NationStates Jolt Archive

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

While I don't actually position myself in any "battle group" concerning this topic, I think that "pro-lifers" are against killing the fetus, not against the right to practitioning an abortion.

Think of it this way, you pro-choicers wouldnt be alive right now to support abortion if you were aborted regardless at any stage. Only time i will condone an abortion is if the woman was raped by her father and the odds of her AND the baby dying at 99.9%, even then i would try to save the baby by a premature seisection and try and keep it alive with incubator and medical technology. Every life is precious, its not our right to choose who lives and who dies.

I think that "pro-lifers" are against killing the fetus, not against the right to practitioning an abortion.

I'm confused. What do you mean? Pro-lifers such as myself believe that abortion is murder.

I'm confused. What do you mean? Pro-lifers such as myself believe that abortion is murder.

Ohhh, boy! It was a loaded statement, I was hoping he would fall for it! <sigh> :p

Think of it this way, you pro-choicers wouldnt be alive right now to support abortion if you were aborted regardless at any stage.
i wouldn't be alive if my mother wasn't pro-choice, so your argument doesn't help me.

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

Don't forget, that equation runs both ways. You're just as likely to abort a criminal as a scientist.

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?
that logic leads us to conclude that every egg and every sperm should be used for procreation, and any woman who could be pregnant and isn't is withholding the next Einstein from the world. every one of those little eggs is a potential Einstein, according to you, so by allowing her body to flush them out each month she is robbing society of future tax-payers, future researchers, and future friends. any man who allows a single one of his sperm to be wasted is denying the potential for a life, and he is withholding future brilliance and income from society just as the woman would be.

so we all MUST have children, and MUST do so whenever we are able. no women between puberty and menopause should ever be non-pregnant, and no male after puberty should do anything other than impregnate women round the clock.

It gets to the fundamental problem with the Abortion debate, namely that neither side is talking to the other. One side is Pro-Choice, the other, Pro-Life. This in essence distills two different ways of looking at the debate; that being said, it is of course incorrect to say that those against abortion are "anti-choice" or those for abortion are "anti-life". To say that pro-lifers simply want to deny people a choice then is absolutel incorrect, and the issue will never be resolved or properly debated if this type of demagogery continues. Its essentially a fundamentlly different way of looking at the question of abortion; not as one of the choice of the mother but as one regarding the life of the fetus.

To say that pro-lifers simply want to deny people a choice then is absolutel incorrect, and the issue will never be resolved or properly debated if this type of demagogery continues. Its essentially a fundamentlly different way of looking at the question of abortion; not as one of the choice of the mother but as one regarding the life of the fetus.
1) how is the pro-life stance NOT anti-choice? they wish to forbid women from making the choice to abort.
2) the problem with your stance is that you are only looking at it from the pro-life side; to me, the life of the fetus is completely irrelevant and beside the point, and the ONLY important issue is the choice of the mother. you can feel differently, but if you try to claim that the issue can ONLY be approached the way you describe then you are, frankly, wrong.

It's not that complicated. If you aren't ready to have a kid either don't have sex or do what a friend of mine just did and put the kid up for adoption. You don't have to resort to killing the kid.

1) how is the pro-life stance NOT anti-choice? they wish to forbid women from making the choice to abort.
2) the problem with your stance is that you are only looking at it from the pro-life side; to me, the life of the fetus is completely irrelevant and beside the point, and the ONLY important issue is the choice of the mother. you can feel differently, but if you try to claim that the issue can ONLY be approached the way you describe then you are, frankly, wrong.


1. ... just like they wish to prevent criminals from making the choice to kill. If a fetus is human life, even pro-choice sycophants would agree that they do not wish to espouse murder. And that I beleive is the basis of the whole argument that both sides fail to grasp, as you have shown here. For one side, its not about a choice because that choice is whether to kill a person or let it live. Not saying its correct or incorrect, I lean more towards pro-choice myself, I'm simply pointing it out.

2. I never described a way to approach the issue, I described how both sides approach the issue, and you have clearly stated the pro-choice side here. Try to exercise a few more critical reading skills in the future.

I'm confused. What do you mean? Pro-lifers such as myself believe that abortion is murder.
I don't know if I can speak for all other "pro-choicers", but I too believe that abortion is murder. Here's an interesting thought to reflect on for awhile though. Eggs and sperm are living cells, right? So each time a woman menstruates, she commits murder, and every time a man masturbates, he commits genocide. If all life is sacred, then how come I never hear any big organized protests against either of these activities?

Think of it this way, you pro-choicers wouldnt be alive right now to support abortion if you were aborted regardless at any stage. Only time i will condone an abortion is if the woman was raped by her father and the odds of her AND the baby dying at 99.9%, even then i would try to save the baby by a premature seisection and try and keep it alive with incubator and medical technology. Every life is precious, its not our right to choose who lives and who dies.

so you don't support abortions when the woman's life is in danger?

I don't know if I can speak for all other "pro-choicers", but I too believe that abortion is murder. Here's an interesting thought to reflect on for awhile though. Eggs and sperm are living cells, right? So each time a woman menstruates, she commits murder, and every time a man masturbates, he commits genocide. If all life is sacred, then how come I never hear any big organized protests against either of these activities?


And I suppose it needs to be pointed out that those are ridiculous arguments that unfortunately pro-choicers use to mock the other side.

A sperm left to itself will simply die (and leave a stain). An egg left to itself will die. Neither will become anything more no matter how long they are supported. A zygote on the other hand is "potential" human life; if cared for and allowed to grow it will become a person. So this whole argument about sperm and eggs, beside being gross, is irrelevant.

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.

50% of fertilized ovum don't even implant themselves in the uterine wall?

also, identical twins share dna, are they one person?

people with chimeria have absorbed the dna of their fraternal twin, does this mean that a) they are murderers before they leave the womb? or if not b) they are legally two people?

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

what about the effect on the planet's resources? can you imagine how much more food, they'd consume? oil? how much more garbage they'd produce?

and really, where are all the jobs? there aren't even enough jobs for the existing people.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

could have destroyed potential charles mansons too. what's your point?

I would say that the basis of the entire abortion debate is when one feels life begins. To a pro-life person life begins at conception, and so killing a fetus is the same as killing a newborn child. It is not about denying people their rights, but about protecting life.

To a pro-choice person life generally begins at birth, and thus abortion is a choice of the mothers to end a potential life, not the ending of an actual life.

That said, I am personally opposed to abortion, but I feel that it is ultimately up to the individual to make the choice, so I guess that makes me anti-abortion but pro choice ... or something like that.

A sperm left to itself will simply die (and leave a stain). An egg left to itself will die.
A baby, left to itself, will also die. You're right that it needs to be cared for to survive; but eggs and sperm can be kept alive in cold storage.

It's not that complicated. If you aren't ready to have a kid either don't have sex or do what a friend of mine just did and put the kid up for adoption. You don't have to resort to killing the kid.

it's not a kid until it leaves the womb.
there is a huge difference between something that hasn't developped a brain and something that has a fully funcioning central nervious system.

also, there are many medical reasons to abort, many side effects that can happen to previously healthy women who go through with pregnancies.

not to mention that there are more children waiting in foster homes for lack of a place to go then there are people willing to adopt them. unless you produce a white, perfecly healthy infant, chances are they won't find a home.

That said, I am personally opposed to abortion, but I feel that it is ultimately up to the individual to make the choice, so I guess that makes me anti-abortion but pro choice ... or something like that.

yep.

Abortion is murder. The Unborn baby is a human and should have human rights (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It is also against Judaeo-Christian law. I am Liberal, but I am against abortion

Abortion is murder. The Unborn baby is a human and should have human rights (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It is also against Judaeo-Christian law. I am Liberal, but I am against abortion

so the life of the embryo is more important than the life of the woman who carries it?

should a woman have to die because of an ecoptic (sp?) pregnancy? or because the fetus developped hydrocephalus?

and again, 50% of fertilized ovum pass out of a woman without implanting themselves. 25% of embryos will spontaneously abort themselves before a woman realises she's pregnant.

and does the woman in whom the fetus/embryo is contained not have the same rights? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

and judeo-christian law has no bearing on me, who is neither jewish nor christian... i think you need a better reason than that to deny us heathens rights.

[QUOTE=Shotagon]I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.
QUOTE]



This is a pathetic excuse for anti-abortion. How can you tell people what to do with their own bodies by saying you might be killing a potential genius. Most people who have abortions are unable to support a child, financially. If a family can't afford to support it's child, how could you expect that person to have a happy childhood. It's well known that children with turbulent childhoods are more likely to descend to a life of crime. By having abortions, you're more likely preventing criminals from coming into the earth, then you are keeping genuises out of it.

Is it ok to let a person have a miserable life, when their suffering could have been prevented at birth? (This is where pro-lifers and pro-choicers differ)

Where does this right for an abortion come from? If you claim that it is because the baby is somehow part of the womans body, then can a woman get an abortion maybe 2 days before birth - when the baby is completely able to live - and call it an abortion? If you say that these kids are probably going to have crappy lives, can I go to the ghetto and find a 10 year old kid living in a crappy home and kill him because his life is probably not going to turn out well? Nope. All of the arguments about how things that nature does are somehow abortion related as well are stupid. Mensturation is obviously not bad if that is how nature works. Same with miscarriages. Nature's work. And if you are saying that all the lives that have been aborted would have somehow been an "inconvenience" because they would have taken up food and energy, then you are a disgusting human being.

I forgot to add this.

I do think women should have a choice in cases of rape or when the woman's life is in danger. The woman didn't choose to have sex in the rape case and so i believe it is a neccessary evil to have. And I don't aqdvocate the mother's life being taken.

Abortion is murder. The Unborn baby is a human and should have human rights (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It is also against Judaeo-Christian law. I am Liberal, but I am against abortion


Against Christian laws, but certainly not Judeo-Christian laws. In Judism, it is required to abort an unborn child if the child, in any way threatens the life of the mother. Of course, I do not condone abortion out of mere convenience, but if the mother has a good reason to abort a child (child begot of rape, for example.)

Where does this right for an abortion come from? If you claim that it is because the baby is somehow part of the womans body, then can a woman get an abortion maybe 2 days before birth - when the baby is completely able to live - and call it an abortion?

actually, elective abortions aren't legal in most countries past 20 weeks.

after that, it happens only when the woman's life is in danger, often the fetus has developped hydrocephalus and it would kill or cripple the woman to deliver it.

If you say that these kids are probably going to have crappy lives, can I go to the ghetto and find a 10 year old kid living in a crappy home and kill him because his life is probably not going to turn out well? Nope. All of the arguments about how things that nature does are somehow abortion related as well are stupid. Mensturation is obviously not bad if that is how nature works. Same with miscarriages. Nature's work. And if you are saying that all the lives that have been aborted would have somehow been an "inconvenience" because they would have taken up food and energy, then you are a disgusting human being.

umm... it's not just an inconvenience. pregnancy carries with it a host of health risks. why would you go through something terribly risky if you don't want to?

say you agree to a trip to mexico, alcapulco to be specific. now, in alcapulco, you take a tour. the tourgroup goes to go bungee jumping... the tour guide insists that you go bungee jumping since you're in the tour group... you don't want to go. but since you signed up for the tour and bungee jumping is part of the tour, should you be forced to do so?

I forgot to add this.

I do think women should have a choice in cases of rape or when the woman's life is in danger. The woman didn't choose to have sex in the rape case and so i believe it is a neccessary evil to have. And I don't aqdvocate the mother's life being taken.

so abortion is alright so long as the woman didn't enjoy the sex.


also, there is rape, and there is "rape"... a woman may not want to have sex, but in order to please her husband/boyfriend does so anyways. a woman can be coerced into it et c.

I'd love to know where this notion of "right to choose what happens in your own body" comes from.

Last time I checked, taking heroin, commiting suicide, and prostituting your body were all illegal.

Where is the legal precedent for "I can commit a crime if I do it to my own body"?

You are right - killing babies and bungee jumping are very related.

I'd love to know where this notion of "right to choose what happens in your own body" comes from.

Last time I checked, taking heroin, commiting suicide, and prostituting your body were all illegal.

Where is the legal precedent for "I can commit a crime if I do it to my own body"?

1. it's not a crime.
2. the government probably shouldn't be making drugs illegal either, it's up to a person what they put in their own body.
3. since when is suicide illegal?

and also, you have the right to consme alcohol, right? to smoke a cigarette? to shave your head? get tattooed and pierced in every available spot of skin?

then you have the right to do what you will with your body.

You are right - killing babies and bungee jumping are very related.

hey, when you signed up for the tour group, there was the risk of having to go bungee jumping.

also, would you please use proper terminology, it's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus. usually an embryo.

So when does it become a baby?

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.

You are right, it has it's own DNA. I guess we should make sure that people's transplanted organs, blood transfusions, and bone marrow after a transplant all are given the rights of a full-fledged human being as well.

So when does it become a baby?

by medical and dictionary definition: when it is born, it becomes an infant.

3. since when is suicide illegal?


Suicide is still homicide. Technically, if you attempted suicide and failed, you could be charged with attempted murder (although I doubt anyone would ever try and charge someone with that).

Against Christian laws, but certainly not Judeo-Christian laws. In Judism, it is required to abort an unborn child if the child, in any way threatens the life of the mother. Of course, I do not condone abortion out of mere convenience, but if the mother has a good reason to abort a child (child begot of rape, for example.)

The Old Testament (if you take the whole thing literally) also quite clearly states that killing a fetus is not murder - but is, in fact, an offense worth only a fine paid to the father.

So then technically, if it is not a baby until birth, then abortion should be legal right up until birth then huh? So even if the mother has entered labor, you can still have an abortion until the baby is out of the womb? I'm happy we use a dictionary to tell us humans when life starts.

Here's my take on abortion. From the moment of conception, you have a human life growing inside you. It cannot be anything other than a human life. What this child may or may not become when it reaches adulthood is dependent on the kind of environment it is raised in. While I would never have an abortion, since a child's life is sacred to me, I don't believe the government should get into this. I also don't believe people on welfare should get their abortions paid for, as they should show the common sense to use other methods of birth control, or even abstain.
I believe those who chose to use abortion as birth control are basically too lazy or uninformed to use more conventional means. If you're not ready to be a parent, then take steps to prevent the conception! I say this because I worked with a girl who had, at that point, had 7 abortions. She didn't want to "hassle" with using regular birth control, or make her partner wear a condom.
I do not believe there is a legitimate scenario for barbaric partial birth abortion, ever. The argument, with regards to this "procedure", that the pregnancy may present a health risk to the mother doesn't fly for two reasons: 1) High risk pregnancies can usually be determined within the first trimester (w/i the first 3 months), 2) By the nature of the procedure, "partial birth" is bringing about the very event there is supposed to be concern about with regards to the mother, meaning labor is actually initiated. There is also evidence that partial birth abortions cause excrutiating pain for the infant. Even without this research, it is beyond me how a woman can excuse away any pain the unborn child may feel during an abortion, just because the pregnancy represents an inconvenience. If these same procedures were done to a newborn child, the perpetrator would do serious jail time for abuse, torture, and murder.
In cases of rape, I find this to be a tough call, because it is not the fault of the unborn child. Aborting it does not erase the crime, or the memory. The mother should be offered counseling, not just to deal with the rape, but also to be sure about her options with the unborn child. Even the abortion of a child of rape can be regretted years down the road. In any case, if the mother does not feel she is ready to raise a child, for whatever reason, adoption is a perfectly viable option, and there are many women out there who would love to have a child of their own, but can't.

Sorry this was so long-winded, but this soap box had my name on it! ;)

Where does this right for an abortion come from? If you claim that it is because the baby is somehow part of the womans body, then can a woman get an abortion maybe 2 days before birth - when the baby is completely able to live - and call it an abortion?

Most people would say absolutely not. You know why? Because at that point, it is a viable life all on its own and does not need to rely on the mother. Most people who are pro-choice believe that a fetus can be aborted only at certain stages, although there are a select few who think it is allowable right up until birth.

Same with miscarriages. Nature's work.

Miscarriages are most often due to something about the mother's lifestyle that makes her body think it is a bad time for a pregnancy. If you really believe that an embryo is a human being from conception, you must hold her to the same standard that you would hold a woman who has a child. Since her decisions caused its death, you must try her for neglect.

If you do not do so, and simply say "Miscarriages are natural," you have already made a clear distinction between embro/fetus and actual human child.

So then technically, if it is not a baby until birth, then abortion should be legal right up until birth then huh? So even if the mother has entered labor, you can still have an abortion until the baby is out of the womb? I'm happy we use a dictionary to tell us humans when life starts.

well, the general consensus is when the brain starts to work. which is at 22 months.

I believe those who chose to use abortion as birth control are basically too lazy or uninformed to use more conventional means. If you're not ready to be a parent, then take steps to prevent the conception! I say this because I worked with a girl who had, at that point, had 7 abortions. She didn't want to "hassle" with using birth control, or make her partner wear a condom.

That is pretty sick. Seven abortions?

If you say that these kids are probably going to have crappy lives, can I go to the ghetto and find a 10 year old kid living in a crappy home and kill him because his life is probably not going to turn out well? Nope.

...And if you are saying that all the lives that have been aborted would have somehow been an "inconvenience" because they would have taken up food and energy, then you are a disgusting human being.

I didn't mean all these babies will have "crappy lives" (nice language, by the way). I was pointing out that you can't justify outlawing abortion by saying that there is a possibility for the kid to grow up to be the 'world's savoir'.


I didn't say that all the lives that have been aborted are an inconvenience. For, I believe there are many situations where abortion would not be appropriate. But, if a family is unable to provide even the basic comforts of life (food, shelter, clothing, mental and physical happiness) then perhaps the embryo should be aborted, or preferably the baby could be adopted. The most obvious, of course is that the couple should not have had a baby in the first place (if it was consentual intercourse).

So then technically, if it is not a baby until birth, then abortion should be legal right up until birth then huh? So even if the mother has entered labor, you can still have an abortion until the baby is out of the womb? I'm happy we use a dictionary to tell us humans when life starts.

Many would argue that the fetus can be seen as a separate life when it has a functioning nervous system (~the end of the 1st trimester). At that point, while it is not a full human being (ie. it must depend on the mother in a parasitic fashion), it is a separate life (now that it meets the requirements to be a life). Just like we give most types of life some rights, it now has some. Namely, the mother cannot abort it for elective purposes, but can only get rid of it if it puts her health in danger.

Once the fetus becomes viable (could exist outside the mother), most would argue that it is only right to abort it if it is dead/will die within minutes of birth or the woman's life is in danger.

That is pretty sick. Seven abortions?
thats when you start sterilizing people

Well ya see I nevah got a formal eduecation. And I'm so ugelely that I never could have sexxx anyway. So I preach friedom, but I force people to believe in my crack pot thuorys. ;)
My daddy beat me, and I hate the wurld. So I'm against abortion, cause thats why Ahm against abortion, cause that's what Jesus wud do.

QUIT PREACHING FREEDOM YOU GOD DAMN REPBULICAN PIGS!
AND IGNORANT BACK WOODS REATARDS!

It's true, the people against premartial sex are so ugly they couldn't get any if they wanted too. It is a true Aesopian complex, to hate what you'll never have.

By the way I really pissed off this conservative girl in my school by giving this speech. I laughed my ass off that day.

I do not believe there is a legitimate scenario for barbaric partial birth abortion, ever. The argument, with regards to this "procedure", that the pregnancy may present a health risk to the mother doesn't fly for two reasons: 1) High risk pregnancies can usually be determined within the first trimester (w/i the first 3 months), 2) By the nature of the procedure, "partial birth" is bringing about the very event there is supposed to be concern about with regards to the mother, meaning labor is actually initiated. There is also evidence that partial birth abortions cause excrutiating pain for the infant. Even without this research, it is beyond me how a woman can excuse away any pain the unborn child may feel during an abortion, just because the pregnancy represents an inconvenience. If these same procedures were done to a newborn child, the perpetrator would do serious jail time for abuse, torture, and murder.

What about the case in which the fetus has developed hydrochephalus, when this is really the only safe form of aborting the pregnancy and trying to give natural birth would likely kill the mother (the fetus is going to die no matter what anyone does)?

. In any case, if the mother does not feel she is ready to raise a child, for whatever reason, adoption is a perfectly viable option, and there are many women out there who would love to have a child of their own, but can't.

If they want them that bad, they should adopt now, instead of trying to wait for a perfect little white, blonde, blue-eyed child.

Here's my take on abortion. From the moment of conception, you have a human life growing inside you. It cannot be anything other than a human life. What this child may or may not become when it reaches adulthood is dependent on the kind of environment it is raised in. While I would never have an abortion, since a child's life is sacred to me, I don't believe the government should get into this. I also don't believe people on welfare should get their abortions paid for, as they should show the common sense to use other methods of birth control, or even abstain.

so you're pro-choice.

I believe those who chose to use abortion as birth control are basically too lazy or uninformed to use more conventional means. If you're not ready to be a parent, then take steps to prevent the conception! I say this because I worked with a girl who had, at that point, had 7 abortions. She didn't want to "hassle" with using regular birth control, or make her partner wear a condom.

which is why we need better sexual education.

I do not believe there is a legitimate scenario for barbaric partial birth abortion, ever. The argument, with regards to this "procedure", that the pregnancy may present a health risk to the mother doesn't fly for two reasons: 1) High risk pregnancies can usually be determined within the first trimester (w/i the first 3 months), 2) By the nature of the procedure, "partial birth" is bringing about the very event there is supposed to be concern about with regards to the mother, meaning labor is actually initiated. There is also evidence that partial birth abortions cause excrutiating pain for the infant. Even without this research, it is beyond me how a woman can excuse away any pain the unborn child may feel during an abortion, just because the pregnancy represents an inconvenience. If these same procedures were done to a newborn child, the perpetrator would do serious jail time for abuse, torture, and murder.

actually, in response to your stance here.
1. there are a number of conditions which don't present themselves until late in the second trimester, such as hydrocephalus, where the fetal skull takes on fluid and often swells to 50 cm.
2. partial birth abortions aren't elective procedures, so it's not for the sake of convenience and painkillers are given to the fetus for any abortion past 20 weeks.

sure[/I] about her options with the unborn child. Even the abortion of a child of rape can be regretted years down the road. In any case, if the mother does not feel she is ready to raise a child, for whatever reason, adoption is a perfectly viable option, and there are many women out there who would love to have a child of their own, but can't.

councelling is offered to any woman seeking an abortion. it's not mandatory, because women are adults who can make up their own minds.

1. 3. since when is suicide illegal?

Has been as long as I can remember, but a person is usually sent to a psych ward for evaluation and treatment, rather than doing jail time.

Many would argue that the fetus can be seen as a separate life when it has a functioning nervous system (~the end of the 1st trimester).

pst. there aren't brain waves until 22 weeks or so. that's well out of the first trimester.

there are basic nerves and the start of a brain stem around the end of the first trimester...

it's not a kid until it leaves the womb.
there is a huge difference between something that hasn't developped a brain and something that has a fully funcioning central nervious system.

So, it's safe to assume you don't know that a fetus has developed a brain before it most mother's know they're pregnant? Or the fact that the fetus has a FULLY developed brain in the second trimester(not sure the exact week).

To say that a baby has to be born not only shows you are completly unaware of ANY logical argument for or against abortion, but also that you're unaware of the current standing by the supreme court which states that a fetus is a living, sentient being by the third trimester and that it's mostly sentient during the second trimester, preventing so many of the excuses allowed in the first trimester to carry over to the second and almost all from carrying over to the third.

also, there are many medical reasons to abort, many side effects that can happen to previously healthy women who go through with pregnancies.

There are reason's to abort, even the majority of the pro-life side conceeds this(ironically, both sides majority agree it's wrong as contraception and right in cases of rape, incest, or if it threatens the mother's life). However, I believe the number is 94% of the abortions preformed do not have a legimate medical excuse. This argument can only be used against the most extreme pro-lifers, most of which are as unaware of the logically-based arguments as you are.

not to mention that there are more children waiting in foster homes for lack of a place to go then there are people willing to adopt them. unless you produce a white, perfecly healthy infant, chances are they won't find a home.

And here is the finally statement you make which shows you don't understand human rights. You belieev it's more compasionate to strip a being, whether fully or future sentient, of their right to control their own life because you believe it will be a poorer existance. If we flip the script, could I deny you of your right to live because I believe being pro-choice is being of a poorer existance?

And while we're one the subject, what's your veiw of euthenasia and suicide? My thoughts are that if adoption and foster homes are actually of poorer existance, than it should not be the decision of you to remove them from that existance, but of their own will and accord.

Here's my take on abortion. From the moment of conception, you have a human life growing inside you. It cannot be anything other than a human life. What this child may or may not become when it reaches adulthood is dependent on the kind of environment it is raised in. While I would never have an abortion, since a child's life is sacred to me, I don't believe the government should get into this.



I disagree with some of what you say, but agree with other parts. I do not believe that a fetus is a human being. Biologically speaking, it is not human. It is simply a mass of cells that doesn't think or really even feel (emotionally, anyway). Yes, it does have DNA and carry out most life functions, and lives inside a human body, but so does bacteria. Would you consider bacteria human?
What seperates humans from animals? Humans have the ability to think, rationalize, make descisions and to communicate. Can an embryo do this?


I also don't believe people on welfare should get their abortions paid for, as they should show the common sense to use other methods of birth control, or even abstain.
I believe those who chose to use abortion as birth control are basically too lazy or uninformed to use more conventional means. If you're not ready to be a parent, then take steps to prevent the conception! I say this because I worked with a girl who had, at that point, had 7 abortions. She didn't want to "hassle" with using regular birth control, or make her partner wear a condom.


This I agree with readily. The parents should have used protection, and not rely on abortions, if they didn't want a child.
(although there cases when protection is used, but, for whatever reasons, it fails to work. Depending on the situation I would say abortion could be used) It's always preferable to have the baby, as long as you can insure the baby a suitable life.

I don't know if I can speak for all other "pro-choicers", but I too believe that abortion is murder. Here's an interesting thought to reflect on for awhile though. Eggs and sperm are living cells, right? So each time a woman menstruates, she commits murder, and every time a man masturbates, he commits genocide. If all life is sacred, then how come I never hear any big organized protests against either of these activities?

Because it isn't lif until the two combine. A sperm or an egg cannot survive out side the body, and most certainly cannot develop into a child independent of each other.

The Old Testament (if you take the whole thing literally) also quite clearly states that killing a fetus is not murder - but is, in fact, an offense worth only a fine paid to the father.


Just curious, do have the exact Chapter:Verse for this?

so the life of the embryo is more important than the life of the woman who carries it?

No, the embryo's rights are co-existant to the women's right and can only be eliminated if it equally threatens the bearer's rights.

should a woman have to die because of an ecoptic (sp?) pregnancy? or because the fetus developped hydrocephalus?

Most abortions aren't done because the mother's life is threatened, and most who call themselves pro-life and pro-choice agree that in the situations you exclaim that the mother does that the given right to abort. This given right is eqivolent to the right to self-defense.

and again, 50% of fertilized ovum pass out of a woman without implanting themselves. 25% of embryos will spontaneously abort themselves before a woman realises she's pregnant.

Interesting numbers, but they have no relevance to the debate. Deaths caused by nature is not eqivolent to conciensious murder; someone who is killed by a falling rock is not not murdered, but if I stick a knife in their eye they are. Understand?

and does the woman in whom the fetus/embryo is contained not have the same rights? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

On a side not, pursuit of Happiness was taken from John Locke's creed "Life, Liberty, and Land"; however, our fore-fathers didn't want people to believe they'd get forty acres and a mule for immigrating here, so they changes it to pursuit of happiness. At any rate, that line stands for a person's right to property, NOT to kill innocent people.

But as I said before, both rights are co-existant and must be respected on an equal level. Only when a fetus's life threatens the mother's life does the fetus's right to life become less important.

and judeo-christian law has no bearing on me, who is neither jewish nor christian... i think you need a better reason than that to deny us heathens rights.

Just so you know, it holds no bearing upon me either; however, I think us heathens need better reasons to deprive people of their given rights.

So, it's safe to assume you don't know that a fetus has developed a brain before it most mother's know they're pregnant? Or the fact that the fetus has a FULLY developed brain in the second trimester(not sure the exact week).

it doesn't have brain waves until the 22nd week. it does not have a brain before the mother knows she's pregnant. and i said when the fetus becomes a baby is when it's born, not when the fetus shouldn't be aborted anymore, dolt, read any of my other posts...

To say that a baby has to be born not only shows you are completly unaware of ANY logical argument for or against abortion, but also that you're unaware of the current standing by the supreme court which states that a fetus is a living, sentient being by the third trimester and that it's mostly sentient during the second trimester, preventing so many of the excuses allowed in the first trimester to carry over to the second and almost all from carrying over to the third.

again, i have maintained the stance that after brain waves have been detected, the only abortions that should occur are medically necessary ones.

There are reason's to abort, even the majority of the pro-life side conceeds this(ironically, both sides majority agree it's wrong as contraception and right in cases of rape, incest, or if it threatens the mother's life). However, I believe the number is 94% of the abortions preformed do not have a legimate medical excuse. This argument can only be used against the most extreme pro-lifers, most of which are as unaware of the logically-based arguments as you are.

i wasn't referring to direct medical reasons such as poor general health, i was referring to the reprocussions of going through a pregnancy, such as diabetes and varicose veins...

And here is the finally statement you make which shows you don't understand human rights. You belieev it's more compasionate to strip a being, whether fully or future sentient, of their right to control their own life because you believe it will be a poorer existance. If we flip the script, could I deny you of your right to live because I believe being pro-choice is being of a poorer existance?

or i could say that your existence is poorer because you think that women should be used as incubators.
and again, it's potentially a life.

And while we're one the subject, what's your veiw of euthenasia and suicide? My thoughts are that if adoption and foster homes are actually of poorer existance, than it should not be the decision of you to remove them from that existance, but of their own will and accord.

it's not my choice. it's the choice of the woman who is pregnant and considering her options. i don't know what i'd do in such a situation, but who am i to limit the options of another fully sentient, living human being?

for all your "compassion" you don't seem to give a rat's ass about her.

50% of fertilized ovum don't even implant themselves in the uterine wall?

And therefore develop no further. If the ovum doesn't implant, it does not become a child. Not the same as ending the life of what is obviously a developing child.

also, identical twins share dna, are they one person?

Children also share DNA with their parents and other siblings. Does that make them all one person? Obviously not.

people with chimeria have absorbed the dna of their fraternal twin, does this mean that a) they are murderers before they leave the womb? or if not b) they are legally two people?

The surviving twin didn't "choose" to absorb the other, and happens when the absorbed twin dies in utero. And no, the surviving twin is still just one.

You are right - killing babies and bungee jumping are very related.

It was an allegory, try to keep up.

umm... it's not just an inconvenience. pregnancy carries with it a host of health risks. why would you go through something terribly risky if you don't want to?

say you agree to a trip to mexico, alcapulco to be specific. now, in alcapulco, you take a tour. the tourgroup goes to go bungee jumping... the tour guide insists that you go bungee jumping since you're in the tour group... you don't want to go. but since you signed up for the tour and bungee jumping is part of the tour, should you be forced to do so?

It's not quite on the same level, though. With bungee jumping, you are making concesions on your own life, with risks to your own life. They may or may not have been made clear before.

However, with pregnancies the risks are made clear long before the time of conception. You also have to take into consideration the life of the baby as well... if it does not pose a serious threat to the mothers life, than she houses no more right to take away the fetus's given right to life than I do to walk up to a random person and stab them to death.

I'd love to know where this notion of "right to choose what happens in your own body" comes from.

Last time I checked, taking heroin, commiting suicide, and prostituting your body were all illegal.

Where is the legal precedent for "I can commit a crime if I do it to my own body"?

Who the hell is going to take you seriously when you infer that a fetus is part of the mother?

And yes, people do have the right to do what they want with their body; the government is an oppressive body that holds no legimate claim in preventing the free trade and use of drugs or prostitution.

You are right, it has it's own DNA. I guess we should make sure that people's transplanted organs, blood transfusions, and bone marrow after a transplant all are given the rights of a full-fledged human being as well.

There's a diference, they are peices of humans which the owner has given up, and do not possess their own sentience. an infant, on the otherhand, is a seperate being according to science, and becomes sentient rather quickly.

Miscarriages are most often due to something about the mother's lifestyle that makes her body think it is a bad time for a pregnancy. If you really believe that an embryo is a human being from conception, you must hold her to the same standard that you would hold a woman who has a child. Since her decisions caused its death, you must try her for neglect.

If you do not do so, and simply say "Miscarriages are natural," you have already made a clear distinction between embro/fetus and actual human child.

Not quite; she did not conciously make a decision where it was apparent that a fetus's given right to life would be threatened. For example, going onto a rollercoaster ride while pregnant: neglegent. Drinking excessively while in college: not neglegent.

Children also share DNA with their parents and other siblings. Does that make them all one person? Obviously not.

they don't share identical dna with their parents and siblings. identical twins do.

The surviving twin didn't "choose" to absorb the other, and happens when the absorbed twin dies in utero. And no, the surviving twin is still just one.

why wouldn't they be two? it's two sets of dna, two fertilized ovum went into making the person. sometimes it happens later in development, when there are two different embryos, one day one will disappear, this is past the point where most abortions occur. if one embryo is a life, then wouldn't a person made up of two of them be two lives?

Not quite; she did not conciously make a decision where it was apparent that a fetus's given right to life would be threatened. For example, going onto a rollercoaster ride while pregnant: neglegent. Drinking excessively while in college: not neglegent.

so drinking while pregnant is not negligent?

also, couldn't a woman claim to be unaware of her condition when she goes on a roller coaster or takes a job with a moving company?

well, the general consensus is when the brain starts to work. which is at 22 months.

Wow... I never realised a baby didn't use it's brain until it was one year old. :eek:

I think you meant 22 weeks, but then I've have to say that I've generally heard the date as the 8th week.

It's not quite on the same level, though. With bungee jumping, you are making concesions on your own life, with risks to your own life. They may or may not have been made clear before.

However, with pregnancies the risks are made clear long before the time of conception. You also have to take into consideration the life of the baby as well... if it does not pose a serious threat to the mothers life, than she houses no more right to take away the fetus's given right to life than I do to walk up to a random person and stab them to death.

well, in the analogy, it was made clear that there was a possibility of a group trip to go bungee jumping. the person signing up for the tour knew well in advance it was a possibility, they just never thought that they'd actually have to go through with it.

and again, it's the mother's body that's serving as the incubator, her nutrients, her oxygen, her calcium, her iron supply that's being used up by something else. if she doesn't want to have that, she shouldn't have to.

and i must ask, what about a woman who is scraping by on minimum wage. her boss is keeping her at 39 hours a week so she doesn't qualify for benefits... she can barely afford her apartment and food. she discovers she's pregnant, she can't take a month off to give birth and recuperate, if she does, she loses her apartment and is out on the streets. should she not be permitted to have an abortion? 'cause i'm sure that life on the streets is just fine and dandy.

Wow... I never realised a baby didn't use it's brain until it was one year old. :eek:

I think you meant 22 weeks, but then I've have to say that I've generally heard the date as the 8th week.

oops. weeks, yes.

and it has a partial brain stem at 8 weeks, this is hardly a full-fledged brain.

brain waves aren't detected until 22 weeks.

there is a huge difference between something that hasn't developped a brain and something that has a fully funcioning central nervious system.

Brain development begins at 5 weeks, brain waves are detectable at 8 weeks, and the brain is fully formed, and able to feel pain, by the end of the first trimester. So by your own definition, anything after that point is a child.

also, there are many medical reasons to abort, many side effects that can happen to previously healthy women who go through with pregnancies.

True, like tubal pregnancies, or serious medical conditions with the mother preceding pregnancy. However, there are also many non-medical "excuses" that get used. Yes, pregnancy is a risk in and of itself, but if the possible "side effects" are so troubling, why not just go on the pill or use a condom? Why should a baby have to pay for the mother's irresponsibility.

not to mention that there are more children waiting in foster homes for lack of a place to go then there are people willing to adopt them. unless you produce a white, perfecly healthy infant, chances are they won't find a home.

And there are private adoption agencies that have adoptions arranged before the child is even born, usually with the adoptive parents taking care of the mother's medical, and sometimes living, exspenses. And the racial issue is bull, because most parents who turn to adoption aren't concerned about skin color.

Brain development begins at 5 weeks, brain waves are detectable at 8 weeks, and the brain is fully formed, and able to feel pain, by the end of the first trimester. So by your own definition, anything after that point is a child.

state your source, please, because webmd's section for expectant mothers puts brain development slowly along with the development of internal organs and the actual first brain waves at 22 weeks.

and the only place i've seen number such as yours are on rabid pro-life sites that will take a fetus aborted at 6 months and claim that it's one month along, or one that was aborted to save a woman's life and claim that it was aborted just for the hell of it.

True, like tubal pregnancies, or serious medical conditions with the mother preceding pregnancy. However, there are also many non-medical "excuses" that get used. Yes, pregnancy is a risk in and of itself, but if the possible "side effects" are so troubling, why not just go on the pill or use a condom? Why should a baby have to pay for the mother's irresponsibility.

accidents happen. say a woman uses the pill and has her partner use a condom. or hell, let's put the woman on depo prova... and she still gets pregnant.
what then?

also, when you throw artifical hormones in the mix, things tend to get a little messed up...

And there are private adoption agencies that have adoptions arranged before the child is even born, usually with the adoptive parents taking care of the mother's medical, and sometimes living, exspenses. And the racial issue is bull, because most parents who turn to adoption aren't concerned about skin color.

really? the stats i've seen show that usually, it's only homosexual couples who aren't too picky about who they adopt.

so the life of the embryo is more important than the life of the woman who carries it?

If the woman isn't ready, use a condom, the pill, or some other conventional birth control. Abortion is not meant to be birth control.

should a woman have to die because of an ecoptic (sp?) pregnancy? or because the fetus developped hydrocephalus?

I think the word you're looking for is "ectopic", or tubal, pregnancy, which does represent a significant health risk to the mother. Unfortunately, these embryos cannot simply be transplanted into the womb.

and again, 50% of fertilized ovum pass out of a woman without implanting themselves. 25% of embryos will spontaneously abort themselves before a woman realises she's pregnant.

Still wasn't a matter of "choice".

and does the woman in whom the fetus/embryo is contained not have the same rights? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Same answer as part one, use conventional birth control to prevent the conception in the first place.

and judeo-christian law has no bearing on me, who is neither jewish nor christian... i think you need a better reason than that to deny us heathens rights.

If by "heathen", you mean Pagan, as a former Pagan I know all life is considered sacred. If you mean Atheist, well....

it doesn't have brain waves until the 22nd week. it does not have a brain before the mother knows she's pregnant. and i said when the fetus becomes a baby is when it's born, not when the fetus shouldn't be aborted anymore, dolt, read any of my other posts...

Yes, at the general time when a mother is finding out she's pregnant the fetus is developing the brain. This is well within the first trimiester.

And you're right, there's a difference between a fuctioning brain and an a brain. However, I have to bring up the old argument: if a man has become brain-dead, does he not deserve the right to life? The brain still exists with the potential to produce brainwaves(making it potentially sentient), and the fetus is living from the moment of conception already.

again, i have maintained the stance that after brain waves have been detected, the only abortions that should occur are medically necessary ones.

Ok, we agree this far; however, I'd go further to say that potentially sentient (human) life deserves just as much protection as fully sentient life.

i wasn't referring to direct medical reasons such as poor general health, i was referring to the reprocussions of going through a pregnancy, such as diabetes and varicose veins...

Could you restate this, I don't understand it's context within the debate but I can see the importance.

or i could say that your existence is poorer because you think that women should be used as incubators.
and again, it's potentially a life.

Not true, they should also be used as cooks and dishwashers. ;)

Without going into the prospect of rape, a pregnant women consented to it when she had sex. And again, the fetus can grow, reproduce, etc. thus making it life. It is human, seperate from it's parents, thus making it human life. the question is if it's sentient, if it's partially or fully sentient, and what given rights it deserves based on that sentience?

it's not my choice. it's the choice of the woman who is pregnant and considering her options. i don't know what i'd do in such a situation, but who am i to limit the options of another fully sentient, living human being?

I don't like to limit another person's freedoms, but murder denies somebody else of a greater freedom. Again, keep this to the central topic: Is a fetus a sentient life worthy of the given rights within our society?

for all your "compassion" you don't seem to give a rat's ass about her.

I care about her rights, but you seem to think that the murderer has more rights than the victim. Unless her life is threatened, she does not have the right to take the life of another sentient human being, nor a potentially sentient human being.

You can make as many runs to your dictionary as you want, but we're never going to agree on when human life begins. I believe it starts at conception, and that abortion is murder. However, in cases of rape and when the mother's life is at stake, then I think abortion should be an option.

If the woman isn't ready, use a condom, the pill, or some other conventional birth control. Abortion is not meant to be birth control.

i never said it was, but what about women who use both and still end up pregnant?

Still wasn't a matter of "choice".

still, if life began at conception, then why would half of all human life spontaneously die before dividing past 8 cells?

Same answer as part one, use conventional birth control to prevent the conception in the first place.

same response as the last time, what if the birth control doesn't work?

If by "heathen", you mean Pagan, as a former Pagan I know all life is considered sacred. If you mean Atheist, well....

no, by heathen i mean anyone who is not jewish or christian, as is the definition.

and again, there's the debate about the beginning of life in this instance.

they don't share identical dna with their parents and siblings. identical twins do.

Yes, but not even identical twins have the potenital of posessing the same mind.

why wouldn't they be two? it's two sets of dna, two fertilized ovum went into making the person. sometimes it happens later in development, when there are two different embryos, one day one will disappear, this is past the point where most abortions occur. if one embryo is a life, then wouldn't a person made up of two of them be two lives?

does the second set of DNA grow and develop seperatly from the first? Think about lichens, they are considered one species because of how they interact despite being made up of two different species. The share a common "will", if you will, whereas the DNA in the second person has the same "will" as the sentient child.

so drinking while pregnant is not negligent?

No, it most certainly is; drinking BEFORE you're pregnant, or getting an STD that fucks up your uterus, is NOT neglegent.

also, couldn't a woman claim to be unaware of her condition when she goes on a roller coaster or takes a job with a moving company?

I could set fire to my house and plead innocent to arson, doesn't make it so. Whether she claims so or not, if she's aware she's aware. If not, than she isn't negligent.

Yes, but not even identical twins have the potenital of posessing the same mind.

so now it's the mind, not the dna that's important. i see.

so that means that until there are brain waves, abortions should be permissable.

No, it most certainly is; drinking BEFORE you're pregnant, or getting an STD that fucks up your uterus, is NOT neglegent.

but why even bring up drinking before pregnancy? what did that have to do with anything?

I could set fire to my house and plead innocent to arson, doesn't make it so. Whether she claims so or not, if she's aware she's aware. If not, than she isn't negligent.

and you plan on proving her knowledge of her pergnancy how?

i never said it was, but what about women who use both and still end up pregnant?



still, if life began at conception, then why would half of all human life spontaneously die before dividing past 8 cells?



same response as the last time, what if the birth control doesn't work?



no, by heathen i mean anyone who is not jewish or christian, as is the definition.

and again, there's the debate about the beginning of life in this instance.

Well, first off, if a man and a woman are having sex there is ALWAYS a chance that pregnacy can occur. When partaking in such actions, it should be understood by both parties that having sex can result in making a baby. Saying that the birth control didn't work is one thing, but blaming it all on contraceptives is irresponsible to say the least.

The reason I am mostly pro-life is for this mere fact. I say mostly because I do believe in certain circumstances it is acceptable, such as cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger.

If you live in the United States (other countries can do as they please), you are guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness in that order. Unfortunately the liberty of the "mother" (and I use the term loosely for some) is trumped by the rights of the child, however without life the other two guarantees cannot be enjoyed.

I guess it's a good thing that I am not the Supreme Court... :-)

well, in the analogy, it was made clear that there was a possibility of a group trip to go bungee jumping. the person signing up for the tour knew well in advance it was a possibility, they just never thought that they'd actually have to go through with it.

Ok, so let me see if I understand the allegory correctly: The act of sex would be the trip, and the pregnancy would be the act of bungee jumping. Not going bungee jumping would therefore be the same as the act of abortion?

Now, here's the difference; the act of an abortion does kill a child. The act of not bungee jumping only holds your life and yourself within it. So, while in both you accept the possibility of an action happening, you can decide not to bungee because you only effect yourself. On the other hand, the abortion, while having a positive effect on you, comes with you determining the loss of life for another.

and again, it's the mother's body that's serving as the incubator, her nutrients, her oxygen, her calcium, her iron supply that's being used up by something else. if she doesn't want to have that, she shouldn't have to.

That sentiment contridicts the other statement where you claim "only if her life is threatened after 22 weeks".

And she consents to the pregnancy when she has sex. If someone goes to BK everyday, three times, and ends up really fat, did they not consent? But whereas they can work it off because they are only effecting themselves, an abortion kills a potentially(or fully) sentient human being.

Or more on point, if somoene cointridicts an STD, they can destroy it because it's not sentient, or potentially sentient, human life.

and i must ask, what about a woman who is scraping by on minimum wage. her boss is keeping her at 39 hours a week so she doesn't qualify for benefits... she can barely afford her apartment and food. she discovers she's pregnant, she can't take a month off to give birth and recuperate, if she does, she loses her apartment and is out on the streets. should she not be permitted to have an abortion? 'cause i'm sure that life on the streets is just fine and dandy.

Did she not consent to the pregnancy when she had sex? If not, than of course she can. If she did consent, than she should have to take the blame for the destruction of her own life.

It's amazing how you can have a bleeding heart for those who wish to avoid responsibility for their actions, and yet be so cold to those who would loose their life because of it.

If you do not do so, and simply say "Miscarriages are natural," you have already made a clear distinction between embro/fetus and actual human child.

Miscarriage is a natural act, which occurs when something goes wrong with the child's development, it ceases to grow, then usually spontaneously aborts. It's tragic, but nothing can be done about it. There's a big difference between that and the deliberate choice to end the pregnancy. Either way, it is the loss of human life.

Well, first off, if a man and a woman are having sex there is ALWAYS a chance that pregnacy can occur. When partaking in such actions, it should be understood by both parties that having sex can result in making a baby. Saying that the birth control didn't work is one thing, but blaming it all on contraceptives is irresponsible to say the least.

how is it irresponsable? they know they weren't ready for it, they put measures in place to prevent such a scenario, the measures failed, they deal with it in another way.

and the birth control pill can mess up fetal development pretty badly, you know.

The reason I am mostly pro-life is for this mere fact. I say mostly because I do believe in certain circumstances it is acceptable, such as cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger.

i.e. necessity or when she didn't enjoy the sex. gotcha.

If you live in the United States (other countries can do as they please), you are guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness in that order. Unfortunately the liberty of the "mother" (and I use the term loosely for some) is trumped by the rights of the child, however without life the other two guarantees cannot be enjoyed.

i don't live in the u.s., and the child isn't a child, and it's quite arguable whether it's a separate life.

and again, what about the instance i presented earlier, where a woman couldn't take a month (or more) out of work lest she end up on the street.

kills a child
pro life saves a childs life
is that simple.

That is pretty sick. Seven abortions?

Yep. Granted, this is probably a pretty extreme case, she was also pretty slutty. She just didn't give a s*** about anything but her own wants. Everything else was just an annoyance.

Ok, so let me see if I understand the allegory correctly: The act of sex would be the trip, and the pregnancy would be the act of bungee jumping. Not going bungee jumping would therefore be the same as the act of abortion?

yes.

Now, here's the difference; the act of an abortion does kill a child. The act of not bungee jumping only holds your life and yourself within it. So, while in both you accept the possibility of an action happening, you can decide not to bungee because you only effect yourself. On the other hand, the abortion, while having a positive effect on you, comes with you determining the loss of life for another.

it does not kill a child. again, a fetus is not a child, an embryo is not a child, would you please use the proper terminology.
and the bungee jumping was more a refrence to the risks of pregnancy on a woman.
and again, the subject of when life begins is highly debateable. as already covered with another poster, the mind seems to be the determinant of human life. and the fetus does not posess such a characteristic until well after the majority of abortions are preformed.

That sentiment contridicts the other statement where you claim "only if her life is threatened after 22 weeks".

how do you figure? she had plenty of time to deceide before 22 weeks.

And she consents to the pregnancy when she has sex.

no she does not. are attempts to prevent something a sign of consent? i don't think so...

But whereas they can work it off because they are only effecting themselves, an abortion kills a potentially(or fully) sentient human being.

again, abortions are not permitted electively after the fetus has brainwaves... thus it does not happen to sentient beings.

Or more on point, if somoene cointridicts an STD, they can destroy it because it's not sentient, or potentially sentient, human life.

a fetus isn't sentient when it can be aborted, and it may never become sentient, it's not just abortion that prevents that either.

Did she not consent to the pregnancy when she had sex? If not, than of course she can. If she did consent, than she should have to take the blame for the destruction of her own life.

obviously sex and pregnancy are two different things. consenting to one is not consenting to the other.

It's amazing how you can have a bleeding heart for those who wish to avoid responsibility for their actions, and yet be so cold to those who would loose their life because of it.

how is it avoiding responsability? you act like an abortion is a) an easy choice for a woman to make and b) an easy procedure to go through.
and c) it's not a life just because you say it is.

i never said it was, but what about women who use both and still end up pregnant?

You could double up on condoms(pretend that increases protection instead of vice versa), take the pill, have him take the pill, AND pullout, and you'd still have more chance than winning the lottery. Does that mean the winner of the lottery doesn't deserve to accept the lottery because of the incredibly slim chance that they would actually win?

still, if life began at conception, then why would half of all human life spontaneously die before dividing past 8 cells?

Who knows, but why is not relevent; they aren't conciously destroyed, therefore they are not murdered. Why does an 81 y/o man suddenly pass away in the night? Does the fact he died erase the fact he ever lived?

no, by heathen i mean anyone who is not jewish or christian, as is the definition.

and again, there's the debate about the beginning of life in this instance.

Religion is a terrible basis for politics; the only "legitimate" purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty, and property. Allowing abortions clearly does not protect life, it actually harms it by subsidizing death.

kills a child
pro life saves a childs life
is that simple.

it's not a child
can endanger a woman's life
and if it was that simple, then no one would be arguing it anymore.

so now it's the mind, not the dna that's important. i see.

so that means that until there are brain waves, abortions should be permissable.

No, I'm saying both are important. Before brainwaves, a fetus lis living and has potential sentience. After, he has both. Before one twin dies, there's two lifes and two sets of potential sentience(or full), but after there's only one set of sentience controlling two sets of DNA. The real question is when one set of DNA is controlled by two sets of sentience?

but why even bring up drinking before pregnancy? what did that have to do with anything?

Because it has a negitive effect on the uterus, while not being negligent. Try re-reading a little bit.

and you plan on proving her knowledge of her pergnancy how?

Doesn't matter, whether proven or not she knew she was pregnant. All you're doing is showing a loophole that is more relevent to case law than criminal.

You could double up on condoms(pretend that increases protection instead of vice versa), take the pill, have him take the pill, AND pullout, and you'd still have more chance than winning the lottery. Does that mean the winner of the lottery doesn't deserve to accept the lottery because of the incredibly slim chance that they would actually win?

no, it means that the participants took all precautions, and they failed and they can still rectify the situation. your analogy is rather silly.

let's say you go skiing and you follow your intructor's directions to the letter, and you still break your leg. does that mean that you shouldn't be treated and your leg set? you knew there was a chance of breaking your leg when you went skiing.

Who knows, but why is not relevent; they aren't conciously destroyed, therefore they are not murdered. Why does an 81 y/o man suddenly pass away in the night? Does the fact he died erase the fact he ever lived?

again, if a human life began at conception, then identical twins are still one person and a chimeric twin is still two.

Religion is a terrible basis for politics; the only "legitimate" purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty, and property. Allowing abortions clearly does not protect life, it actually harms it by subsidizing death.

it can be argued that life has not yey begun. thus it is neutral to life. if it was so obvious that life began at conception, again, this debate would have been settled long, long ago.

Because it has a negitive effect on the uterus, while not being negligent. Try re-reading a little bit.
i did read it, you brought the two instances up one after the other as though they were the same thing.

Doesn't matter, whether proven or not she knew she was pregnant. All you're doing is showing a loophole that is more relevent to case law than criminal.

and all you're doing is saying that women should be liable for living their lives while they're pregnant.

i.e. necessity or when she didn't enjoy the sex. gotcha.

Great to know you have such a bleeding heart, and yet don't understand the concept of CONSENTUAL SEX.

You've made that statement atleast twice now, subjectively discrediting all of your statements. I wouldn't be surpised if people don't really take you as seriously as you should be.

No, I'm saying both are important. Before brainwaves, a fetus lis living and has potential sentience. After, he has both. Before one twin dies, there's two lifes and two sets of potential sentience(or full), but after there's only one set of sentience controlling two sets of DNA. The real question is when one set of DNA is controlled by two sets of sentience?

it has potential i see.

so a 5 year old has the potential to be the next mozart. therefore, the five year old's parents and the 5 year old should receive full royalties for their son's future preformances.

however, the kid deceides he likes baseball better and breaks his hand playing t-ball.

potential is not the same as actual.

the woman is an actual sentient, human being. the fetus is not.

Great to know you have such a bleeding heart, and yet don't understand the concept of CONSENTUAL SEX.

You've made that statement atleast twice now, subjectively discrediting all of your statements. I wouldn't be surpised if people don't really take you as seriously as you should be.

what? it's true.

consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy and by saying that only women who have been raped (didn't consent to either) can have abortions, you're saying that women aren't allowed to engage in consetual sex without punishment.

edit: i'm off, i have to study for a midterm. if someone else is on the pro-choice side, then you'll have someone new to go after and repeatedly call a bleeding heart, if not then whatever. bye.

so you're pro-choice.

I'm pro-life, but I also don't happen to think the government should get involved with legislation. I believe abortin is murder, but that's between the woman and God, or the woman and her conscience later in life if she's atheist.



which is why we need better sexual education.

Sex education does cover conventional birth control. Some people just don't want to bother with precautions.



actually, in response to your stance here.
1. there are a number of conditions which don't present themselves until late in the second trimester, such as hydrocephalus, where the fetal skull takes on fluid and often swells to 50 cm.
2. partial birth abortions aren't elective procedures, so it's not for the sake of convenience and painkillers are given to the fetus for any abortion past 20 weeks.

Unborn children that develop hydrocephalus typically die in utero. Sometimes they survive, though, and can be safely delivered by c-section. You define a child as a child at the moment of birth, so why isn't it a child at this point also? Just because it hasn't completely imerged, it doesn't count yet?

In cases of rape, I find this to be a tough call, because it is not the fault of the unborn child. Aborting it does not erase the crime, or the memory. The mother should be offered counseling, not just to deal with the rape, but also to be sure about her options with the unborn child. Even the abortion of a child of rape can be regretted years down the road. In any case, if the mother does not feel she is ready to raise a child, for whatever reason, adoption is a perfectly viable option, and there are many women out there who would love to have a child of their own, but can't.

councelling is offered to any woman seeking an abortion. it's not mandatory, because women are adults who can make up their own minds.

Half-assed counseling that usually doesn't even mention the possibility of giving the child up for adoption.

If you want to argue that a fetus is a human being, fine, but here are some problems:

1. At what point? At conception, when its a bundle of cells, is it then a human being entitled to full rights and such? Should women who smoke during pregnancy then be charged with assualt? Any number of ridiculous but sequitor legal concepts then come about.

2. At birth? So abortion is legal right up to the point the feet or head are out? What about premature births and such? With technology, we've pushed back the point where a fetus becomes viable outside the mother's womb. That doesn't mean labor is advisable at 6 or 7 months, but it can be possible to give birth to a child and have it survive. What then? Is abortion only legal up to the point where with technology we could help the fetus survive on its own? So we then force the woman to continue to carry the child? Obviously a huge amount of gray area.

3. Many cultures beleive a person is not a person until they have lived for several years. For example, on a child's 6th birthday in China it was beleived to have received a soul and become a full human being. In the Bible, there is no mention of abortion or when a person is actually a person. In fact, the closest the Bible ever comes is in Leviticus, where there is a law that states if a man strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, he is to pay a fine of silver. The penalty for murder is death by stoning; obviously, for those who wish to tout the Bible as authority against abortion, even God seems to recognize a gray area here.

So I throw it out there: No one wants to commit murder, pro or anti abortion. So at what point is a human a human? At what point does life begin, and what do we base that concept on? And if we don't know, if we can't answer that question, do we have the right to deamnd that women have unwanted pregnancies, and have the right to take an individual's control over their own body away?

so the life of the embryo is more important than the life of the woman who carries it?

should a woman have to die because of an ecoptic (sp?) pregnancy? or because the fetus developped hydrocephalus?

and again, 50% of fertilized ovum pass out of a woman without implanting themselves. 25% of embryos will spontaneously abort themselves before a woman realises she's pregnant.

and does the woman in whom the fetus/embryo is contained not have the same rights? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

and judeo-christian law has no bearing on me, who is neither jewish nor christian... i think you need a better reason than that to deny us heathens rights.
I support it when the mother's life is threatened

The fact is, a fetus's DNA will always be different from his/her mothers. That would make it a separate person from the mother, and thus, not a part of his/her mother's body.

Even if the birth control fails, that doesn't mean that the mother is stuck raising the child. There are many wonderful people out there who will take the baby. The waiting list for adoption is the same as the numbers of feti who are aborted.

What is rape? Rape is a stronger person commiting an act of violence on a weaker one. Does that mean, that, in turn, the victim of the rape can commit an act of violence on an even weaker person? The rape will never go away. Aborting the fetus won't make it so. If the woman is unable or unwilling to raise the child, she can put it up for adoption.

By the way, the word "fetus" in Latin means "young one." So it is no more comforting to abort a fetus than a baby.

The fact is, a fetus's DNA will always be different from his/her mothers. That would make it a separate person from the mother, and thus, not a part of his/her mother's body.

Even if the birth control fails, that doesn't mean that the mother is stuck raising the child. There are many wonderful people out there who will take the baby. The waiting list for adoption is the same as the numbers of feti who are aborted.

What is rape? Rape is a stronger person commiting an act of violence on a weaker one. Does that mean, that, in turn, the victim of the rape can commit an act of violence on an even weaker person? The rape will never go away. Aborting the fetus won't make it so. If the woman is unable or unwilling to raise the child, she can put it up for adoption.

By the way, the word "fetus" in Latin means "young one." So it is no more comforting to abort a fetus than a baby.
bacteria has different dna what is your point

and it STILL costs money to go throguh the pregnancy THEN give birth, since you are pro life here is something for you: adotp a pregnate woman who wants an abortion. it involves you paying for every expense incurred by her pregnancy: doctors fees, everything. ad when she has the kid, you get to keep it or choose who it goes to. thanks for participating in the "im a self righteous nuisance" program i mean..

bacteria has different dna what is your point

True. However, if you were to take a sample of that fetus's DNA, you would find that it is human DNA, and different from the mother's DNA.

and it STILL costs money to go throguh the pregnancy THEN give birth, since you are pro life here is something for you: adotp a pregnate woman who wants an abortion. it involves you paying for every expense incurred by her pregnancy: doctors fees, everything. ad when she has the kid, you get to keep it or choose who it goes to. thanks for participating in the "im a self righteous nuisance" program i mean..

How much money is life worth? Besides, I'm sure if she can't afford it, there are programs and things to help her out. Even if the government doesn't, there are many, many Pregnancy Counselling Centres available to pay for those things.

True. However, if you were to take a sample of that fetus's DNA, you would find that it is human DNA, and different from the mother's DNA.



How much money is life worth? Besides, I'm sure if she can't afford it, there are programs and things to help her out. Even if the government doesn't, there are many, many Pregnancy Counselling Centres available to pay for those things.
NO, the idea is YOU pro-life nutters pay for it, NOT the mother, NOT the government, YOU. you want ythe babies alive, you start paying for it

they don't share identical dna with their parents and siblings. identical twins do.

Yes, they do. Not an exact match, but there is some shared DNA, otherwise there'd be nothing to compare DNA to in paternity cases. And even indentical twins aren't identical right down to the genetic level.



why wouldn't they be two? it's two sets of dna, two fertilized ovum went into making the person. sometimes it happens later in development, when there are two different embryos, one day one will disappear, this is past the point where most abortions occur. if one embryo is a life, then wouldn't a person made up of two of them be two lives?

The absorbed twin typically dies in utero, as I said before, and is then absorbed by the surviving twin sometimes. At this point, the dead twin is no longer a separate life, and therefore does not make the surviving twin two people. Basically, the genetic building blocks previously being used by the deceased twin are recycled into the survivor.

I'd love to know where this notion of "right to choose what happens in your own body" comes from.
It is called the right to Security of Person. It has been adopted by most countries in the world through membership in the United Nations, by ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

What this means is that every human being has the right to have their person secure from interference from others, especially government. In the case of a pregnant woman, if the child were to be defined with human rights there is great potential for the rights of the child and the mother to over-lap and infringe on each other's right to life and security of person. For this reason, the pre-born infant is not legally defined as a human being with human rights in any country on the Earth. Before they are born, children's rights are covered under the mother's rights, as her rights.

Last time I checked, taking heroin, commiting suicide, and prostituting your body were all illegal.

Where is the legal precedent for "I can commit a crime if I do it to my own body"?
Do you live in the United States? That country is not exactly famous for its adherence to human or civil rights, especially since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

well, in the analogy, it was made clear that there was a possibility of a group trip to go bungee jumping. the person signing up for the tour knew well in advance it was a possibility, they just never thought that they'd actually have to go through with it.

and again, it's the mother's body that's serving as the incubator, her nutrients, her oxygen, her calcium, her iron supply that's being used up by something else. if she doesn't want to have that, she shouldn't have to.

and i must ask, what about a woman who is scraping by on minimum wage. her boss is keeping her at 39 hours a week so she doesn't qualify for benefits... she can barely afford her apartment and food. she discovers she's pregnant, she can't take a month off to give birth and recuperate, if she does, she loses her apartment and is out on the streets. should she not be permitted to have an abortion? 'cause i'm sure that life on the streets is just fine and dandy.

She should have the common sense to either abstain, or use a condom. You don't need benefits for a condom.

the US doesnt recognize externally documentated rules on anything

From embryo to child form, we go through each step of our own species' evolution.

The real question is : when is it, that one becomes conscious of his own being? Because killing an uncounscious fetus (well, embryo) looks like banging a deer with a car to me.

*Edits* Is masterbation a genocide?

i never said it was, but what about women who use both and still end up pregnant?

Abstainance. If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, and doesn't trust birth control, don't have sex.



still, if life began at conception, then why would half of all human life spontaneously die before dividing past 8 cells?

This is a natural act. Abortion is not.

Abstainance. If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, and doesn't trust birth control, don't have sex.
.
pretending the self righteous preaching about abstinence works is the exact reason there are so many damn abortions and teen pregnancies

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

or it could have grown up to be an infamous serial killer or terrorist. youre right.....we'll never know

Do you live in the United States? That country is not exactly famous for its adherence to human or civil rights, especially since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.[/QUOTE]

the US has the absolute best civil rights in the world.....you must not know much of the US. lots of people move there so that they may have better civil rights.

the US has the absolute best civil rights in the world.....you must not know much of the US. lots of people move there so that they may have better civil rights.
really like who? people from dictatorships and 3rd world countries dont count

I'm just going to be extra mean against my own ideals, but that's for fun here...

A mom who already has 13 children, is single, poor, and suffers from a STD decides to get herself aborted... what did she do? Kill Beethoven!! (lol... that would've been true - but whoever takes this thing for granted is a prick, since Hitler could have been the best choice for abortion and he wasn't)

really like who? people from dictatorships and 3rd world countries dont count

are you just that ignorant?

Do you live in the United States? That country is not exactly famous for its adherence to human or civil rights, especially since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

the US has the absolute best civil rights in the world.....you must not know much of the US. lots of people move there so that they may have better civil rights.

*Bursts in laughter*

You know, in Canada... we DO have a word to say in passing the laws. We DO elect our leaders by majority. And our life is, in general, damn more comfortable. Your "civil rights" are naught but theory, mostly.

America has great civil rights. Homeland Security takes away a very small amount of freedom, so little that harldy anyone is affected at all. Would you rather lose a bit of freedom, or have ruthless Islamic terrorists exploding bombs in our major cities? If we don't try to stop them now, 'exploding bombs in our major cities' may one day not be a hyperbole. Also, as a Catholic, I am completely opposed to abortion.

Oh, and it's really refreshing to read a thread where people actually discuss this in a rather mature way, instead of endless name-calling and religion bashing.

are you just that ignorant?
no examples captain i-think-i-am-better-than-you?

America has great civil rights. Homeland Security takes away a very small amount of freedom, so little that harldy anyone is affected at all. Would you rather lose a bit of freedom, or have ruthless Islamic terrorists exploding bombs in our major cities? If we don't try to stop them now, 'exploding bombs in our major cities' may one day not be a hyperbole. Also, as a Catholic, I am completely opposed to abortion.

Oh, and it's really refreshing to read a thread where people actually discuss this in a rather mature way, instead of endless name-calling and religion bashing.
your kidding right?

*points and laughs at you

The only thing to fear is fear itself, and the Bush team has an excellent Minister of Fear

no, it means that the participants took all precautions, and they failed and they can still rectify the situation. your analogy is rather silly.

"Rectify the situation?" You make it sound like al they did was overdraw their checking account.

let's say you go skiing and you follow your intructor's directions to the letter, and you still break your leg. does that mean that you shouldn't be treated and your leg set? you knew there was a chance of breaking your leg when you went skiing.

In either scenario, they had the option to not have sex at all. In this, and your minimum wage woman scenario, since finance seems to factor into your reasoning, having an abortion isn't cheap. If they're so worried about the expense of a pregnancy, why risk the expense of an abortion? Abortion also carries risks, which are far more likely to result in a fatality, as in the case of the woman who bled to death a couple years back because of a botched abortion.

no examples captain i-think-i-am-better-than-you?


i dont need to display examples. do you know how many people move to the US everyday??? a broad aray of people from russia to mexico. and how do you figure 3rd world countries and dictatorships dont count? i dont see them moving to the UK,Austrailia, Canada or Asia. our country isnt perfect, but hell-who's is? I'm not better than anyone, but to say who does and does not count or who chooses to move here , for whatevre reason, is not for you to determine. if you dont like the US, then dont come here.

i dont need to display examples. do you know how many people move to the US everyday??? a broad aray of people from russia to mexico. and how do you figure 3rd world countries and dictatorships dont count? i dont see them moving to the UK,Austrailia, Canada or Asia. our country isnt perfect, but hell-who's is? I'm not better than anyone, but to say who does and does not count or who chooses to move here , for whatevre reason, is not for you to determine. if you dont like the US, then dont come here.
why would you see them moving there? do you live there. hell do you physically see them moving to the US?

why would you see them moving there? do you live there. hell do you physically see them moving to the US?


yes i do live in the US. YES i physically see them moving here. i also watch the news, read the paper, hear reports of the percentages of imigrants and people from other nations seeking a way to move to the US. why do you think they call it the melting pot? people from every region in the world move here. theres no greater mix of nationality. the ones of you who are so clear on how our government works.....have you ever lived here and then moved away? at least then you would have a comparison and not just an unfounded idea of how you think our civil rights work.

yes i do live in the US. YES i physically see them moving here. i also watch the news, read the paper, hear reports of the percentages of imigrants and people from other nations seeking a way to move to the US. why do you think they call it the melting pot? people from every region in the world move here. theres no greater mix of nationality. the ones of you who are so clear on how our government works.....have you ever lived here and then moved away? at least then you would have a comparison and not just an unfounded idea of how you think our civil rights work.
and where do yo uget the unfounded idea they are all moving here because of our "superior" civil rights

and where do yo uget the unfounded idea they are all moving here because of our "superior" civil rights
.

better yet....why dont you tell me why they are moving here? i dont care i they move here for the chili dogs and apple pie. if they can have a better life for their families here-then welcome aboard i say.

NO, the idea is YOU pro-life nutters pay for it, NOT the mother, NOT the government, YOU. you want ythe babies alive, you start paying for it


"Pro life nutters?" C'mon, Chess Squares. You can come up with a better argument than that. ;) And there are adoption agencies everywhere that will hook the expectant mother up with couples who actually WANT a child but can't have one, and who will pay for all the expenses.
Abortion should be a last resort, a protection of the life of the mother, period.
Not a birth control method.

.

better yet....why dont you tell me why they are moving here? i dont care i they move here for the chili dogs and apple pie. if they can have a better life for their families here-then welcome aboard i say.
which has nothing to do with civil rights, unless you can prove it

"Pro life nutters?" C'mon, Chess Squares. You can come up with a better argument than that. ;) And there are adoption agencies everywhere that will hook the expectant mother up with couples who actually WANT a child but can't have one, and who will pay for all the expenses.
Abortion should be a last resort, a protection of the life of the mother, period.
Not a birth control method.
if you use abortion as a birth control method you should be sterilized, but you are just being a pro-life nutjob. you want them to crry it to term, you pay for it, for EVERYTHING> its not too hard, you are so dedicated to your cause, do 2 things: stop advocating abstinence because it doesnt work and advocate birth control methods instead, and 2, pay women to carry children to term instead of having an abortion

*Bursts in laughter*

You know, in Canada... we DO have a word to say in passing the laws. We DO elect our leaders by majority. And our life is, in general, damn more comfortable. Your "civil rights" are naught but theory, mostly.

ahh...canada.....yes, a country with so much to brag about.

Essential points of the pro-choice consensus:

The government should not have the power to force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will.

A fetus or zygote, if seperated physically from a pregnant woman, does not function as a seperate oraganism.

An infant, if seperated physically from its mother (umbilical cord cut) functions as a seperate organism.


Points of integrity I consider vital:

Anyone in favor of a legal compulsion for women to carry pregnencies must, to retain integrity, meet two qualifications:
1) Individual must have adopted a child
2) Individual must actively distribute contraceptives among groups with the highest likelihood of becoming pregnant and then having an abortion performed.

If these two conditions are not met, I do not believe a proponent of government-compelled pregnency has the personal responsibility to be in the position to dictate to others.

ahh...canada.....yes, a country with so much to brag about.
yeah like, not being the US. thats enough to brag about. then lets throw in free health care, cheaper drugs, more civil rights and general freedom

which has nothing to do with civil rights, unless you can prove it


why so bitter? how would you like me to prove "it"? what the heck are we provng anyway. i thought we were expressing our opinions in here. or does one have to bring charts and graphs to justify their view? our civil rights are great-end of story. "prove it" is something a 3rd grader says when they have no idea how to win an argument. grow up

*takes her civil rights and goes to bed*

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.

Preganancy occuers at implantaion, NOT conception. The vast majority of conceptions and pregnancies also end in NATURAL miscarraiges.

Also, what about cases where the baby will die a few weeks after birth, such as Harlequin foetus syndrome?

yeah like, not being the US. thats enough to brag about. then lets throw in free health care, cheaper drugs, more civil rights and general freedom


sure, if you dont mind getting low quality healthcare. no thanks. i'll pay for my healthcare rather than be treated with outdated equipment and unqualified doctors .

why so bitter? how would you like me to prove "it"? what the heck are we provng anyway. i thought we were expressing our opinions in here. or does one have to bring charts and graphs to justify their view? our civil rights are great-end of story. "prove it" is something a 3rd grader says when they have no idea how to win an argument. grow up

*takes her civil rights and goes to bed*
when your trying to state something you assert is a fact that the other party doesnt take as a fact you prove it. welcome to debating 101

sure, if you dont mind getting low quality healthcare. no thanks. i'll pay for my healthcare rather than be treated with outdated equipment and unqualified doctors .
low quality health care? i dont recall the health care around here being too fucknig superior. lets see, the local major hospital is a licensed killzone. the doctors around here could care less about patient health, as long as they get paid

pretending the self righteous preaching about abstinence works is the exact reason there are so many damn abortions and teen pregnancies

You don't know me, CS, so don't accuse me of being self-righteous. If you read through Dakini's various scenarios, s/he is working toward an excuse for abortion, I'm working in the opposite direction. I was a teenager once, in fact I got pregnant at 19. I still chose to have my child, who is now a grown young man attending college, and of whom I am damn proud.
The fact is, people are going to have sex. If they don't want a child, then they should try birth control. There are various kinds, so just because one doesn't work doesn't mean another won't. If they don't have benefits, use condoms. Then if their issue is the cost of raising a child, or their more immediate finacial situation, try seeking out an adoptive family, who will often take care of the mother through pregnancy as well. There are tons of agencies who handle this sort of thing. Plus, abortions aren't free, nor should they be.
Abortion should only be used where the mother's life is at risk. Otherwise, either use birth control, abstain, or find someone who wants to raise the child. It is not self-righteous to show there are other options to abortion.

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

A lot more babies to raise in adoption centers that are unlikely to EVER be adopted unless they are white and free from any defects.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

This works both ways. They could have been murderers, thieves and conservative bigots, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

Is that really that big a deal?

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

Because not all people see pregnancy as a good thing. Ever heard of morning sickness? That's caused by the foetus putting its toxins into the woman's body.

Also, the foetus cannot survive without the mother until rather late into the pregnancy. Why should a woman be forced to keep a parasite if she doesn't want to?

You don't know me, CS, so don't accuse me of being self-righteous. If you read through Dakini's various scenarios, s/he is working toward an excuse for abortion, I'm working in the opposite direction. I was a teenager once, in fact I got pregnant at 19. I still chose to have my child, who is now a grown young man attending college, and of whom I am damn proud.
The fact is, people are going to have sex. If they don't want a child, then they should try birth control. There are various kinds, so just because one doesn't work doesn't mean another won't. If they don't have benefits, use condoms. Then if their issue is the cost of raising a child, or their more immediate finacial situation, try seeking out an adoptive family, who will often take care of the mother through pregnancy as well. There are tons of agencies who handle this sort of thing. Plus, abortions aren't free, nor should they be.
Abortion should only be used where the mother's life is at risk. Otherwise, either use birth control, abstain, or find someone who wants to raise the child. It is not self-righteous to show there are other options to abortion.
it is self righteous for all the religious wackos to believe that they are right and say abstaining works for everyone and forcing it on everyone, cutting sex ed out of schools and replacing it with "abstinence ed". doesnt work,

low quality health care? i dont recall the health care around here being too fucknig superior. lets see, the local major hospital is a licensed killzone. the doctors around here could care less about patient health, as long as they get paid


yeah but thats "local", wherever it is that you live. that doesnt represent the rest of the country's standards. and to your prior debating 101 post, as i said- we were expressing our opinions. you nor i can prove our opinions. we can give reasons for why we believe as we do. may i suggest looking into moving away from here if it pains you so badly?

the local major hospital is a licensed killzone.

I'm sure if they are regulated by an omnipresent government that will pay the doctors crap they will become better :rolleyes:

it is self righteous for all the religious wackos to believe that they are right and say abstaining works for everyone and forcing it on everyone, cutting sex ed out of schools and replacing it with "abstinence ed". doesnt work,

To be fair, the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence, birth control still has occaisional failures.

I'm sure if they are regulated by an omnipresent government that will pay the doctors crap they will become better :rolleyes:
cuz of course we know letting them stay a private industry keeps them safe and better than anyone else. :rolleyes: guess what they already like that and it isnt working. shit wont work unless we try it, and it looks like its working for other nations.

cuz of course we know letting them stay a private industry keeps them safe and better than anyone else. :rolleyes: guess what they already like that and it isnt working. shit wont work unless we try it, and it looks like its working for other nations.

well one thing is for sure, if we get free healthcare, there are going to be a lot of golf clubs and mercedes for sale from all the rich dr's. maybe i could finally buy a benz !

It seems to me as if the pro-choice faction apparently is unable to grasp any span of time longer than 9 months. There appears to be virtually no difference in how they would treat a baby after that. Can someone please tell me why that is so? You don't try to make budgets and other projects with such a short effective timespan, so why the difference here?

It seems to me as if the pro-choice faction apparently is unable to grasp any span of time longer than 9 months. There appears to be virtually no difference in how they would treat a baby after that. Can someone please tell me why that is so? You don't try to make budgets and other projects with such a short effective timespan, so why the difference here?

nice point

Last time I checked, taking heroin, commiting suicide, and prostituting your body were all illegal.

Where is the legal precedent for "I can commit a crime if I do it to my own body"?
I apologize for introducing the tangental 'civil rights' topic; I didn't intend for it to detract so from the topic. I did intend for it to be a barb in response to the comment about drugs, suicide and prostitution, as legislating the illegalization of those things is a violation of the same human right of Security of Person. As would legislating abortion control be.

The key word in "I can commit a crime if I do it to my own body" is what the State has arbitrarily defined as a crime.

I don't care if abortion is going to prevent the birth of a potential Einstein or Ghandi... If impregnating my neighbor right now meant that I could possibly produce someone great, does that mean that I should? I don't believe abortions that are very close to when the baby would be born are right, but at the beginning of pregnancy it seems absolutely fine to me. You weren't sitting around in the womb two months into the pregnancy fearing being aborted, were you?

if you use abortion as a birth control method you should be sterilized, but you are just being a pro-life nutjob. you want them to crry it to term, you pay for it, for EVERYTHING> its not too hard, you are so dedicated to your cause, do 2 things: stop advocating abstinence because it doesnt work and advocate birth control methods instead, and 2, pay women to carry children to term instead of having an abortion

Read through all my previous posts, and you will see (hopefully) that I advocate birth control AND abstinence. If they can't abstain, then they should use birth control. If they don't want birth control, or it doesn't work, step up to the plate and take responsibility. If it doesn't involve a life threatening medical condition, abortion should not be used.

Just curious, do have the exact Chapter:Verse for this?

Exodus 21:22When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

pst. there aren't brain waves until 22 weeks or so. that's well out of the first trimester.

there are basic nerves and the start of a brain stem around the end of the first trimester...

I wasn't talking about brain waves, though. I was talking about the ability to sense and respond to its environment, which does not require the "higher thinking" part of the brain.

I just have to say (again) that abortion cannot be used as a birth control method. "Birth control" is a physical or chemical device designed to prevent pregnancy. Abortion occurs after pregnancy.

Every life is precious, its not our right to choose who lives and who dies.


I will make a connection between your use of the word "our" in your reply and correlate it's use to the Pro-Life viewpoint. So with that said... If you feel that it is not your right to choose who lives and dies then doesn't that statement say you shouldn't be attempting to influence anyone else’s opinion on the Abortion issue?

Where I stand on the issue is irrelevant....

(Foreboding music in background)

I am a man....

The Blackest of Evils...

(Music stops)

Ok, not the blackest of evils...

I just got done playing Candy Land with my 2 children, and I let them win. I stack the deck in their favor, gotta love the smiles foshizzle!

Anyway back to the topic!

Anyway since you are against the practice of abortions, I think the best path of direction you could follow would be to offer a solution instead of a protest. Call or write your local Planned Parenthood office and demand to be put on an adoptive parents list. Think of the lives you could change by yourself. I am counting on you take make the right decision.

While that would be a temporary solution, it would not address the actual cause of this issue. If people decided not to have babies until they were ready for them, abortion would not even come up.

While that would be a temporary solution, it would not address the actual cause of this issue. If people decided not to have babies until they were ready for them, abortion would not even come up.


No intelligent person would ever assert that people can be made to act responsibly.

And the only sure-fire way to prevent an abortion is to convince a pregnent woman to carry the pregnancy and let you adopt the child that results.

Anything except that action is simple loudmouthed posturing.

You are right, it has it's own DNA. I guess we should make sure that people's transplanted organs, blood transfusions, and bone marrow after a transplant all are given the rights of a full-fledged human being as well.
There's a diference, they are peices of humans which the owner has given up, and do not possess their own sentience. an infant, on the otherhand, is a seperate being according to science, and becomes sentient rather quickly.

I am well aware of the differences. I was just pointing out that the argument "It has different DNA than the mother, therefore it is a separate human life" does not hold water. There are many instances in which you may have human cells with completely different DNA within you, but they are not separate human lives.

The embryo, by the way, is not a separate organism from the start. It does not meet the requirements to be considered an organism until at least the point at which it can sense and respond to stimuli (ie. development of the nervous system). And before some smartass talks about single cells responding to being poked - human beings are not single-celled organisms. I am speaking of the fetus responding as an organism, which cannot occur until the nervous system is developed.


Miscarriages are most often due to something about the mother's lifestyle that makes her body think it is a bad time for a pregnancy. If you really believe that an embryo is a human being from conception, you must hold her to the same standard that you would hold a woman who has a child. Since her decisions caused its death, you must try her for neglect.

If you do not do so, and simply say "Miscarriages are natural," you have already made a clear distinction between embro/fetus and actual human child.

Not quite; she did not conciously make a decision where it was apparent that a fetus's given right to life would be threatened. For example, going onto a rollercoaster ride while pregnant: neglegent. Drinking excessively while in college: not neglegent.

Yes, she did, just as much as a woman who doesn't know her child is in the car and leaves it there has. If a woman is sexually active, regardless of how much birth control she uses, she knows that she may be pregnant at any time. Therefore, if she does *anything* that could possibly keep an embryo from implanting or might cause a miscarriage, she has consciously made a decision to possibly threaten an embryo or fetus' life.

Of course, you obviously think that an embryo/fetus should have less legal protection than a born child - I agree with you. To do otherwise would keep any sexually active woman (even a married one) from doing anything strenuous or stressful and from ever drinking alcohol, smoking, riding amusement park rides, etc., etc.

No, it most certainly is; drinking BEFORE you're pregnant, or getting an STD that fucks up your uterus, is NOT neglegent.

I could set fire to my house and plead innocent to arson, doesn't make it so. Whether she claims so or not, if she's aware she's aware. If not, than she isn't negligent.

Ok, so in your little world, killing a human being is just fine as long as you don't know they are there. So, if I set fire to a building and I don't know anyone is there, and they die - I am guilty of arson but have no responsibility whatsoever in that person's death? Either that, or you are admitting that a developing embryo is not fully human. Which is it?

No intelligent person would ever assert that people can be made to act responsibly.

And the only sure-fire way to prevent an abortion is to convince a pregnent woman to carry the pregnancy and let you adopt the child that results.

Anything except that action is simple loudmouthed posturing.I am capable of making a decision to abstain, and I don't consider myself out of the ordinary. You demean people by saying that they are incapable of rational thought.

I am capable of making a decision to abstain, and I don't consider myself out of the ordinary. You demean people by saying that they are incapable of rational thought.

No intelligent person would ever assert that people can be made to act responsibly.

is what I said.

Please read what is written before you respond to it.

It is palpably idiotic to believe that people (in general) can be *made* (or inspired, or expected) to act responsibly.

4000 years of human history proves it.

It's not that complicated. If you aren't ready to have a kid either don't have sex or do what a friend of mine just did and put the kid up for adoption. You don't have to resort to killing the kid.

I agree. Society seems to only give you two options, raise the child yourself or get an abortion.

I would also like to add, that if you are not mature enough and have the means to raise a child, then you shouldn't be having sex.

Unborn children that develop hydrocephalus typically die in utero. Sometimes they survive, though, and can be safely delivered by c-section. You define a child as a child at the moment of birth, so why isn't it a child at this point also? Just because it hasn't completely imerged, it doesn't count yet?

Yeah, they survive a couple of minutes. Just long enough to get born and die. Meanwhile, the woman has had to go through a very dangerous procedure for something that is going inevitably die anyways. Do you really think it is permissable to force her to do so?

Half-assed counseling that usually doesn't even mention the possibility of giving the child up for adoption.

This comment demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I agree. Society seems to only give you two options, raise the child yourself or get an abortion.

I would also like to add, that if you are not mature enough and have the means to raise a child, then you shouldn't be having sex.


Your opinon about whether or not people "should" be having sex is of no practical relevence whatsoever.

The. Fact. Is. That. Irresponsible. People. Have. Sex.
Nothing. Will. Ever. Change. That.

Only the meantest, most basest sort of idiot would actually lecture somone (besides their own children) about what they "should" and "shouldnt" do and expect his lecturing to be relevent to anything.

it is self righteous for all the religious wackos to believe that they are right and say abstaining works for everyone and forcing it on everyone, cutting sex ed out of schools and replacing it with "abstinence ed". doesnt work,

Like I said, read over all my previous posts. I am not, have not, and do not advocate removing sex ed from schools. I present abstinence as another, VIABLE, option, I did not say it absolutely works in all cases.
You really don't have much room to be calling other people self-righteous, wacko, or nutjob when you're not even bothering to take into account their ENTIRE point of view, instead of selectively picking out pieces to criticize. BTW, that's also not debating, but being confrontational.

No intelligent person would ever assert that people can be made to act responsibly.

is what I said.

Please read what is written before you respond to it.

It is palpably idiotic to believe that people (in general) can be *made* (or inspired, or expected) to act responsibly.

4000 years of human history proves it.'People in general' is made up of specific individuals; they have no reason to act irresponsibly. If they are irresponsible, it is not because they lack the capability, but rather they decide not to behave in a reasoned manner. I did read it.

'People in general' is made up of specific individuals; they have no reason to act irresponsibly. If they are irresponsible, it is not because they lack the capability, but rather they decide not to behave in a reasoned manner. I did read it.


The outright rout of reasonable, long-term thought by immediate desire is the reason people act irresponsibly.

Doesnt take a genius to discover that.

It seems to me as if the pro-choice faction apparently is unable to grasp any span of time longer than 9 months. There appears to be virtually no difference in how they would treat a baby after that. Can someone please tell me why that is so? You don't try to make budgets and other projects with such a short effective timespan, so why the difference here?

Is there a logical thought in here? It seems to me that you are describing the anti-choice faction, not the pro-choice one.

I think that the confederates were in the right in the civil war.

oops. weeks, yes.

and it has a partial brain stem at 8 weeks, this is hardly a full-fledged brain.

brain waves aren't detected until 22 weeks.


I'm afraid you've been misinformed.


3 weeks - the heart begins its lifelong beating

6 weeks - the child's brain is sending out impulses to control body functions and the baby is able to move around in their mother's womb

7 weeks - the child responds to touch

8 weeks - all the organs are formed and the external features are established

12 weeks - the brain is fully formed and every detail of basic structure is developed


I got this information from my biology book which was copyrighted in 1997.

Its really simple, would you have sex with someone if you knew you were going to get aids? so then if you knew you were going to end up with a child that your not ready for you probably wouldn't do it either. Its really simple if your not ready to have a baby your not ready to have sex because thats the whole point of sex is to reproduce. so pro-choicers if you make the choice to have sex look at it this way you also have made the CHOICE to have a baby.

do you have the choice to use contraceptives... yes but with that choice you know that not a single contraceptive is 100% sure of preventing pregnancy... with the exception of removing the reproductive organs themselves. but i don't think there is anybody who would ever let that happen.

in conclusion only have sex if your ready anything, and if you can't think past 9 months then don't have sex unless if you have the financial support for a baby.

Yes, they do. Not an exact match, but there is some shared DNA, otherwise there'd be nothing to compare DNA to in paternity cases. And even indentical twins aren't identical right down to the genetic level.

i know there is some shared dna... i'm not retarded and i haven't been living under a rock on mars since 1980.
however, identical twins start off with the same dna, they develop into two different people.
if you're basing it entirely off the status at conception, they were one being then. therefore, if they're one being at conception, they must be one being when they are born, since there's apparantly absolutely nothing that changes the status in between.

The absorbed twin typically dies in utero, as I said before, and is then absorbed by the surviving twin sometimes. At this point, the dead twin is no longer a separate life, and therefore does not make the surviving twin two people. Basically, the genetic building blocks previously being used by the deceased twin are recycled into the survivor.

it doesn't die when it's absorbed, the cells continue to divide and grow and becomes part of the "surviving" twin.
and again, if life begins at conception, then the chimeric twin is two people, since by your definition, a fertilized ovum has status as a person.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed.


3 weeks - the heart begins its lifelong beating

6 weeks - the child's brain is sending out impulses to control body functions and the baby is able to move around in their mother's womb

7 weeks - the child responds to touch

8 weeks - all the organs are formed and the external features are established

12 weeks - the brain is fully formed and every detail of basic structure is developed


I got this information from my biology book which was copyrighted in 1997.


You misuse the world "child" when the english word you mean is "zygote" or "embryo."

Learn english.

Its really simple, would you have sex with someone if you knew you were going to get aids? so then if you knew you were going to end up with a child that your not ready for you probably wouldn't do it either. Its really simple if your not ready to have a baby your not ready to have sex because thats the whole point of sex is to reproduce. so pro-choicers if you make the choice to have sex look at it this way you also have made the CHOICE to have a baby.

Man...if you think the only point of sex is to reproduce then you've been having sex with the wrong people.

Its really simple, would you have sex with someone if you knew you were going to get aids? so then if you knew you were going to end up with a child that your not ready for you probably wouldn't do it either. Its really simple if your not ready to have a baby your not ready to have sex because thats the whole point of sex is to reproduce. so pro-choicers if you make the choice to have sex look at it this way you also have made the CHOICE to have a baby.

do you have the choice to use contraceptives... yes but with that choice you know that not a single contraceptive is 100% sure of preventing pregnancy... with the exception of removing the reproductive organs themselves. but i don't think there is anybody who would ever let that happen.

in conclusion only have sex if your ready anything, and if you can't think past 9 months then don't have sex unless if you have the financial support for a baby.



Your opinon about whether or not people "should" be having sex is of no practical relevence whatsoever.

The Fact Is That Irresponsible People Have Sex.
Nothing. Will. Ever. Change. That.

Only the meantest, most basest sort of idiot would actually lecture somone (besides their own children) about what they "should" and "shouldnt" do and expect his lecturing to be relevent to anything.


Also, no intelligent person would ever make the palpably idiotic assertion that people can be relied upon to be responsible.

Your opinon about whether or not people "should" be having sex is of no practical relevence whatsoever.

The. Fact. Is. That. Irresponsible. People. Have. Sex.
Nothing. Will. Ever. Change. That.

Only the meantest, most basest sort of idiot would actually lecture somone (besides their own children) about what they "should" and "shouldnt" do and expect his lecturing to be relevent to anything.

I did not mean to lecture. I am simply stating my opinion, which I believe is the point of this board. I don't see how my opinion isn't relevant. Women usually get abortions because they believe they are incapable of caring for the child and don't want to give the child up for adoption. I was trying to show you the point that if men and women were responsible when it comes to having sex, there would probably be fewer abortions. Also, 'In my opinion' name-calling is a sign of immaturity.

Also, 'In my opinion' name-calling is a sign of immaturity.

Cry about it.
then get out.

I'm pro-life, but I also don't happen to think the government should get involved with legislation. I believe abortin is murder, but that's between the woman and God, or the woman and her conscience later in life if she's atheist.

ok, well you see, you believe it's murder. not everyone does.
you also don't believe that it's your place to stop it, right? if you don't believe the government should legislate against it. therefore, if it's up to the woman, then you are pro-choice.

Sex education does cover conventional birth control. Some people just don't want to bother with precautions.

are you aware of the show called the sunday night sex show? also known as sex with sue. it's hosted by sue johansen (a wonderful lady if you ever get the chance to see her show, i highlt reccomend it, nothing like a 60 year old woman demonstrating fellatio with a microphone, let me tell you) anyways, she comes to my school once a year to have a chat with us and answer questions.
now, she recently started a show in the u.s., she received a question from a caller asking if she could get pregnant by preforming oral sex.

the state of sexual education in the u.s. is severly lacking. most teens receive abstinance education, they are not informed about simple birth control. and so when they do engage in pre-marital sex (which they do) they get pregnant.

i mean, ideally, sexual education would be perfect and everyone (both boys and girls) would know how to prevent a pregnancy and would be sure to apply those methods every single time they engage in sexual intercourse, however, this is not a perfect world.

Unborn children that develop hydrocephalus typically die in utero. Sometimes they survive, though, and can be safely delivered by c-section. You define a child as a child at the moment of birth, so why isn't it a child at this point also? Just because it hasn't completely imerged, it doesn't count yet?

oh yes, because a c-section is a wonderfully confortable procedure.
it's open surgery you're talking about here, with all the risks that come with it. you're cutting through the abdominal wall to pull out an infant that won't survive to gain consciousness.

Half-assed counseling that usually doesn't even mention the possibility of giving the child up for adoption.

my roommate from first year got pregnant and had an abortion. the place she went to had a waiting period between scheduling and preforming the procedure specifically so that the woman who is thinking of getting an abortion has a couple more weeks to mull it over.
clinics will also not preform abortions on women who seem uncertain of whether they want it done or not.

and you seem to prefer "councelling" that insists that there are no risks in pregnancy and adoption is all well and good.

Abstainance. If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, and doesn't trust birth control, don't have sex.

and what about men?
are men expected to abstian as well if they don't want to be fathers?

This is a natural act. Abortion is not.

that wasn't the point.

the point was that half of conceived "life" does not even become a pregnancy. definng the beginning of life at conception is silly.

I was trying to show you the point that if men and women were responsible when it comes to having sex, there would probably be fewer abortions.

If I had a dog that ate grain and deposited wads of hundred dollar bills, I would probably be a rich man.



Woopadeedooooo

No Practical Relevence To Anything!

You misuse the world "child" when the english word you mean is "zygote" or "embryo."

Learn english.


Merriam - Webster Dictionary

child- n. 1 : an unborn or recently born person



Please do your research and lay off the sarcastic remarks. This is supposed to be a somewhat mature discussion.

look what i am talking about when it comes to people having sex only when they are ready to have a baby is that if this was the case there is no need for abortion, because then everybody would be ready to have a child, where as in cases of rape they can either keep the child or set them up for adoption.

"Rectify the situation?" You make it sound like al they did was overdraw their checking account.

they had an accident. better?

now it's like someone peed themselves.

In either scenario, they had the option to not have sex at all. In this, and your minimum wage woman scenario, since finance seems to factor into your reasoning, having an abortion isn't cheap. If they're so worried about the expense of a pregnancy, why risk the expense of an abortion? Abortion also carries risks, which are far more likely to result in a fatality, as in the case of the woman who bled to death a couple years back because of a botched abortion.

actually, the risk of death from pregnancy is still higher than the risk of death from abortion.
i also can't imagine that an abortion costs 1 month's pay in the states, which is what said woman would have to take off (at least) sue to her condition.

Merriam - Webster Dictionary

child- n. 1 : an unborn or recently born person



Please do your research and lay off the sarcastic remarks. This is supposed to be a somewhat mature discussion.


You werent referring to an unborn person, you were referring to a zygote or embryo.

Your silly, hamhanded pissant attempts at 'subtlety' with the claptrap trailer-camp gibberish about "maturity" is genuinely beneath contempt or serious consideration.

Is there a logical thought in here? It seems to me that you are describing the anti-choice faction, not the pro-choice one.The question was meant for the pro-choice people.

The outright rout of reasonable, long-term thought by immediate desire is the reason people act irresponsibly.

Doesnt take a genius to discover that.I know - however, they have a choice to decide whether they will do so or not. Your generalization is absolute (and thus wrong). People decide to put themselves into situations where they are threatened by 'immediate desire' - therefore they chose beforehand to act irresponsibly.

i dont need to display examples. do you know how many people move to the US everyday??? a broad aray of people from russia to mexico. and how do you figure 3rd world countries and dictatorships dont count? i dont see them moving to the UK,Austrailia, Canada or Asia.

*lives in southern ontario*

what are you talking about? i can't swing a dead cat without hitting a first generation immigrant.
and hear the one german guy on here whose name escapes me rant on about the muslims taking over his country...

look what i am talking about when it comes to people having sex only when they are ready to have a baby is that if this was the case there is no need for abortion, because then everybody would be ready to have a child, where as in cases of rape they can either keep the child or set them up for adoption.

Earth will never become the fantasyland where people only have sex if they are "ready to have a baby."

Deal with it.

There are real problems that face people in reality, and no ammount of small-minded banter about how great things would be if everyone behaved responsibly will ever change anything for the better for anyone.

It would be nice if my dog coughed up wads of hundred dollar bills.

Not something I'm going to bank on though.

sure, if you dont mind getting low quality healthcare. no thanks. i'll pay for my healthcare rather than be treated with outdated equipment and unqualified doctors .

again, what the hell are you talking about?

the only downside to our healthcare is that you might have to wait a little while.

The question was meant for the pro-choice people.

I know - however, they have a choice to decide whether they will do so or not. Your generalization is absolute (and thus wrong). People decide to put themselves into situations where they are threatened by 'immediate desire' - therefore they chose beforehand to act irresponsibly.


Without doubt, every weekend millions of Americans wake up in the morning and recite the mantra "Tonight I shall decide to put myself into a situation where I am sure to be threatened by immediate desire."

The world is not ideal fantasyland where every person weighs the risks and benefits of every decision in the long-term and resigns himself to whatever consequences it brings.

Only somone blind, stupid, or mindlessly, droolingly self-rightous would hold people to or judge people by that standard.

You don't know me, CS, so don't accuse me of being self-righteous. If you read through Dakini's various scenarios, s/he is working toward an excuse for abortion, I'm working in the opposite direction. I was a teenager once, in fact I got pregnant at 19. I still chose to have my child, who is now a grown young man attending college, and of whom I am damn proud.

good for you. i'm not debating that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a child to term if you're in an unfortunate situation. i'm arguing that someone shoudln't have to if they don't want to.

The fact is, people are going to have sex. If they don't want a child, then they should try birth control. There are various kinds, so just because one doesn't work doesn't mean another won't. If they don't have benefits, use condoms.

again, birth control fails.

Abortion should only be used where the mother's life is at risk. Otherwise, either use birth control, abstain, or find someone who wants to raise the child. It is not self-righteous to show there are other options to abortion.

again, says you, and i'd watch where you throw the word self-righteous about, you seem to be the one exibiting that trait most around here.

look, what was right for you isn't right for everyone in every situation.

Without doubt, every weekend millions of Americans wake up in the morning and recite the mantra "Tonight I shall decide to put myself into a situation where I am sure to be threatened by immediate desire."

The world is not ideal fantasyland where every person weighs the risks and benefits of every decision in the long-term and resigns himself to whatever consequences it brings.

Only somone blind, stupid, or mindlessly, droolingly self-rightous would hold people to or judge people by that standard. Obviously they do not decide aloud or think it quite as specifically as that. How often have you decided conciously to do something bad?

And I don't pretend to have the authority to judge people - I merely pointed out that there is no real reason that people are unable to practice abstinence.

The world is not ideal fantasyland where every person weighs the risks and benefits of every decision in the long-term and resigns himself to whatever consequences it brings.

you keep talking about the world not being a fantasy land and to ignore the small amounts of banter comming from idealists, to think if people in the 18th and 19th centry listened to you we would still be under rule from tyranting kings because according to you people with ideals can't do anything, apparently you've never heard of people like Mohatma Ghandi. who kicked the british out of india without having to hurt a single person.

just because it doesn't seem practical or it can't be accomplished doesn't mean that it can't. the only thing that prevents things from happening are people like you.

Yeah, they survive a couple of minutes. Just long enough to get born and die. Meanwhile, the woman has had to go through a very dangerous procedure for something that is going inevitably die anyways. Do you really think it is permissable to force her to do so?

My bad. Switched gears without saying so. The last bit of the comment you were responding to was in reference to partial birth abortion, not delivering children with hydrocephalus.

This comment demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong. It may be a matter of a few bad apple counselors, but similar statements have been made about Planned Parenthood over the years. I believe there was a 60-minutes (or similar show) documentary on it a few years ago. PP is also the group who put out the "I had an abortion" tee shirts recently. Does this sound like a group that discusses alternatives to abortion with their clients?

you keep talking about the world not being a fantasy land and to ignore the small amounts of banter comming from idealists, to think if people in the 18th and 19th centry listened to you we would still be under rule from tyranting kings because according to you people with ideals can't do anything, apparently you've never heard of people like Mohatma Ghandi. who kicked the british out of india without having to hurt a single person.

Ghandi was not the whole world though, was he. Do you honestly think we will ever have a world in which every human being acts just like Ghandi?

The truth is that many people do practice abstinence until they are prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy - I did. Most who do not yet (or ever) want children do use (often multiple forms of) birth control.

However, there will never be a time in which every human being is absolutely responsible. To think that there will is beyond idealism, and close to the realm of idiocy.

Ghandi was not the whole world though, was he. Do you honestly think we will ever have a world in which every human being acts just like Ghandi?

The truth is that many people do practice abstinence until they are prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy - I did. Most who do not yet (or ever) want children do use (often multiple forms of) birth control.

However, there will never be a time in which every human being is absolutely responsible. To think that there will is beyond idealism, and close to the realm of idiocy.If something is never expected of someone, they will probably not do it. The same applies here. If people are expected to reason, more people will than if you just don't do anything about it.

My bad. Switched gears without saying so. The last bit of the comment you were responding to was in reference to partial birth abortion, not delivering children with hydrocephalus.

So D&X is ok in your book for cases of hydrocephalus?

Wrong. It may be a matter of a few bad apple counselors, but similar statements have been made about Planned Parenthood over the years. I believe there was a 60-minutes (or similar show) documentary on it a few years ago. PP is also the group who put out the "I had an abortion" tee shirts recently. Does this sound like a group that discusses alternatives to abortion with their clients?

I know people who have gone to planned parenthood and have looked into their policies as well. The planned parenthood policy on unplanned pregnancy is to provide you with a pamphlet and a person with whom to discuss *all* possible ends to a pregnancy. This includes every form of abortion you might choose there, adoption, government aid if you decide to keep it, etc. They then send you home for at least one night to think it over before they will ever perform an abortion. Planned Parenthood does not make abortion seem like an easy way out or like it is the only possible decision.

And if PP does come off to you as being radically pro-abortion, it is probably for the same reason that many people think I am. Basically, they feel like the woman's right to make her own medical decisions is being attacked from so many angles that they get highly defensive and even occasionally in-your-face offensive.

If something is never expected of someone, they will probably not do it. The same applies here. If people are expected to reason, more people will than if you just don't do anything about it.

I do expect people to reason. However, I am pragmatic enough to know that there will never be a time when *everybody* does.

Ghandi was not the whole world though, was he. Do you honestly think we will ever have a world in which every human being acts just like Ghandi?

The truth is that many people do practice abstinence until they are prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy - I did. Most who do not yet (or ever) want children do use (often multiple forms of) birth control

However, there will never be a time in which every human being is absolutely responsible. To think that there will is beyond idealism, and close to the realm of idiocy

do i think that all humans can be responsible and whatnot? no, but what i'm saying is that thanks to many idealists we have the freedom of speach we have today i was just getting at the point that new grenanda kept saying that nobody listens to idealogical banter. but also i do think that most humans can act responsibly, not all because lets face it humans are flawed just like most things.

While that would be a temporary solution, it would not address the actual cause of this issue. If people decided not to have babies until they were ready for them, abortion would not even come up.

well, considering that a fetus isn't a baby, with abortion, people who aren't ready to have babies are deceiding not to have babies until they're ready for them.

There are quite a lot of posts so if someone already said what I'm about to say I apologize (I only read the first 3 pages or so).

I think that rational people on both sides should be able to see that abortion should be allowed in the first trimester, and only allowed in the third trimester in cases where it threatens the woman's health. This whole debate should really refer to only the second trimester where it is unclear whether the child is really alive/feeling/thinking/etc.

The argument that you might be killing an Einstein or the person who cures cancer is illogical, Adolf Hitler's mother considered having an abortion too.

Now this is where I recognize that most people won't agree with me and even be quite vehemently opposed, but our population is growing much faster than the world can handle and therefore I am for the death penalty, euthanasia, and abortion. I also believe that anything relating solely to the person performing the action (i.e. drug use, suicide, etc.) should be legal so long as it is not affecting anybody else.

If you'd like to respond directly to me, telegram my nationstate Areeshon.

well, considering that a fetus isn't a baby, with abortion, people who aren't ready to have babies are deceiding not to have babies until they're ready for them.That is your point of view. While I respect your ability to think what you will, I believe you are wrong.

i know there is some shared dna... i'm not retarded and i haven't been living under a rock on mars since 1980.
however, identical twins start off with the same dna, they develop into two different people.

You initially said identical twins, you did not specifically say "at the point of conception". You also said there was no shared DNA between the twins and the parents. No one accused or implied you were retarded. I was going off of what you said yourself prior to this post.

if you're basing it entirely off the status at conception, they were one being then. therefore, if they're one being at conception, they must be one being when they are born, since there's apparantly absolutely nothing that changes the status in between.

Define "being."

it doesn't die when it's absorbed, the cells continue to divide and grow and becomes part of the "surviving" twin.
and again, if life begins at conception, then the chimeric twin is two people, since by your definition, a fertilized ovum has status as a person.

The cells themselves don't die, but the twin does. It ceases to be a separate life. Would you then say the chimeric twin is entitled to two votes? Or maybe two paychecks, since by your definition, there are two people doing the job?

I'm afraid you've been misinformed.


3 weeks - the heart begins its lifelong beating

6 weeks - the child's brain is sending out impulses to control body functions and the baby is able to move around in their mother's womb

7 weeks - the child responds to touch

8 weeks - all the organs are formed and the external features are established

12 weeks - the brain is fully formed and every detail of basic structure is developed


I got this information from my biology book which was copyrighted in 1997.


no, i'm afraid you're the one who is misinformed.

6 weeks - heartbeat

12 weeks - organs are present and undevelopped

20 weeks - nervous system starts to function, movement (quickening) commences

24 weeks - stimulus response

28 weeks - brain waves resemble a full-term newborn, branches of the lungs develop

source: http://my.webmd.com/content/tools/1/slide_fetal_dev.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

now, tell me, if the fetus was completely developped by 12 weeks, why would it need to be in the womb for another 6 months? does that honestly make any sense to you?

You initially said identical twins, you did not specifically say "at the point of conception". You also said there was no shared DNA between the twins and the parents. No one accused or implied you were retarded. I was going off of what you said yourself prior to this post.

the point was that life a human life began at conception, then a pair of identical twins would be one human life, since they started from the same egg and sperm.

The cells themselves don't die, but the twin does. It ceases to be a separate life. Would you then say the chimeric twin is entitled to two votes? Or maybe two paychecks, since by your definition, there are two people doing the job?

all the twin is at that time is cells. it has no consciousness, therefore all it is goes on to live in the other twin.

and again, this isn't my definition, this is the "a human life begins at conception" definition.

Wrong. It may be a matter of a few bad apple counselors, but similar statements have been made about Planned Parenthood over the years. I believe there was a 60-minutes (or similar show) documentary on it a few years ago. PP is also the group who put out the "I had an abortion" tee shirts recently. Does this sound like a group that discusses alternatives to abortion with their clients?
I have a friend who used to do volunteer work at Planned Parenthood. They do discuss alternatives with their clients. Abortion is never a first option, since it is a tramatic and stressful surgical prodcedure.

That is your point of view. While I respect your ability to think what you will, I believe you are wrong.

Main Entry: ba·by
Pronunciation: 'bA-bE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural babies
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT —see BLUE BABY
2 : an extremely young animal —baby adjective —ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun —ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
1 : a recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child : PREGNANT

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

are fetuses born? no, they are not.

and right or wrong, everyone has their own ideas on this subject, and who are any of us to say what another must do with their life and reproductive capabilities?

to me it's terminating a potential life. but then i'm preventing potential lives by being on the birth control pill and making my bf wear a condom. i'm preventing potential lives by not having sex every minute of every day.

I think that the confederates were in the right in the civil war.
^^^^
I think Blacks aren't human so i think we should be able to use them as slaves. Why can't I have a black slave because other people think they are human? I dont think so, so I should have the right to have one!

Earth will never become the fantasyland where people only have sex if they are "ready to have a baby."

what kind of fantasy land is that, though?
a fantasy land would be birth control that's 100% so we could enjoy sex without the worry.

let's face it, sex isn't solely reproductive.

Main Entry: ba·by
Pronunciation: 'bA-bE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural babies
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT —see BLUE BABY
2 : an extremely young animal —baby adjective —ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun —ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
1 : a recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child : PREGNANT

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

are fetuses born? no, they are not.

and right or wrong, everyone has their own ideas on this subject, and who are any of us to say what another must do with their life and reproductive capabilities?

to me it's terminating a potential life. but then i'm preventing potential lives by being on the birth control pill and making my bf wear a condom. i'm preventing potential lives by not having sex every minute of every day.
Dictionary definitions do not define a person. They merely attempt to describe what a word means according to present usage.

To me, your usage of birth control (specifically, the pill) is not preventing a potential life from being; it is the same as having an abortion. Usage of preventative devices such as a condom is forbidden by my religion, as it says that the reproductive elements of sex should not be separated from the pleasureable. It really just comes down to what you believe in.

^^^^
I think Blacks aren't human so i think we should be able to use them as slaves. Why can't I have a black slave because other people think they are human? I dont think so, so I should have the right to have one!

black people have brain waves, they are independant beings. they do not need to use someone else as their incubator. if one white person dies, the black person next to them does not die as well.

fetuses and embryos do not have brain waves, they are dependant on another being for survival, for their nutrients, oxygen et c. if the woman in which the embryo is contained dies, the embryo dies with her.

^^^^
I think Blacks aren't human so i think we should be able to use them as slaves. Why can't I have a black slave because other people think they are human? I dont think so, so I should have the right to have one!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How absurd does that sound to you pro-choicers?

Well abortion is the same thing. Pro-abortionists think fetuses are not human so they think they can be killed. The Confederates thought the blacks were not human and they could be slaves because they were not human to them.

History really DOES repeat itself................

To me, your usage of birth control (specifically, the pill) is not preventing a potential life from being; it is the same as having an abortion.

woah, woah, woah. whose ass did you pull that one out of?

(also, the pill is the back up birth control, partially for preventing me from bleeding myself anemic every month and we've never had a condom break)

Usage of preventative devices such as a condom is forbidden by my religion, as it says that the reproductive elements of sex should not be separated from the pleasureable.

and what religion is that?

To me, your usage of birth control (specifically, the pill) is not preventing a potential life from being; it is the same as having an abortion. Usage of preventative devices such as a condom is forbidden by my religion, as it says that the reproductive elements of sex should not be separated from the pleasureable. It really just comes down to what you believe in.

Yes, but do you advocate banning birth control from those with dissimilar beliefs about sex?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How absurd does that sound to you pro-choicers?

Well abortion is the same thing. Pro-abortionists think fetuses are not human so they think they can be killed. The Confederates thought the blacks were not human and they could be slaves because they were not human to them.

History really DOES repeat itself................

read my response to your rediculous post.

black people are human beings. fetuses are potential human beings.

potential is not the same as actual.

black people have brain waves, they are independant beings. they do not need to use someone else as their incubator. if one white person dies, the black person next to them does not die as well.

fetuses and embryos do not have brain waves, they are dependant on another being for survival, for their nutrients, oxygen et c. if the woman in which the embryo is contained dies, the embryo dies with her.

i think you've proven the pro-lifers point...

ok, well you see, you believe it's murder. not everyone does.
you also don't believe that it's your place to stop it, right? if you don't believe the government should legislate against it. therefore, if it's up to the woman, then you are pro-choice.

Ok, pro-life in spirit, pro-choice politically, in that it is not the gov'ts place to dictate. Yes, I do believe it's murder.



are you aware of the show called the sunday night sex show? also known as sex with sue. it's hosted by sue johansen (a wonderful lady if you ever get the chance to see her show, i highlt reccomend it, nothing like a 60 year old woman demonstrating fellatio with a microphone, let me tell you) anyways, she comes to my school once a year to have a chat with us and answer questions.

Never heard of it.

now, she recently started a show in the u.s., she received a question from a caller asking if she could get pregnant by preforming oral sex. The state of sexual education in the u.s. is severly lacking. most teens receive abstinance education, they are not informed about simple birth control. and so when they do engage in pre-marital sex (which they do) they get pregnant.

Here's the backwards part of the problem. The fed leaves sex ed up to the states, and some are more prudish than others.


oh yes, because a c-section is a wonderfully confortable procedure.
it's open surgery you're talking about here, with all the risks that come with it. you're cutting through the abdominal wall to pull out an infant that won't survive to gain consciousness.

No kidding! My sister had a c-section. I know exactly what it is.


my roommate from first year got pregnant and had an abortion. the place she went to had a waiting period between scheduling and preforming the procedure specifically so that the woman who is thinking of getting an abortion has a couple more weeks to mull it over.
clinics will also not preform abortions on women who seem uncertain of whether they want it done or not.

Your roommate was fortunate. Not everyone has access to facilities that handle it that way. But didn't she try birth control? Was her health at risk?

and you seem to prefer "councelling" that insists that there are no risks in pregnancy and adoption is all well and good.

Hm. At what point did I say there are no risks to pregnancy, or advocate counselors that don't cover this? I have experienced the risk of pregnancy twice, the second one caused me to be on restrictions at my job for blackouts due to sudden bp drops. I was also at a higher risk for having a child with a birth defect, due to my age, which I discussed in detail with my ob/gyn. I took the risk, and my second child is a happy, healthy 5 yr old. As I pointed out before, I advocate birth control, abstinence, or adoption, and abortion IF the mother's life is at risk.
Also, counseling should also include the risks of abortion, to be balanced.

Well abortion is the same thing. Pro-abortionists think fetuses are not human so they think they can be killed. The Confederates thought the blacks were not human and they could be slaves because they were not human to them.

History really DOES repeat itself................

A pro-abortionist would be someone who is for a doctor that performs abortions.

Your argument is inherently flawed here. Black people can be scientifically proven beyond any doubt to be human. A fetus, especially before the nervous system is developed, cannot. If science demonstrated that black people and found that they were not even organisms, no one would've complained that they were being used for anything.

you keep talking about the world not being a fantasy land and to ignore the small amounts of banter comming from idealists, to think if people in the 18th and 19th centry listened to you we would still be under rule from tyranting kings because according to you people with ideals can't do anything, apparently you've never heard of people like Mohatma Ghandi. who kicked the british out of india without having to hurt a single person.

just because it doesn't seem practical or it can't be accomplished doesn't mean that it can't. the only thing that prevents things from happening are people like you.


Ghandi did not convince everyone in india not to have sex until they were perfectly willing and able to raise a child.

If he'd tried, Sonia Ghandi wouldnt be running india right now, Tony Blair would.

We're talking about two radically different things.

i think you've proven the pro-lifers point...

how do you figure? by pointing out that living, individual black individuals are people, while fetuses are not?

how do you figure? by pointing out that living, individual black individuals are people, while fetuses are not?

read the bold word on that post

woah, woah, woah. whose ass did you pull that one out of?

(also, the pill is the back up birth control, partially for preventing me from bleeding myself anemic every month and we've never had a condom break)
If it is used for a valid health reason, and only for that reason, it is acceptable to use it. If your health problem goes away, so should the pill. Note I'm not trying to be judgemental or anything; these are just what my religion says about the subject. Also, I made a mistake about the birth control/condom thing: both are not acceptable for the same reason as the condom is not. Sorry for the confusion.

and what religion is that?Catholic.

Ok, pro-life in spirit, pro-choice politically, in that it is not the gov'ts place to dictate. Yes, I do believe it's murder.

ok, well, unless you're actively encouraging people to go about giving every unwanted pregnancy up for adoption or attempting to stop women from having abortions.

Never heard of it.

well, you're in the states, right? i think it's on at 10 pm on sundays (she bumped her canadian show back an hour to do the american one) i wouldn't know what channel it would be on. perhaps a women's channel? i don't know, but keep your eyes peeled, it's a good show, she's a very knowledgable lady, i think she has a masters in human sexuality.

Here's the backwards part of the problem. The fed leaves sex ed up to the states, and some are more prudish than others.

well, my point still stands that not everyone gets proper sexual education, thus do not know how to propely prevent a pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, for that matter.

No kidding! My sister had a c-section. I know exactly what it is.

and did she have any complications?
i've heard of women bursting open a couple weeks after having one with puss and blood everywhere...

Your roommate was fortunate. Not everyone has access to facilities that handle it that way. But didn't she try birth control? Was her health at risk?

no, she was actually rather stupid (but learned from it) and her mental health was very much at risk... oh my. she was near suicidal.

DAKINI..... you read the bold word????????????????????

If it is used for a valid health reason, and only for that reason, it is acceptable to use it. If your health problem goes away, so should the pill. Note I'm not trying to be judgemental or anything; these are just what my religion says about the subject. Also, I made a mistake about the birth control/condom thing: both are not acceptable for the same reason as the condom is not. Sorry for the confusion.

no, but why should i stop taking the pill for contraceptive purposes? it does the same thing as the condom, but in a different way. a very different way, really... but still. same effect, pregnancy prevenetion.

Catholic.

really? i thought catholics were all for the sex only for babies thing.

*sings "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate" *

no monty python?

DAKINI..... you read the bold word????????????????????

what bold word?

using another human being as a portable life support system is not the same as being an independant organism.

black people have brain waves, they are independant beings. they do not need to use someone else as their incubator. if one white person dies, the black person next to them does not die as well.

fetuses and embryos do not have brain waves, they are dependant on another being for survival, for their nutrients, oxygen et c. if the woman in which the embryo is contained dies, the embryo dies with her.
this proves the pro-lifers point!!!!!

and what about men?
are men expected to abstian as well if they don't want to be fathers?

Definitely! It isn't their body that goes through the pregnancy, it's ours. This however is something that should be hashed out before the relationship goes that far. I personally don't think men should be involved in the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy. Sure, they may later feel something of the loss, but it's the woman who would bear the brunt of it.


that wasn't the point.

the point was that half of conceived "life" does not even become a pregnancy. definng the beginning of life at conception is silly.

If you're going to make the comparison, it is the point. But, as you said, you define it one way, I define it another. I can live with my decision. Can you honestly say, if you were to have an abortion, that you wouldn't look back on it 5 or 10 years from now and wonder what that child might have been like? See other people walking a child that would have been that age by now, and not feel regret? That's my point, further out than the 9 months, even if the financial situation isn't the greatest at the time of the pregnancy, can you live with wondering what might have been?

this proves the pro-lifers point!!!!!

again, how do you figure?

the cells of my arm depend on the rest of me for survival.

Definitely! It isn't their body that goes through the pregnancy, it's ours. This however is something that should be hashed out before the relationship goes that far. I personally don't think men should be involved in the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy. Sure, they may later feel something of the loss, but it's the woman who would bear the brunt of it.

which is why it's always good to discuss such things before the relationship gets to such an intimate level.

If you're going to make the comparison, it is the point. But, as you said, you define it one way, I define it another. I can live with my decision. Can you honestly say, if you were to have an abortion, that you wouldn't look back on it 5 or 10 years from now and wonder what that child might have been like? See other people walking a child that would have been that age by now, and not feel regret? That's my point, further out than the 9 months, even if the financial situation isn't the greatest at the time of the pregnancy, can you live with wondering what might have been?

i don't really regret anything i've done. even really, really stupid things. i mean, i look back in time and thing "why was i so stupid?" but i don't regret doing it... for, had i not done said thing, then i wouldn't be who i am now, if you get my drift. i wouldn't have had the same set of experiences and i might take a differnt perspective on the same situations and all that...

but really, i don't know what i'd do in a situation where i find myself unexpectedly pregnant.

well, you're in the states, right? i think it's on at 10 pm on sundays (she bumped her canadian show back an hour to do the american one) i wouldn't know what channel it would be on. perhaps a women's channel? i don't know, but keep your eyes peeled, it's a good show, she's a very knowledgable lady, i think she has a masters in human sexuality.

I caught it on one night while channel surfing, but could never remember what channel it was on after that =(. I guess that wasn't helpful, but I thought I'd share anyways. I believe it is banned in some parts of the country.

well, my point still stands that not everyone gets proper sexual education, thus do not know how to propely prevent a pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, for that matter.

I had a friend in high school who once had unprotected sex because she was convinced that you can't possibly get pregnant while menstruating. When I told her that she was wrong, she was upset, but just shrugged. Because her parents were Catholic, she wouldn't let me drive her to Planned Parenthood to get her on the pill because her parents might find out.

and did she have any complications?
i've heard of women bursting open a couple weeks after having one with puss and blood everywhere...

Forget what happens after - the very act of having any major surgery involving going under anesthetic is dangerous.

no, but why should i stop taking the pill for contraceptive purposes? it does the same thing as the condom, but in a different way. a very different way, really... but still. same effect, pregnancy prevenetion.
As I said, it depends on what you believe. I am not intent on trying to change your mind, although that would be a good outcome from this debate.

really? i thought catholics were all for the sex only for babies thing.

*sings "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate" *

no monty python?Not at all - we merely believe that it should be performed without outside intervention of any kind. I would be quite disappointed if what you say were the case. :)

I caught it on one night while channel surfing, but could never remember what channel it was on after that =(. I guess that wasn't helpful, but I thought I'd share anyways. I believe it is banned in some parts of the country.

wow, that's really sad. ignorance about ones sexuality is probably the worst thing there is.

I had a friend in high school who once had unprotected sex because she was convinced that you can't possibly get pregnant while menstruating. When I told her that she was wrong, she was upset, but just shrugged. Because her parents were Catholic, she wouldn't let me drive her to Planned Parenthood to get her on the pill because her parents might find out.

did she know that you can get a perscription for the pill without your parents knowledge or consent, no matter what your age is?
so unless she wanted it covered on her parents health insurance...

good for you. i'm not debating that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a child to term if you're in an unfortunate situation. i'm arguing that someone shoudln't have to if they don't want to.

As long as they're aware of all the options, and can live with it, fine. It's between them and themselves (God, conscious, or whatever).



again, says you, and i'd watch where you throw the word self-righteous about, you seem to be the one exibiting that trait most around here.

look, what was right for you isn't right for everyone in every situation.

In case you missed it, the term "self-righteous" was thrown AT me, I did not accuse anyone else of being that way. And if you think I'm being that way, then you're not paying attention. Besides, you are the one who started this thread, are you not? You asked pro-lifers to explain themselves. If my opinion on the matter sounds self-righteous to you, tough. You asked, I answered.

Because her parents were Catholic, she wouldn't let me drive her to Planned Parenthood to get her on the pill because her parents might find out.



Her parents are barbarians like the Taliban.

I have a friend who used to do volunteer work at Planned Parenthood. They do discuss alternatives with their clients. Abortion is never a first option, since it is a tramatic and stressful surgical prodcedure.

As I said, probably a few bad apples. But the tee shirt is tacky. That is a personal decision. It shouldn't be advertised.

In case you missed it, the term "self-righteous" was thrown AT me, I did not accuse anyone else of being that way. And if you think I'm being that way, then you're not paying attention. Besides, you are the one who started this thread, are you not? You asked pro-lifers to explain themselves. If my opinion on the matter sounds self-righteous to you, tough. You asked, I answered.

sorry, i didn't see that.

and i started this thread in somewhat of parody of some earlier threads entitled "abortionists, explain yourselves" i figured if one side had to explain themselves, why not the other?

If you're going to make the comparison, it is the point. But, as you said, you define it one way, I define it another. I can live with my decision. Can you honestly say, if you were to have an abortion, that you wouldn't look back on it 5 or 10 years from now and wonder what that child might have been like? See other people walking a child that would have been that age by now, and not feel regret? That's my point, further out than the 9 months, even if the financial situation isn't the greatest at the time of the pregnancy, can you live with wondering what might have been?

Let me tell you about my ex-roommate. She was 17 and engaged to be married to a man about 6 years older than her. They did use protection, but it failed. Although she was about to start college and was only 17, she was convinced that it would be alright since they were engaged and they could just have a family earlier than planned.

She went to his house to tell him and he informed her that he had been cheating on her and didn't think they should "say that we are dating anymore." She promptly threw the engagement ring at him and broke everything of his she could grab and throw on the way out the door.

She agonized over the decision for almost as long as she legally could. She considered keeping the baby and her roommate at the time offerred to help her if that was her decision. In the end, she knew that she could not give it up for adoption (as she thinks this is a bad thing) and knew that she could not take care of it. She asked her father to sign off so that she could have an abortion.

This particular girl sank into a severe depression that semester, due to her breakup, abortion, starting college, being separated from a mother that suddenly wanted nothing to do with her - it was a hard time. With counseling, she got through it.

She constantly wonders what would have happened (as any human being who ever makes a large decision does) and cries every mother's day. However, she does not regret the decision that she made. She regrets the situation, yes, but still believes that the decision was the right one and has never regretted it.

So, no, I don't believe that all women who have abortions later regret it. I know at least one who does not.

did she know that you can get a perscription for the pill without your parents knowledge or consent, no matter what your age is?
so unless she wanted it covered on her parents health insurance...

Yeah, I wasn't sexually active or on the pill at the time, but I knew that it was possible to do it at PP without a parent's consent. I think she was more afraid that they might find it in her room or something.

no, i'm afraid you're the one who is misinformed.

Nope. Check the site: www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

"8 weeks - The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.

12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers."


now, tell me, if the fetus was completely developped by 12 weeks, why would it need to be in the womb for another 6 months? does that honestly make any sense to you?

Because the other internal organs form slower. The baby isn't completely developed at 12 weeks, but the brain is.

Nope. Check the site: www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

The site contradicts itself. It claims brain waves at 8 weeks and then states that the brain is not full formed until 12. Do the brain waves come from the placenta?

For the record, although I am not a developmental biologist, I do know for a fact that the heart is the first fully formed organ. The brain finishes forming after that.

Although technically a pro-choicer, I feel it is unfair to assume that all pro-lifers are people who get in your face screaming "abortion should be banned, its evil, if you get an abortion you're evil". Obviously just thinking "I'd never have an abortion, I can't see how anyone could" isn't grounds for being flamed.

Actually the whole label is kind of odd, because if you think abortion is bad but you respect other people's right to decide for themselves, what are you? You're against abortion (ie pro-life) but you also respect peoples choices, which theoretically makes you pro-choice. It seems like pro-choice is more of a middle ground than anything else - I mean you don't see anyone pushing to make abortion compulsory do you? Now that would be the opposite of pro-life.

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

They are not pro-life, they are pro-tissue. That is a whole lot of difference because you gotta observe what things rather be, than what they might become. Sure, an embryo might very well become a human being, that is true.

But, once again, we gotta consider what it is, rather than what it might become. During the first three months the embryo is little more than a hump of tissue, more primitiv than a frog.

That hump of tissue got NO individuality, NO personality, NO serperate life, it does NOT have any thoughts or even feelings. It is nothing more than a parasite on the womans body, which she might - if she want to - keep in order for it to grow into an infant.

Sentencing a womans life to serving this embryo, to sacrifice her life or at least her well being, to this embryo is clearly NOT pro-life. As stated, pro-tissue perhaps.

What you gotta consider is REAL HUMAN BEINGS, not some hump of tissues.

ok, well, unless you're actively encouraging people to go about giving every unwanted pregnancy up for adoption or attempting to stop women from having abortions.

If asked, I discuss my views (as in this thread). Am I an activist? No, because to be an activist would be hypocritical, I'd still be telling others what they should or shouldn't do with a pregnancy.





well, my point still stands that not everyone gets proper sexual education, thus do not know how to propely prevent a pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, for that matter.

But most people know how pregnancy happens, with or without education. If they don't, then they definitely should not have children.



and did she have any complications?
i've heard of women bursting open a couple weeks after having one with puss and blood everywhere...

She did get a mild infection, but nothing too gruesome.



no, she was actually rather stupid (but learned from it) and her mental health was very much at risk... oh my. she was near suicidal.

That qualifies as a threat to the mother's health. One of your aforementioned risk is the chemical imbalance.

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.

So? Some part of DNA.. how shall I put this... DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERSON! That is crazy. The only justification you might find for this mad assertion is within the religious fundemantalism!

A person has individual thoughts, feelings. It is a SEPERATE, but not independent since also a child is dependant, human body - not a piece of tissue whose life is far bellow the complexity of a frog!

again, how do you figure?

the cells of my arm depend on the rest of me for survival.

to survive is to
1) to remain alive or in existence : live on
2) to continue to function or prosper

cells go by #2
humans go by both

If a fetus is not alive, then when does it go by #1? When does he magically become alive?

They are not pro-life, they are pro-tissue. That is a whole lot of difference because you gotta observe what things rather be, than what they might become. Sure, an embryo might very well become a human being, that is true.

But, once again, we gotta consider what it is, rather than what it might become. During the first three months the embryo is little more than a hump of tissue, more primitiv than a frog.

That hump of tissue got NO individuality, NO personality, NO serperate life, it does NOT have any thoughts or even feelings. It is nothing more than a parasite on the womans body, which she might - if she want to - keep in order for it to grow into an infant.

Sentencing a womans life to serving this embryo, to sacrifice her life or at least her well being, to this embryo is clearly NOT pro-life. As stated, pro-tissue perhaps.

What you gotta consider is REAL HUMAN BEINGS, not some hump of tissues.The problem is, the woman decided beforehand to become pregnant, even though the aim might have been completely for pleasure. People don't just 'get' pregnant - they have to undergo a reproductive act. Why should the woman then be surprised?

Like all of the other pro-choice people, you seem limited in your thinking to a very small timespan. The embroyo/fetus will most likely, if allowed to develop, become a fully grown human being. The pro-choice people wish to interrupt that, and therefore are ending what almost certainly will (barring accidents, etc) be a grown human being in the quite near future.

Short term thinking is what got them pregnant - you'd think they'd learn something.

Although technically a pro-choicer, I feel it is unfair to assume that all pro-lifers are people who get in your face screaming "abortion should be banned, its evil, if you get an abortion you're evil". Obviously just thinking "I'd never have an abortion, I can't see how anyone could" isn't grounds for being flamed.

Actually the whole label is kind of odd, because if you think abortion is bad but you respect other people's right to decide for themselves, what are you? You're against abortion (ie pro-life) but you also respect peoples choices, which theoretically makes you pro-choice. It seems like pro-choice is more of a middle ground than anything else - I mean you don't see anyone pushing to make abortion compulsory do you? Now that would be the opposite of pro-life.
It is okay to be for life and for choice, as am I. Should we start a support group? :-)

The most reasonable litmus test to determine whether or not a zygote or embryo or fetus is indeed a seperate organism is this:

Take a fetus/zygote/embryo and remove it physically from the pregnant woman's body.

Take an infant and remove it physically from it's mother's body (deliver, cut the umbilical cord).

The first results in a lifeless mass of tissue.
The second results in a baby human being.

If medical technology ever allows for a fetus/embryo/zygote to be developed into an infant outside a woman's body, abortion as we know it will cease to exist.

It will be replaced by a massive population of orphans who grow up in government run orphanages and a massive tax burden on our population to pay the costs associated with developing the embryo/zyg/fetuses.

Although technically a pro-choicer, I feel it is unfair to assume that all pro-lifers are people who get in your face screaming "abortion should be banned, its evil, if you get an abortion you're evil". Obviously just thinking "I'd never have an abortion, I can't see how anyone could" isn't grounds for being flamed.

Actually the whole label is kind of odd, because if you think abortion is bad but you respect other people's right to decide for themselves, what are you? You're against abortion (ie pro-life) but you also respect peoples choices, which theoretically makes you pro-choice. It seems like pro-choice is more of a middle ground than anything else - I mean you don't see anyone pushing to make abortion compulsory do you? Now that would be the opposite of pro-life.

Pro-choice= pro-abortion

it shouldn't be pro-choice. It's misleading. But without the "choice" thing going on for them they have nothing.

sorry, i didn't see that.

and i started this thread in somewhat of parody of some earlier threads entitled "abortionists, explain yourselves" i figured if one side had to explain themselves, why not the other?


Kind of like the dreaded "Ask a..." threads? ;) Still, are any of the responses all that surprising?

to survive is to
1) to remain alive or in existence : live on
2) to continue to function or prosper

cells go by #2
humans go by both

If a fetus is not alive, then when does it go by #1? When does he magically become alive?

Cells also go by both - after all, cells are alive. The question is when a developing bundle of cells becomes a separate organism. There are certain requirements to deem something an organism and one of these is that the organism must sense and respond to stimuli. The fetus does not do this as an organism until the nervous system is formed.

The problem is, the woman decided beforehand to become pregnant, even though the aim might have been completely for pleasure. People don't just 'get' pregnant - they have to undergo a reproductive act. Why should the woman then be surprised?


In your fantasy world view, do millions of girls and women across america wake up many friday mornings and repeat the mantra "Tonight I am going to decide beforehand to become pregnant."


The Fact Is That Irresponsible People Have Sex Without Consenting To Carry Pregnancies And Bear Children.

This. Is. Immutable.

The idiotic and morally degenerate fantasy that having sex equates in every occurance but rape to consenting to become pregnant is a plague that affects the minds of religous fundementalists, posturing politicians and those of piss-poor intellect.

Dont fall into that trap of error and become an imbecile.

Cells also go by both - after all, cells are alive. The question is when a developing bundle of cells becomes a separate organism. There are certain requirements to deem something an organism and one of these is that the organism must sense and respond to stimuli. The fetus does not do this as an organism until the nervous system is formed.

so cells are alive but fetuses are not?