when they drive us crazy we might just kill them (speaking as a father of 5 stepchildren, and rhetorically of course)...

besides, those 11 year olds are awfully hard to catch with a coathanger (you people need to lighten up a little)

Seriously though... the basic problem is this... one side has the absolute conviction that they have a uniquely correct morality and that the other side is absolutely wrong.... and so does the other side...

in real life though, its never that simple.....

So think of it like this...you are a real person.. under what conditions would you feel that in your heart you were right to end the life of an unborn human.... be it 24 hours old, be it 2 weeks along, be it 4 months along or whatever.

What does your heart say to you. Unless you have had to make this decision, one way or the other.... than what right do you have to judge others? Or for that matter, decide for them?

So make yourself a little checklist of all the situations you can think of when a mother would likely choose to have an abortion. Where on that list are you? At what point can you live with the decision to have an abortion, and when can you no longer live with it. And I mean live with it not just at that time, but 10 years, 20 years, or even 40 years later.

Than decide if you believe the Zealots on either side speak for you.

I'm not attempting to convince you of your own invalidities, you're doing a great job all on your own. If you want to kill your own babies, then please do so - it'll keep people like you from annoying our future.

http://www.gcpl.lib.oh.us/uploaded_images/kids/coloring/READ!.jpg

...you MORON.

Plenty of us have stated we're anti-abortion but pro-choice. We've even explained what that means. Pull your head out of your ass-you might find looking at words and understanding them to be a biiiiiiit easier.

I'm all about pro-choice. Women should have absolute control over their body, leave the government and religion out of it!

That being said, let women have control over their body, but make abortion illegal. You all act like pregnancy is unpreventable and pretend abortion is the only solution (abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry fueled by the lies of the "doctors" who profit from it). Women should control their bodies: use a condom, pull out, stop having sex. If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.

Women should control their bodies: use a condom, pull out, stop having sex. If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.
i've said it a million times: the only way a woman could "not deal" with being pregnant is if she put her fingers in her ears and went "la-la-la, i'm not pregnant" until the baby fell out. having an abortion is one of the many ways to deal with finding out you are pregnant; just because you don't LIKE that option doesn't mean that somebody isn't dealing with their situation if they choose it.

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.
Even if I do find something wrong in it for myself, I have no right to control that decision for others. They have a right to choose. Pro-abortion is not inherent in pro-choice. Is the woman who allows her husband to CHOOSE to watch football all Sunday long pro-football? No. What if she took away the choice? If he was her boy and she had some authority over him, she would be allowed to choose to get away with exerting that authority over his television viewing. But as he's her husband, she cannot exert the same kind of control; she doesn't have the right to control the decision process of another grown-up (especially one she has to live with) just as pro-choice feel they don't have the right to control the decision process of other adults. With her actions, she shows some *respect* for him and his allowance to choose. Women who have become pregnant are, for the most part, adults and responsible enough to choose for themselves.

This is usually where some people choose to run off-topic with, Well why don't we give the murderer the right to choose to take a life?! Simple answer: we do. That's why murders happen. Laws aren't in place to PREVENT the murderer from doing his deed, only to punish him afterwards. The thing is, we can't punish someone for something they haven't done yet. But to ban abortion is to prevent it from happening AND inflict a punishment for not doing the deed --it's a power of manipulation of another's life beyond murder laws, that, in my opinion, shows no respect for human life.

Women should control their bodies: use a condom, pull out, stop having sex.

See, that's one of the problems --things such as pulling out don't work, yet they're on the list with abstinence and condoms? It's a severe lack of sexual education, both on the parents and school's part. I can't speak for other countries though..


If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.

You do not rule the world, but thanks for your opinion kthnx.

If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.

How many children have you adopted?

Why so many of you antiabortionist think that everyone who makes an abortion hasn't used contraseption?

Sterilization is the only way to be (almost) sure you won't get pregnant. Unles you want to live in selibacy you can get pregnant. Even if you use condoms, pills those copperthingsinyourwomb (and especially if you use them) you can get pregnant.

It's odd you use heroin as a metaphor to abortion.

You should tell that too women going on their 4th abortion.

Aren't you just happy that kind of woman is not going to raise a child?

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

Not true. If, say, I am a woman in a secure relationship with a good job and a stable income, a nice place to live, and a strong family unit, perhaps considering abortion is a moot point for me. Perhaps I don't have any of the complicated issues that might lead a woman to get an abortion. It is NOT for me to say that a woman barely making ends meet, struggling to keep her job at McDonalds, and living in a one-room slum should be bound to bear that baby into that life.

I am very pro-life and am against abortion (especially when it is used as some form of contraception). However, I think there should be exceptions. I know it is hypocritical to say this, but I think in the case of rape, abortion should be allowed. We cannot expect a victim of rape to carry her baby to full term.

Having said this, I am also pro-choice (don't know how this works) and feel I can't really judge, as I have never been in this position.

Warning: the following pictures are very graphic and quite horrific.
http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPictures1.htm

It just goes to emphasise how very real and 'baby like' they are when aborted.

children are not paracites in any way once they leave their mother's body. please try again.

Actually, I sort of thought that the parasitic behavior stopped when they stopped feeding on the mother... but that's just me. ;)

[I wish to ignore the mindless banter that seems to precede this post as it has descended into pathetic name-calling and immature insults...Why can't people just debate like they're civilized?]

It's always seemed weird to me how the pro-choice element only gets brought up after the choice was made to have sex and take the responsibility for the chance of getting pregnant (rapes are notable exceptions). It's also weird how the only person that gets to choose is the mother...when she is only one of three people involved.

I also don't understand how the Fourth Amendment was ever, ever "interpreted" to support the right to have an abortion when it was very clearly designed to keep citizens of the USA from having police come into their house, place of business, or other property, and make a seizure of something there. I know that the key phrase is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," but why doesn't the child have that same right? If the courts are going to make rights up, why don't they assign them equally? Because scientists can easily tell you that when a child begins to form, it has a completely different genetic code than the mother and in many cases even a different type of blood. Yes, it is contained within the mother, but it is no more a part of the mother than if a ringworm was in your skin (and, yes, babies are in a manner parasitic, although in a way that is not meant to be harmful).

My main objections to abortion are not legal or scientific ones, but are based on my morals and overall paradigm. Despite that, the legal quandaries of the issue are disturbing based on the scientific evidence (that is often misquoted by both sides) and on the foundation of the USA's law.

I am very pro-life and am against abortion (especially when it is used as some form of contraception). However, I think there should be exceptions. I know it is hypocritical to say this, but I think in the case of rape, abortion should be allowed. We cannot expect a victim of rape to carry her baby to full term.

Having said this, I am also pro-choice (don't know how this works) and feel I can't really judge, as I have never been in this position.

Warning: the following pictures are very graphic and quite horrific.
http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPictures1.htm

It just goes to emphasise how very real and 'baby like' they are when aborted.

öööh.
Abortions are usually made before the 12th week. At least in my country, they make abortions til 15th week but then you need more doctors to agree it's alright and needed. After 15th week you need to have a "proper" reason like it would hurt the mother badly or the baby will die in any case.
Here's a link with smaller babies
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/archive1.htm

~edit~That being said, let women have control over their body, but make abortion illegal. You all act like pregnancy is unpreventable and pretend abortion is the only solution (abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry fueled by the lies of the "doctors" who profit from it).

Umm... no, but abortion is the only option after a woman is already pregnant (and I'm including the abortion pill here as well).

Women should control their bodies: use a condom, pull out, stop having sex. If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.

1. Most condoms are 97% effective (when used correctly, and we as a country don't allow that KIND of sex ed in schools)... that's 3% chance of conception presuming you know how to use a condom a do so every time.

2. Pulling out has about a 35% chance of resulting in conception. A man can ejaculate small concentrations of sperm before he actually achieves climax.

3. Adoption isn't a great option because pregnancy is a pain in the ass and many people aren't cut out for that kind of stress on their bodies. Some people can handle adoption, some can't... sort of like some people can handle ABORTION and some can't. An abortion is no walk in the park either. I think that's just as effective a method of "dealing with your actions" as adoption (except that you don't create a child with a built-in abandonment complex).

It's about a selfish attitude that harms an innocent life. Your Pro Choice arguement has always been that it's about the woman's right, most abortionists believe that the child is nothing more than a parasite - hence my earlier statements.

I see these women placing such a greater effort upon their own personal rights that they are unable to imagine that there is actually a child growing inside them. Maybe I'm too emersed in the Buddhist ideals that all life is precious, but to consider your own privileges above life is just wrong.

Perspectively, the behavior of the pro-choice advocate is simular to that of an insecure child who becomes angry if they feel they are not in control.

Umm... no, but abortion is the only option after a woman is already pregnant (and I'm including the abortion pill here as well).



1. Most condoms are 97% effective (when used correctly, and we as a country don't allow that KIND of sex ed in schools)... that's 3% chance of conception presuming you know how to use a condom a do so every time.

2. Pulling out has about a 35% chance of resulting in conception. A man can ejaculate small concentrations of sperm before he actually achieves climax.

3. Adoption isn't a great option because pregnancy is a pain in the ass and many people aren't cut out for that kind of stress on their bodies. Some people can handle adoption, some can't... sort of like some people can handle ABORTION and some can't. An abortion is no walk in the park either. I think that's just as effective a method of "dealing with your actions" as adoption (except that you don't create a child with a built-in abandonment complex).

Let's not forget the women who can't handle it emotionally (either simply the alteration to her body, or the pressures placed on her by family and the pro-lifers who can't keep their opinions to themselves). I'd be very interested to see statistics relating to suicide in young pregnent women/women who fall pregnent in circumstances that don't allow for raising the child as a viable option.

In fact, I might just go look into that....

and you fart from your mouth.

Flame. :(

If you have nothing worthwhile to say, perhaps you should say nothing.

It's always seemed weird to me how the pro-choice element only gets brought up after the choice was made to have sex and take the responsibility for the chance of getting pregnant (rapes are notable exceptions). It's also weird how the only person that gets to choose is the mother...when she is only one of three people involved.

I also don't understand how the Fourth Amendment was ever, ever "interpreted" to support the right to have an abortion when it was very clearly designed to keep citizens of the USA from having police come into their house, place of business, or other property, and make a seizure of something there. I know that the key phrase is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," but why doesn't the child have that same right? If the courts are going to make rights up, why don't they assign them equally? Because scientists can easily tell you that when a child begins to form, it has a completely different genetic code than the mother and in many cases even a different type of blood. Yes, it is contained within the mother, but it is no more a part of the mother than if a ringworm was in your skin (and, yes, babies are in a manner parasitic, although in a way that is not meant to be harmful).

My main objections to abortion are not legal or scientific ones, but are based on my morals and overall paradigm. Despite that, the legal quandaries of the issue are disturbing based on the scientific evidence (that is often misquoted by both sides) and on the foundation of the USA's law.´
I already asked why so many think that all who decide to make abortion haven't used contraseption. They are not secure. Selibacy is the only way to be sure you won't get pregnant (or being male of course). So many who have an abortion have made choices not to get pregnant but it doesn't always work. I think that most of women discuss the issue with the "father" but women have to make the decision anyway. They're the ones carrying the child.
For the second part I only wanted to point out that US hasn't actually signed the UN's child rights bill unlike every other western country.

It's about a selfish attitude that harms an innocent life. Your Pro Choice arguement has always been that it's about the woman's right, most abortionists believe that the child is nothing more than a parasite - hence my earlier statements.

I see these women placing such a greater effort upon their own personal rights that they are unable to imagine that there is actually a child growing inside them. Maybe I'm too emersed in the Buddhist ideals that all life is precious, but to consider your own privileges above life is just wrong.
So You think that every penniless teenager should keep the unwanted child. I tend to believe that in that case the child is the one who will suffer the most because his/hers parents can't take care of him/her

Perspectively, the behavior of the pro-choice advocate is simular to that of an insecure child who becomes angry if they feel they are not in control.

Yep. Because saying 'I will not live the lives of others for them' is TOTALLY control-mongering.

Oh wait... did you mean pro-lifers the 'You fucked up, now here's your nine-month sentence which you will serve SOLEY because we have a problem keeping our non-scientifically-based opinions out of legislation'.

Hmm, remind me again who it was you were claiming needed control over others?

Hear, hear!

It's always seemed weird to me how the pro-choice element only gets brought up after the choice was made to have sex and take the responsibility for the chance of getting pregnant (rapes are notable exceptions). It's also weird how the only person that gets to choose is the mother...when she is only one of three people involved.

As far as I'm concerned, she's the only one who has to [I]be pregnant, so she's the only one who needs the right to decide whether she wants to stay pregnant. If the father wants a baby, he can adopt one. The zygote itself isn't capable of decision making, and, in most cases, doesn't even have an independent nervous system. No brain, no thoughts, convictions, or morals. We get angry if people destroy beautiful paintings and brilliant artwork. I cringe if I see someone smashing a guitar. Would I have the same issues with the destruction of a blank canvas or the slag metal used to make a flute? No. It's raw material, it isn't art yet.

~edit~I know that the key phrase is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," but why doesn't the child have that same right? If the courts are going to make rights up, why don't they assign them equally? Because scientists can easily tell you that when a child begins to form, it has a completely different genetic code than the mother and in many cases even a different type of blood. Yes, it is contained within the mother, but it is no more a part of the mother than if a ringworm was in your skin (and, yes, babies are in a manner parasitic, although in a way that is not meant to be harmful).

See above argument regarding artwork and materials used to create art. Most scientists determine independent life as the time when an organism forms a nervous system independent of the parent or host (meaning brain, nerves, etc.). Most babies form that nervous system around the beginning of the second trimester, give or take. Blood type and genetic code notwithstanding, until it has its own nervous system, it isn't considered a separate organism.

My main objections to abortion are not legal or scientific ones, but are based on my morals and overall paradigm. Despite that, the legal quandaries of the issue are disturbing based on the scientific evidence (that is often misquoted by both sides) and on the foundation of the USA's law.

My objections aren't legal or scientific, my arguments are supported by law and science. My objections to making abortion illegal are based on my morals and compassion. I have never been in that situation, but I can empathize enough not to want to rob someone else of one single option. We're not so very different, we just have different ideals.

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

being pro-choice means giving someone the option. whether you yourself choose to abort an embryo or not is not hypocritical.
Being pro-gay marriage does not mean i want to marry someone of the same sex, just means giving people the option.

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

Okay. I disagree with your opening premise, but I'll come back to that in a minute...

You said "Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion".
You then said "Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself".

You don't see that you just invalidated your own premise?

You just pointed out that a Pro-Choice person can be listening to their 'inner voice', that convinces them not to do the thing to THEMSELVES. That doesn't mean they oppose it for others.

Back to the original point... Pro-Choice sometimes does mean Pro-Abortion... some people favour abortion, and favour the rights of women to choose.

But many women don't agree with the concept of abortion (what it actually IS, especially in conjunction with their OWN body)... but still support the RIGHTS of women to choose.

see? this is a pro-CHOICE person, because they believe abortion is a necessary evil. a pro-ABORTION person wouldn't see abortion as evil at all.

(hope you don't mind me using you as an example, Letila, i'm just trying to clear up the distinction for our friend here.)

KOOL! i guess that makes me pro-abortion too!!!!

It's about a selfish attitude that harms an innocent life. Your Pro Choice arguement has always been that it's about the woman's right, most abortionists believe that the child is nothing more than a parasite - hence my earlier statements.

I see these women placing such a greater effort upon their own personal rights that they are unable to imagine that there is actually a child growing inside them. Maybe I'm too emersed in the Buddhist ideals that all life is precious, but to consider your own privileges above life is just wrong.
Well, I am not one of those people. I believe the child is alive and human, and not a "parasite", because a parasite is an invading foreign body, whereas the child is a part of its mother. I am perfectly capable of imagining a child growing inside of me. It doesn't change at all the way I feel about the right to choose. I too adhere to the ideal that "that all life is precious", but that doesn't stop me from having a steak and potato dinner with a salad on the side. Life feeds on life. That's life.

Yep. Because saying 'I will not live the lives of others for them' is TOTALLY control-mongering.

Oh wait... did you mean pro-lifers the 'You fucked up, now here's your nine-month sentence which you will serve SOLEY because we have a problem keeping our non-scientifically-based opinions out of legislation'.

Hmm, remind me again who it was you were claiming needed control over others?

LOL thanks for reading... You don't need to read between the lines, but just try to read the exact quotes. I see that your biggest problem is viewing the birth of a child as a negative one. Women having abortions as birth control needs to stop - if you are too ignorant to understand how the reproductive system works then we need to sterilize these morons. I've met too many women in my life that just do not need to have kids, when they walk into the doctor's office for their 4th & 5th abortion someone should be telling them to "tie that shit up".

LOL thanks for reading... You don't need to read between the lines, but just try to read the exact quotes. I see that your biggest problem is viewing the birth of a child as a negative one. Women having abortions as birth control needs to stop - if you are too ignorant to understand how the reproductive system works then we need to sterilize these morons. I've met too many women in my life that just do not need to have kids, when they walk into the doctor's office for their 4th & 5th abortion someone should be telling them to "tie that shit up".

Ohhhh I SEE. So you're all for forced sterilisation of women (and only the women)? Even ones that are young enough that doctors refuse to preform the operation? And the married ones who plan on having children later in life?

Maybe you should offer to pay more taxes to EDUCATE people... instead of punishing them for the education they are disallowed...

And yes, some woman see carrying a child as a negative thing. Because, get this, they don't want kids.

And, you know, because it's painful and stressful and altogether a pain in the arse unless you WANT a child.

[I wish to ignore the mindless banter that seems to precede this post as it has descended into pathetic name-calling and immature insults...Why can't people just debate like they're civilized?]

It's always seemed weird to me how the pro-choice element only gets brought up after the choice was made to have sex and take the responsibility for the chance of getting pregnant (rapes are notable exceptions). It's also weird how the only person that gets to choose is the mother...when she is only one of three people involved.

I also don't understand how the Fourth Amendment was ever, ever "interpreted" to support the right to have an abortion when it was very clearly designed to keep citizens of the USA from having police come into their house, place of business, or other property, and make a seizure of something there. I know that the key phrase is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," but why doesn't the child have that same right? If the courts are going to make rights up, why don't they assign them equally? Because scientists can easily tell you that when a child begins to form, it has a completely different genetic code than the mother and in many cases even a different type of blood. Yes, it is contained within the mother, but it is no more a part of the mother than if a ringworm was in your skin (and, yes, babies are in a manner parasitic, although in a way that is not meant to be harmful).

My main objections to abortion are not legal or scientific ones, but are based on my morals and overall paradigm. Despite that, the legal quandaries of the issue are disturbing based on the scientific evidence (that is often misquoted by both sides) and on the foundation of the USA's law.


I was going to make some responses to your various points... about foetuses not having legal 'rights' because they aren't 'legally' people...about how your own example of ringworm displays the same 'different DNA' profile as a baby... about how the only one of the 'three' (and I argue against three) people involved who SHOULD get a choice is the woman...

But, then I read your last line... and found out that you openly admit that you have no scientific or legal basis for your anti-abortion stance. Which basically means, that a logical argument isn't going to have any impact.

I am confused though... you SEEM to be setting yourself up as Anti-abortion, but it is unclear where you stand on the Pro-Choice argument?

I was a Pro-Choice believer when I was in my teens.

I would say the same speeches like, "Women should have the right to decide for themselves - but I would not choose to do this for me." - Once I stepped back and examined exactly "WHY I WOULD NOT CHOOSE THIS FOR MYSELF" I evolved to a clearer way of thinking.

I'm asking anyone who has said the same thing to please just think for a moment about why you would not choose to do this and maybe you'll understand.

Let's not forget the women who can't handle it emotionally (either simply the alteration to her body, or the pressures placed on her by family and the pro-lifers who can't keep their opinions to themselves). I'd be very interested to see statistics relating to suicide in young pregnent women/women who fall pregnent in circumstances that don't allow for raising the child as a viable option.

In fact, I might just go look into that....

Ah yes... I left that part out solely because I've been razzed for using mental and emotional inability as an argument before (on the previous thread) and had it written off. I'm completely with you there. Among the women who couldn't handle the pressure:

Susan Smith -- watched her babies sink in a lake after she locked them in the backseat of a car.

Theresa Cross Knorr -- tortured her five children, killed the two girls, beat one to death, then locked her in a storage compartment (after three days, the sounds coming from the locker stopped), shot the other girl, dug the bullet out with a paring knife, and dumped both bodies when the second girl didn't recover from the gunshot wound.

Diane Downs -- shot all three of her children.

Sheryl Hardy -- smoked a cigarette and watched her husband try to drown his stepson (her child) in the toilet. The child lived, went into foster care, Hardy fought for custody. Sixty-six days after receiving custody of her son, he was dead. He was shaken violently, cleaned with a garden hose, and Hardy ran a fork with feces over his mouth.

Melissa Drexler -- strangled her 6 lb. 6 oz. son and dumped him in a garbage can then returned to her prom.

Andrea Yeates -- Drowned all five of her children (6 months - 7 years old) while suffering from post-partem depresssion.

They died anyway... should they have died this way, or perhaps been aborted? (I don't know whether these women considered abortion, my point is, children are killed all the time AFTER they're aware of their own life. Some are killed deliberately by their parents. How is this the same as aborting a fetus without a central nervous system?)

Ohhhh I SEE. So you're all for forced sterilisation of women (and only the women)? Even ones that are young enough that doctors refuse to preform the operation? And the married ones who plan on having children later in life?

Maybe you should offer to pay more taxes to EDUCATE people... instead of punishing them for the education they are disallowed...

And yes, some woman see carrying a child as a negative thing. Because, get this, they don't want kids.

And, you know, because it's painful and stressful and altogether a pain in the arse unless you WANT a child.

I'm doing my best to educate you and it's all been for free. You think since it's so difficult to have a child when you don't want one, that the easiest solutuion is to terminate it's life. How am I suppossed to educate you on how wrong that is?

I was a Pro-Choice believer when I was in my teens.

I would say the same speeches like, "Women should have the right to decide for themselves - but I would not choose to do this for me." - Once I stepped back and examined exactly "WHY I WOULD NOT CHOOSE THIS FOR MYSELF" I evolved to a clearer way of thinking.

I'm asking anyone who has said the same thing to please just think for a moment about why you would not choose to do this and maybe you'll understand.

I WOULD have it done if I got pregnant before I was financially and emotionally stable, and in a longterm relationship. So I guess I'M allowed to be pro-choice then, eh?

Hear, hear!



As far as I'm concerned, she's the only one who has to be pregnant, so she's the only one who needs the right to decide whether she wants to stay pregnant. If the father wants a baby, he can adopt one. The zygote itself isn't capable of decision making, and, in most cases, doesn't even have an independent nervous system. No brain, no thoughts, convictions, or morals. We get angry if people destroy beautiful paintings and brilliant artwork. I cringe if I see someone smashing a guitar. Would I have the same issues with the destruction of a blank canvas or the slag metal used to make a flute? No. It's raw material, it isn't art yet.



See above argument regarding artwork and materials used to create art. Most scientists determine independent life as the time when an organism forms a nervous system independent of the parent or host (meaning brain, nerves, etc.). Most babies form that nervous system around the beginning of the second trimester, give or take. Blood type and genetic code notwithstanding, until it has its own nervous system, it isn't considered a separate organism.



My objections aren't legal or scientific, my arguments are supported by law and science. My objections to making abortion illegal are based on my morals and compassion. I have never been in that situation, but I can empathize enough not to want to rob someone else of one single option. We're not so very different, we just have different ideals.

*Applause* Riven Dell, Take a bow!

(In fact, take two bows, for having a cool name, too!) :)

i've said it a million times: the only way a woman could "not deal" with being pregnant is if she put her fingers in her ears and went "la-la-la, i'm not pregnant" until the baby fell out. having an abortion is one of the many ways to deal with finding out you are pregnant; just because you don't LIKE that option doesn't mean that somebody isn't dealing with their situation if they choose it.
No, they're not dealing with their pregnancy, they're running from it. Instead of facing up to the responsibily they have as a human being they're destroying it. They made the mistake of getting pregnant, and instead of living up to it they're running from it.

See, that's one of the problems --things such as pulling out don't work, yet they're on the list with abstinence and condoms? It's a severe lack of sexual education, both on the parents and school's part. I can't speak for other countries though..
Pulling out doesn't work? Wanna explain that to me? If you wore a condom, and pulled out, that would practically eliminate the chance of pregnancy. But that's not the issue here. There are many ways to avoid pregnancy that just aren't being used by pro-abortionists.

You do not rule the world, but thanks for your opinion kthnx.
You don't rule the world either, forums are made specifically for expressing your opinion. If you can't deal with different opinions, turn off your computer.

How many children have you adopted?
None. I can barely support myself, much less a growing child. How many children have you had aborted that you could of given to a loving family? Fact is there are more familys wanting to adopt a child than there are children to be adopted. But pro-abortionists still kill their children instead of just giving it away. Funny how good people who want kids can't have them, but people who don't want kids can just murder them.

Umm... no, but abortion is the only option after a woman is already pregnant (and I'm including the abortion pill here as well).
Adoption? They don't talk about that in sex ed do they?
How about living up to your mistake of making babies before you're ready to have babies and raising the child? Why aren't those options? Because girls don't look as good pregnant?

1. Most condoms are 97% effective (when used correctly, and we as a country don't allow that KIND of sex ed in schools)... that's 3% chance of conception presuming you know how to use a condom a do so every time.
No, that's a 3% chance of the condom failing, and a minute chance of conception.

2. Pulling out has about a 35% chance of resulting in conception. A man can ejaculate small concentrations of sperm before he actually achieves climax.
If a man pulled out, that would reduce the chance of conception to a little over 1% (using a condom). According to your sourceless statistics.

3. Adoption isn't a great option because pregnancy is a pain in the ass and many people aren't cut out for that kind of stress on their bodies. Some people can handle adoption, some can't... sort of like some people can handle ABORTION and some can't. An abortion is no walk in the park either. I think that's just as effective a method of "dealing with your actions" as adoption (except that you don't create a child with a built-in abandonment complex).
Pain in the ass? You made yourself pregnant, this isn't like getting a flat tire or getting rained on. Somebody made themselves pregnant, and now they're killing their baby because it's a "pain in the ass". What a wonderful world we live in. Maybe I'll just kill anybody who I consider a pain in the ass. What the hell, I'm dealing with the problem aren't I?
Abortion is a whole lot worse on your body than pregnancy. Abortion is known to cause breast cancer, extreme depression, oh, and death in at least one person every time.

LOL thanks for reading... You don't need to read between the lines, but just try to read the exact quotes. I see that your biggest problem is viewing the birth of a child as a negative one. Women having abortions as birth control needs to stop - if you are too ignorant to understand how the reproductive system works then we need to sterilize these morons. I've met too many women in my life that just do not need to have kids, when they walk into the doctor's office for their 4th & 5th abortion someone should be telling them to "tie that shit up".
Having an abortion is not "birth control", it is "major surgery". Birth control is what happens in order to try to *prevent* pregnancy.

I'm doing my best to educate you and it's all been for free. You think since it's so difficult to have a child when you don't want one, that the easiest solutuion is to terminate it's life. How am I suppossed to educate you on how wrong that is?

I was under the impression you were talking about girls who are uninformed of the ways to avoid falling pregnent. You know, birthcontrol? Sex education? That mythical beast?

You cannot educate people unless you bring facts to the table. You have brought nothing but insults and opinions.

I remain unimpressed, as will anyone else you try to 'teach' using this method.

...Pain in the ass? You made yourself pregnant, this isn't like getting a flat tire or getting rained on. Somebody made themselves pregnant, and now they're killing their baby because it's a "pain in the ass".

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

And the sexism appears yet AGAIN.

Yo, two people involved. Go bitch at all the guys that wear the notion of multiple sexual partners as some sort of medal. Then come back and apologise for acting like a twat.

Adoption is also 'running away from the problem'. And children shouldn't be used as a 'punishment'. You are showing a lot less respect for life than the people you are attacking.

I was a Pro-Choice believer when I was in my teens.

I would say the same speeches like, "Women should have the right to decide for themselves - but I would not choose to do this for me." - Once I stepped back and examined exactly "WHY I WOULD NOT CHOOSE THIS FOR MYSELF" I evolved to a clearer way of thinking.

I'm asking anyone who has said the same thing to please just think for a moment about why you would not choose to do this and maybe you'll understand.

Just so you know, large or bold font doesn't make your point any more valid or encourage anyone to believe what you believe. Right for you isn't right for everyone...

Abortion is a whole lot worse on your body than pregnancy. Abortion is known to cause breast cancer, extreme depression, oh, and death in at least one person every time.
What on earth you're saying? Please do find some sources for your idiotic claims. Cause breast cancer omg :O

I was a Pro-Choice believer when I was in my teens.

I would say the same speeches like, "Women should have the right to decide for themselves - but I would not choose to do this for me." - Once I stepped back and examined exactly "WHY I WOULD NOT CHOOSE THIS FOR MYSELF" I evolved to a clearer way of thinking.

I'm asking anyone who has said the same thing to please just think for a moment about why you would not choose to do this and maybe you'll understand.

i have said the same thing.
how about this, i'm a man, 24, in the future i want to have kids, if possible i'd like a big family. So my girlfriend gets pregnant one day? fantastic i'm going to be a daddy. so abortion is not right for me because i want to have kids.
If i and my girlfriend did not want to have one, then of course go for all the forms of protection. but if she still got pregnant, well we'd have to discuss it and see where we go from there.
And you have not got a clearer way of thinking, you've just realised that if you don't like something your against it. That's not clearer, that's egocentric

It is a privacy issue. The state does not have the right to know your medical status (if you are pregnant), therefore they do not have the right to know if that medical status changes.

You won't listen to the facts, because you make this issue about free choice and anything I offer becomes an attack. It's talking to someone that's saying "you can't tell me what to do" - when faced with someone who refuses to see what they're doing is wrong, I can only offer the "sterilize them" reply.

Also if you have read with my other posts I pointed out a middle ground between this issue - I want to see someone who wants to have an abortion to have a civil court decide for them BECAUSE it grants the oppurtunity for a GAURDIAN AD LITEM to speak for the one party that cannot speak for themselves.

I don't see this as an arguement against your rights, I see this as an arguenment that the unborn child NEEDS rights too. You're calling me a moron because I want to save a child. I'm calling you a moron because you justify these actions by declaring the fetus isn't a baby until it is out of the womb.

You won't listen to the facts, because you make this issue about free choice and anything I offer becomes an attack. It's talking to someone that's saying "you can't tell me what to do" - when faced with someone who refuses to see what they're doing is wrong, I can only offer the "sterilize them" reply.

Also if you have read with my other posts I pointed out a middle ground between this issue - I want to see someone who wants to have an abortion to have a civil court decide for them BECAUSE it grants the oppurtunity for a GAURDIAN AD LITEM to speak for the one party that cannot speak for themselves.

I don't see this as an arguement against your rights, I see this as an arguenment that the unborn child NEEDS rights too. You're calling me a moron because I want to save a child. I'm calling you a moron because you justify these actions by declaring the fetus isn't a baby until it is out of the womb.

Actually, if you'd bothered to read my stance, I believe the child is not a child until it has a BRAIN and NERVOUS SYSTEM. Just like I think children under the legal age of consent don't deserve the right to drink or drive due to limited mental capacity, I don't believe a fetus deserves the right to representation of any kind before it developes a brain and a nervous system.

If you think all humans deserve equal rights, I'd like to see you defend parents taking 2 month-olds out for a pint at the pub.

And your solution also isn't feasible. Just like the 'in the case of rape' notion isn't feasible. Courts are already congested with cases. By the time the claims would be settled, the pregnency would be too far ahead for an abortion.

You won't listen to the facts, because you make this issue about free choice and anything I offer becomes an attack. It's talking to someone that's saying "you can't tell me what to do" - when faced with someone who refuses to see what they're doing is wrong, I can only offer the "sterilize them" reply.


If you just would stop yelling and write like anyone else, you wouldn't be attacked so much.

Actually, if you'd bothered to read my stance, I believe the child is not a child until it has a BRAIN and NERVOUS SYSTEM.

I'd take it one step further, personally. I don't believe a fetus is alive until it reaches a certain level of consciousness. That's just me though.

No, they're not dealing with their pregnancy, they're running from it. Instead of facing up to the responsibily they have as a human being they're destroying it. They made the mistake of getting pregnant, and instead of living up to it they're running from it.

Actually, I call it the wisdom to know what you can or cannot handle. Pregnancy puts a LOT of strain on a LOT of different physical, emotional, and mental systems for a woman. She knows better than you whether she can handle that.

Pulling out doesn't work? Wanna explain that to me? If you wore a condom, and pulled out, that would practically eliminate the chance of pregnancy. But that's not the issue here. There are many ways to avoid pregnancy that just aren't being used by pro-abortionists.

Few people pull out WHILE wearing a condom... that's the point of wearing one for most people.

None. I can barely support myself, much less a growing child. How many children have you had aborted that you could of given to a loving family? Fact is there are more familys wanting to adopt a child than there are children to be adopted. But pro-abortionists still kill their children instead of just giving it away. Funny how good people who want kids can't have them, but people who don't want kids can just murder them.

Pregnancy can be just as expensive as having a child, you know. Maternity clothes, lost time at work, medical copays, frequent examinations, etc. And, frankly, there simply AREN'T more families wanting children than there are children out there to adopt. That's why we have so many in the state system in foster care or group homes. (I should know, I work as a teacher.) Check your facts, pookie.


Adoption? They don't talk about that in sex ed do they?

Actually, I meant the only option that does not include carrying the baby to term. I thought that was the whole point of the discussion here. And, no, mostly sex education in this country consists of "this is your period, this is why you have a stiffy in the morning, etc." Otherwise parents get all snarky.

How about living up to your mistake of making babies before you're ready to have babies and raising the child? Why aren't those options? Because girls don't look as good pregnant?

*yawn* It's not about looking good. There are MEDICAL complications related to having something inside you scooting your organs all over the place. You've obviously never been pregnant. Sometimes, pregnancy happens despite using contraception.

No, that's a 3% chance of the condom failing, and a minute chance of conception.

Actually, according to my literature (from Planned Parenthood), 97% successful means 97% of people who use a condom the right way every time they have sex DON'T conceive. It also says 3% of people who use the condom the right way every time DO conceive. Some people are allergic to spermicide, latex, birth control pills, etc, and polyurithaine is less effective than latex.




Planned Parenthood pamphlet on contraception... just because I didn't cite my source in the first thread dosen't mean I don't HAVE source. I didn't notice YOU citing all YOUR sources (regarding more parents wanting to adopt than children in the system now, regarding YOUR stats on pregnancy, etc.).


[quote]Pain in the ass? You made yourself pregnant, this isn't like getting a flat tire or getting rained on. Somebody made themselves pregnant, and now they're killing their baby because it's a "pain in the ass". What a wonderful world we live in. Maybe I'll just kill anybody who I consider a pain in the ass. What the hell, I'm dealing with the problem aren't I?
Abortion is a whole lot worse on your body than pregnancy. Abortion is known to cause breast cancer, extreme depression, oh, and death in at least one person every time.

Made yourself pregnant? Wow! A new messiah! Only this time, God wasn't even involved in the miraculous conception. Oh, and the murder argument has been covered (and done to death, I may add). Abortion doesn't include moving around all your internal organs for six months, undue pressure on the urinary tract, prenatal diabetes, or hemorrhoids. Pregnancy can cause extreme depression (post partem, anyone?), DEATH (pregnant people die too, Mr. Statistics), and the leading cause of death in pregnant women is MURDER by the FATHER of the baby (CNN Article 2001).

LOL thanks for reading... You don't need to read between the lines, but just try to read the exact quotes. I see that your biggest problem is viewing the birth of a child as a negative one. Women having abortions as birth control needs to stop - if you are too ignorant to understand how the reproductive system works then we need to sterilize these morons. I've met too many women in my life that just do not need to have kids, when they walk into the doctor's office for their 4th & 5th abortion someone should be telling them to "tie that shit up".

For the people who CHOOSE abortion, the birth of a child WOULD be a negative thing, for whatever reason.

Think about it... if they were content, financially stable, etc... they are far more likely to WANT a child... so they would view it as a positive thing, and those sorts of people won't want to abort... unless they have to for medical reasons.

On the other hand, if you have some crappy fast-food job, and you're only temporary, and you KNOW they are going to fire you when they find out you're pregnant, and then you'll have no money, and it's hard enough paying the rent already, and the last real meal you had was a week ago, and most of your diet consists of cheeseburgers, because you can get them at work.... in THAT position, bearing a child IS a negative thing.

Interesting that you blame women for the ignorance about how the reproductive system works. I must assume you are not american - because the US is currently (under the hand of a fundamentalist president, who is kowtowing to a minority lobby of seriously busybody christians)... trying to remove ALL education about contraception, and the intricacies of sexual reproduction... under the guise of 'Abstinence' education.

And being vulgar isn't helping your case... true, some people ARE ignorant about childbirth, etc (and that is the result, primarily, of an oppressive religious regime), but that doesn't make them "Morons".

*Applause* Riven Dell, Take a bow!

(In fact, take two bows, for having a cool name, too!) :)

*bows* You've got a pretty cool name too, my friend.

*bows again* That's two... exit, stage left.

Warning: the following pictures are very graphic and quite horrific.
http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPictures1.htm

It just goes to emphasise how very real and 'baby like' they are when aborted.

I am so sick of pro-lifers showing dead fetuses and screaming foul. Why don't you look up some butchered cattle and how in-humane that is....will you stop eating meat? How about some pictures of Iraqi children who have their arms and legs blown off. Will you still vote for Bush? How about some pictures of innocent shooting victims. Will you outlaw guns? How about some pictures of my hairy, unclean ass. Will you go straight?

Pictures are pictures, facts are facts. Fact is that the dead fetus was never aware of its existence....therefore, it wouldn't have cared that it ended up as chop liver on some C-grade doctors floor. Monkeys look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Iraqi's look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Murderers look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from sending 10,000 volts of electricity through them and watching them smoke.

Please....you know what....just forget it. You're helpless

Riven Dell, you just made it onto my list of favourite debaters (yes, I'm lame, I keep a list... it's in my head though... that counts as less lame, right?). Have a cookie.

Grave, you're already on the list, but you get a cookie for... I dunno... being a ray of sanity. So you can have a cookie also.

Note how I'm not addressing the issue here? It's not spam - it's sparing my blood pressure the grief :p.

I'd take it one step further, personally. I don't believe a fetus is alive until it reaches a certain level of consciousness. That's just me though.

*whispers to avoid incurring the wrath of the pro-lifers*: I agree, but in debates about legality (as opposed to morality), I use the formation of the brain/nervous system, since the levels of consciousness are pretty hard to pin down to a satisfactory degree.

I'll just spice things up a bit and confess that I've made an abortion (as I told on the other thread too). And never had any problems with that.

Riven Dell, you just made it onto my list of favourite debaters (yes, I'm lame, I keep a list... it's in my head though... that counts as less lame, right?). Have a cookie.

Grave, you're already on the list, but you get a cookie for... I dunno... being a ray of sanity. So you can have a cookie also.

Note how I'm not addressing the issue here? It's not spam - it's sparing my blood pressure the grief :p.

Me want cookie!! *sings the cookie monster song* Wow, thanks for all the praise. You folks are pretty cool as well. I'd like to thank the academy for posting such a controversial topic so that I might have the opportunity to flex my debate muscle (a.k.a brain, mind, whatever you like to call it). (There, I addressed the topic, it's not even spam.)

I am so sick of pro-lifers showing dead fetuses and screaming foul. Why don't you look up some butchered cattle and how in-humane that is....will you stop eating meat? How about some pictures of Iraqi children who have their arms and legs blown off. Will you still vote for Bush? How about some pictures of innocent shooting victims. Will you outlaw guns? How about some pictures of my hairy, unclean ass. Will you go straight?

Pictures are pictures, facts are facts. Fact is that the dead fetus was never aware of its existence....therefore, it wouldn't have cared that it ended up as chop liver on some C-grade doctors floor. Monkeys look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Iraqi's look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Murderers look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from sending 10,000 volts of electricity through them and watching them smoke.

Please....you know what....just forget it. You're helpless

how about this for the pro-choice people

I'll just spice things up a bit and confess that I've made an abortion (as I told on the other thread too). And never had any problems with that.

Alright, just for clarification... you've performed one, had one, or "created" one (as in, formed a baby that was aborted... which can happen if you're male)?

Sorry it took so long for me to reply, but I just finished reading all 1400 posts between this one and the last thread.

I have now become dumber because of it, and forgotten what I was going to say.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply, but I just finished reading all 1400 posts between this one and the last thread.

I have now become dumber because of it, and forgotten what I was going to say.

Since I'm handing out cookies to deserving people, have a cookie.

If more people read through a thread (and relevant threads) before posting, this forum would be a much better place

:D

I am so sick of pro-lifers showing dead fetuses and screaming foul. Why don't you look up some butchered cattle and how in-humane that is....will you stop eating meat? How about some pictures of Iraqi children who have their arms and legs blown off. Will you still vote for Bush? How about some pictures of innocent shooting victims. Will you outlaw guns? How about some pictures of my hairy, unclean ass. Will you go straight?

Pictures are pictures, facts are facts. Fact is that the dead fetus was never aware of its existence....therefore, it wouldn't have cared that it ended up as chop liver on some C-grade doctors floor. Monkeys look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Iraqi's look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Murderers look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from sending 10,000 volts of electricity through them and watching them smoke.

Please....you know what....just forget it. You're helpless

Love it.....absolutely brilliant

how about this for the pro-choice people

Charlie Manson, right? So what does this mean? Charles Manson murdered conscious, aware, alert people... not unborn fetuses with no experience or concept of the world around them.

Charlie Manson, right? So what does this mean? Charles Manson murdered conscious, aware, alert people... not unborn fetuses with no experience or concept of the world around them.

Yes, but I could show you a video of Charlie Manson getting electrocuted, would it provide the same sympathy for the fetus? Probably not, but it should. Charlie Manson would know he was getting electrocuted, the fetus has no idea it's being aborted.

No, they're not dealing with their pregnancy, they're running from it. Instead of facing up to the responsibily they have as a human being they're destroying it. They made the mistake of getting pregnant, and instead of living up to it they're running from it.


You say they have the responsibilty (as a human being) to carry the child. I say they don't. Why SHOULD someone live up to the MISTAKE of pregnancy? You would WISH being unwanted on a child? You would wish the emotional suffering on the parent(s) and child? You would WISH the risk of pregnancy related illness (maybe even death) on someone who DOESN'T even WANT a child?

You are allowing your views of what is right for you to dictate how you believe others should live.


Pulling out doesn't work? Wanna explain that to me? If you wore a condom, and pulled out, that would practically eliminate the chance of pregnancy. But that's not the issue here. There are many ways to avoid pregnancy that just aren't being used by pro-abortionists.


Pulling out doesn't work because sperm can be released at any time. It doesn't have to be at the point of ejaculation, or even at the point of arousal, to be honest. Most men don't "PULL OUT" for the same reason that many REFUSE to wear a condom... it doesn't "FEEL" as good. And, anecdotal evidence supports the fact that a surprising amount of men that were GOING TO pull out, DON'T, when the moment comes.


You don't rule the world either, forums are made specifically for expressing your opinion. If you can't deal with different opinions, turn off your computer.


You are being as intolerant of others opinions as you accuse others of being...


None. I can barely support myself, much less a growing child. How many children have you had aborted that you could of given to a loving family? Fact is there are more familys wanting to adopt a child than there are children to be adopted. But pro-abortionists still kill their children instead of just giving it away. Funny how good people who want kids can't have them, but people who don't want kids can just murder them.


Your 'fact' isn't a statistical truth. Look it up, there are FAR MORE children needing to be adopted or fostered than there are homes for.

You are using your 'morality' to draw a line where one doesn't need to exist... some people that 'want' children, don't 'want' them RIGHT NOW... and many people that 'want' abortions are still 'good' people.

Regardless of YOUR view. And remember, it is YOUR view.


Adoption? They don't talk about that in sex ed do they?
How about living up to your mistake of making babies before you're ready to have babies and raising the child? Why aren't those options? Because girls don't look as good pregnant?


To respond to your ridiculous flippant closing line... I have actually found that a pregnant woman can be even more attractive than the same woman before her pregnancy. Please - no more ridiculous jibes.

I think you live in a world where women (as the 'vessels' of life) are somehow entirely responsible for conception. If more men could 'keep the snake in the cage', and if the right-wing weren't so fond of ignorance as a policy, the incidence of abortion would be far lower.


No, that's a 3% chance of the condom failing, and a minute chance of conception.


Don't be silly. If there is a 3% chance of the condom failing, there is a 3% chance of pregnancy also - because every time the condom fails, there is 100% RISK of pregnancy... even if conception DOESN'T occur statistically every time.


If a man pulled out, that would reduce the chance of conception to a little over 1% (using a condom). According to your sourceless statistics.


A little under, surely?

And your math doesn't work, because men don't always 'pull out', because condoms aren't always effective, because condoms aren't even always put on correctly.


Pain in the ass? You made yourself pregnant, this isn't like getting a flat tire or getting rained on. Somebody made themselves pregnant, and now they're killing their baby because it's a "pain in the ass". What a wonderful world we live in. Maybe I'll just kill anybody who I consider a pain in the ass. What the hell, I'm dealing with the problem aren't I?
Abortion is a whole lot worse on your body than pregnancy. Abortion is known to cause breast cancer, extreme depression, oh, and death in at least one person every time.

How? How does a woman 'make herself' pregnant? Is she magic?

Are we allowing abortions only in the case of parthenogenesis?

(Or immaculate conceptions... would that come under the 'rape' defence?)

Charlie Manson, right? So what does this mean? Charles Manson murdered conscious, aware, alert people... not unborn fetuses with no experience or concept of the world around them.

well neirez or whatever the name is gave a link that was quite graphic.
Green_Baronland came back saying s/he is sick of people using dead embryos as an argument for pro-life. So I thought this would be a good photo for pro-choice. as in maybe if they'd had the choice..... you know not every human has the potential to help the world in a positive way.

Riven Dell, you just made it onto my list of favourite debaters (yes, I'm lame, I keep a list... it's in my head though... that counts as less lame, right?). Have a cookie.

Grave, you're already on the list, but you get a cookie for... I dunno... being a ray of sanity. So you can have a cookie also.

Note how I'm not addressing the issue here? It's not spam - it's sparing my blood pressure the grief :p.

Topic or no topic, if Riven Dell gets kudos, and I get cookie, it's all good, my friend.

:)

I also keep a list in my head, but I figured it was because I'm a geek... you were already on it, and Riven Dell made it today... so, cookies all round, maybe?

Alright, just for clarification... you've performed one, had one, or "created" one (as in, formed a baby that was aborted... which can happen if you're male)?
sorry, a very bad choice of words...had one (made).

well neirez or whatever the name is gave a link that was quite graphic.
Green_Baronland came back saying s/he is sick of people using dead embryos as an argument for pro-life. So I thought this would be a good photo for pro-choice. as in maybe if they'd had the choice..... you know not every human has the potential to help the world in a positive way.

Aaah... thanks for the clarification :)

sorry, a very bad choice of words...had one (made).

Hey, no problem. I just wanted to know so we could stave off the senseless flaming with the right knowledge :). (Hopefully it won't come to that, though.) I'm dyslexic myself, so I can empathize with misuse of words. Very brave of you to come forward in this kind of a forum. I'm impressed. Want half of my cookie?

I'm all about pro-choice. Women should have absolute control over their body, leave the government and religion out of it!

That being said, let women have control over their body, but make abortion illegal. You all act like pregnancy is unpreventable and pretend abortion is the only solution (abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry fueled by the lies of the "doctors" who profit from it). Women should control their bodies: use a condom, pull out, stop having sex. If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.

Wow, what an informed and amazing understanding of the circumstances of every woman who ever had an abortion it is that you have.

If we could all just be as infallible as you, this whole pro-choice/anti-abortion debate would be settled.

Hey, no problem. I just wanted to know so we could stave off the senseless flaming with the right knowledge :). (Hopefully it won't come to that, though.) I'm dyslexic myself, so I can empathize with misuse of words. Very brave of you to come forward in this kind of a forum. I'm impressed. Want half of my cookie?
Oh thanks, very kind, as are your words.
As I have to leave pretty soon I'll make some points clear right away

a) I used cirth control as I always do. We used condom, it seemed alright afterwards, not broken or anything
b) I wasn't in serious relationship, but I know the guy very well, it certainly wasn't any kind of "adventure"
c) I was 18
d) The guy promised to support me what ever I decide. Still I believe he was quite relieved I didn't want to keep it
e) The abortion was made in 9th week, it took about 10 minutes
f) during the same day there were 5 others who had an abortion. All others were married, had children, used birth control
actually all of them used the copperthinginyourwomb -system. I certainly will never trust that one
g) if I would get pregnant now (eventough I eat pills) I would keep the baby
BECAUSE
a) now I can afford it
b) I love to would-be father

Oh thanks, very kind, as are your words.
As I have to leave pretty soon I'll make some points clear right away

a) I used cirth control as I always do. We used condom, it seemed alright afterwards, not broken or anything
b) I wasn't in serious relationship, but I know the guy very well, it certainly wasn't any kind of "adventure"
c) I was 18
d) The guy promised to support me what ever I decide. Still I believe he was quite relieved I didn't want to keep it
e) The abortion was made in 9th week, it took about 10 minutes
f) during the same day there were 5 others who had an abortion. All others were married, had children, used birth control
actually all of them used the copperthinginyourwomb -system. I certainly will never trust that one
g) if I would get pregnant now (eventough I eat pills) I would keep the baby
BECAUSE
a) now I can afford it
b) I love to would-be father

Well, I think you made good use of your options. Thanks for the hint on that copper thing. I think that's information a lot more folks need. If we, as a whole, were more informed, I think there wouldn't be any need for these debates.

It's also weird how the only person that gets to choose is the mother...when she is only one of three people involved.

Depends on how you define "person." From a legal and scientific standpoint there are two people involved, and one of them has nothing to do with actually going through the pregnancy.

I also don't understand how the Fourth Amendment was ever, ever "interpreted" to support the right to have an abortion when it was very clearly designed to keep citizens of the USA from having police come into their house, place of business, or other property, and make a seizure of something there. I know that the key phrase is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," but why doesn't the child have that same right?

The embryo/fetus is not considered to be a child and thus has less rights than a child. Pretty simple to understand.

If the courts are going to make rights up, why don't they assign them equally? Because scientists can easily tell you that when a child begins to form, it has a completely different genetic code than the mother and in many cases even a different type of blood.

So do blood cells formed after a bone marrow transplant or organs that have been translated - either of these will have a completely different genetic code from the mother. This is not what defines a separate life.

Yes, it is contained within the mother, but it is no more a part of the mother than if a ringworm was in your skin (and, yes, babies are in a manner parasitic, although in a way that is not meant to be harmful).

And, at the point during which most abortions take place, it is biologically less of a separate life than a ringworm, since a ringworm actually meets all of the requirements to be considered an organism.

My main objections to abortion are not legal or scientific ones, but are based on my morals and overall paradigm.

Yep, me too. That's why we can't force them on other people.

Despite that, the legal quandaries of the issue are disturbing based on the scientific evidence (that is often misquoted by both sides) and on the foundation of the USA's law.

Not really, if you really understand the legal and scientific viewpoints.

f) during the same day there were 5 others who had an abortion. All others were married, had children, used birth control
actually all of them used the copperthinginyourwomb -system. I certainly will never trust that one

I believe you mean an IUD, just for reference.

I was a Pro-Choice believer when I was in my teens.


I was a pro-lifer in my teens.

I would say the same speeches like, "Women should have the right to decide for themselves - but I would not choose to do this for me." - Once I stepped back and examined exactly "WHY I WOULD NOT CHOOSE THIS FOR MYSELF" I evolved to a clearer way of thinking.

And I would quote rhetoric about murder, and yell and scream and throw temper tantrums on BBS's. Then I stepped back and examined my own life, and my own imperfections and decisions and came to a realization. I realized that every choice I ever made, good or bad, has made me who I am today. Without all the times I did something I fealt was wrong or right and turned out to be the opposite, or all the times I knowingly made a mistake that screwed me for years, I would not be in the wonderful position I am in today.

I also realized that if someone were standing over me the whole time, making my decisions for me, and in general being a judgemental arrogant ass, I would not only be a different person, I would be something less than human. Because a human being is capable of directing their own life, for good or ill, and to remove that ability to choose is worse than murder, it's slavery. An individual must be free to make their own moral choices, and live with the reality those choices create.

I'm asking anyone who has said the same thing to please just think for a moment about why you would not choose to do this and maybe you'll understand.

And, I am asking you to stop and think for a minute before you post drivel in 23 point bold font.

I believe you mean an IUD, just for reference.
Probably. I don't know the word for it, and if I translate it from my language it would be something like a spiral... Thought the copperblaablaa would be a more certain way to be understood

Despite that, the legal quandaries of the issue are disturbing based on the scientific evidence (that is often misquoted by both sides) and on the foundation of the USA's law.

Anyone else find it REALLY unsettling that someone thinks it's 'disturbing' for laws to be based on scientific evidence? And... on the foundation of the law? I mean seriously?

Can you imagine a land where all the laws were based soley on the moral opinions of the majority (or a vocal minority)?

*shudders*

I believe you mean an IUD, just for reference.

Thanks for that... I always mix up the letters (I was never told what they stand for, so I can't remember them in the right order).

Well, I think you made good use of your options. Thanks for the hint on that copper thing. I think that's information a lot more folks need. If we, as a whole, were more informed, I think there wouldn't be any need for these debates.

Other disadvantages of the IUD (Inter-uterine device)

Danger of uterine perforation on insertion and removal.
Increased menstrual blood loss.
Increased dysmenorrhea.
Increased risk of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) which can lead to infertility.
May increase the risk of vaginal infections.
NO protection from STDs.
May increase susceptibility to STDs during the first 3 months after insertion.
Inflammation alone may increase risk of infertility and blocked fallopian tubes.

Which is the main reason why IUD is such an unpopular choice in some countries... (the UK, for example).

Probably. I don't know the word for it, and if I translate it from my language it would be something like a spiral... Thought the copperblaablaa would be a more certain way to be understood

Where I come from, they call them "Copper 7's", because that is the most used shape...

I think we all understood what you meant though....

:)

Abortion should be legal until the fetus is 16, maybe 17, years old. It is the only way to be sure about what you are going to get.

Maybe I'm too emersed in the Buddhist ideals that all life is precious, but to consider your own privileges above life is just wrong.
Yeah, well, Buddha left his wife and child to go find ‘enlightenment’. Don’t give me a superior holier than thou nonsense. One of the reasons why women chose to have abortion is the lack of support from the father. Of course, I believe the father has as much right as the mother on this aspect if he is willing to take care of the child.

Pulling out doesn't work? Wanna explain that to me? If you wore a condom, and pulled out, that would practically eliminate the chance of pregnancy. But that's not the issue here. There are many ways to avoid pregnancy that just aren't being used by pro-abortionists.

I know a woman who got pregnant the first time she ever had sex. She was on the pill, they used a condom with spermicide and a sponge. She *still* got pregnant. No birth control is 100%.

None. I can barely support myself, much less a growing child. How many children have you had aborted that you could of given to a loving family? Fact is there are more familys wanting to adopt a child than there are children to be adopted. But pro-abortionists still kill their children instead of just giving it away. Funny how good people who want kids can't have them, but people who don't want kids can just murder them.

More families wanting to adopt than children to be adopted? Yeah, tell that to all the kids in foster care and orphanages. Stop pulling idiocy out of your ass.

Abortion should be legal until the fetus is 16, maybe 17, years old. It is the only way to be sure about what you are going to get.
And condoms are just pre-abortion :)

But now I got to go. I hope this discussion will be reasonable now without any flaming etc

But now I got to go. I hope this discussion will be reasonable now without any flaming etc

Hope springs eternal, but dies in the light of truth.

Of course, I believe the father has as much right as the mother on this aspect if he is willing to take care of the child.

How can a father have just as much right if he doesn't carry an equal share of the responsibility and dangers? As soon as a woman is allowed to put an embryo into a man and force him to let it grow there for nine months and then give birth so that she can raise a child, then the man can have equal rights.

It's not even just that there are more children *currently* than there are people willing to adopt... if you added to that number the number of fetuses *aborted*... well... I think the economy (and society) would collapse very very quickly.

I recall someone giving a number of abortions/year as... I think it was 50,000 (trying to play conservative with numbers... it may have been more). But even if it was only one tenth of that:

there aren't enough parents adopting the children in foster homes NOW... add more non-aborted children, and you'll simple have more homeless children

Hope springs eternal, but dies in the light of truth.

That was eloquent. Maybe I should start a "favorite quotes" thread sometime.

How can a father have just as much right if he doesn't carry an equal share of the responsibility and dangers? As soon as a woman is allowed to put an embryo into a man and force him to let it grow there for nine months and then give birth so that she can raise a child, then the man can have equal rights.

Not to quibble pointlessly, but surely equality will be better served by the fetus being taken out and raised outside of any other persons body?

If you put it in the man, you just get the same problem, in reverse :p

(I did understand your point, and I know you already know my point... just figured I'd point it out because... well, because it's worth pointing out?)

You won't listen to the facts, because you make this issue about free choice and anything I offer becomes an attack. It's talking to someone that's saying "you can't tell me what to do" - when faced with someone who refuses to see what they're doing is wrong, I can only offer the "sterilize them" reply.
Pro-choice = "you may pursue an abortion if you feel you need to, but consider all options".
Pro-life = "you may not have an abortion at all" (maybe with a 'rape' caveat for the less extreme among them).

When we're talking about people whose lives are already turned upside down (i.e. not those who have avoided pregnancy and not those whose pregnancies were planned or at least welcomed) I think it's important that the unfortunates who might feel the need to pursue such drastic methods have the support required to make a proper decision and the ability to undertake either course of action.

Abortion may not be 'right', but it isn't necessarily 'wrong'. It's a judgement issue based on circumstances, as to whether to bear the child or not, and the mother often has the most to lose by either decision.

Sterlisation is a similarly restrictive practice (as denial of abortion) and while it can be reversed it's perhaps better to do once the person concerned decides that they have completed their reproductive duty in whatever life they have led and that they'd now like to remove that factor.

Strictly, pro-lifers should be campaigning for mandatory sterilisation of all children (male and female) upon or prior to encountering puberty. It would then need reversing later on in life on production of suitably marriage certification, naturally...
(Well, except that this might be seen as encouraging sex before marriage.)

Also if you have read with my other posts I pointed out a middle ground between this issue - I want to see someone who wants to have an abortion to have a civil court decide for them BECAUSE it grants the oppurtunity for a GAURDIAN AD LITEM to speak for the one party that cannot speak for themselves.
I would not object too much to such a process, in general, but we do hear enough about women who have been raped (and obviously wronged against) fearing going in frot of a jury. How much worse will it be where the woman (or girl) is not a victim of crime but just of circumstance, and what's more in an activity that is frowned upon by the community (but happens anyway, life being as it is, and yetwithout the support of the community w.r.t. contraception education, etc).

I don't see this as an arguement against your rights, I see this as an arguenment that the unborn child NEEDS rights too. You're calling me a moron because I want to save a child. I'm calling you a moron because you justify these actions by declaring the fetus isn't a baby until it is out of the womb.
I wouldn't call anyone a moron. You're not a moron (I assume you have a mental age of greater than 12) and you should not call any of us a moron.

And a fetus isn't a baby.

Prior to conception you have gametes (one each of egg and sperm, together with a few million sperm that aren't as lucky).
Upon conception you get a zygote (single fertilised egg).
You then progress to an embryo (multi-cellular entity prior to around 8 weeks)
Then it is a fetus up until birth.
Upon birth it officially becomes a baby.
(I needn't continue with the terms toddler, child, teenager, young-adult, etc, should I?)

Abortion is almost always performed upon the pre-fetal stages, prior to significant development of nerve tissue (the autonomous functions come first, naturally, conciousness is tricky to measure but the brain structures we associate with conciousness do not exist until later). Even body-shape is rather rudimentary until firmly out of the embryonic stage, but once it starts to 'look' like a baby people will often call it that. This is wrong and seems to be sometimes deliberately used by the anti-choicers as emotional blackmail, though also accidentally used by all others (including pro-choicers) because it's a 'common' term.

There isn't much difference between a baby one minute after birth and a fetus one minute before, but as abortion of live fetuses (as opposed to emergency extractions because of severe health risks to the mother) are proscribed against anywhere near that stage then that isn't a point worth arguing over.

12 weeks seems to be (if you look at proper and unbiased information on the development of the embryo and fetus) a reasonably good point to limit abortions at. One month for the mother to realise she's pregnant another month to look into the options and make the decisions she needs to make and a little leeway to deal with things such as contacting the potential father, actually discovering the disruption in an irregular period cycle, dealing with any difficulties in making descrete medical appointments in particular social setting and climates and looking at the future prospects that mother and child might encounter.

Not to quibble pointlessly, but surely equality will be better served by the fetus being taken out and raised outside of any other persons body?

If you put it in the man, you just get the same problem, in reverse :p

(I did understand your point, and I know you already know my point... just figured I'd point it out because... well, because it's worth pointing out?)

Now, THAT is a brilliant idea. Of course, I think there'd be a huge, HUGE population boom... if it wasn't hard, everyone would be able to do it. Of course, raising them is hard, but it comes after the ordeal of pregnancy and delivery. I advocate either party being able to DECIDE to bear the child or either party being able to decide to have the fetus gestated independent of the body... *nods*

I was a Pro-Choice believer when I was in my teens.

I would say the same speeches like, "Women should have the right to decide for themselves - but I would not choose to do this for me." - Once I stepped back and examined exactly "WHY I WOULD NOT CHOOSE THIS FOR MYSELF" I evolved to a clearer way of thinking.

I'm asking anyone who has said the same thing to please just think for a moment about why you would not choose to do this and maybe you'll understand.
And how does that give you or anyone the right to decide what others must choose for themselves?

And how does that give you or anyone the right to decide what others must choose for themselves?

You forget - he's pro-life.

Making the moral decisions for others is a basic tenant in the whole stance (you simply cannot be pro-life and NOT be impinging on others right to choose... otherwise you'd be pro-choice :p)

And how does that give you or anyone the right to decide what others must choose for themselves?

Exactly. Precisely. Concisely.

I still have some of that cookie left, if you want some...

:)

You forget - he's pro-life.

Making the moral decisions for others is a basic tenant in the whole stance (you simply cannot be pro-life and NOT be impinging on others right to choose... otherwise you'd be pro-choice :p)

You know, I was going to try to argue this, just because it seems unfair and stereotypical... but then I thought about it...

If your platform is that no-one has the right to abort, and you pursue that policy actively... then you really do have to impinge on other's choices...

So, I guess you're right...

Maybe someone who just feels that abortion is wrong, and WANTS others to avoid it, but leaves them to their own devices.... no, I guess that's Pro-Choice...

How about someone who feels that abortion is wrong, but believes it is impossible to determine if that CHOICE should be available? A sort of Abortion-Agnostic???

I believe you mean an IUD, just for reference.Probably. I don't know the word for it, and if I translate it from my language it would be something like a spiral... Thought the copperblaablaa would be a more certain way to be understood

Didn't actually know it was copper myself (as a male never needed to find out, to be honest). IUD = Intra-Uterine Device (give or take a speeling mistoke). One English term for it is 'the coil' (very like 'spiral' in meaning).

I've never really understood how they work. Though I could always look it up, I suppose, I've suspected it's either:
a) A foreign substance in the body, disrupts the natural processes
b) 'Opens up' the uterine void and allows eggs to progress more quickly through to the cervix without implantation.

How they came up with the idea is beyond me.

I've heard the stories about IUDs not working and the child coming out into the world grasping the device and apparently grinning, but I suspect some of that is poetic license. I suspect that someone who becomes pregnant despite an IUD should probably have it removed at the earliest opportunity, though, in case it causes complications in the pregnancy (should the choice be to continue regardless) but IANAGynacologist...

You know, I was going to try to argue this, just because it seems unfair and stereotypical... but then I thought about it...

If your platform is that no-one has the right to abort, and you pursue that policy actively... then you really do have to impinge on other's choices...

So, I guess you're right...

Maybe someone who just feels that abortion is wrong, and WANTS others to avoid it, but leaves them to their own devices.... no, I guess that's Pro-Choice...

How about someone who feels that abortion is wrong, but believes it is impossible to determine if that CHOICE should be available? A sort of Abortion-Agnostic???

If they don't believe the option should be removed legally, they're pro-choice, even if they hate the idea of abortion. If they think it should be removed as a legal option, surely they can only be anti-abortion?

I think the distinction here has to be that not all pro-lifers are vocal (trying to 'convert' others to the pro-life stance), and some that consider themselves pro-life are actually pro-choice (those that don't want it to be illegal, but are against it).

http://www.geocities.com/deardocgreen/iud.htm
http://www.addenbrookes.org.uk/shac/contracept/iud.html
http://www.nap.edu/books/030905494X/html/20.html
http://www.health-nexus.com/intrauterine_device-iud1.htm

I can do a net search now that I know what order of the letters :D

Didn't actually know it was copper myself (as a male never needed to find out, to be honest). IUD = Intra-Uterine Device (give or take a speeling mistoke). One English term for it is 'the coil' (very like 'spiral' in meaning).

I've never really understood how they work. Though I could always look it up, I suppose, I've suspected it's either:
a) A foreign substance in the body, disrupts the natural processes
b) 'Opens up' the uterine void and allows eggs to progress more quickly through to the cervix without implantation.

How they came up with the idea is beyond me.

I've heard the stories about IUDs not working and the child coming out into the world grasping the device and apparently grinning, but I suspect some of that is poetic license. I suspect that someone who becomes pregnant despite an IUD should probably have it removed at the earliest opportunity, though, in case it causes complications in the pregnancy (should the choice be to continue regardless) but IANAGynacologist...

I think they basically work by convincing the body that it has something inside it that needs 'shedding'... which the uterus tries to do, but obviously can't. This 'shedding' would prevent an egg from being able to implant, hence the contraceptive effect (although not entirely reliable).

Also, I seem to remember that copper stops the sperm from being able to pass through the uterus into the fallopian tubes, and seems to chemically reduce the abilities of sperms to fertilise eggs.

Interestingly, in light of your last sentence... the coil (copper 7, IUD) is actually used as an emergency contraceptive... (That's not one they talk about much)...

"You can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse by having a copper IUD inserted. Within one week of unprotected intercourse, copper IUDs can be used as Emergency Contraception."

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/iudinfo.htm

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.


That is just silly. I personally would not have 16 children. My husband's grandparents did. I think it was ok for them to have 16 children, even though I'll pass. That makes me a hypocrit? I would never become a race car driver, or stunt driver. I am perfectly ok with people who WOULD choose those careers. This is hypocritical?

People can be politically pro-choice and personally choose to be anti-abortion for themselves. It does not require hypocracy. All it requires is the ability to understand that "gee whiz...I may not be the only person in the universe! Other people may have circumstances I don't understand! They may even have different values, morals, and religious beliefs! Maybe there are some things I actually don't know!"

How they came up with the idea is beyond me.


Okay... a quick venture into what may turn out to be urban myth, here...

I can't remember where I heard it, and it was a long time ago, but it might explain a possible origin of IUDs.

This is how the story went: Desert Nomads have been crossing deserts (as they would) for a long time now... and, one of the things you don't want when crossing a desert is baby camels in your mommy camels... it would be a drain on natural resources... Now, I think everyone has heard the stories about putting hot-peppers 'in' horses to make them run faster, or burrs under saddles, or even just old-fashioned spurs... well, the way I hear it, these desert nomads would take a handful of stones, and put them 'in' the girl camel... I think they were working on the idea of a baby camel can't be where the stones are taking up space...

So, from stones in camels to copper in clinics...

NOTE: This is so unlike me. No sources. No concrete facts. Not even something I can claim as just my opinion. I am experiencing the heady lifestyle of the unsubstantiated poster!!!!!

NOTE: This is so unlike me. No sources. No concrete facts. Not even something I can claim as just my opinion. I am experiencing the heady lifestyle of the unsubstantiated poster!!!!!

How's it feel? I always wondered... does it take less time not to research? Is that where the tendency comes from?

Seems like you guys have adequately explained yourself. And frankly, I have a few more points to bring up:

Sure, there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, and there are far, far fewer heterosexual couples wanting to adopt. But by allowing gay couples to adopt (because very few psychologists who are not religious (and the ones who are religous... are a little biased) believe that no psychological damage will occur - aside from the taunting and teasing from children of intolerant people) will increase the number of loving, willing parents. I mean, heterosexual couples can choose to have a kid at any time. Gay or lesbian couples obviously don't have that choice. And in quite a few states, they don't have the choice of adopting, either. (I live in Canada, and we allow marriage, let alone adoption.) But yeah, the people who are screaming about 'omg abortions are t3h bad' tend to be the ones that scream 'fagg0tz r goin 2 go 2 hell' - or so I've noticed.


Artificial wombs have already been implanted in men in the UK (I believe I read something about that a few years back). Attached to the liver. It was an experiment to see if it could be done, and guess what? It was successful in over 3/4 of the cases, if I remember correctly. Oh my goodness, preggers men in the UK? What will they come up with next? (I was unable to find a link, but I distinctly remember it.)

Lets see... Um. How about artificial, alternative, out-of-the-parents' bodies wombs? Oh, right. Heading there already. According to one scientist, it should happen 'within a few years', and in the scientific community that either means 'we're close to a breakthrough' or 'well, definitely sometime this decade'.

Wombs in men / laboratory wombs (analysis of possiblities) > http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/3/rosen.htm
Laboratory wombs (in development) > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

But yeah, we all know it won't be long before a new clone of this topic is brought up by some other generally ignorant person...

Interesting to note that the more educated a person is, they're:
a) less likely to believe in the Christian God.
b) more likely to support gay marriage.
c) less likely to have children before they can support them.
d) more likely to be pro-choice.
e) less likely to have a brood of children (4+)

Observations that I've made, and may not be worth two shakes of a rat's tail, but I mean, hey. Something to think about, at least.

Of course, if we didn't love our own children, when they drive us crazy we might just kill them (speaking as a father of 5 stepchildren, and rhetorically of course)...

besides, those 11 year olds are awfully hard to catch with a coathanger (you people need to lighten up a little)

Seriously though... the basic problem is this... one side has the absolute conviction that they have a uniquely correct morality and that the other side is absolutely wrong.... and so does the other side...

in real life though, its never that simple.....

So think of it like this...you are a real person.. under what conditions would you feel that in your heart you were right to end the life of an unborn human.... be it 24 hours old, be it 2 weeks along, be it 4 months along or whatever.

What does your heart say to you. Unless you have had to make this decision, one way or the other.... than what right do you have to judge others? Or for that matter, decide for them?

So make yourself a little checklist of all the situations you can think of when a mother would likely choose to have an abortion. Where on that list are you? At what point can you live with the decision to have an abortion, and when can you no longer live with it. And I mean live with it not just at that time, but 10 years, 20 years, or even 40 years later.

Than decide if you believe the Zealots on either side speak for you.

The trouble is there are only zealots on one side of the debate, really. Maybe I've skipped some posts, but I do not see anyone advocating forced abortions. There are three sides to this entire debate:

1) Pro-life = Abortion is murder and should be banned (some allowing for illogical but popular exceptions...rape, incest, safety of mom, etc.) The arguments for this position are mainly subjective morality issues and religious issues, although there are indeed some pro-lifers coming at it from a scientific angle.

2) Pro-choice = Abortion is a decision best left to a woman and her personal support system (her family, friends, doctors, etc etc). The arguments for this position is that subjective morality and religious dogma should not be imposed on others. Let the person or people involved choose based on their own beliefs. The entire point of the pro-choice argument (if you can even call it an argument) is that it is up to the individuals to decide whether abortion is right or wrong.

3) The people actually faced with the decision. These are individuals who ultimately decide based upon their own values and morals.

That was eloquent. Maybe I should start a "favorite quotes" thread sometime.

Thank you.

How's it feel? I always wondered... does it take less time not to research? Is that where the tendency comes from?

It took a lot less time, actually... I mean, most of the subjects I debate, I know a fair amount about anyway, so I usually have some links close to hand about the subject, or some passages saved onto my hard-drive...

Normally, when I go into unfamiliar territory, I research first... or go on a research trawl to make sure what I THINK is true IS TRUE... but this time...

I think the tendency usually comes from people knowing that the evidence won't back up their argument... or the fact that they are happy debate from a position of ignorance.

For me, it's too 'uncomfortable', though... knowing that, at any moment, someone could come along and say, "Actually, the truth is..." (and I don't like that feeling)... but I guess it doesn't bother a lot of people....

Seems like you guys have adequately explained yourself. And frankly, I have a few more points to bring up:

Sure, there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, and there are far, far fewer heterosexual couples wanting to adopt. But by allowing gay couples to adopt (because very few psychologists who are not religious (and the ones who are religous... are a little biased) believe that no psychological damage will occur - aside from the taunting and teasing from children of intolerant people) will increase the number of loving, willing parents. I mean, heterosexual couples can choose to have a kid at any time. Gay or lesbian couples obviously don't have that choice. And in quite a few states, they don't have the choice of adopting, either. (I live in Canada, and we allow marriage, let alone adoption.) But yeah, the people who are screaming about 'omg abortions are t3h bad' tend to be the ones that scream 'fagg0tz r goin 2 go 2 hell' - or so I've noticed.

Hear, hear!!

For me, it's too 'uncomfortable', though... knowing that, at any moment, someone could come along and say, "Actually, the truth is..." (and I don't like that feeling)... but I guess it doesn't bother a lot of people....

I'm with you... I grew up a little blonde girl and had to fight against the stereotypes.

I'm all about pro-choice. Women should have absolute control over their body, leave the government and religion out of it!

That being said, let women have control over their body, but make abortion illegal. You all act like pregnancy is unpreventable and pretend abortion is the only solution (abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry fueled by the lies of the "doctors" who profit from it). Women should control their bodies: use a condom, pull out, stop having sex. If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.


Oh absolutely! Women should stop getting eachother pregnant immediately! Oh wait...

Seriously though, in a perfect utopia women would not have sex unless and until they are in a commited, stable, relationship, with the economic means to support any child they might produce. In a perfect world MEN would not have sex unless or until they are in a commited, stable, relationship, with the economic means to support any child they might produce. Because the only perfect form of birth control is not having sex. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world. In fact its not even close.

As an idividual, I personally agree with controlling my own actions and dealing with the results. But as a member of society I know that it takes two people to have sex (err well you know what I mean). TWO people to make a baby. Yet, only one person to carry the baby to term. ONE person to deliver the baby (contrary to popular myth there are many health risks involved carrying and delivering a child so this IS a big deal). If that were not unbalanced enough, in todays world it often leaves only ONE person to raise and sustain the baby.

And you talk about taking responsibility?!?! Perhaps you are a responsible person and would own up to your half of a baby equation. I'll assume you are. Not all men do. Not all men refuse to pressure or cajole their partners into sex. Not all men say "Oh I'm flattered but we should wait" when their partner wants to have sex with them. Not all men who take part in creating a pregnancy look after their pregnant partner's emotional, physical, and financial well being while she is carying HIS child. Not all men who take part in creating a pregnancy decide to commit to that baby emotionally and financially for life. If all men did these things I would be right there with ya telling women to get with the program and be more responsible.

I'm with you... I grew up a little blonde girl and had to fight against the stereotypes.

I was in a similar boat... I grew up blonde, but tall and, unfortunately a lot smarter than most of my schoolmates.

As a consequence, I got in fights... a lot of fights... every day till I was about 16.

Stereotypes: clever means 'weak'. tall means 'wants to fight'.

Maybe it's why I despise stereotypes now...

I am very pro-life and am against abortion (especially when it is used as some form of contraception). However, I think there should be exceptions. I know it is hypocritical to say this, but I think in the case of rape, abortion should be allowed. We cannot expect a victim of rape to carry her baby to full term.

But why can't we? It's not the baby's fault the woman got raped? If you believe abortion is horrific and a murderous act, how can you justify it for the "rape baby?"

I know you admitted it was hypocritcal and also stated later you were pro-choice, etc. So I'm not trying to pick at you.

I just really would like to understand this. I'm pro-choice, politically and anti-abortion personally, for me. Even though I support a woman's right to choose, I can relate to and understand someone who thinks abortion is absolutely wrong under ANY circumstance. (My issue with them is insisting everyone should live by their ideals)

But as soon as a pro-life person starts talking about exceptions, I get really confused. Those exceptions, to me, are not about saving babys but about controling women. It's hard to explain what I mean by that but I'll give it a whirl. Picture a pro-life with exceptions world:

Bob and Sue have sex, Sue gets pregnant. Bob does not want anything to do with the baby, but thinks all babys should be born no matter what. Sue does not want to have a baby but she has no choice. Bob waves goodbye. Sue suffers, Bob gets to forget any of it happened.

Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs Smith are living their lives happily pro-life, until one day Mrs Smith gets raped. She gets pregnant and really hates the idea of an abortion, she thinks all life is sacred. To her a baby is precious no matter how concieved. Mr. Smith is aghast and refuses to raise a baby he didn't father, a reminder of his failure to protect his WIFE, no less. (FYI to men, it would not be your fault if your partner is victimized, but unfortunately many men take this on themselves) To hell with life! While Mrs Smith technically can choose to keep the baby, how likely is she to do so under extreme pressure from Mr. Smith, in her current mental state? Mrs Smith has the abortion to hold her family together. Mrs Smith suffers, Mr Smith gets to pretend nothing ever happened.

These are obviously extreme examples. But they could and actually DO happen. When you start putting exceptions into the ban-abortion equation, what you are then doing is basically telling a woman which babys should matter to her. Scarey, in my opinion.

But why can't we? It's not the baby's fault the woman got raped? If you believe abortion is horrific and a murderous act, how can you justify it for the "rape baby?"

I know you admitted it was hypocritcal and also stated later you were pro-choice, etc. So I'm not trying to pick at you.

I just really would like to understand this. I'm pro-choice, politically and anti-abortion personally, for me. Even though I support a woman's right to choose, I can relate to and understand someone who thinks abortion is absolutely wrong under ANY circumstance. (My issue with them is insisting everyone should live by their ideals)

But as soon as a pro-life person starts talking about exceptions, I get really confused. Those exceptions, to me, are not about saving babys but about controling women. It's hard to explain what I mean by that but I'll give it a whirl. Picture a pro-life with exceptions world:

Bob and Sue have sex, Sue gets pregnant. Bob does not want anything to do with the baby, but thinks all babys should be born no matter what. Sue does not want to have a baby but she has no choice. Bob waves goodbye. Sue suffers, Bob gets to forget any of it happened.

Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs Smith are living their lives happily pro-life, until one day Mrs Smith gets raped. She gets pregnant and really hates the idea of an abortion, she thinks all life is sacred. To her a baby is precious no matter how concieved. Mr. Smith is aghast and refuses to raise a baby he didn't father, a reminder of his failure to protect his WIFE, no less. (FYI to men, it would not be your fault if your partner is victimized, but unfortunately many men take this on themselves) To hell with life! While Mrs Smith technically can choose to keep the baby, how likely is she to do so under extreme pressure from Mr. Smith, in her current mental state? Mrs Smith has the abortion to hold her family together. Mrs Smith suffers, Mr Smith gets to pretend nothing ever happened.

These are obviously extreme examples. But they could and actually DO happen. When you start putting exceptions into the ban-abortion equation, what you are then doing is basically telling a woman which babys should matter to her. Scarey, in my opinion.

And the very reason WHY I argue it's all about exerting control... and why I don't think people should be allowing their PERSONAL opinions to influence what OTHER PEOPLE will be able to do in THEIR PERSONAL lives.

okay, we all understand that if the mother was of her own free will she can't kill the kid but has to give birth to that child she has because she couldn't bother to keep her pants zipped. her problem let her suffer. but we must all understand that if the mother was forced to do it then she can have the choice. If she was raped let her kill the kid. I see no problem here.

okay, we all understand that if the mother was of her own free will she can't kill the kid but has to give birth to that child she has because she couldn't bother to keep her pants zipped. her problem let her suffer. but we must all understand that if the mother was forced to do it then she can have the choice. If she was raped let her kill the kid. I see no problem here.
^This is the mentality that I cannot understand, this callousness and disregard for human life. :(

Well, I am not one of those people. I believe the child is alive and human, and not a "parasite", because a parasite is an invading foreign body, whereas the child is a part of its mother. I am perfectly capable of imagining a child growing inside of me. It doesn't change at all the way I feel about the right to choose. I too adhere to the ideal that "that all life is precious", but that doesn't stop me from having a steak and potato dinner with a salad on the side. Life feeds on life. That's life.

How can the "child" be both alive and human yet, at the same time, be a part of its mother? Unless you mean living human tissue, like an arm? But it is either a seperate living human being that is dwelling inside of and feeding off the mother (parasite is a horrid word for this in my opinion but I guess accurate) OR it's a part of the mother herself just as an arm or leg might be. It cannot be both.

okay, we all understand that if the mother was of her own free will she can't kill the kid but has to give birth to that child she has because she couldn't bother to keep her pants zipped. her problem let her suffer. but we must all understand that if the mother was forced to do it then she can have the choice. If she was raped let her kill the kid. I see no problem here.

I disagree.

You apportion all of the blame on the woman, what is this? You are not the first person today to suggest that women are somehow impregnating themselves...

Why should SHE keep her pants zipped? Just because she is the one who gets pregnant? You realise, of course, that this is totally double standards.
And, of course... there is FORCED and then there is 'forced'...

It amazes me that, when the subject turns to babies (even as far removed from THAT as abortion is)... so many men turn it into a 'women's issue'.

I guess it's because most of them were only 'involved' for about 2 minutes....

How can the "child" be both alive and human yet, at the same time, be a part of its mother? Unless you mean living human tissue, like an arm?
Yes. The mother is alive and human, it is a part of the mother, and so is also alive and human (made of living human cells).

But it is either a seperate living human being that is dwelling inside of and feeding off the mother (parasite is a horrid word for this in my opinion but I guess accurate) OR it's a part of the mother herself just as an arm or leg might be. It cannot be both.
It is not separate until it has separated.

I believe that everyone should have the legal right to abortion. Many of the strong emotions that people have about abortion are mostly religious in nature. For those in the United States, our constitution clearly states that there is to be a separation of church and state. My own personal values would prevent me from having an abortion but I have no right to push those values upon another. Often it is a person's individual circumstances that also cause them to decide whether they feel that they need an abortion.

I myself have experienced an unplanned pregnancy. I was using birth control responsibly, but there is no such thing birth control that is 100% effective. Because I was 28 years old, I was married, I was in a loving relationship, and I was financially stable with good medical benefits, I decided to keep the baby. My son is now 10 months old and I thank God every day that he is in my life. Had I been single or in an abusive relationship and in a poor economic situation, I may have chose differently. Adoption is always an alternative abortion, but not all women can bear the emotional, financial, or physical burden of pregnancy. Everyone should have the right to make a choice about something that has life-long consequences.

LOL thanks for reading... You don't need to read between the lines, but just try to read the exact quotes. I see that your biggest problem is viewing the birth of a child as a negative one. Women having abortions as birth control needs to stop - if you are too ignorant to understand how the reproductive system works then we need to sterilize these morons. I've met too many women in my life that just do not need to have kids, when they walk into the doctor's office for their 4th & 5th abortion someone should be telling them to "tie that shit up".

I wonder what that says about the men having sex with these women?

For the record, if a woman has had 5 abortions, I have to wonder if she is mentally stable or in an abusive/controlling relationship with a man who could even be forcing her to have abortions. Reproductive organs in the hands of people who are unbalanced can be deadly. But so can garden rakes. We don't pass laws for "normal" people based on the actions of people with major issues.

I was a Pro-Choice believer when I was in my teens.

I would say the same speeches like, "Women should have the right to decide for themselves - but I would not choose to do this for me." - Once I stepped back and examined exactly "WHY I WOULD NOT CHOOSE THIS FOR MYSELF" I evolved to a clearer way of thinking.

I'm asking anyone who has said the same thing to please just think for a moment about why you would not choose to do this and maybe you'll understand.

OK...thinking... because of my religious upbringing and my morality (heavily influenced by that religion), I feel it (abortion) would be wrong for me. If put into a particularly bad life situation (being raped, faced with dying myself or something else I cannot currently imagine) I might do it anyway. But I know myself and know I would most likely feel guity about it no matter the circumstance.

But my guilt, my morals, and certainly not my relgious dogma have absolutely any bearing on what other people should do. I would no more support a legal ban on all abortions than I would a legal requirement to believe in God.

I'm doing my best to educate you and it's all been for free. You think since it's so difficult to have a child when you don't want one, that the easiest solutuion is to terminate it's life. How am I suppossed to educate you on how wrong that is?

1) I doubt very many women OR even men (yes many men take part in this choice) find the solution of abortion easy.

2) Have you ever carried a baby to term? Have you ever given birth? Ever have an emergency C-section? (oh you'd love that one if you haven't) Have you ever gone into seizures from pregnancy induced toxemia? (Neither have I but my sister-in-law almost died) What exactly makes you qualified to judge the ease or difficulty in having a baby? I'm just curious.

I gave up a LOT of my life for my two kids. I continue to give a lot up. I dealt with everything from a bad (really bad) first marriage, poverty, physical and mental pain, loss of educational opportunity, etc etc. I would not change a thing. I know what my children have cost me and what they have given me. But I tell another woman what is right for her.

okay, we all understand that if the mother was of her own free will she can't kill the kid but has to give birth to that child she has because she couldn't bother to keep her pants zipped. her problem let her suffer. but we must all understand that if the mother was forced to do it then she can have the choice. If she was raped let her kill the kid. I see no problem here.

Could you repeat that please?

The mother has to go through 9 months of emotional rollercoaster, risk to her own health and life, possible loss of livlihood, and either go through the trauma/hastle of adoption or keep/support a kid she never wanted in the first place because 'she couldn't keep her pants zipped'? So a mistake or an accident that she only shares part of the blame for (because last I checked us guys have to unzip too) that took all of maybe an hour to make could potentionally ruin her life and you're okay with this?

That's like saying, two people were pulled over for speeding, but because one of them happens to be male, he only has to pay a quick fine, while the woman has to go through court, be emotionally berated, and when found guilty gets the pleasure of life in prison.

The Christian Right, Bastions of love an charity, but only when you are as perfect as they perceive themselves to be.

I'll never understand how you can live with yourselves.

okay, we all understand that if the mother was of her own free will she can't kill the kid but has to give birth to that child she has because she couldn't bother to keep her pants zipped. her problem let her suffer. but we must all understand that if the mother was forced to do it then she can have the choice. If she was raped let her kill the kid. I see no problem here.

What happens to the two men who could not keep their pants zipped? Oh that's right nothing.

That still does not answer the question of why the "rape-baby" deserves to die and the "guy who won't own up to his half of the pregnancy responsibility-baby" (well we are generalizing now aren't we) is a precious life to be saved at all costs!

Is it the DNA? Both men are bad and cannot control their sexual impulses or be responsible so that cannot be it. Both "children" are equal in innocence! The only way to justify a rape exception is to make the debate not about the viability of a fetus but about the behavior of the mother. What about the behavior of the father?! Maybe the key to this entire issue is for all men who have consensual sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy should be put in prison for 18 years and nine months.

Yes. The mother is alive and human, it is a part of the mother, and so is also alive and human (made of living human cells).


It is not separate until it has separated.

So as a part of the mother do you feel the mother has a choice of what to do about it?

So as a part of the mother do you feel the mother has a choice of what to do about it?
Yes. I am for choice and against abortions, and I fully believe in allowing people to make their own mistakes. It's part of what makes us human, what makes us grow spiritually.

I have notice a trend in this and other abortion discussions to totally disregard the moment of birth as being of any significance. This moment has great significance, both legally, physically and spiritually. We celebrate the day of birth every year, it is one of our most fundamental anniversaries. In every sense of the word, the moment we are born is the moment our lives as individuals begin.

I was in a similar boat... I grew up blonde, but tall and, unfortunately a lot smarter than most of my schoolmates.

As a consequence, I got in fights... a lot of fights... every day till I was about 16.

Stereotypes: clever means 'weak'. tall means 'wants to fight'.

Maybe it's why I despise stereotypes now...

I was tiny and blonde (and also unfortunately smarter than my classmates). I didn't get into fights 'cause I think everyone was afraid to break me. Stereotypes are not cool... thing is, we all need a schema to define something so we can reference it easily (as the mind goes, that is... of course, that's educational lingo probably nobody cares about).

None. I can barely support myself, much less a growing child. How many children have you had aborted that you could of given to a loving family? Fact is there are more familys wanting to adopt a child than there are children to be adopted. But pro-abortionists still kill their children instead of just giving it away. Funny how good people who want kids can't have them, but people who don't want kids can just murder them.




1st, I want to point out that it is true there are a lot of people waiting to adopt. Too bad 98% of them are looking for perfect, healthy, white newborns. Don't believe me? Check out the number of children waiting for homes who have special needs or are a minority race.


2nd, if we are going to determine by law that a fetus is a life, then every positive pregnancy test deserves a social security number for tax purposes, death benefits should the mother miscarry, and legal protection from its own carrier. Surely you don't mind paying the millions upon millions of tax dollars it will take in order to make sure a mother is not abusing alcohol or doing anything else that could potentially hurt this "life"


You see where this is going. It is not as simple as "just put the child up for adoption" that a lot of anti-choice people spout.

I have two beautiful children with plans to adopt in the near future. I don't believe myself capable of handling an abortion. The difference is that I have never found myself in a position where my options were so limited.

okay, we all understand that if the mother was of her own free will she can't kill the kid but has to give birth to that child she has because she couldn't bother to keep her pants zipped. ~edit~

Wow... seems like there's more than one pair of pants we should be worrying about here.

It's about a selfish attitude that harms an innocent life. Your Pro Choice arguement has always been that it's about the woman's right, most abortionists believe that the child is nothing more than a parasite - hence my earlier statements.

I see these women placing such a greater effort upon their own personal rights that they are unable to imagine that there is actually a child growing inside them. Maybe I'm too emersed in the Buddhist ideals that all life is precious, but to consider your own privileges above life is just wrong.

No offence J0eg0d, but I find your claim to be "immersed in the Buddhist ideals" to ring more than a little hollow. While it's certainly true that Buddhism in general frowns upon the practice of abortion most modern Buddhists acknowledge that there are circumstances where abortion is,as most of the pro-choice people have been pointing out,"a necessary evil".

I also find it interesting that on one hand you would presume to preach Buddhist tenets regarding sanctity of life, and on the on the other, you advocate sterilization of those who you personally deem unfit for motherhood. How can you criticise those who are pro-choice, and then claim that permanently destroying a woman's means of creating life is somehow moral. That smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Here's a newsflash for you: People do actually change over time - someone who might be irresponsible or mired in emotional, social, or addiction problems might be completely different 10 years later. Of course, they might not, but who the hell are you to decide. That kind of comment smacks of Eugenics and National Socialism, not Buddhism.

Finally, While the first precept of Buddhism is that all life is sacred, another key part of that philosophy is karma. Karma (literally, 'action') as a concept does not in itself denote good or evil, but a rather a result of actions in word, thought, and deed. It could be argued that if a fetus will develop into a child with a miserable, grim and painful life ahead of it because its parents cannot or will not afford to raise it, then bringing that child to term is karma with a deeply negative result.

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

pro-abortion implies that one doesn't think a woman should have a choice in the matter, she's pregnant and must abort.

pro-choice means that a woman can choose.

personally, i know that if i get pregnant when i'm financancially stable and in a commited relationship (marriage preferably) then chances are good that i'll see it through (unless i'd done something before knowing that i'm pregnant i.e. go drinking). i want to reproduce eventually and in the right circumstances, then chances are i'd go for it.

That being said, let women have control over their body, but make abortion illegal. You all act like pregnancy is unpreventable and pretend abortion is the only solution (abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry fueled by the lies of the "doctors" who profit from it). Women should control their bodies: use a condom, pull out, stop having sex. If you can't control yourself that much, consider adoption, or *gasp* dealing with your actions! Don't kill your child.

1. contraception isn't perfect. considering you suggest pulling out which is something a man does, a woman can't pull out, and also, is completely ineffective for birth control.
2. having an abortion is dealing with your actions.
3. it's not a child until it leaves the womb.

Maybe I'm too emersed in the Buddhist ideals that all life is precious, but to consider your own privileges above life is just wrong.

but then the soul will just get born into another body, reincarnation and all that good stuff.

plus one of the main tennants of buddhism is that existence is suffering, so really, you're saving this potential being some suffering, or at least postponing it.

I've met too many women in my life that just do not need to have kids, when they walk into the doctor's office for their 4th & 5th abortion someone should be telling them to "tie that shit up".

do you actually personally know a single woman who has had an abortion?

i'd wager dollars to doughnuts that you don't know anyone who has ever been in such a position.

Abortion is a whole lot worse on your body than pregnancy. Abortion is known to cause breast cancer, extreme depression, oh, and death in at least one person every time.

wtf? you know making things up doesn't help your point any.

Yes. I am for choice and against abortions, and I fully believe in allowing people to make their own mistakes. It's part of what makes us human, what makes us grow spiritually.

I have notice a trend in this and other abortion discussions to totally disregard the moment of birth as being of any significance. This moment has great significance, both legally, physically and spiritually. We celebrate the day of birth every year, it is one of our most fundamental anniversaries. In every sense of the word, the moment we are born is the moment our lives as individuals begin.

Thanks much for clarifying. I was having trouble understanding what you were getting at. I think I understand it now. :)

I am so sick of pro-lifers showing dead fetuses and screaming foul. Why don't you look up some butchered cattle and how in-humane that is....will you stop eating meat? How about some pictures of Iraqi children who have their arms and legs blown off. Will you still vote for Bush? How about some pictures of innocent shooting victims. Will you outlaw guns? How about some pictures of my hairy, unclean ass. Will you go straight?

Pictures are pictures, facts are facts. Fact is that the dead fetus was never aware of its existence....therefore, it wouldn't have cared that it ended up as chop liver on some C-grade doctors floor. Monkeys look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Iraqi's look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Murderers look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from sending 10,000 volts of electricity through them and watching them smoke.

Please....you know what....just forget it. You're helpless

Perhaps if you bothered to read my whole post, you will find that I’m also pro-choice (yes, it is possible) and do not wish to push my views on anyone. I specifically stated that I am in no position to judge, I just know what I would do. So before jumping to such pathetic conclusions, kindly get your facts right.

In regards to your comparisons on eating meat, Iraqi children and guns, how can you possibly know my stance on these issues? Please enlighten me on how you would know about my sexual preference also. In the future, you might want to highlight your point more carefully. :headbang:

Pictures are pictures and many times provide background for fact. Hell, sometimes they can even be fact themselves. Believe it or not, facts do not solely evolve from words.

The facts remain that those pictures were not intended to make you have a little song and dance over dead foetuses not being aware about their own existence.
The intentions were to depict how real these foetuses actually look. Perhaps if more women were aware of this, they would not choose to abort, as they would find themselves emotionally attached to the possible child.
If you don’t like those pictures, wish to dismiss this issue and continue to believe that aborted foetuses hold no capabilities for life, then by all means do so. Don’t look at the pictures.
I don’t recall forcing you to do this. You should also keep in mind I provided a disclaimer, clearly stating what they contained. It’s simple really.

As for me being helpless, I suggest you apply your own words to yourself ;)

Could you repeat that please?

The mother has to go through 9 months of emotional rollercoaster, risk to her own health and life, possible loss of livlihood, and either go through the trauma/hastle of adoption or keep/support a kid she never wanted in the first place because 'she couldn't keep her pants zipped'? So a mistake or an accident that she only shares part of the blame for (because last I checked us guys have to unzip too) that took all of maybe an hour to make could potentionally ruin her life and you're okay with this?

That's like saying, two people were pulled over for speeding, but because one of them happens to be male, he only has to pay a quick fine, while the woman has to go through court, be emotionally berated, and when found guilty gets the pleasure of life in prison.

The Christian Right, Bastions of love an charity, but only when you are as perfect as they perceive themselves to be.

I'll never understand how you can live with yourselves.

One of the best parallels I've seen so far. Well done :D.

just give it up for adoption, no biggie...;)

just give it up for adoption, no biggie...;)
sickening. i believe that carrying a fetus to term with the intention of putting it up for adoption is one of the most selfish, cruel, irresponsible, and dishonorable things a human being could possibly do. the idea that such behavior is MORE responsible than having an abortion make my stomach crawl.

just give it up for adoption, no biggie...;)
Kind of a big biggie, actually, both to the parents and the child. Especially if the child doesn't get adopted.

I am so sick of pro-lifers showing dead fetuses and screaming foul. Why don't you look up some butchered cattle and how in-humane that is....will you stop eating meat? How about some pictures of Iraqi children who have their arms and legs blown off. Will you still vote for Bush? How about some pictures of innocent shooting victims. Will you outlaw guns? How about some pictures of my hairy, unclean ass. Will you go straight?

Pictures are pictures, facts are facts. Fact is that the dead fetus was never aware of its existence....therefore, it wouldn't have cared that it ended up as chop liver on some C-grade doctors floor. Monkeys look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Iraqi's look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from butchering them. Murderers look very human too, but it doesn't stop us from sending 10,000 volts of electricity through them and watching them smoke.

Please....you know what....just forget it. You're helplessOMG ! ROTFLAMAO! Your Hairy unclean ass? LMAO!!!

Perhaps if you bothered to read my whole post, you will find that I’m also pro-choice (yes, it is possible) and do not wish to push my views on anyone. I specifically stated that I am in no position to judge, I just know what I would do. So before jumping to such pathetic conclusions, kindly get your facts right.

Really, you're pro-choice? Hold on, let me see where I would have gotten the idea that you were pro-life:

I am very pro-life and am against abortion (especially when it is used as some form of contraception).

Hold on though, you do go on to say this:

However, I think there should be exceptions. I know it is hypocritical to say this, but I think in the case of rape, abortion should be allowed. We cannot expect a victim of rape to carry her baby to full term).

Well done for repeating for us EXACTLY what the bill to prohibit abortion says. Of course there are always exeptions included into the bill, and one of those is rape. Being technically, "Pro-life" includes you in the common population of people wishing for the ban of abortion except in cases of rape. So therefore, you're still a pro-lifer as I stated, and still helpless :D

In regards to your comparisons on eating meat, Iraqi children and guns, how can you possibly know my stance on these issues? Please enlighten me on how you would know about my sexual preference also. In the future, you might want to highlight your point more carefully. :headbang:
Obviously, I shall take your recommendation into consideration, as you obviously didn't catch it.
So here's my point. There are pro-life people in the world right? There are meat eaters in the world also, right? There are American's shooting Iraqi's and some Iraqi children get caught in the crossfire sometimes right? There are gay people in the world right? When I was saying "you", I was generally speaking to the american individual, who might be one of the preceding, not specifically you, yourself. It's commonly done in writing.
Therefore, my point was, why don't pictures have the same effect against those atrocities, which when you think about it....aren't any better or worse than aborting a non-thinking bag of water. Just because a fetus looks like a baby and it's so sad for a mother to see, should abortion be banned? No, the facts are there. Just like the facts are there for the cases I mentioned. Things happen that aren't pretty, but just because they aren't pretty doesn't mean they are necessarily bad (aside from Iraqi's dying, kids or adults, doesn't matter, they're dying and it's bad). But again, I consider Iraqi's dying much worse than an aborted fetus.

Pictures are pictures and many times provide background for fact. Hell, sometimes they can even be fact themselves. Believe it or not, facts do not solely evolve from words.
Pictures can be deceiving or misleading....which was my point. Why does one picture cause so much sympathy and another doesn't? How come American's get so agassed at a dead fetus but could care less about a dead Iraqi? Is an American's baby worth more than an Iraqi? I hope not. I wouldn't want to worship the god that allowed that.

The facts remain that those pictures were not intended to make you have a little song and dance over dead foetuses not being aware about their own existence.
The intentions were to depict how real these foetuses actually look. Perhaps if more women were aware of this, they would not choose to abort, as they would find themselves emotionally attached to the possible child.
If you don’t like those pictures, wish to dismiss this issue and continue to believe that aborted foetuses hold no capabilities for life, then by all means do so. Don’t look at the pictures.
I don’t recall forcing you to do this. You should also keep in mind I provided a disclaimer, clearly stating what they contained. It’s simple really.


I didn't look at your pictures. But yes, pro-lifers do force me to look when they're standing on the street waving their pictures around. Perhaps if more people were aware of the other atrocities in the world they would also pay more attention.......oh wait, those pictures are there for people to see, but it means nothing.
Something hides inside of us that makes us believe babies are precious and worth more than the value of another human being. I'm arguing that it's a lie. One being is not worth anymore than another. Showing a picture to prove how bad of an atrocity it is because it's a baby has no factual background, it only pries on human sympathy; a false sympathy at that. In my opinion, a fetus is unaware of its existence, therefore, regardless what it looks like, it is not as precious as someone who is aware of their existence; as it would actually matter to them.

And you can't be pro-life and pro-choice. Unless you're a politician. As I mentioned above, the bill attempting to pass allows abortion in certain circumstances. But as someone mentioned above, the fetus is not at fault for the rape. So therefore, if killing a innocent fetus is so wrong, why exclude rape in such a circumstance, the fetus is still innocent? You say prevent killing such a beautiful potential life, yet a rape fetus is no different than a consensual fetus.

Perhaps I should just let you expain in your own words:

Babies and fetuses are no different, and babies are preciously beautiful, therefore so are fetuses. Babies should be held higher because not only are they human-looking, they are asthetically pleasing. Something that is asthetically pleasing holds a higher place among the pedastals of life.
So, a baby and a fetus are the same, and both hold more value than anything older or already living. Unless of course it is fathered by a rapist. Therefore, it should be shot and killed; and thrown into a trash compactor and mutilated so as to not be able to grow up into a murdurous, raping, communist soul. You see, I'm pro-life. However, I'm pro-abortion if there aren't two loving parents to care for the child. Then I guess the little S.O.B. is on his own. Too bad little one, you're a victim of murder in response to rape.
Bush in 2004!

Kind of a big biggie, actually, both to the parents and the child. Especially if the child doesn't get adopted.
yeah, it's really only "no biggie" to put a child up for adoption if it is a healthy white baby; if it has any disabilities, is of any non-white ethnicity, or requires any special care at all then its chances of being adopted plummet. anybody who thinks that abadoning a child to the foster care system is "no biggie" needs to be sterilized immediately.

And you can't be pro-life and pro-choice. Unless you're a politician.

Incorrect. You can't be pro-choice and anti-choice. It is quite easy to be pro-life and pro-choice.

Incorrect. You can't be pro-choice and anti-choice. It is quite easy to be pro-life and pro-choice.
waitaminute, so you are saying it is possible to hold an opinion without forcing all other people to behave in accordance with that opinion? why, that's just...i mean, if that were possible...so i could think that broccoli is horrible and somehow NOT legally forbid everyone from eating it?

i dunno, that sounds like some crazy hippie nonsense to me. it is a well-known fact that holding an opinion necessitates passing laws to forbid others from having contrary opinions.

Really, you're pro-choice? Hold on, let me see where I would have gotten the idea that you were pro-life:
Clearly you conveniently missed what I stated here:

Having said this, I am also pro-choice (don't know how this works) and feel I can't really judge, as I have never been in this position.


And you can't be pro-life and pro-choice. Unless you're a politician.
I’m not also pro-choice? Oh, but I am. It’s possible, so please don’t tell me what I am or am not.


So here's my point. There are pro-life people in the world right? There are meat eaters in the world also, right? There are American's shooting Iraqi's and some Iraqi children get caught in the crossfire sometimes right? There are gay people in the world right? When I was saying "you", I was generally speaking to the american individual, who might be one of the preceding, not specifically you, yourself. It's commonly done in writing.
I know what your point was. I cannot fathom this because I am generally against the hypocritical nature in all those comparisons.
Therefore, your criticisms fell flat on me.


Therefore, my point was, why don't pictures have the same effect against those atrocities, which when you think about it.
They do to me. As for the rest of the world, I can’t speak for them.

Just because a fetus looks like a baby and it's so sad for a mother to see, should abortion be banned?
I don’t recall ever stating this, funny that. I posted the link up for interpretation. Simply as a different way of looking at things. You take it how you like, depending on your opinion.


aren't any better or worse than aborting a non-thinking bag of water
It has nothing to do with a foetus simply being a ‘non-thinking bag of water’ (which by the way, it is not) and everything to do with its capabilities for life and a future.


(aside from Iraqi's dying, kids or adults, doesn't matter, they're dying and it's bad)
I know this. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.


Pictures can be deceiving or misleading....which was my point.
Anything can be deceiving or misleading. The pictures which I posted are not, however. They show the foetuses exactly how they look once aborted. There is no hidden agenda, no secret motivation to them. They do not scream ‘ban abortion, these are living!’ They simply depict them as very real, which is what they look like. Despite your stance on the issue, this cannot be denied. They DO look like small babies, the rest is up for your interpretation.


Why does one picture cause so much sympathy and another doesn't? How come American's get so agassed at a dead fetus but could care less about a dead Iraqi? Is an American's baby worth more than an Iraqi? I hope not. I wouldn't want to worship the god that allowed that.
Look. I care very much about the Iraqi children and am very against our invasion and occupation in Iraq. People SHOULD care about the innocent Iraqi deaths and this shouldn’t detract from their disgust at a destroyed foetus. The same should apply to those who are so against abortion, but couldn’t care less for other deaths. Don’t let one take from the other.


I didn't look at your pictures. But yes, pro-lifers do force me to look when they're standing on the street waving their pictures around.
I’m not forcing you. Satisfied?


Perhaps if more people were aware of the other atrocities in the world they would also pay more attention.......oh wait, those pictures are there for people to see, but it means nothing.
Yes and this is terrible of course. Though, ignorance to other atrocities in the world shouldn’t make abortion justifiable in your eyes.


Something hides inside of us that makes us believe babies are precious and worth more than the value of another human being. I'm arguing that it's a lie.
Of course. Relax, many people feel the same way as you. Human beings and babies are equal, they are the same thing and that’s all there is to it. Thank you for contradicting yourself on being pro abortion (if that’s what you are) and emphasising my point on the important values which should be placed on ALL life.


One being is not worth anymore than another.
Of course. How can you be pro-abortion if this is the case though?


In my opinion, a fetus is unaware of its existence, therefore, regardless what it looks like, it is not as precious as someone who is aware of their existence; as it would actually matter to them.
All human life should be precious. A foetus may not be aware of its existence, but it has a chance to have this. Who are we to decide to rob it of this? Imagine if your parents decided to abort you. If somehow, you could picture the life you would have in the future, (at the moment of abortion) I’m sure you would be very much against it. Every thing deserves the chance to live, I’m sure.
Of course, taking the life of someone who has lived would be more devastating. Though, don’t let this alone dictate to you the pros of abortion.


But as someone mentioned above, the fetus is not at fault for the rape. So therefore, if killing a innocent fetus is so wrong, why exclude rape in such a circumstance, the fetus is still innocent? You say prevent killing such a beautiful potential life, yet a rape fetus is no different than a consensual fetus.

This is a difficult and complicated situation. I understand and agree, how can one rule apply for one foetus but not the other?
The truth is have you ever been a victim of rape? Can you possibly comprehend what these women go through? To ask a woman to carry a token for nine months (and the rest of her life) of the destruction of her body and soul is something no one can do. How can we expect this of her? Also, there is the rare case (I hope they are rare) where a woman falls pregnant by her father or relative. Not only is this completely evil and twisted, but how can a child be expected to be brought up in such horrible circumstances, as a product of rape and incest?


Perhaps I should just let you expain in your own words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nierez
Babies and fetuses are no different, and babies are preciously beautiful, therefore so are fetuses. Babies should be held higher because not only are they human-looking, they are asthetically pleasing. Something that is asthetically pleasing holds a higher place among the pedastals of life.
So, a baby and a fetus are the same, and both hold more value than anything older or already living. Unless of course it is fathered by a rapist. Therefore, it should be shot and killed; and thrown into a trash compactor and mutilated so as to not be able to grow up into a murdurous, raping, communist soul. You see, I'm pro-life. However, I'm pro-abortion if there aren't two loving parents to care for the child. Then I guess the little S.O.B. is on his own. Too bad little one, you're a victim of murder in response to rape.
Bush in 2004!

*sigh*
First of all, those are not my words at all. Kindly remove my name in your quote. They are your words, or President Bush’s (either way, I don’t wish to be associated with such trash).

But why can't we? It's not the baby's fault the woman got raped? If you believe abortion is horrific and a murderous act, how can you justify it for the "rape baby?"


Well, it cannot be justified. Though, I strongly respect any woman who does continue with the birth, despite rape.
As stated in my previous post ----------->

This is a difficult and complicated situation. I understand and agree, how can one rule apply for one foetus but not the other?
The truth is have you ever been a victim of rape? Can you possibly comprehend what these women go through? To ask a woman to carry a token for nine months (and the rest of her life) of the destruction of her body and soul is something no one can do. How can we expect this of her? Also, there is the rare case (I hope they are rare) where a woman falls pregnant by her father or relative. Not only is this completely evil and twisted, but how can a child be expected to be brought up in such horrible circumstances, as a product of rape and incest?

It has nothing to do with a foetus simply being a ‘non-thinking bag of water’ (which by the way, it is not) and everything to do with its capabilities for life and a future.

I think the point was that at the time of abortion, the vast majority of fetuses are simply cells, with very little by way of discernible organs - and no nervous system function.

Anything can be deceiving or misleading. The pictures which I posted are not, however. They show the foetuses exactly how they look once aborted. There is no hidden agenda, no secret motivation to them. They do not scream ‘ban abortion, these are living!’ They simply depict them as very real, which is what they look like. Despite your stance on the issue, this cannot be denied. They DO look like small babies, the rest is up for your interpretation.

Those do. Of course, posting pictures of 6-7 month aborted fetuses is very misleading, unless you qualify it with the fact that the mother's life had to be in danger for said fetus to be aborted in the first place.

All human life should be precious. A foetus may not be aware of its existence, but it has a chance to have this. Who are we to decide to rob it of this?

Every egg and sperm has the chance to eventually develop into something that is aware of its existence. You really must remember, potentiality =! actuality.

The truth is have you ever been a victim of rape? Can you possibly comprehend what these women go through? To ask a woman to carry a token for nine months (and the rest of her life) of the destruction of her body and soul is something no one can do. How can we expect this of her?

Have you ever been a woman with an unwanted pregnancy that got left by the father because of it? Can you possibly comprehend what these women go through? To ask a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy for nine months (and the rest of her life) of the life she can no longer have and the man who loved her is something no one can do. How can we expect this of her?

Also, there is the rare case (I hope they are rare) where a woman falls pregnant by her father or relative. Not only is this completely evil and twisted, but how can a child be expected to be brought up in such horrible circumstances, as a product of rape and incest?

Also, there is the common case where a woman falls pregnant by a man who does not want the child. Not only does this put her in a bad situation, but can make her resent the possible child for making her lose the man she was in love with (not that he was a class-act, but people aren't always rational). How can a child be expected to be brought up in such horrible circumstances, unwanted by both parents?

Now, I rarely think that abortion is the answer to an unwanted pregnancy, but I hope you can see that the same arguments you have used for rape and incest apply to any woman going through the mental anguish brought on by an unwanted pregnancy. Add to that the fact that the woman is a full-grown, living human being and the embryo is not.

[QUOTE=Nierez]
This is a difficult and complicated situation. I understand and agree, how can one rule apply for one foetus but not the other?
The truth is have you ever been a victim of rape? Can you possibly comprehend what these women go through? To ask a woman to carry a token for nine months (and the rest of her life) of the destruction of her body and soul is something no one can do. How can we expect this of her? Also, there is the rare case (I hope they are rare) where a woman falls pregnant by her father or relative. Not only is this completely evil and twisted, but how can a child be expected to be brought up in such horrible circumstances, as a product of rape and incest?
QUOTE]

A difficult and complicated situation. You have just summed up pro-choice perfectly. There are difficult and complicated situations that I am quite sure you have not even thought of. They do not all involve rape (in the traditional sense) or incest. But there are situations that most people (thank God) never even have to think about much less live through. They can involve many different kinds of horror, danger, and fear.

What would you think of a woman who is married with a child and her husband becomes abusive to the point of psychosis... to the point of actively seeking to murder her? The system does not help her because unless you actually die or the man confesses there is nothing they can do. Instead this woman must make an escape plan. Not an easy thing for an abuse victim to do by herself, but she also has a child. She must plan carefully and often times placate her abuser to stay alive and protect her living breathing conscious child. Just when she thinks she has everything in place she finds out she is pregnant. This can throw everything she has set up to protect herself and her child out the window.

The hypothetical woman was not raped in the traditional sense. She herself may feel she was coerced and rightly so. However, placating a potentially dangerous spouse does not neccessarily involve a violent act at the time. The child produced would not likely be a token of destruction in the way I think you mean.

This is just one hypothetical situation that I can imagine. Everybody has a unique story. Most of us have managable stories. Most of us have stories so similar to eachother that we feel we know what we would or should do in someone else's shoes. But there are people living with circumstances that cannot be fit into neat little descriptions we can throw into a legal document as an "exception".

Only that hypothetical women above knows what she needs to do about that pregnancy. Maybe she can work around it and still do fine. Maybe she cannot. Only SHE knows.

from a song i haven't listened to in some time, that does have some significance here, i feel:

Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll
I'm the man you've been dreaming of."
But 3 months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "God damn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls."
And then she heads for the clinic and
she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner
And they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose

Incorrect. You can't be pro-choice and anti-choice. It is quite easy to be pro-life and pro-choice.

No, you are incorrect. From Dictionary.com:

pro-life (pr-lf)
adj.
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion

pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.

-------------------------

Tell me how you can be both at once?

No, you are incorrect. From Dictionary.com:

pro-life (pr-lf)
adj.
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion

pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.

-------------------------

Tell me how you can be both at once?
Dictionary.com can't even pronounce the words correctly.

Those definitions describe the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice policial movements that centre around legislation regarding abortions. Many on these boards use the term "pro-life" in the literal sense of the word, as it was used prior to Roe vs Wade: in favour of life.
This article explains it well. (http://ditchtheraft.blogspot.com/2004/06/pro-life-pro-choice.html)

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

It's not a hypocritical reply at all. For example, I choose not to smoke and would prefer those who do smoke not to do it around me, but I don't feel that smoking is wrong. It pretty much comes down the fact that smoke makes my eyes water really bad, and since I wear contacts, it makes my eyes irritated. Cats also do this to me, but I don't think that there is something wrong with cats. Also, most pro-choice people that I know are pro-life when it comes to the choices in their life.

If you're using pro-life in the literal sense of the word, then you might want to consider being a vegetarian if you aren't already. Of all the pro-life people I've met, a very low percentage of them are vegetarian, and many of the pro-choice people that I know are vegetarian, weird isn't it?

Personally, I feel that in case of rape or say, the health and welfare of mother or child - early-term abortions aren't a bad idea. That mother had no choice in the matter, and (especially if she's young) may not be ready to deal with being pregnant for WHATEVER reason.

There's an old addage though, that says "your rights end where my nose begins." It means that although we're in a free country and have certain rights, we cannot use our rights in a way that infringes on those of someone else.

To me, and this is a personal call, if an unborn child cannot survive (even in ICU) outside teh womb, then it is not yet a child. In America, a natural-born citizen has to be born on american soil. If you aren't born yet, you're not a citizen and do not get protection - again, just my opinion.

Opinions aside - why don't we just make the choice in our own lives to be pro-choice or pro-life, by not judging others on what they believe or do. No, i do not agree with getting an abortion because you were careless or didn't want to use the condom - but there are accidents, and there is still a chance... To me, in the event of such accidents there should be a larger availability of the 'morning after' pill, but it's not my decision.

If you feel that abortions are wrong, then never try to get one yourself. If you feel that they are okay under special circumstances, then go out and get one should it happen to you. If you see something as immoral, act on that by not doing it yourself.

Besides, don't most deities reserve judgement for themselves? Debates like abortion just prove why...but that's just my opinion.

If you're using pro-life in the literal sense of the word, then you might want to consider being a vegetarian if you aren't already. Of all the pro-life people I've met, a very low percentage of them are vegetarian, and many of the pro-choice people that I know are vegetarian, weird isn't it?
Why's that? Vegetables are life, too.

The prefix "pro" means to favour. I'm all in favour of life, myself: it's delicious.

Life is good; eat it up.

Dictionary.com can't even pronounce the words correctly.

Those definitions describe the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice policial movements that centre around legislation regarding abortions. Many on these boards use the term "pro-life" in the literal sense of the word, as it was used prior to Roe vs Wade: in favour of life.
This article explains it well. (http://ditchtheraft.blogspot.com/2004/06/pro-life-pro-choice.html)

If you want to use "pro-life" in the literal sense of the word, then my argument still stands.

To be "for life", you cannot possibly be "for-choice", when that choice advocates death.

So literal or not, Dictionary.com or not, you are still wrong. You CANNOT, possibly, ever, never, not in a million years, not in another galaxy, not in another dimension, be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time, period.

If you want to use "pro-life" in the literal sense of the word, then my argument still stands.

To be "for life", you cannot possibly be "for-choice", when that choice advocates death.

So literal or not, Dictionary.com or not, you are still wrong. You CANNOT, possibly, ever, never, not in a million years, not in another galaxy, not in another dimension, be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time, period.
Advocating choice does not advocate life any more than it advocates death.

Everyone assumes pro-choice people run about waving coathangers singing, 'Abortions for you! Abortions for me! Abortions for everybody!'. Most of us acknowledge that this is a difficult decision to make, and can be very heartbreaking. It's a tough choice, simply put. Most people realize this.

But the option should still be there. The choice should still be there. A few people's religious morals should not determine the rights of the whole. If you dislike abortions? Stay away from abortion clinics and don't get one. No one is forcing you to go get an abortion.

Advocating choice does not advocate life any more than it advocates death.

Are you an idiot, or just trying to piss people off?

It is impossible to be pro-life and pro-choice. First off, if you allow the choice for abortion, which inherently could bring the option of death, thereby preventing you from being pro-life.

I think you know this, and are just attempting to upset people by argueing a point you can't win.

It is like saying you are for trials but against punishment. People are given the choice whether to put someone away for a crime, but their only option is to let them go free, because you can't punish them, therefore, inherently, you are against the trial ever taking place.

Now stop argueing a point you can't win. You are either an idiot, or just someone wishing to fill up the forums in an attempt to upset people.

The fact remains: it is impossible to be pro-choice and pro-life, no matter how you look at it.
Give me an example which allows you to do both.

wrong. many people believe abortion is very wrong for them, but don't believe it is their right to dictate other people's lives.

for example:

i am very strongly anti-heroine. i think heroine is horrible, dangerous, and using heroine is one of the worst things a person could choose to do. yet i completely and totally support legalizing heroine use in all its forms. this is because i believe that each human being must make CHOICES about what is right for them, and i don't think i have the right to parent other adults and tell them they can't do something just because it is wrong for me. this is an example of how somebody can be very anti-X but still support other people's right to choose X for themselves.

So you mean if i were a racist bastard and went around beating up minorties you wouldn't have a problem with it!?!?!

If you don't agree with something, such as abortion, don't do it. But who the hell are you to push your views on everyone and tell someone else that they can't have that choice? "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" has a different meaning to everyone. It's not your business if a 15 year old you've never heard of has her baby aborted. She lives the choice she made, not you.

So you mean if i were a racist bastard and went around beating up minorties you wouldn't have a problem with it!?!?!
Having a problem with it is fine. Doing something about it after you've beaten them up is fine. Getting a restraining order on you is fine. But creating legislation to ban you and your "kind" (whomever they may be) from ever going near any minority person ever --how would you feel about that?

Give me an example which allows you to do both.
I did. I posted a link above.

I'm disabled. I could so easily have been aborted and wasn't, and now here I am enjoying my life to the full with a great future ahead of me. I know that isn't the case with all disabilities, but I'm making the point that abortion is not always the best option. Yes, it's important to have a choice, but the reality is that abortion is a cruel act that involves many barbaric methods of terminating a life before it has a chance to begin. I'm glad that I'm here now and not in a bin somewhere.

So you mean if i were a racist bastard and went around beating up minorties you wouldn't have a problem with it!?!?!
try reading my post again, and perhaps you won't need to ask such a ludicrous question.

EDIT: on second thought, your behavior give me no reason to put any faith in either your reading comprehension skills or your ability to understand adult morality, so i will break it down for you...

the phrases you need to notice are where i said "this is because i believe that each human being must make CHOICES about what is right for them" and "this is an example of how somebody can be very anti-X but still support other people's right to choose X for themselves."

my entire point in that post is that it is perfectly possible to believe something is totally wrong and unhealthy, but to not try and force other people to share your opinion. they are adults, and must make their own personal choices about what they put in or remove from their own bodies; as my little brother would say, i am not the boss of them.

if you choose to be a racist bastard then i wouldn't have any reason to give you crap about it, since you are entitled to hold whatever opinions you like. if you choose to hurt other people or infringe on the rights of other citizens then you would lose the right to your own freedom. you are free to do whatever you like with your own body, provided that you do not use it to harm other people.

If you're using pro-life in the literal sense of the word, then you might want to consider being a vegetarian if you aren't already. Of all the pro-life people I've met, a very low percentage of them are vegetarian, and many of the pro-choice people that I know are vegetarian, weird isn't it?

Eating is part of life, is it not?

Are you an idiot, or just trying to piss people off?

Actually, I think that term may be applied to you - as could the question.

It is impossible to be pro-life and pro-choice. First off, if you allow the choice for abortion, which inherently could bring the option of death, thereby preventing you from being pro-life.

Allowing the choice and advocating the action are two different things.

I think you know this, and are just attempting to upset people by argueing a point you can't win.

Ditto.

It is like saying you are for trials but against punishment. People are given the choice whether to put someone away for a crime, but their only option is to let them go free, because you can't punish them, therefore, inherently, you are against the trial ever taking place.

Wrong. It is like saying "I will allow someone the choice to do something, as I will not force myself into their lives. However, I do not believe that doing it is the right choice, nor would I make that choice."

The fact remains: it is impossible to be pro-choice and pro-life, no matter how you look at it.
Give me an example which allows you to do both.

Example:

I am pro-choice because the choice of whether or not abortion is wrong is a religious decision which I cannot make for other people.

I am pro-life because I believe that abortion is pretty much always wrong, and would not have one myself.

Do you understand now? Or are you really that hard-headed?

Eating is part of life, is it not?
not to mention that eating plants is still ending life, so vegitarianism wouldn't be enough. in fact, every human being is ending billions of lives each day, in the form of microscopic organisms that live on and inside our bodies. anybody who is truly pro-life would explode from sheer contradiction within milliseconds of adopting that philosophy.

Example:

I am pro-choice because the choice of whether or not abortion is wrong is a religious decision which I cannot make for other people.

I am pro-life because I believe that abortion is pretty much always wrong, and would not have one myself.

Do you understand now? Or are you really that hard-headed?

In that case, you would be pro-choice, because you said, "pretty much always wrong", meaning in certain cases it is right, meaning you would allow abortions to proceed, meaning you are pro-choice.
You are now attempting to split between what YOU would do versus what you would allow OTHERS to do.
If you are pro-life in never wanting an abortion, but pro-choice for other people, you are pro-choice, because you agree with an abortion being performed; whether or not you want one yourself is irrelevant. You agree with the fact they proceed, and would grant those rights to others.
However, if you believe a fetus should never be terminated, then you are pro-life. What you would do and what you think should take place are two totally different things. Try not to confuse them.
And your article talks about a Buddhists feeling on pro-life vs. pro-choice. I couldn't find anything about how you could be both at once.

So no, you still can't be pro-life and pro-choice at once.
In addition, it doesn't matter that pro-choice could also advocate life. An option is still death, and therefore would mean you are not pro-life if you would allow such an option.

Have you learned anything yet?

No, it appears you really are an idiot.
In that case, you would be pro-choice, because you said, "pretty much always wrong", meaning in certain cases it is right, meaning you would allow abortions to proceed, meaning you are pro-choice.
You are now attempting to split between what YOU would do versus what you would allow OTHERS to do.
If you are pro-life in never wanting an abortion, but pro-choice for other people, you are pro-choice, because you agree with an abortion being performed; whether or not you want one yourself is irrelevant. You agree with the fact they proceed, and would grant those rights to others.
However, if you believe a fetus should never be terminated, then you are pro-life. What you would do and what you think should take place are two totally different things. Try not to confuse them.
And your article talks about a Buddhists feeling on pro-life vs. pro-choice. I couldn't find anything about how you could be both at once.

So no, you still can't be pro-life and pro-choice at once.
In addition, it doesn't matter that pro-choice could also advocate life. An option is still death, and therefore would mean you are not pro-life if you would allow such an option.

So you're still an idiot, or have you learned anything yet?
your name calling doesn't make your case, it ruins it. cool down and act like a grown up.

how about this:

my aunt believes abortion is always the wrong choice. she believes there is never a good reason for a person to have an abortion, under any circumstances other than ones in which the mother would die (and therefore the fetus would die as well). however, she identifies herself as pro-choice, and supports every woman's right to make wrong choices with their own bodies.

it is completely possible to be pro-life and also pro-choice. just because you are unable to grasp more subtle positions than "abortion BAD! pro-life GOOD!" doesn't mean that all people are so limited in their understanding of complicated issues.

if something is confusing you, or you cannot understand somebody's position, then feel free to ask questions and work out any logical inconsistencies you see. but if you continue to insult other players i will report you for flaming, because i don't have any reason to put up with such distracting and rude behavior getting in the way of real discussions.

No, it appears you really are an idiot.

Ah, the insults have begun. You do realize that resorting to insults makes you look unintelligent.

In that case, you would be pro-choice, because you said, "pretty much always wrong", meaning in certain cases it is right, meaning you would allow abortions to proceed, meaning you are pro-choice.

Every "pro-life" person I've ever met makes some exceptions.

Of course, my caveat simply means that I am intelligent to know that I am not God, and therefore do not know everything. Perhaps you believe that you are God?

You are now attempting to split between what YOU would do versus what you would allow OTHERS to do.

Which is a very valid split.

If you are pro-life in never wanting an abortion, but pro-choice for other people, you are pro-choice, because you agree with an abortion being performed; whether or not you want one yourself is irrelevant. You agree with the fact they proceed, and would grant those rights to others.

You're problem here is that you assume pro-life and pro-choice are exactly opposed. However, they are not. The opposite of pro-life would be anti-life and the opposite of pro-choice would be anti-choice. Of course allowing other people to make their own decisions makes me pro-choice. However, feeling that abortions should not occur makes me pro-life. Because these are not diametrically opposed (except in political terms - which try to make everything black and white when in fact it is not), it is quite easy to coexist.

By your logic, the Christian God is pro-sin. After all, God doesn't like sin and thinks it is wrong, but gave human beings the free will to sin. I guess that means that God cannot possibly be anti-sin then.

However, if you believe a fetus should never be terminated, then you are pro-life. What you would do and what you think should take place are two totally different things. Try not to confuse them.

What I would do and what I think should take place, in this case, are exactly the same. However, I am not arrogant enough to try and force my own religious views on another human being.

And your article talks about a Buddhists feeling on pro-life vs. pro-choice. I couldn't find anything about how you could be both at once.

My article? I haven't posted an article.

So no, you still can't be pro-life and pro-choice at once.

This is only true in your little black and white world. You know, the one in your head.

In addition, it doesn't matter that pro-choice could also advocate life. An option is still death, and therefore would mean you are not pro-life if you would allow such an option.

Again, see above. By your logic, the Christian God is pro-sin.

So you're still an idiot, or have you learned anything yet?

Wow, another insult. You begin and end with an insult, clearly demonstrating that there is no substance in between.

By your logic, the Christian God is pro-sin. After all, God doesn't like sin and thinks it is wrong, but gave human beings the free will to sin. I guess that means that God cannot possibly be anti-sin then.

wow, well played!!! an excellent point.

Pro-Choice must also mean Pro-Abortion - listening to someone declare that it's ok for someone else to do it, but you wouldn't choose to do so is a hypocritical reply. Perhaps you should listen to the inner voice that is suggesting to you why you would not choose it for yourself. If you would not choose it for yourself then obviously you must find something wrong with it.

I'm one of those people actually. It's not hypocritical--there is a difference between simply holding a belief and keeping it to yourself, and choosing to enforce that belief on a population. Given that the chance that I'd need an an abortion in the first place is approximately 0.000000000000000000001%, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely situation that I would need one, I would probably adopt the kid out because abortion isn't right for ME. I'm very different from the rest of the population in a lot of ways, and I acknowledge that, and abortion might be the right option for some people. Therefore, I do not support any legal limitations on who can get an abortion and why..it has to do with different things being right for different people.

Maybe this will help clarify somewhat. Here are a couple of examples of the different combinations of choice and life stances.

Pro-Choice, Pro-Life: You believe that you, personally, would not have an abortion and/or do not support abortions for whatever reasons. You also believe that this is personal, and the personal should not be made into public policy enforced on others. Many on this thread have supported this view.

Pro-Choice, Neutral on Life: As above, but you do not have a stance on abortion personally, only that the personal beliefs of some should not be enforced on others. Many on this thread have supported this view as well.

Anti-Choice, Neutral on Life: This is the stance that not only is abortion alright, it should be enforced in some instances. An example would be some of China's one-child policies: they are fine with abortion, but unlike the Pro-Choice version given above, think that abortion is also justifiably forced upon women in some cases.

Anti-Choice, Pro-Life: You believe that you, personally, would not have an abortion and/or do not support abortions for whatever reasons. Further, you think that there is no good reason for the vast majority (or, in some cases, all) of abortions, and that the choice to have an abortion should be legally taken away. This is the typical view of religious opposition to abortion, at least in America.

While these positions are a bit stereotypical, they do serve a point in showing that having a position on one of the dimensions (choice or life) does not entail having a specific position on the other. I hope that this will lead to more understanding in this discussion.

If you are pro-life in never wanting an abortion, but pro-choice for other people, you are pro-choice, because you agree with an abortion being performed; whether or not you want one yourself is irrelevant. You agree with the fact they proceed, and would grant those rights to others.
No; the government already grants people the Constitutional right to decide what happens with their own bodies. Pro-Life proposes legislation that would violate that right for half the population (females) in certain circumstances.

Abortion is a medical procedure, not a "right" that would be "granted." The only right involved in this issue is the right that might be lost, for each individual to choose what happens with her own body. So whether or not I would want one for myself is all that is relevant, since I already have no right to decide for other women.

However, if you believe a fetus should never be terminated, then you are pro-life.
I do believe that, just so.

And your article talks about a Buddhists feeling on pro-life vs. pro-choice. I couldn't find anything about how you could be both at once.

So no, you still can't be pro-life and pro-choice at once.
In addition, it doesn't matter that pro-choice could also advocate life. An option is still death, and therefore would mean you are not pro-life if you would allow such an option.
Then you didn't read the article very closely, as the whole article is one example of someone who is pro-life and pro-choice. The important point was that each case of a woman facing the possibility of abortion is unique and cannot be generalised. Alternatives to abortion should be sought and encouraged, but abortion must be available as a medical option.

If you feel better saying that is a strictly pro-choice stance, fine. If you're uncomfortable with people who identify themselves as pro-life and pro-choice, you are welcome to ignore us. I think you will find in the coming years, though, that you will be ignoring an increasingly large percentage of the population.

This is the most important line in the article: "It is not skillful to tell a woman that she has a choice between keeping or killing her child. That's very black and white, and it's not the reality of the human heart."

At some point in my life, killing me became murder. There was a point where I was a human being, and had all the legal protection that that entails, at least in the UK.

There were presumably millions of other spermatozoa and ovi that could have been a slightly different me, but didn't, and I don't think anyone thinks that my parents should have made sure every one they could got made into a human.

So at some point, I crossed a line, when I became unabortable, if you like.

So the problem is to find when that line was.

If it's a line, presumably it had to be at some major point. Something changed, and that makes me cross that line. Now I'm not hugely up on biology, but I'm sure there are plenty of major events you could list. Starting with "sperm and egg fused" and going on right up to "started talking".

I think people will have to choose for themselves which of these points is THE point, but for me, I think about what makes me who I am, what makes me happy, what makes me sad, what makes me me. And it's all the experiences I have. All the memories. So for me, I place that point fairly late.

I couldn't be happy saying that I'm human when my heart beats - because I'm happy eating animals who have had beating hearts. It has to be something that makes me human.

A lot of people seem to be "pro-life" for religious reasons. Could one of them point out where this train of thought goes wrong?

1) Abortion is wrong because god says so
2) There might be an exception in cases of rape
3) God lets rape happen because to do otherwise would stop free will, even though letting it happen causes immense distress and pain
4) God thinks we should mess with a woman's free will to stop her being allowed to have an abortion.

Those steps don't logically follow from each other, but you can see the path my mind took to get to "confused about how you see this"

By your logic, the Christian God is pro-sin. After all, God doesn't like sin and thinks it is wrong, but gave human beings the free will to sin. I guess that means that God cannot possibly be anti-sin then.

Again, see above. By your logic, the Christian God is pro-sin.


Good point, well made.

Take a bow, Dempublicents. *Applause*.

Maybe this will help clarify somewhat. Here are a couple of examples of the different combinations of choice and life stances.

Pro-Choice, Pro-Life: You believe that you, personally, would not have an abortion and/or do not support abortions for whatever reasons. You also believe that this is personal, and the personal should not be made into public policy enforced on others. Many on this thread have supported this view.

Pro-Choice, Neutral on Life: As above, but you do not have a stance on abortion personally, only that the personal beliefs of some should not be enforced on others. Many on this thread have supported this view as well.

Anti-Choice, Neutral on Life: This is the stance that not only is abortion alright, it should be enforced in some instances. An example would be some of China's one-child policies: they are fine with abortion, but unlike the Pro-Choice version given above, think that abortion is also justifiably forced upon women in some cases.

Anti-Choice, Pro-Life: You believe that you, personally, would not have an abortion and/or do not support abortions for whatever reasons. Further, you think that there is no good reason for the vast majority (or, in some cases, all) of abortions, and that the choice to have an abortion should be legally taken away. This is the typical view of religious opposition to abortion, at least in America.

While these positions are a bit stereotypical, they do serve a point in showing that having a position on one of the dimensions (choice or life) does not entail having a specific position on the other. I hope that this will lead to more understanding in this discussion.

add to the list...

pro-abortion, pro-choice: you believe that abortion is a good thing, not just neutral, and that encouraging abortion is a positive effort. however, you believe there is no circumstance in which a woman should be FORCED to have an abortion against her will, nor should she be unduly coerced into doing so.

add to the list...

pro-abortion, pro-choice: you believe that abortion is a good thing, not just neutral, and that encouraging abortion is a positive effort. however, you believe there is no circumstance in which a woman should be FORCED to have an abortion against her will, nor should she be unduly coerced into doing so.

Fair enough. My apologies for missing it in my earlier post. I think we will both agree that adding more examples like this only makes the point that having a stance on abortion does not entail a stance on choice stronger. Hopefully recognizing this point will make this overall discussion more reasonable.

I am a pro-lifer and proud of it. I really can't stand the debate of is it a life or isn't it? Does it have a heartbeat? Brain activity? Even at conception a cell is alive and it is most certainly a Human cell! Regardless why do people get abortions? The child is inconvienient to the mother? Perhaps a 16 year old who oops! got pregnant. Now she'll "take care of it." Abortion is simply another form of birth control and the unborn a troublesome thing to bother peoples lifestyle. Accountability is gone. Shouldn't the mother take responsibility for what happened and not kill her own child because it means nothing? Even with the horrid crime of rape, it is not the fault of the child. People need to step up and take care of their responsibility for their own stupidity.

I am a pro-lifer and proud of it. I really can't stand the debate of is it a life or isn't it? Does it have a heartbeat? Brain activity? Even at conception a cell is alive and it is most certainly a Human cell! Regardless why do people get abortions? The child is inconvienient to the mother? Perhaps a 16 year old who oops! got pregnant. Now she'll "take care of it." Abortion is simply another form of birth control and the unborn a troublesome thing to bother peoples lifestyle. Accountability is gone. Shouldn't the mother take responsibility for what happened and not kill her own child because it means nothing? Even with the horrid crime of rape, it is not the fault of the child. People need to step up and take care of their responsibility for their own stupidity.

Excellent... so you are claiming that women get raped due to 'stupidity'?

I think my argument to someone like you boils down to a simple question... "why do YOU get to decided what is right for ANOTHER person and HER uterus?"

Excellent... so you are claiming that women get raped due to 'stupidity'?

I think my argument to someone like you boils down to a simple question... "why do YOU get to decided what is right for ANOTHER person and HER uterus?"

I don't know where you got your conclusion. I said there needs to be responsibility! Teenagers, people who have unprotected sex or have lots of partners are stupid. I simply feel that abortion is morally wrong unless the child threatens the mothers life. No other excuses.

I don't know where you got your conclusion. I said there needs to be responsibility! Teenagers, people who have unprotected sex or have lots of partners are stupid. I simply feel that abortion is morally wrong unless the child threatens the mothers life. No other excuses.

You don't know where I got my conclusion? Reread your own post...

"Even with the horrid crime of rape, it is not the fault of the child. People need to step up and take care of their responsibility for their own stupidity"

Think before you type?

By your logic, the Christian God is pro-sin. After all, God doesn't like sin and thinks it is wrong, but gave human beings the free will to sin. I guess that means that God cannot possibly be anti-sin then
wow, well played!!! an excellent point.

Actually no, not an excellent point.
God is not pro-sin, he is pro-choice. He allows others to create sin, and allows sin to take place; but he does not allow either exclusively (sin vs. non-sin). So therefore he is pro-choice.

I also happen to know Dempublicents and Grave_n_idle are the same person.

your name calling doesn't make your case, it ruins it. cool down and act like a grown up.

Sorry


how about this:

my aunt believes abortion is always the wrong choice. she believes there is never a good reason for a person to have an abortion, under any circumstances other than ones in which the mother would die (and therefore the fetus would die as well). however, she identifies herself as pro-choice, and supports every woman's right to make wrong choices with their own bodies.
it is completely possible to be pro-life and also pro-choice. just because you are unable to grasp more subtle positions than "abortion BAD! pro-life GOOD!" doesn't mean that all people are so limited in their understanding of complicated issues.
if something is confusing you, or you cannot understand somebody's position, then feel free to ask questions and work out any logical inconsistencies you see. but if you continue to insult other players i will report you for flaming, because i don't have any reason to put up with such distracting and rude behavior getting in the way of real discussions.

Again, this was mentioned before, you are confusing what YOU would do versus what OTHERS would do. These are separate conditions, and only what YOU WOULD ALLOW to happen would determine you to be pro-life or pro-choice. If you think that abortions should be allowed, you are pro-choice. If you feel a fetus should never be killed, you are pro-life.

So nope, still haven't heard a pro-choice and pro-life example.

Actually no, not an excellent point.
God is not pro-sin, he is pro-choice. He allows others to create sin, and allows sin to take place; but he does not allow either exclusively (sin vs. non-sin). So therefore he is pro-choice.

I also happen to know Dempublicents and Grave_n_idle are the same person.

I think it an excellent point... the argument levelled was that anyone who was willing to allow abortion (i.e. Pro-choice: doesn't matter if you LIKE it, it's their choice), is, by tolerating it... Pro-Abortion.

Dempublicants pointed out that God tolerates sin, so, by the logic presented linking Por-Choice to Pro-Abortion, God must be Pro-Sin.

Follow through on the logic, and you'll see what it means.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not Dempublicents... which is probably more to my detriment than anything else...

As a point of interest... what made you even think that Dempublicents and I WERE the same people/person?

Sorry



Again, this was mentioned before, you are confusing what YOU would do versus what OTHERS would do. These are separate conditions, and only what YOU WOULD ALLOW to happen would determine you to be pro-life or pro-choice. If you think that abortions should be allowed, you are pro-choice. If you feel a fetus should never be killed, you are pro-life.

So nope, still haven't heard a pro-choice and pro-life example.

Someone who want foetuses NOT to be aborted... but believes they have no right to MAKE others follow THEIR rule.

That person would be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice... and I suspect MOST Pro-Choice exponents fall fairly close to that camp.

Dempublicents = Bottle = Grave_N_Idle

They are all the same person. Nice job patting yourself on the back by the way, as well as acting as though you are a team with separate ideas. Just look at your history of posting together and defending each other.

:upyours: Take this forum abuser! :upyours:

Someone who want foetuses NOT to be aborted... but believes they have no right to MAKE others follow THEIR rule.

That person would be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice... and I suspect MOST Pro-Choice exponents fall fairly close to that camp.

Nope they don't Dempublicents.....I mean Bottle.....I mean Grave_n_idle....
:upyours:

Dempublicents = Bottle = Grave_N_Idle

They are all the same person. Nice job patting yourself on the back by the way, as well as acting as though you are a team with separate ideas. Just look at your history of posting together and defending each other.

:upyours: Take this forum abuser! :upyours:

How incredibly rude.

I certainly DO appreciate Bottle's contributions to the Fora, and I am quite a fan of most of Dempublicents posts.... but that doesn't mean I AM either of those eminent fellows.

If you don't have a point to make, kindly refrain from posting...

I don't appreciate your rudeness... regardless of whether you errantly believe me to be an alter-ego, you have no need to resort to such infantile behaviour.

Nope they don't Dempublicents.....I mean Bottle.....I mean Grave_n_idle....
:upyours:

Please stop.

It's not funny.
It's not big.
It's not clever.

And nobody is impressed.

It is impossible to be pro-life and pro-choice. First off, if you allow the choice for abortion, which inherently could bring the option of death, thereby preventing you from being pro-life.

I think you know this, and are just attempting to upset people by argueing a point you can't win.

It is like saying you are for trials but against punishment. People are given the choice whether to put someone away for a crime, but their only option is to let them go free, because you can't punish them, therefore, inherently, you are against the trial ever taking place.

Now stop argueing a point you can't win. You are just someone wishing to fill up the forums in an attempt to upset people.

The fact remains: it is impossible to be pro-choice and pro-life, no matter how you look at it.
Give me an example which allows you to do both.

I couldn't agree more Green_baronland. There is no exception, you can't be both. Saying you agree to give someone the right to abort a child means that your mentality is not against it; therefore you are pro-choice. However, denying someone that right in your ideology would make you pro-life.

Perhaps I agree with you because you're right? Maybe I agree with you because we are the same person?

What do you think Dempublicents-Bottle-Grave_n_idle? :eek: :cool:

I certainly DO appreciate Bottle's contributions to the Fora, and I am quite a fan of most of Dempublicents posts.... but that doesn't mean I AM either of those eminent fellows.

Whatever dude, you've been snuffed!
:) Have a Nice Day! :)

I couldn't agree more Green_baronland. There is no exception, you can't be both. Saying you agree to give someone the right to abort a child means that your mentality is not against it; therefore you are pro-choice. However, denying someone that right in your ideology would make you pro-life.

Perhaps I agree with you because you're right? Maybe I agree with you because we are the same person?

What do you think Dempublicents-Bottle-Grave_n_idle? :eek: :cool:

And I disagree... Pro-Choice means you support others right to choose... whether or not you like the idea of what they choose.

Pro-Life means that you are in favour of NO ABORTION... whether or not that theory extends to others.

You logic is flawed.

And, I personally don't care if you post as one person or ten... but I don't. I only post as Grave_n_idle, although I was previously incarnated as Western_shinma.

I've told you who I am, and how I post. Now please stop your silliness.

Dempublicents = Bottle = Grave_N_Idle

They are all the same person. Nice job patting yourself on the back by the way, as well as acting as though you are a team with separate ideas. Just look at your history of posting together and defending each other.

:upyours: Take this forum abuser! :upyours:
if you would like to have the mods confirm that our IPS are radically different then you are free to do so. though i admire Demi and Graves, we also disagree on many issues. just because we all see the same flaws in your statements doesn't mean we are the same person, it simply meanst that your flaws are so painfully obvious that many people notice. rather than lashing out because you have been proven wrong, you should concentrate on re-evaluating the problematic areas of your thinking.

if you would like to have the mods confirm that our IPS are radically different then you are free to do so. though i admire Demi and Graves, we also disagree on many issues. just because we all see the same flaws in your statements doesn't mean we are the same person, it simply meanst that your flaws are so painfully obvious that many people notice. rather than lashing out because you have been proven wrong, you should concentrate on re-evaluating the problematic areas of your thinking.

also, i have now reported you for flaming. i'm sorry to have to be a tattle-tale, but i am not prepared to put up with childish tantrums interupting adult debates. i really hope you will get control of yourself so this discussion can continue.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to report this little 'irritation'.

I do try to ignore such annoyances, or persuade them to cease their barking, and I fear that that merely feeds their need for attention.

I am now amusing myself with the concept of the three of us being one person... sitting around arguing about an issue....

You don't know where I got my conclusion? Reread your own post...



Think before you type?

I obviously should have been more clear in what I was trying to say. I simply think that abortion has turned into an alternate form of birth control. Killing an unborn child is bad enough but this is worse. I would think a mother killing her own child would be anathema to her. But who understands people?

I am now amusing myself with the concept of the three of us being one person... sitting around arguing about an issue....
makes me think about that three-headed guy from that Monty Python movie (Life of Brian?), where the heads can't decide between tea and knight-killing.

Dempublicents = Bottle = Grave_N_Idle

They are all the same person. Nice job patting yourself on the back by the way, as well as acting as though you are a team with separate ideas. Just look at your history of posting together and defending each other.

:upyours: Take this forum abuser! :upyours:
Enough of the flamebaiting and insulting emoticons. Any more of this and you'll be warned and/or forumbanned.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Deny it all you like fellas, you're all one in the same.

Any person can simply do a search on your posts and realize....

"Hey, these dudes just happen to be posting at identical times!" Even though the thread is like 50 pages long, each of you just happen to show up on page 36, defending each others' position?

Please, you're the same, and anybody who cares to know, can simply search your posts.

makes me think about that three-headed guy from that Monty Python movie (Life of Brian?), where the heads can't decide between tea and knight-killing.

Holy Grail.

:))

I obviously should have been more clear in what I was trying to say. I simply think that abortion has turned into an alternate form of birth control. Killing an unborn child is bad enough but this is worse. I would think a mother killing her own child would be anathema to her. But who understands people?

Accepted that you have perhaps not been as careful as you might have been.

The thing is, as you say, who understands people?

We don't get to choose what is right for others, we just have to make those decisions for ourselves. I personally don't think we should be able to make these kind of decisions for other people... and I believe THAT makes me Pro-Choice.

That doesn't mean I condone abortion... merely that I think that choice is up to the person involved.

For the record, however. I suppose I DO condone abortion... within limits. There are already too many people on a world of limited resources, and each generation finds it harder to feed, employ and care for itself. Someone who has decided they are not fit to bring a life into the world shouldn't be FORCED to, in my opinion.

But, that is just my opinion.

Deny it all you like fellas, you're all one in the same.

Any person can simply do a search on your posts and realize....

"Hey, these dudes just happen to be posting at identical times!" Even though the thread is like 50 pages long, each of you just happen to show up on page 36, defending each others' position?

Please, you're the same, and anybody who cares to know, can simply search your posts.

He's at it, again....

You realise that you were warned by the moderator team, don't you?

You don't know where I got my conclusion? Reread your own post...



Think before you type?

I obviously should have been more clear in what I was trying to say. I simply think that abortion has turned into an alternate form of birth control. Killing an unborn child is bad enough but this is worse. I would think a mother killing her own child would be anathema to her. But who understands people?

Enough of the flamebaiting and insulting emoticons. Any more of this and you'll be warned and/or forumbanned.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator


Seems the mod is being ignored:

(very next post in THIS thread)

and jumping threads to:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7233432&posted=1#post7233432

Post: 122 (I think)

Again, this was mentioned before, you are confusing what YOU would do versus what OTHERS would do. These are separate conditions, and only what YOU WOULD ALLOW to happen would determine you to be pro-life or pro-choice. If you think that abortions should be allowed, you are pro-choice. If you feel a fetus should never be killed, you are pro-life.

So nope, still haven't heard a pro-choice and pro-life example.

If you will refer to my first post on this thread in which I give examples that show that your position on choice and your position on life are independent of each other (post #201, on page 14), you will easily be able to see that there is no necessity in your claim here. What you would do and what you would allow others to do are indeed separate, but it is not only what you would do that matters here. What you would do determines your stance on the "life axis," if you will. What you would allow others to do determines your stance on the "choice axis." They should not be confused, as doing so tends to put words in the mouths of others and thus detract from honest debate.

Deny it all you like fellas, you're all one in the same.

Any person can simply do a search on your posts and realize....

"Hey, these dudes just happen to be posting at identical times!" Even though the thread is like 50 pages long, each of you just happen to show up on page 36, defending each others' position?

Please, you're the same, and anybody who cares to know, can simply search your posts.
here's a crazy notion: perhaps we all live in the same time zone, or all happen to have NationStating time at roughly the same time of day. i know, it's far more fun to assume that three different people are actually one extremely schizophrenic mind, but perhaps you might let Rationality out of the closet where you keep it between beatings.

oh, and if any Mod would like to step in to confirm who is really who's puppet, that would be fine by me. i believe y'all can see our IPs or whathaveyou, and could clear this up definitively.

Good point, well made.

Take a bow, Dempublicents. *Applause*.

*bows* Thanks =)

Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to report this little 'irritation'.

I do try to ignore such annoyances, or persuade them to cease their barking, and I fear that that merely feeds their need for attention.

I am now amusing myself with the concept of the three of us being one person... sitting around arguing about an issue....

This argument is rather funny, although if I had to be mistaken for someone else on this forum, I can't think of anyone I'd rather be mistaken for than you or Bottle. I may not always agree with you guys, but at least you are rational people with something to back up your arguments. =)

here's a crazy notion: perhaps we all live in the same time zone, or all happen to have NationStating time at roughly the same time of day. i know, it's far more fun to assume that three different people are actually one extremely schizophrenic mind, but perhaps you might let Rationality out of the closet where you keep it between beatings.

oh, and if any Mod would like to step in to confirm who is really who's puppet, that would be fine by me. i believe y'all can see our IPs or whathaveyou, and could clear this up definitively.

It is doubly funny, because I have relocated by about 4000 miles since my last incarnation on Nationstates... when I was Western_Shinma.... and I still play NS at about the same time, because now I work a different shift.

As Dempublicents stated, however, being accused of being Bottle or Dempublicents is not a bad thing... I am taking it completely as a compliment.

:)

This argument is rather funny, although if I had to be mistaken for someone else on this forum, I can't think of anyone I'd rather be mistaken for than you or Bottle. I may not always agree with you guys, but at least you are rational people with something to back up your arguments. =)

Kind words, and the feeling is mutual.

By the way... the poor sap couldn't have chosen three people more UNLIKELY to be puppet states.... have you seen what our combined post count would be????

This argument is rather funny, although if I had to be mistaken for someone else on this forum, I can't think of anyone I'd rather be mistaken for than you or Bottle. I may not always agree with you guys, but at least you are rational people with something to back up your arguments. =)If I weren't so obviously in another time zone myself, I'd have been glad to have similarly mistaken as being with you guys. (I know I'm not always in perfect accordance, but that's what having to juggle four personalities would do to me... er... us, isn't it? :)

Someone who want foetuses NOT to be aborted... but believes they have no right to MAKE others follow THEIR rule.

That person would be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice... and I suspect MOST Pro-Choice exponents fall fairly close to that camp.

heh, pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive, what you seem to be doing is defining the pro-life position for them, even though it doesn't fit consistently with what they believe.

ps off topic, i really hate when i forget simple crap like indexing formulae :/

heh, pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive, what you seem to be doing is defining the pro-life position for them, even though it doesn't fit consistently with what they believe.

ps off topic, i really hate when i forget simple crap like indexing formulae :/

...

Unlike all the anti-abortioners who claim 'pro-choice =pro-murder'? Uh....huh.

Anyway, I just avoid the whole issue by using anti-abortion instead of the euphamistic (hope that's a word... or, that failing that, people know what I mean) 'pro-life' term.

I still say that anyone who thinks that abortions should be available (even if they are against them on a personal level), is pro-choice... because, you know, they're willing to let people make the choice, even though they're against it.

Anti-abortioners who are willing to leave abortion legal, for whatever reason, should consider calling themselves 'pro choice, but disapproving of abortion'. It makes more sense, since the strongest connontation of 'pro-life' or 'anti-abortion' is "We don't want people to be able to choose to have abortions, ever".

But, just my 2c (which I must have found under the couch, since they aren't made in Australia anymore)

hehe

Unlike all the anti-abortioners who claim 'pro-choice =pro-murder'? Uh....huh.

Anti-abortioners who are willing to leave abortion legal, for whatever reason, should consider calling themselves 'pro choice, but disapproving of abortion'. It makes more sense, since the strongest connontation of 'pro-life' or 'anti-abortion' is "We don't want people to be able to choose to have abortions, ever".

are you disagreeing with my statement that you can't be pro-choice and pro-life?

You know Shaed, you'd probably be surprised by my actual opinions, I tend to play devil's advocate a lot and these boards are just running rampant with left ;)

But I do so hate serious argument holes, especially if it's from someone who agrees with my side.

hehe

are you disagreeing with my statement that you can't be pro-choice and pro-life?

You know Shaed, you'd probably be surprised by my actual opinions, I tend to play devil's advocate a lot and these boards are just running rampant with left ;)

But I do so hate serious argument holes, especially if it's from someone who agrees with my side.

Hmm. Kind of yes and no. It's most likely possible to believe it, but you still need to be careful with the whole 'applying of labels to self' thing. I personally would never call myself 'pro-life', even if I *was* against abortions. It carries connontations that bother me. I find it easier to say "I'm pro-choice, but also think there should be more sex-ed and less sexual under (and over) tones in media (or at least in the media you can't avoid, like billboards) and...' etcetcetc.

I love playing Devil's Advocate also :p. I've been known to argue not only the silly (crows are white, because look, that (black) backback is also white), to the... worrying (bestality is actually not immoral).

Hee, I'm just worried you (and other people I respect as debaters) will think I've had some sort of full-frontal lobotomy... I'm finding it difficult to remain (or 'become', perhaps) coherent tonight. Maybe I just need more Morrowind...

Again, this was mentioned before, you are confusing what YOU would do versus what OTHERS would do. These are separate conditions, and only what YOU WOULD ALLOW to happen would determine you to be pro-life or pro-choice. If you think that abortions should be allowed, you are pro-choice. If you feel a fetus should never be killed, you are pro-life.

So nope, still haven't heard a pro-choice and pro-life example.

how about this. It's my morals vs your morals. People who are pro-choice, seem to beleive that the choice is up to the individuals involved. Pro-life, wish to imposed their morality on others

A lot of people seem to be "pro-life" for religious reasons. Could one of them point out where this train of thought goes wrong?

1) Abortion is wrong because god says so
2) There might be an exception in cases of rape
3) God lets rape happen because to do otherwise would stop free will, even though letting it happen causes immense distress and pain
4) God thinks we should mess with a woman's free will to stop her being allowed to have an abortion.

Those steps don't logically follow from each other, but you can see the path my mind took to get to "confused about how you see this"

I'm politically pro-choice, but being personally pro-life I think I can answer the logic. God gives us free will to do bad things, but the ability to do those things never makes them good things. Bad is bad. I do not think anyone with a clue is saying "God thinks we should mess with a woman's free will to stop her being allowed to have an abortion." Pro-lifers are saying (sort of) we do not legalize rape why legalize abortion. And Pro-choicers are saying they are not in the same category of wrong if you take religion and personal moral code out of the equation. I'm simplifying here. But the debate is not about what God lets happen but what society lets happen.

heh, pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive, what you seem to be doing is defining the pro-life position for them, even though it doesn't fit consistently with what they believe.

Pro-life being a misnomer, we are simply defining it as what it actually would mean in this context.

Pro-life being a misnomer, we are simply defining it as what it actually would mean in this context.

Which is why I refer to this camp as 'Anti-Abortion'... since that describes the ACTUAL position they take.... even if the title doesn't 'sell' as well as pro-life.

Hey-yo. Just gonna throw in my pair of shiny red rocks. If you don't like my honesty or my reasons, then frankly, you can kiss my ass, so at least you'll be doing something useful with your mouth besides harassing me.

I, personally, am all for the right for the women to choose what they want to do with their bodies and the things inside. Why?

I currently play host to an ungodly number of mental issues. They include and are not limited to: ADD, anxiety disorders, O/CD, schizo-affectiveness with moderate-to-severe depressive tendencies, an extra personality, and roughly two to five more problems depending on who you're talking to and what I've let them know about me. Such madness has run in the female side of my family for many generations now. It shows no signs of getting better; in fact, I think I'm due to be the one with the worst problems yet when comparing myself to my mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and beyond.

I also play host to several general health issues, and am a possible carrier for more. These two categories include and are not limited to: asthma, heart disease, alzheimer's, severe dysmennorhea, cancers and/or cysts of various sorts and locations, anemia, tremors that will increase in severity as I get older (but aren't Parkinson's) and more.

I have very little maternal instinct in the sense that you might think I would. I do very well with children. I admit it. I can get to their level without pandering or patronizing, and honestly get along and understand them. I don't mind it. If they're well-behaved, and so long as they're not mine. But the very sound of a screaming, crying child (even up to so far as 12 years old) does not incite a desire in me to care and nurture for it. No. What happens? I want to get away as soon as possible. If this includes a necessity for violence, it happens (I have punched people to get them out of my way as I flee before). If I cannot escape, I begin to panic, grow furious, and unbelievably nervous, to the point of being in a sobbing heap on the floor. I was this way even with my siblings and I had to help raise them. I did not enjoy it. I never even enjoyed playing with baby dolls (I will admit to liking Barbies for a while, but mostly only because I made twisted scenarios with them, and even that grew old after a while). I have nightmares about pregnancy, even, when not screaming in terror the rest of the times I sleep about other things. I also did not have the best childhood myself and admit that I am deficient in certain areas and warped in others.

I am currently trying to scrape some sort of money together out of my catering job to help my mum so much as keep a roof over our heads. I am paid 20 dollars a job, plus a little more if it goes longer than an hour. I get, at most so far, 2-3 jobs a week. I can not financially support a child myself, and nor can I do so with my mum's help.

All these things combine to make me a very unsuitable candidate for parenthood. The pregnancy itself would make an ungodly train wreckish mess of me. Then there's the miserable, miserable childhood I know I would end up putting the poor sprog through--supposing I didn't snap like any of the well-known Murder Mothers and knock it off before it turned 18, that is. Not to mention the chance that it would quite likely inherit some or most of the various horrid illnesses that I have or am genetically-predispositioned-carrying, both of mind and body. There are no cures yet for me. I sincerely doubt there would be for him or her either.

Should I ever find anyone I love enough to have sex with--and this is a big if, as I'm one of those asexual-because-everyone-else-sucks-donkeyballs people for the most part--I am so terrified that I would probably make both of us go all out with the birth control to prevent pregnancy. (I say birth control simply because it's damn near impossible to get "fixed", if you will, as a 20 year-old female without previous children or noticeably life-threatening reproductive system disorders, not to mention unnervingly expensive, and so I would be rather limited in my options at the time.)

But if somehow, something went wrong and I got pregnant? I would very likely abort the zygote/fetus/whathaveyou. Why? I think I've made my reasons quite clear. But just in case. As much as I like (well brought-up) children, I would never forgive myself if I knowingly passed on all these terrible things to a new human being, or did something stupid simply because I don't understand and/or have the capability to love and nurture something That Way. And don't pull the adoption card on me. My child will not have the likelihood of being at all healthy; nobody would take it. That adding onto the fact that there are ridiculously more children available than willing/allowed couples to take them makes them all the more unlikely to be adopted--and I'd have given them an abandonment issue on top of every other thing I genetically/environmentally condemned them to, how loving. Nor, as I mentioned, could I probably carry the baby to term without severe problems for either it, myself, or both of us.

In my case? I believe that abortion would be the more humane and moral thing to do. If I ever break free from my brokenness and experience that societally-touted case of baby rabies, I will adopt. (And it will probably be a child from an Eastern European orphanage that has problems, because they'll need help, and nobody knows madness and how to help it better than another mad person.)

Because of this, I accept that other women out there will also have their reasons for wanting abortions, and I am in no way allowed to infringe on their right to do so. I only wish more pro-lifers would understand that not every baby is a 'precious miracle'--your child is more likely to grow up a murderer, rapist, thief, terrorist, etc. (providing they don't start early, as so many news articles nowadays show) than anyone doing any good to the world, anyway--and that not every woman is able (or even wants to!) to handle the choice--not duty--of motherhood. Just because I was hypothetically not raped does not make me a good candidate for someone keeping their baby.

If you read that whole thing, hug yourself, have a pat on the back, and a cookie on my behalf, because you've damned well earned it.

despite the fact thatthe world is already too full of people, I feel that humans should make an educated decision about whether they should have chidren or not.... If someone feels that they are not ready for children and are pregnant due to naivety and Hormones.. then they should be allowed to make an INFORMED decision as to what they should do with the unborn child.
It is a sad fact that in this day of overpopulation and lack of education, that many young people are forced into parenthood without fully comprehending the consequences of their decisions....