NationStates Jolt Archive

I havn't ready any of this thread so I shall not comment on anything anyone else has saidGood start</sarcasm>. You've missed most of the stuff that you're trying to argue about. I agree it's a long thread, but don't just jump to the end!
I will simply tell it how it isHow you see it.

Abortion is evilyour opinion, and fair enough but don't expect us to agree.
there is no medical or scientific data showing that a feotus is anything other than a living human being from the moment of conceptionThat discussion is still ongoing, and even anti-choicers don't necessarily agree with that
women chant in the streets that it is their body and therefore their right to do with it as they please
this is either ignorance or liesOr their opinion (rightful, IMHO)
if the feotus was EVER part of the womans body her immune system would reject and kill it as it would any forign cells.Except that there's the placental barrier that specifically excludes (most) immune cells, and a woman's immue system is tuned to deal with what cells do leak through, most of the time...
some say that the feotus isn't human be fore a certain pointIt certainly isn't a viable human before a certain point, with no thoughts or emotions or feelings.
again ignorance and liesWith respect, you don't appear to know of what you speak
there is no point before which a feotus can be (medically or scientifically) defined as not humanNot viably human, there is (the exact point is debatable, and is being debated)
some say it's ok when the mother was rapedyes, even most of the anti-choicers, your opinion appears to vary.
WHY?Two possible reasons come to mind:
Because they are taking into account the resulting quality of life of the mother and her state of mind (something anti-choicers might not take notice of in the case of accidental pregnancies, but that's their issue to iron out, I judge not)
Because they feel that a rapist should not be rewarded (relates to the item two points further down, not usually mentioned by anyone
Is it ok to kill some random person on the street when someone rapes someone else?No, but you can reclaim stolen goods from someone who has unwisely bought them from a thief, which is a closer cause-and-effect analogy
how 'bout you would it be ok to kill you for the crimes of your father?Irrelevant simile
No I don't think soNeither do I, but irrelevant.
abortion is murderMurder is the illegal killing of a living human. Even if we disagree about the "living human" status of a bunch of cells without a central nervous system and totally reliant upon the mother's body for survivial and growth, abortion is not illegal and therefore it is not murder.
as there have been HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of abortions worldwide we are talking about mass murder on a scale none have seen beforeApart from arguing about the term 'murder' (and the living status of the embryos concerned) compare with deaths through traffic accidents, etc before you can ascribe abortion as the sole perpetrator of loss-of-life.

so
pro abortionists
explain yourselvesBeen there, done that, T-shirts available at the door. No-one appears to have converted to the other's position but everyone keeps on trying.

Originally Posted by Pithica
Last I checked, adoption isn't an option for everyone, and abstinence goes against all genetic predisposition.
Genetic predisposition? That overrrides being responsible about sex?
LOL. Abstinence is not being responsible about sex, it's avoiding sex and therefore any responsibility for sex.

Yes, but my point is that you think doing it to childern is allowable, but doing it to adults is not. You are making a case that adults should have a choice, but you are doing nothing to promote the choices of childern. If you can accept the fact that is happens to children, why can't you accept the fact that it happens to adults as well?

Do you mean to say that you have never made a choice for your child? If your child decided to eat nothing but sugar out of the bag and not go to school and draw on the walls in permanent marker, you would just sit back and allow it since it is their choice?

Children are still developing the ability to make decisions for themselves. It is your responsibility, as a parent, to give them a good balance between their responsibility and yours. Adults are fully responsible for their own lives. This isn't all that hard to understand.

*laughs* There's nothing sexier than an intelligent, well spoken, open-minded man who champions human rights. Period. That's why I ended up with my hubbie in the first place. I hope my kids (as in my students) can pick some of that up from my teaching methods (in class, I advocate critical thinking and informed decision making).

So, now you're hitting on me?

Well, either me or Terminalia....

Personally. A human isn't 'fully human' until they are old enough and mentally capable enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Life doesn't begin until it can be self sustaining. And no, I do not believe we have the right to make demands of others based on something that is totally opinion.
Bravo.

If you read the teachings of Christ, he said the OT is the old way. According to Jesus, we're supposed to be following the new testament.

So, what is your point? The New Testament applies, replacing the Old?

That was your response to my post:
Pro-lifers are more than willing to give women (and men) a choice. They can CHOOSE to be responsible before the woman gets pregnant. If they don't take responsibility at that point, they can CHOOSE to be responsible after the fact and allow the baby to live. If they feel they can't take care of it, they can CHOOSE to put it up for adoption. Seems like people do have choices to make. However, to pro-lifers, murdering an innocent child shouldn't be one of the options.

That response was ignorant. I just gave several choices that the woman/man can make, yet you say I have taken away their choice when I say murdering an innocent child isn't an option. So does that mean that the mother of a 6-month-old should have the option of killing her baby if she realizes she can support him/her financially? What if she just decides she really doesn't want the baby anymore? Sure, she could put the kid up for adoption, allow the baby to stay with a family member, whatever. But, in her mind, she thinks killing it would be best. I guess we should let her do it, huh? If not, we're taking away a choice - or so you're response would lead me to believe.

And yet, you still fail to realise, you are still limiting their choices by ignoring the fact that pregnancy isn't always a matter of irresponsibility, and by attempting to insist that anyone who becomes pregnant MUST have the child.

Do you not see how that might be limiting choice?

Let's look at a metaphor: A large bug crawls into your mouth, while you are sleeping. Yummy, you say, as you roll over. Later, you wake in pain as the bug starts eating you from the inside out. You call the doctor, and say "doctor, there's this thing in my tummy, and I really REALLY don't want it there... what can I do?"

The doctor charges your credit-card before answering.... "Nothing, it'll come out on it's own eventually... shouldn't take long... less than a year". And then he hangs up.

Should the doctor have told you that the bug could be removed surgically?
Should your school have warned you about the risks of bug-swallowing?

Or should everyone just sit around full of self-satisfaction, since you were the poor sucker who got 'bugged'... while they tell you you HAVE TO WAIT for it to come out on it's own?

Abortion is evil

That is very possible.

there is no medical or scientific data showing that a feotus is anything other than a living human being from the moment of conception

Well, that all depends. Do you have to be an organism to be a living human being? Because an embryo is not an organism until it develops a nervous system.

women chant in the streets that it is their body and therefore their right to do with it as they please
this is either ignorance or lies

If someone's only chance at living was to be connected to your organs, would you be ok with the governemnt hooking them up to your organs and using your nutrients/kidneys/blood for at least nine months?

some say that the feotus isn't human be fore a certain point
again ignorance and lies
there is no point before which a feotus can be (medically or scientifically) defined as not human

You can call it human if you want, but it is scientifically not even an organism before a certain point.

some say it's ok when the mother was raped
WHY?

Because a woman cannot be forced to donate her own health and her own organs to something else against her will. If you do not give blood every 8 weeks, give plasma every 4 (or 2, is it?), get tested for the bone marrow registry and be willing to give bone marrow to *any* match, give your kidney or parts of other organs up to anyone who needs it without complaint, and put yourself on the organ donor list, as well as personally pay for every single one of these procedures, you haven't got a leg to stand on here.

Oh? So children don't deserve to have choices? Last I checked, they are just as human as us adults! If, as you say, it is amoral to limit the choices of adults, why is it perfectly fine to limit the choices of children? Please inform me of your reasoning.

I am saying this as a responsible adult who has not ceased giving children the respect they reserve as human beings. Just as babies have the right to live, children of all ages should have rights too.



1: Dead Baby.

2: Live Baby.

1: Sancity of human life violated.

2: Sancity of human life preserved.

1) not live foetus.

2) foetus carried to term

1) there is no sanctity of human life

2) there is no sanctity of human life

Wow. Where? I would really like to see him say we should be using a book that wasn't written until years after his death.

I call shenanigans.
Hebrews 9:16
Like a will that takes effect when someone dies, the new covenant was put into action at Jesus' death. His death marked the transition from the old plan to the new one, canceling the old obligations and accompanying sins, and summoning the heirs to receive the eternal inheritance that was promised them. He brought together God and his people in this new way.

Hebrews 8:6-13
But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan--the old covenant--had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said,

Heads up! The days are coming
when I'll set up a new plan
for dealing with Israel and Judah.
I'll throw out the old plan
I set up with their ancestors
when I led them by the hand out of Egypt.
They didn't keep their part of the bargain,
so I looked away and let it go.

This new plan I'm making with Israel
isn't going to be written on paper,
isn't going to be chiseled in stone;
This time I'm writing out the plan in them,
carving it on the lining of their hearts.
I'll be their God,
they'll be my people.
They won't go to school to learn about me,
or buy a book called God in Five Easy Lessons.
They'll all get to know me firsthand,
the little and the big, the small and the great.
They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven,
with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean.

By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust.

My problem with pro-lifers is that they aren't REALLY pro-LIFE---they're anti-choice. If you're for life, go all out: become a vegetarian, quit wearing leather, help protect the environment for yourself & generations to come, and adopt some children who didn't get aborted and live in the foster care system, and most of all quit looking down your noses at single mothers on welfare & bitching about the tax dollars you earn support them.

The fact is, even though abortion is legal, not as many women as you would think choose to exercise this right. Even at Planned Parenthood, when a woman comes to get an abortion, they try to talk her out of it and steer her toward adoption. And you know what else? If abortion weren't legal, it would create a black market for unethical people to take advantage of. Women would try to do it themselves, with abortifacients or wire hangers or knitting needles, and they would end up not able to have any more children or dead. These are not things I'm pulling out of you-know-where, they are things that used to happen in the days before it was legal, and they are things that probably still happen in countries where abortion is illegal.

Nearly everyone I know that's had an abortion has done so at the insistance of their own mother, believe it or not. In most of the cases, the reason was that they didn't want the shame of an out-of-wedlock baby staining their reputations at church! In some of the cases, there was also an issue of race, because the father wasn't the same race as the girl. I don't know about anyone else, but Good Christian Ladies who convince their daughters to have abortions to save face at church & spare themselves the inconvenience of explaining why their grandchild is not the same race as they are will probably have a tough time making it through the pearly gates...

Yeah America is a funny place, the cops beat the crap out of you,( no
problem with that if they deserved it) but then put their hand on top of you
as you get in the car, and say watch your head. lol

And, of course, you know this first hand, don't you? Being American, and all....?

And, of course, you know this first hand, don't you? Being American, and all....?
COPS is very popular outside the US. ;-)

I'm anti-abortion. If I ever get pregnant and I don't want it, I can simply throw myself down a flight of stairs and have miscarriage, which more properly reveres the sanctity of human life. Or I can just gouge out the unwanted thing with an unbent coathanger and bleed to death in the emergency room.
</sarcasm>
Pro-lifers are fucking stupid. Any pro-lifer with a penis is an asshole.

COPS if very popular outside the US. ;-)

Ah, well... now THERE is evidence it's hard to refute.... :)

This is, of coure, still a very loaded term, but the placenta (which, if I'm not mistaken, is genetically the same as the embryo) does indeed 'invade' the womb wall. So maybe the womb-wall is designed to tolerate this, but...

Anyway, my personal opinion is that while I wouldn't technically use the word 'parasite', there are definite similarities and where the child is not sought for in the first place.... well, that argument's been done to death. Correct me on my biology, certainly, but the rest has been talked about so much that you're going to get a blank wall if you try to argue the toss about the meaning of the term with me, I'm afraid...
I heard a good alternative phrase to "parasite" today that, while not so succinct, gets the point across politely: "material interdependence of beings."

NO-ABORTION: CHANCE OF MOTHER DYING: less than 100%
ABORTION: CHANCE OF BABY DYING: 100%

erm, actually...
ABORTION: 0% chance of baby dying. there is no baby involved in any abortion procedure.


The point is that the baby's (OR ZYGOTE, SHEESH) life, even if it is not more important than the mother's, has still a 100% chance of dying due to an abortion. You want to seal the casket on the life of one person, just to give the other person a chance of staying alive.

so what? the zygote dies and the mother lives. what's your point? i don't see that as any loss whatsoever, any more than i see it as a loss when a female's body aborts an embryo through its own natural processes. i don't mourn the lives of people who never existed...why do you?


The mother can die during the abortion process.
The mother might not die without the abortion.
The child will ALWAYS die during the abortion process.
again, the only child who could ever be involved in an abortion procedure would be if the mother is under 18 and is therefore a child. until you are willing to admit that a pile of nails and lumber is a house, you cannot claim that a fetus is a child.

I'm anti-abortion. If I ever get pregnant and I don't want it, I can simply throw myself down a flight of stairs and have miscarriage, which more properly reveres the sanctity of human life. Or I can just gouge out the unwanted thing with an unbent coathanger and bleed to death in the emergency room.
</sarcasm>

Funny you should say that. I have a story for this. There was a girl I went to high school with who was adamantly pro-life. In debates where I would bring up an argument similar to the one I use now (although less developed), she would scream and yell about murder and babies, etc, etc.

It turns out that she was pregnant when we all accepted our high school diplomas. Over the course of the next nine months, she drank, did drugs, smoked, and practically starved herself in the interest of trying to cause a miscarriage and/or being sure that she did not look pregnant. She gained almost no weight. However, none of her attempts actually caused a miscarriage and she gave birth at home, in the bathroom. She then smothered the infant, which had actually been born almost perfectly healthy, and placed it in a dumpster. She got off on a post-pardem depression plea. Lousy bitch.

Inapplicable unless (in the theoretical reality being discussed) there had been a high-enough abortion rate to deplete the job-queue (compared with the other reality) or remove the pool of philanthropical funders or administraters required...


Or maybe a better team/approach would occur if all the people you are theoretically removing from reality had not been in the positions they are... You better have a pretty good trans-dimensional viewer (ideally hooked up to a video so we can see too) before you can possibly use arguments such as that.


Im just saying with the incredibly high rate of abortion in Western society, its

possible, you never know.

Pithica
Life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Death is worse


Torture at the hands of an enemy.

Only if its tortured to death.


The torture or killing of a loved one.

Agreed.


Surviving cancer only to get it again and again.

Death is worse.

Severe depression.

That can be overcome.

Loss of conscious sapience.

Agreed.

I can go on. It's all a matter of opinion or personal priorities, of course. You certainly might prefer one or all of the above to death, but I certainly wouldn't.


Some of them I would prefer to being dead, others, same as you.

And, of course, you know this first hand, don't you? Being American, and all....?

Right, like Willamenia said, so all those cop shows we watch from the US, not

to mention dramas displaying American police consistantly and without fail,

putting their hand on top of the perpetrators head as he gets into the car,

and then saying 'watch your head', are in fact nothing more than a

fabrication to make us believe that American police in reality do not in fact do

that, when the cameras are off.

Do you have any proof?

Has anyone here being arrested in America, and not had this

treatment?

Right, like Willamenia said, so all those cop shows we watch from the US, not

to mention dramas displaying American police consistantly and without fail,

putting their hand on top of the perpetrators head as he gets into the car,

and then saying 'watch your head', are in fact nothing more than a

fabrication to make us believe that American police in reality do not in fact do

that, when the cameras are off.

Do you have any proof?

Has anyone here being arrested in America, and not had this

treatment?

I can't believe you are serious!

This is impressive, even for you. You are seriously basing a case on televised dramas?

No, I haven't been arrested. But I have worked for most of a year with the Chief of Police of the City I lived near, and, I can assure you, you watch TOO MUCH TV!

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]I can't believe you are serious!

lol John MacEnroe

This is impressive, even for you. You are seriously basing a case on televised dramas?

Dont forget the reality cop shows.


No, I haven't been arrested. But I have worked for most of a year with the Chief of Police of the City I lived near, and, I can assure you, you watch TOO MUCH TV!

So your denying this is common proceedure for American police then?

[QUOTE]

Dont forget the reality cop shows.
So your denying this is common proceedure for American police then?

'Reality', when it comes to television, is very much a 'relative' term, my friend.

Just because it says 'reality' on the box, doesn't mean it's reality IN the box.

I don't claim to know for certain if it is universally true or untrue... but I have worked alongside a Chief of Police, and have a couple of friends who are police... and have seen enough to know that you "beat them up, but tell them to watch their heads" scenario is certainly NOT as universal as you portray.

But, why am I surprised? I mean, it's so unlike you to resort to ridiculous stereotypes....

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]'Reality', when it comes to television, is very much a 'relative' term, my friend.
Just because it says 'reality' on the box, doesn't mean it's reality IN the box.

So its all staged is it?

It looks pretty real to me, its not put on at all.


I don't claim to know for certain if it is universally true or untrue... but I have worked alongside a Chief of Police, and have a couple of friends who are police... and have seen enough to know that you "beat them up, but tell them to watch their heads" scenario is certainly NOT as universal as you portray.

So they just do it for the cameras eh?

In my younger days I was beaten up by the cops a few times, but unlike

American ones who show concern for your head as you get in, the Aussie

ones try to steer your head towards the wagon as you get in, then say sorry

lol

But, why am I surprised? I mean, it's so unlike you to resort to ridiculous stereotypes....

How can I resort to something I dont even believe in, in the first place?

webmd has different numbers, and more accurate numbers for methods of contraception. the page you cited has been discovered to have some andiquated information, how do you know you can trust the rest of the information on teh site?

and i turst a site that has no adgenda when it comes to abortion or not vs. one that deals specifically with that topic vs adoption or what have you. webmd is a general health site, they have no reason to deliberately mislead anyone. your site does.

Actually, it was just one of the sites that popped up doing a search. I had never seen it prior to that point. I tried to go to WebMD, but my server got goofy on me. :(

That's simply not possible. Birth controls are measures put in place to prevent pregnancy, and therefore prevent abortion.

I don't think you understand my point, Willamena. I know abortion is NOT birth control. I know it is to end a pregnancy, not prevent it. But the person I mentioned in my initial post treated the procedure that way. She didn't bother with any sort of true birth control, because abortion is what SHE considered birth control. The technical purpose of abortion is irrelevant to that point.

Huh? I have heard stories of women being 7 months pregnant and claiming not to know but I never actually believed them. So your saying that most women are this stupid? Wow, I really need to re-examine my view of women. :rolleyes:

Not necessarily the result of stupidity. A friend of mine from high school has an older sister who didn't know she was pregnant right up to delivery. She gained only a little weight, and her periods didn't stop. She honestly did not know until the water broke. It's just a matter of the many different ways a pregnancy progresses. Not all women get morning sickness, gain weight, or even lose their period.

I heard a good alternative phrase to "parasite" today that, while not so succinct, gets the point across politely: "material interdependence of beings."

Not bad. If you could somehow insert a term such as "monodirectional" into that it might be a bit better, as "miob" sounds more like a symbiotic relationship... Nice phrase, though, I must use it myself, some time... :)

this controversy sometimes makes me soooo mad
question...do you want to be a murderer, or support a murderer, or even accompany a murder?
that's what abortion is, the taking of a human life
and while it is very horrible morally, it is also illegal to take the life of another human being
from conception this baby or embreo or whatever you wish to call it is a human being, and it is illegal to take a human beings life
i dont care if it is the mother's right to not have a child, whether she be lazy or incapable in raising it, or too young, or too old, or too poor, or too rich, it doesnt matter... abortion is murder, plain and simple, and it should be punished like murder and made illegal like murder
because obvioulsy people cannot grasp the difference between abortion and murder, ( i personally do not see one in the slightest), the act needs to be illegalized, and punishable


if someone murdered your baby girl of about 3 weeks or something, you wuold be indignant would you not, so would your family and friends and the people in your community, and im sure you would seek justice, and the punishing of the guilty party, am i right?

plus there are the side effects for the mother
she, while possibly trying to save her life from having to raise deal with or take care of a baby, is putting herself into so many risk,it's crazy. depression, possibly suicide, (there are statistics, but im not sure the exact percentage, and i dont want to falsify) plus all teh medical risk and complications taht could go aolng with MURDERING a child inside the womb

there are so many arguments, but i hope these from a pro-lifer, as yu call us, has sufficiently cured your craving for a debate on whether we should or should not kill a fellow human being!

thank you


baby :sniper: :mp5: abortionist

this controversy sometimes makes me soooo mad
question...do you want to be a murderer, or support a murderer, or even accompany a murder?
that's what abortion is, the taking of a human life
and while it is very horrible morally, it is also illegal to take the life of another human being
from conception this baby or embreo or whatever you wish to call it is a human being, and it is illegal to take a human beings life
i dont care if it is the mother's right to not have a child, whether she be lazy or incapable in raising it, or too young, or too old, or too poor, or too rich, it doesnt matter... abortion is murder, plain and simple, and it should be punished like murder and made illegal like murder
because obvioulsy people cannot grasp the difference between abortion and murder, ( i personally do not see one in the slightest), the act needs to be illegalized, and punishable


if someone murdered your baby girl of about 3 weeks or something, you wuold be indignant would you not, so would your family and friends and the people in your community, and im sure you would seek justice, and the punishing of the guilty party, am i right?

plus there are the side effects for the mother
she, while possibly trying to save her life from having to raise deal with or take care of a baby, is putting herself into so many risk,it's crazy. depression, possibly suicide, (there are statistics, but im not sure the exact percentage, and i dont want to falsify) plus all teh medical risk and complications taht could go aolng with MURDERING a child inside the womb

there are so many arguments, but i hope these from a pro-lifer, as yu call us, has sufficiently cured your craving for a debate on whether we should or should not kill a fellow human being!

thank you


baby :sniper: :mp5: abortionist

I don't call you pro-life. Since most of the supposedly 'pro-life' camp eat meat, and often support the death penalty, I find pro-life something of a hard title to reconcile.

I call them Anti-Abortionists.

And in this case, I call them wrong. A foetus is not a child. It isn't even a baby.

Also, you may not have noticed that depression and suicide can be the results of NOT aborting also... and that outlawing abortion doesn't make it go away... it just makes it illegal. And illegal means more risky for the 'mother-to-be', also.

So, as a wise philosopher once wrote... even if abortion is murder, making abortion illegal only serves to murder twice.

How does the anti-abortionist support the probable death of the 'mother-to-be'?

So its all staged is it?
It looks pretty real to me, its not put on at all.


Please tell me that even you aren't that gullible.


So they just do it for the cameras eh?
In my younger days I was beaten up by the cops a few times, but unlike
American ones who show concern for your head as you get in, the Aussie
ones try to steer your head towards the wagon as you get in, then say sorry
lol


Which is funny, because I was never 'beaten up' by the 'cops'. Maybe I'm just good like that.


How can I resort to something I dont even believe in, in the first place?

Just because you don't understand how the title of stereotyping fits what you do, doesn't mean it ISN'T stereotyping. It just means that you can't seem to make that connection.

But, taking your logic at face value, you NOT BELIEVING means that the thing doesn't exist.

Which means you have just provided me with the perfect evidence for the non-existence of god. Well done, and thank you.

from conception this baby or embreo or whatever you wish to call it is a human being, and it is illegal to take a human beings life

Would you then support the prosecution of women who have early-term (ie. before they realize they are pregnant) miscarriages that are linked to their lifestyles?

Pro-lifers? Abortionists?

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! :D

Humans are Scum and should be wiped out!

this controversy sometimes makes me soooo mad
question...do you want to be a murderer, or support a murderer, or even accompany a murder? (no, but I don't consider abotion muder)
that's what abortion is, the taking of a human life(debatable... that is, in fact, what's being debated. Well done on missing the point)
and while it is very horrible morally, it is also illegal to take the life of another human being(but abortion ISN'T illegal... so it's obvious that currently, abortion is not considered murder. Maybe you should argue your own side for a bit?)
from conception this baby or embreo or whatever you wish to call it is a human being(debatable, it's not even an organism until it has a nervous system), and it is illegal to take a human beings life(but not to have an abortion - therefore legally, an embryo is NOT a human being)
i dont care if it is the mother's right to not have a child, whether she be lazy or incapable in raising it, or too young, or too old, or too poor, or too rich, it doesnt matter... abortion is murder, plain and simple, and it should be punished like murder and made illegal like murder
because obvioulsy people cannot grasp the difference between abortion and murder, ( i personally do not see one in the slightest), the act needs to be illegalized, and punishable


if someone murdered your baby girl of about 3 weeks or something, you wuold be indignant would you not, so would your family and friends and the people in your community, and im sure you would seek justice, and the punishing of the guilty party, am i right?(you're ignoring the difference between someone *forcing* an abortion on a woman, and the woman *choosing* to have an abortion. A forced abortion, if the mother wanted the child, should be punishable... but still not as murder)

plus there are the side effects for the mother
she, while possibly trying to save her life from having to raise deal with or take care of a baby, is putting herself into so many risk,(you're ignoring the many MANY risks associated with both pregnancy and childbirth... if we can outlaw one based on this, can we outlaw the others also?) it's crazy. depression, possibly suicide, (post-natal depression occurs after giving birth, and often leads to the mother not only killing herself, but killing her children also) (there are statistics, but im not sure the exact percentage, and i dont want to falsify) plus all teh medical risk and complications taht could go aolng with MURDERING (shouting doesn't make it so) a child (pointless emotive language - English has words like 'infant', 'embryo' and 'fetus' for a reason. Use them, for crying out loud) inside the womb

there are so many arguments, but i hope these from a pro-lifer, as yu call us, has sufficiently cured your craving for a debate on whether we should or should not kill a fellow human being! (they have re-enforced my belief that many pro-lifers a) have no grasp of biology, b) no grasp of the effects of prgnancy and child birth on the mother c) no moral conscious and d) little grasp of the English language)
thank you (no, thank you. You've made it so much easier to debate my side, providing all those legal points)

baby(no baby is involved in the abortion - only an embryo or, in rare cases, a fetus) :sniper: :mp5: abortionist (abortionists don't use guns)

.

I don't call you pro-life. Since most of the supposedly 'pro-life' camp eat meat ... I find pro-life something of a hard title to reconcile.
:) That's the very reason I would call them pro-life. Life feeds on life. In order to honour life by participation in life, one must actively participate in the life and death cycle. Whether one does it by consuming meat and vegetation, or consuming vegetation only, is their choice. It's all life.

Not bad. If you could somehow insert a term such as "monodirectional" into that it might be a bit better, as "miob" sounds more like a symbiotic relationship... Nice phrase, though, I must use it myself, some time... :)
Ah, but others in these threads have made the point that it's not so mono-directional, and with quite authoritative wording too, so I have no reason to doubt. ;-)

If I remember some of the salient points, the mother benefits from having a child/fetus/tissue mass within her in terms of strethening of deficiency system and horomonal thingies. I'll look for the post..

:) That's the very reason I would call them pro-life. Life feeds on life. In order to honour life by participation in life, one must actively participate in the life and death cycle. Whether one does it by consuming meat and vegetation, or consuming vegetation only, is their choice. It's all life.

I just find it ironic that someone can yell about how inhumane it is to remove life... then vote for Bush to invade Iraq, refuse to condemn execution, eat meat (and I agree with your point about vegetation... just because it's green, doesn't mean it's not alive), etc.

I think most people are very selective about how they compartmentalise their life... I guess they have to be to survive?

Me... I'm not pro-life. I don't cause unnecessary cruelty. But, I do like meat... and, as part of my 'coming to terms with the world', I have killed animals to eat them. To me, therefore, my carnivore nature has been justified.

I have been shot at, and I didn't like it one bit... but I am a fast runner, so i am alive today. So, it doesn't aggrieve me too much over the concept of 'the sanctity of human life'. One near death experience pretty quickly teaches that life is only as 'sanctified' as it is because you haven't met death yet... and no amount of 'human right to life' or 'sanctity' is going to save you when you find it.

I think I've just decided not to partition my life (like those vegetarians who eat ham, because it's in salad)... and I can't quite comprehend those who still do.

But your point is true. Life feeds on life. Life and Death are interlinked. So, someone must 'experience' life AND death to experience 'LIFE'.

I don't think you understand my point, Willamena. I know abortion is NOT birth control. I know it is to end a pregnancy, not prevent it. But the person I mentioned in my initial post treated the procedure that way. She didn't bother with any sort of true birth control, because abortion is what SHE considered birth control. The technical purpose of abortion is irrelevant to that point.
Okay.

I get so frustrated by persons in this ongoing debate who talk about the "ongoing psychological trauma" experienced by women who've had abortions...as if you speak for me.

I had an abortion at 16...I was using birthcontrol...my boyfriend of 2 years was even a catholic...I was also a state awarded debater, top 5% of my graduating class, a national merit scholar...no way was I giving up my bright future (and thousands in scholarship money that wouldn't wait) because I took some medicine that interfered with the effectiveness of my ortho-novum.

Fast forward 20 years, I'm now 36...I have a husband, 3 wonderful children (whom we were ready for and love beyond reason), a decent career, and I vote pro-choice.

Those of you who believe an abortion should be legal in case of rape should be careful what you wish for...my parents would probably have prosecuted my 18yr old boyfriend had they known about the extent of our relationship...even though I believe ours was consentual...a lovely young man who is now a college professor could have had his life ruined...think about it. :rolleyes:

Ah, but others in these threads have made the point that it's not so mono-directional, and with quite authoritative wording too, so I have no reason to doubt. ;-)Sorry, I meant monodirectional dependance, rather than monodirectional interface, however the following...
If I remember some of the salient points, the mother benefits from having a child/fetus/tissue mass within her in terms of strethening of deficiency system and horomonal thingies. I'll look for the post.....sounds familiar and this I accept it, though have a niggly feeling that these changes are essentially offsetting the disadvantages of having to carry the child in the first place? Sorry, you're approaching the event-horizon of my knowledge (beyond which I'm gradually forgotting what I once learnt).

I have been shot at, and I didn't like it one bit... but I am a fast runner, so i am alive today. So, it doesn't aggrieve me too much over the concept of 'the sanctity of human life'. One near death experience pretty quickly teaches that life is only as 'sanctified' as it is because you haven't met death yet... and no amount of 'human right to life' or 'sanctity' is going to save you when you find it.

But your point is true. Life feeds on life. Life and Death are interlinked. So, someone must 'experience' life AND death to experience 'LIFE'.
There is another dimension to it: the sacred. Life is sanctified (made sacred) by humans' participation in life and death (humans' participation, because it is humans who have this concept of sanctity, and hold it and revere it). Those who refer to the sanctity of life as keeping something alive at all costs are missing the point of the sanctity of life entirely. It is our participation in life (that we can do everyday at the dinner table) that gives meaning to the death of the life-form that we consume. And we give meaning to the 'death' of the pre-born that is eliminated from the mother's body (whether accidentally or deliberately), or the death of the born infant, or the friend or brother, etc, by carrying on in our participation in life.

:) It's a religious concept far older than Yahweh and his mountain-top lightening bolts.

I don't call you pro-life. Since most of the supposedly 'pro-life' camp eat meat, and often support the death penalty, I find pro-life something of a hard title to reconcile.



[QUOTE/]So, as a wise philosopher once wrote... even if abortion is murder, making abortion illegal only serves to murder twice.[QUOTE/]
how so?

[QUOTE/]How does the anti-abortionist support the probable death of the 'mother-to-be'?
i really do not know how to reply to that
but there is probable death with the act of abortion also.

and as to what you said about the mother also becoming depressed and or commiting or considering suicide if she does not have an abortion. i believe it would be less likely than if she had killed her baby. she would have less on her concience, and she shouldnt be depressed because she brought a new life into the world as opposed to taking one out!!

...

and as to what you said about the mother also becoming depressed and or commiting or considering suicide if she does not have an abortion. i believe it would be less likely than if she had killed her baby. she would have less on her concience, and she shouldnt be depressed because she brought a new life into the world as opposed to taking one out!!

...

Wow, you are really naive.

I don't believe "parasite" is an accurate term for a fetus. A parasite is a life-form that invades another to feed off it. A child does not invade.


Definition of Parasite
"A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of it. The biological interaction between the host and the parasite is called parasitism."

Sounds like an embryo is a parsite to me. Now I'm a callous ba5tard, and my views do NOT represent the views of most pro-abortionists but:

And embryo is part of the mother. Its her 'property' if you will. If the embryo can not live with out the mothers consent then the mother should have the right to do whatever she wants with it. There's no law about not having a hair cut because its cruel to the hairs. Nor is there a law against cutting off your finger because "it can't live without you" or because "its a human being".

Abortion is sololy the mothers right to choose. All pregent women should have ALL the information (Including possible side effects of aborting or not aborting) before deciding wether or not they want to have an abortion (regardless of if they want an abortion or not they still need the facts). Then they can decide. Pro-lifers are quick to point out the emotional and physical side effects of abortion, but they are very slow to admit that ALL said side effects are present in EQUAL OR GREATER amounts if the child is allowed to come to term, and only by wanting the child can prosective mothers endoctrine supply "pick them up" and make the thing worthwhile and "rewarding". Not to mention the chance of the vagina tearing during labour...


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.


OK my gerbil has its own DNA seperate from mine and my girlfriends! ITS A PERSON! Quick, call the supreme court it desevers equal rights because it has different DNA!!!! Wait! A cancer cell has DNA different from its hosts! ITS A PERSON! WE NEED TO STOP ALL CANCER TREATMENT RIGHT NOW! ITS MURDER!


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.


Economy, more unemployed.
More people to feed.
More taxes being spent supporting these lives.
More power required so more pollution, fewer world resourses.


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.

Yes beacuse the average working class teenage girl having wanting an abortion has a GREAT chance of fathering a brilliant scientist. How many great scientists where raised in poverty by single, teenage parents? Ok now how many where raised by comfortable middle class well educated parents? Case rested.

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.

Oh no! 6 billion people isn't enough! We need MORE people. Yes our planet that doesn't have enough resourses as it is needs MORE people because some lonly people can't get a date. (No offense)

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?

The happiness that comes from bearing your rapists/one night stands child.
The happiness that comes from endangering your life (in some cases).
The happiness that comes when your partner feaks out and leaves you.
The happiness of labour.
Now I believe that Bottle all ready addressed this post much better than I but still.


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.

Um its illegal to abort after 20 weeks. After 20 weeks the featus can survive outside the womb.
Now as for the 'natures work' part so its ok for a shark or a lion to kill some one because its part of nature. But its not ok to kill a collection of cells that might become a human?


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"?


Good point. Those laws also need to be change. So long as you waver your right to public health care you should be able to end your life or fuck up your body. If an animal is suffering we put it down out of compassion. Is a human less worthy of compassion than a house pet?


So when does it become a baby?

Many pro-choicers may disagree but after 20 (actually 18 according to the prolifers, prochoicers say 22-4 when the brain works I'm happy with 20) weeks when a feteaus can survive outside the womb it becomes a baby. At this point its life is worth no more or less than the mothers and incases where its a choice between the mother or child a medical and a legal professional should IMO decide which will have a higher QOL when deciding precendence.


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).

No suicides a seperate crime in and of itself. I used to have the details of a case where someone was sentenced to death for attempted suicide (but I formatted my hard drive and didn't back the case file up - I'm sure you can google for it) - and the person changed their mind and wanted to live! Mostly though its psychiatiric commission and percrition drugs.

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.

You know your old testiment my friend. It took me a while to find that one.

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.

Yep. In the UK if the mothers life is in danger its leagal to abort until the birth is completed. I had a pro-lifer regail me of tales of babies being killed by skull crushing as soon as the head was out. I think this is wrong and even if the mothers life is in danger I think that unless the baby will suffer a very poor QOL this should be banned.

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.

Thank god there's people who think like you. People who disgrace the cause of pro-choice. Why? Because it makes my insulting rants seem more inteligent. Now not all pro-lifers are too ugly to be fu... fornicated with. Many if not most have had an abortion and are trying to help others not make the same mistakes. Now I believe that by educating people they do a good thing but we must never forget that these people are emotionally disturbed by their experiences. We must also remeber they are a minority. While I really do sympathise with them it's like people who are allergic to penacillin saying it should be outlawed and the rest of us should suffer. People MUST be given the choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammneuwitz
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.

nah-ah! Wrong. A fertilised egg can not surive out side the body either. That was his point. (Or the point was that sperm and egg cells can be presevered as in the case of sperm banks). Also two egg cells CAN be used to develope into a child, its been done in mice check back issues of New Scientist. Not to mention cloning. Is a skin cell a human because a human (clone) can be made from it?

Thus by your own arguements I demand that you acknowledge the santity of human female gametes. I demand that you acknologde that every woman from pubity to meopause is as you put it committing murder.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakini

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.


Ouch! Swing and a miss for the rookie. Wrong AGAIN! You've read your pamflets though. Let me clarify.
5 weeks brain devolopenment starts appriechbly. It could be argued that it occurs earlier but I'm not gonna go Human Bio Masters level on you.
8 weeks simple nevous system is formed and pain can be felt. Brain ACTIVITY (not waves) can be detected. Comprable activity can be found in PLANTS.
18 weeks brain developed enough to surivive out side the womb - the body however requires intensive care and still the baby won't live very long.
22 Weeks complete neural network. SNS and PNS (hehehe PNS) are fully formed. Baby CAN live a decent life.
By legal and my defintion after 20 weeks its a child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakini
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.

Wow Prismatic Dragons is kicking the sh... feaces out of Dakini and I'm smashing Prismatic Dragons!
Condoms are only 97% effective WHEN USED CORRECTLY (rising to 99% if spericide is used). The pill is also not 100% (I don't know the figure but I estimate at 97%), neither is a diaphram in fact even abstinace isn't 100% effective. With 6 BILLION people on the Earth there will always be unwanted pregnecies, accidents (and abuse) will always (unfortunatly) happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakini
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

OK what if she didn't consent to the sex? Or if she was just doing it for pleasure? Or if she changes her mind? Organ donors can pull out at any time - even on the operating table. Their action could kill a sentient human being. Every month during her period a girl kills a potentially sentient human being.
PS: Thank you for using BK in the above example - we are so much better than Mac Crap.

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.


Right now there's a good post addressing an issue I'll come to later. If you read all this post you're SAD! Get a life (no pun intended). I will do the other 28 or so pages of this thread at a later date.

I just read my above post and a lot of it is utter BS! (In the way that its written). Remind me to go back and correct it. Right now though I gotta driving lesson to do.

Definition of Parasite
"A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of it. The biological interaction between the host and the parasite is called parasitism."
parasitism: "A symbiotic relationship in which one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

A fetus is the same species as its mother.

Hebrews 9:16
Like a will that takes effect when someone dies, the new covenant was put into action at Jesus' death. His death marked the transition from the old plan to the new one, canceling the old obligations and accompanying sins, and summoning the heirs to receive the eternal inheritance that was promised them. He brought together God and his people in this new way.

Hebrews 8:6-13
But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan--the old covenant--had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said,


Those words were written by Paul in a letter to the Hebrews. I specifically asked for a passage where Jesus made a similar statement. And no, claims that all of that book are the whole and dogmatic word of god do not count. My point was an attempt to illustrate where members of certain factions of the Christian church apply ideology to their founder that their founder never espoused.

i really do not know how to reply to that
but there is probable death with the act of abortion also.

and as to what you said about the mother also becoming depressed and or commiting or considering suicide if she does not have an abortion. i believe it would be less likely than if she had killed her baby. she would have less on her concience, and she shouldnt be depressed because she brought a new life into the world as opposed to taking one out!!

...

The 'how so' to the murder twice? When abortion is illegal, or when it is even frowned upon so hard that it becomes 'unacceptable', it is forced underground. Example: the Bibe Belt states, where abortions DO happen, but they are hard to find, even just to find information). Whether it is fully underground (because of illegality) or semi-underground (because of wilful ignorance of it, and a hope it will go away) it becomes unregulated... to whatever extent.

Under those circumstances, the maternal mortality rate increases drastically... much higher when it is illegal, but still noticably higher when abortionists aren't 'monitored'.

So, by making abortion illegal... you won't stop it, you'll just kill two 'people' instead of one.

Regarding suicide: I have lived in tiny little towns with only a hundred people, and I have lived in a city of 12 million. Over the course of my experience, I have met a large number of women that have had abortions, and I have met a large number that have had children. I have met self-hurters, and I have met people that later became suicide statistics.

I have never met a woman who comitted suicide after an abortion. Some of them have felt bad (the 'what if?') scenario... and some of the women I have known that comitted suicide MAY have had an abortion I don't know about... but it certainly wasn't the reason they 'left behind' when they went.

I have known (and I already documented this in this thread, or another like it) people who went ahead with pregnancy, even when they really didn't want to. Some of them have turned out okay. Some of them are still struggling, years after the fact, with the consequences of deciding to keep the child (because they lost their job, because they couldn't get hired because they were pregnant, because no-one wants to hire a young mother, etc).

I have known one who suicided after four years of trying to deal with what she had done... leaving her child alone. It breaks me up. I hate it that she did that. But, she obviously felt she had no choice.

Like I've said before, anyone who REALLY considers themself pro-life should ignore abortion, and get out in the world and make it a better place. If our societies weren't so phallocentric, so devaluing of women, so limiting of choices and equality for women, and so inconsiderate of young mothers, single parents and just people in genereal, there would be less abortions.

Abortion isn't the PROBLEM. Abortion is a SYMPTOM.

Pro-Life should be treating the problem, and you can just watch as those abortion figures would melt away...

Has anyone here being arrested in America, and not had this treatment?

I have been arrested in America. The officers were especially polite, even though they were arresting me on a trumped up charge and the necessity of arrest was at their own discretion (and it got thrown out in court).

They put their hand on my head and told me to watch it as I got in the car.

Not that this affects my stance on the benefits of a society where adults are expected and encouraged to make their own decisions about morality, and the government does its level best to not get involved when those decisions do not affect another member of society.

this controversy sometimes makes me soooo mad

Good, it's a much more interesting debate when I am confronted with the mouth frothers.

question...do you want to be a murderer, or support a murderer, or even accompany a murder?
that's what abortion is, the taking of a human life

Abortion cannot be murder by definition. Besides that whole, "is it or is it not a human life, or even a life?" argument, there is the fact that it is legal. In the same way that a soldier shooting an enemy during battle is not murder, a policemen killing a gunmen in a shootout, or you killing someone in true self-defense are not murder.

and while it is very horrible morally, it is also illegal to take the life of another human being

See above. Not illegal in circumstances listed, also not illegal in abortions. 'Morality' has no say in the matter, as it is subjective and therefore completely malleable among individuals.

from conception this baby or embreo or whatever you wish to call it is a human being, and it is illegal to take a human beings life

Define 'Human Being', hell, define life. I defy you to do so in a way that neither includes ludicrous comparisons, or denys obvious ones. Until then, it is a collection of cells no more a person than a pint of blood until it is capable of surviving sans madre.

i dont care if it is the mother's right to not have a child, whether she be lazy or incapable in raising it, or too young, or too old, or too poor, or too rich, it doesnt matter... abortion is murder, plain and simple, and it should be punished like murder and made illegal like murder

It's a good thing you aren't king then, because you obviously are too selfish to care about anyone but yourself. Again, see above, until it is made illegal and a zygote can be objectively defined as a human being, it cannot be, by definition murder. Your rhetoric is weak.

because obvioulsy people cannot grasp the difference between abortion and murder, ( i personally do not see one in the slightest), the act needs to be illegalized, and punishable

No, you cannot grasp the difference between abortion and murder. I have no problems with my intellect or reason in this regard.

if someone murdered your baby girl of about 3 weeks or something, you wuold be indignant would you not, so would your family and friends and the people in your community, and im sure you would seek justice, and the punishing of the guilty party, am i right?

This is an emotional argument you put forth, and not one based on logic or fact. Of course I would be idignant and enraged if someone harmed a member of my family. Hell, I would be opposed to my wife having an abortion outside of a risk to her own health (as would she). But, I will be damned to let you think you have the right to tell me how I should feel in those circumstances. It isn't your freaking decision. I don't come in to your life and tell you what you should think or feel, get the hell out of mine.

plus there are the side effects for the mother

Like pregnancy and 18+ years of childcare or the emotional drama of adoption and the lifetime of second guessing that causes cannot be considered side effects?

she, while possibly trying to save her life from having to raise deal with or take care of a baby, is putting herself into so many risk,it's crazy.

That she would risk her life, limb, and emotional health for a clump of cells that she had tried to keep from forming and has no desire to see develop further is crazy.

depression, possibly suicide, (there are statistics, but im not sure the exact percentage, and i dont want to falsify) plus all teh medical risk and complications taht could go aolng with MURDERING a child inside the womb

Harp harp harp. Pish and also Tush. You could as easily be describing the effects of post-pardem depression, health risks of delivery, or the feelings of loss and guilt associated with going through the adoption process as you might with post abortion stress. Again, NOT MURDER.

there are so many arguments, but i hope these from a pro-lifer, as yu call us, has sufficiently cured your craving for a debate on whether we should or should not kill a fellow human being!

I sometimes doubt that even if J_hovah on high showed up in my living room and told me I was wrong if it would kill my craving for a debate on this or any other subject. Nice try though. It reminded me of my jr high debate club, lots of repetative and unfounded nonsense.

thank you

No thank you. It was most entertaining.

baby :sniper: :mp5: abortionist

A sphincter says what?

and as to what you said about the mother also becoming depressed and or commiting or considering suicide if she does not have an abortion. i believe it would be less likely than if she had killed her baby. she would have less on her concience, and she shouldnt be depressed because she brought a new life into the world as opposed to taking one out!!
...

It's nice to know that there are people capable of speaking for millions of possibly pregnent women as if they couldn't speak for themselves. Depression has little to do with 'guilt' or 'shame', depression is generally caused by mismanagement in the body of certain hormone levels. Anyone whose hormone levels change drastically (as in most cases of pregnancy, whether aborted or not) run an equal risk of meeting depression at some point in the swing.

Just because you believe it would be less likely, or attribute those swings to some mythical guilt you are trying to force on the female doesn't make those statements truth.

Those words were written by Paul in a letter to the Hebrews. I specifically asked for a passage where Jesus made a similar statement. And no, claims that all of that book are the whole and dogmatic word of god do not count. My point was an attempt to illustrate where members of certain factions of the Christian church apply ideology to their founder that their founder never espoused.
Okay, this is what I found, a bit of quick searching through the online database. First, Judah broke the covenant with God by marrying foreigners, and other heinous sins ;). (Note, this passage could be read metaphorically or literally and it means practically the same thing.)

Malachi 2:10-15 -
Judah has broken faith. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god. As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the LORD cut him off from the tents of Jacob -even though he brings offerings to the LORD Almighty.

Another thing you do: You flood the LORD's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
Then God told them he was sending a messenger with a new convenant.
Malachi 3:1 -
"Look! I'm sending my messenger on ahead to clear the way for me. Suddenly, out of the blue, the Leader you've been looking for will enter his Temple--yes, the Messenger of the Covenant, the one you've been waiting for. Look! He's on his way!"

Malachi 3:4 -
Then, and only then, will Judah and Jerusalem be fit and pleasing to GOD, as they used to be in the years long ago.
Then Jesus arrived and confirmed himself the messenger.
Matthew 3:13-15
Jesus then appeared, arriving at the Jordan River from Galilee. He wanted John to baptize him. John objected, "I'm the one who needs to be baptized, not you!"
But Jesus insisted. "Do it. God's work, putting things right all these centuries, is coming together right now in this baptism." So John did it.

This is confirmed by John the Baptist, who refers to Jesus as a cleansing fire. The prophet Malachi uses the same symbolism when reciting God's words referring to the messenger's coming.
Malachi 4:1-2
Count on it: The day is coming, raging like a forest fire. All the arrogant people who do evil things will be burned up like stove wood, burned to a crisp, nothing left but scorched earth and ash--a black day. But for you, sunrise! The sun of righteousness will dawn on those who honor my name, healing radiating from its wings.

Okay, this is what I found, a bit of quick searching through the online database. First, Judah broke the covenant with God by marrying foreigners, and other heinous sins ;). (Note, this passage could be read metaphorically or literally and it means practically the same thing.)<SNIP>

This is a side debate, but as a former student of theology, I can't resist. My original statemtent, "Where? I would really like to see him say we should be using a book that wasn't written until years after his death." is still not answered by your proffered quotes. My point being, that Jesus never said that the old testament should be disregarded, nor did he say that "one day there will be another group of books to supercede this one." In addition, if he had, it would deny his own god-hood, as his godhood requires the prophecies of the old covenent, and must be fullfilled within the law of the old covenent.

The closest you can give me is this...

Then Jesus arrived and confirmed himself the messenger.
Matthew 3:13-15
Jesus then appeared, arriving at the Jordan River from Galilee. He wanted John to baptize him. John objected, "I'm the one who needs to be baptized, not you!"
But Jesus insisted. "Do it. God's work, putting things right all these centuries, is coming together right now in this baptism." So John did it.

In which nowhere does Jesus even suggest that the words of those who follow after him will supercede the words of those who preceded him. He merely states that he must be baptized to fullfill those prophecies. On top of that, I have never found a single quote of Jesus, in which he denied anything in the actual text of the Torah (some of the Talmudic, Midraash, and Oral traditions, yes, but never the Torah). Those who followed him may have done this, but they are not the one you call saviour.

I am not trying to question your faith, or suggest that your contention (that the New Testament supercedes the Old) is incorrect, that is certainly a matter of opinion and one on which we won't know the answer unless there is a heaven, a god, and he deigns to do it for us. I am calling into question the reasoning among those who attempt to use the Bible as a methos for calling abortion murder, since those connections were never made in the text. And especially since, it treated those who ate the wrong meat worse than those directly responsible for the miscarriage of a fetus.

This is a side debate, but as a former student of theology, I can't resist. My original statemtent, "Where? I would really like to see him say we should be using a book that wasn't written until years after his death." is still not answered by your proffered quotes. My point being, that Jesus never said that the old testament should be disregarded, nor did he say that "one day there will be another group of books to supercede this one." In addition, if he had, it would deny his own god-hood, as his godhood requires the prophecies of the old covenent, and must be fullfilled within the law of the old covenent.

The closest you can give me is this...
Oh, well. I gave it a shot. :)

As I understand it, the idea is not that the New Covenant replaces the old entirely, but that it provides a more attainable path to the Kingdom of God because the old ways were ...too difficult for Judah to handle. I'm not a Christian, but the fact that Paul mentions it so strongly would seem to indicate that it was a common interpretation.

And the idea that abortion is murder is undeniably a part of some traditions (http://www.ppl.org/hist_xn.html), regardless of whether it appears in the Bible.

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

And then we'd be without Bonnie and Clyde. Al Capone. Blackbeard. Gengis Kahn. Nero. Adolf Hitler. John Wilkes Booth.

Criminals are people too. And for better or worse, they effect history in a major way. Just because you don't like someone, or, for the matter, who someone might be when they grow up, makes them no less of a person. Human beings are, at least, special among all animals.

Furthermore, Abortion is basically Eugenics at work. Selective breeding. Some abortions are commited simply because the child is of a minority race. Eventually mothers will abort the child on the basis of gender, hair color... who knows?

Even further, it is inarguable that the fetus is as much property of the father as the mother. No one has a child alone, and it is criminal that a woman can alone choose to murder her child without the Father's consent.

The idea of "A woman's right to choose" is laughable. Of course she has the right to choose. The right to choose not to have sex. The right to choose to take care of her business herself. And yes, she can choose to murder her child, just as I can choose not to pay my taxes, or smuggle fruit from Puerto Rico. Yes, a woman can choose to murder, but the fact that she chose to do so does not justify her actions.

Whether she chooses or not, abortion is murder.

Furthermore, Abortion is basically Eugenics at work. Selective breeding. Some abortions are commited simply because the child is of a minority race. Eventually mothers will abort the child on the basis of gender, hair color... who knows?

Yeah, because those black mothers don't wanna have their black babies.... What are you smoking? Do you really think that, in this day in age, the percentage of interracial embryos that are aborted are any higher than the white ones?

Even further, it is inarguable that the fetus is as much property of the father as the mother. No one has a child alone, and it is criminal that a woman can alone choose to murder her child without the Father's consent.

You're right, it is impossible to argue that, since the argument is that the father cannot force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. As soon as the father can gestate and give birth, he can have equal rights. However, at the moment, the responsibility is disparate and so must be the rights.

The idea of "A woman's right to choose" is laughable. Of course she has the right to choose. The right to choose not to have sex. The right to choose to take care of her business herself. And yes, she can choose to murder her child, just as I can choose not to pay my taxes, or smuggle fruit from Puerto Rico. Yes, a woman can choose to murder, but the fact that she chose to do so does not justify her actions.

Abortion =! murder

Whether she chooses or not, abortion is murder.

You can believe this if you like, but unless you want to demonstrate how inconsistent you are, you must believe that every woman who miscarries should be investigated for possible neglect and prosecuted if any decision she made (before or after finding out she was pregnant) might have caused the miscarriage.

I didn't read all the posts, but I don't feel like reading em all, so I'll just voice my opinion now.

I agree with what someone else said, you can't choose who can live and who can't. But here's another thing: If you don't want children, stop fucking around. Sex is great, I know. But we werent given our reproductive system for pleasure! We have it for reproduction. Duh.

In the case of rape, I'm not too sure. It's still cruel even if the women didn't have a choice. Maybe everyone should stop being retards and not rape each other. Aren't we humans supposed to be intelligent and civilized? I mean, c'mon! WTF?!

At the end of the day, no matter when a fetus is a human or when its brain waves start or what rights it has...please just envision an America where abortion is outlawed. Teenaged girls getting dangerous abortions beneath bridges, sneaking across national borders, etc. This is an extraordinarily dangerous scenario, and with the government regulating the practice of abortion, it remains safe.

Abortion will occur with or without laws against it, and I don't think pro-lifers appreciate the severity of the situation that would exist if abortion were outlawed. It brings to mind those who think schools should only teach abstinence, when that only leads to more teen pregnancies. Teach safe sex, practice safe abortions, but stress abstinence and adoption as superior options.

I didn't read all the posts, but I don't feel like reading em all, so I'll just voice my opinion now.

I agree with what someone else said, you can't choose who can live and who can't. But here's another thing: If you don't want children, stop fucking around. Sex is great, I know. But we werent given our reproductive system for pleasure! We have it for reproduction. Duh.

In the case of rape, I'm not too sure. It's still cruel even if the women didn't have a choice. Maybe everyone should stop being retards and not rape each other. Aren't we humans supposed to be intelligent and civilized? I mean, c'mon! WTF?!

What planet are you from? Sex isn't here for pleasure? That's preposterous. Yes, sex is pleasurable because mother nature isn't stupid and wanted to make reproduction appealing.

BUT sex also makes people and animals healthier, happier beings. Ever meet a grumpy person you knew would loosen up a little if they just got some friggin action? God, Mother Nature, or whatever, wants us to have sex, for reproduction or no.

Of course, we could just make sex illegal for gays, barren/infertile people, and those who just don't want kids, but that wouldn't solve our little abortion problem, would it?

And you know, you should go on a tour of prisons and talk to rapists. Just say, "Stop being retards! Aren't we supposed to be civilized?" I'm sure you'll be quite effective. What kind of stance is that? "It's still cruel even if the women didn't have a choice"??? How about the cruelty of rape. You talk like rape is an inconvenience.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Please tell me that even you aren't that gullible.

Yeah sure Grave there all paid actors arent they, and those cars going more

than 200kms an hour to get away from the cops and hitting cars at in

tersections then crashing, are all an elaborate hoax! lol


Which is funny, because I was never 'beaten up' by the 'cops'. Maybe I'm just good like that.

Maybe you werent hanging out with a bad crowd.

My fault still.


Just because you don't understand how the title of stereotyping fits what you do, doesn't mean it ISN'T stereotyping. It just means that you can't seem to make that connection.

No stereotyping is just a bullcrap PC word that really doesnt have any

substance to it, hence why I dont believe in them.


But, taking your logic at face value, you NOT BELIEVING means that the thing doesn't exist.


I know it doesnt.



Which means you have just provided me with the perfect evidence for the non-existence of god. Well done, and thank you

Wrong, he does exist.

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.

Ok I have heard A LOT of arguments like this. No I am Pro-choice, NOT Pro-abortion but Pro-Choice. I am against abortion for most reasons. Women who use abortion as a form of birth control have some major issues and I don't think they are just. BUT I did have an abortion, not because I wasn't ready, not because I didn't want the child, not that I didn't want it to live and not because I was raped, But because I was an 18 year old who was extremely ill and I wouldn't have been able to have the baby safely. The chance of us both surviving were slim to non.

I can find the post now but I thought I heard someone else say something about if someone aborted your soulmate. What if your soulmate died as well as your child died because she didn't try to survive in the only way she could.

I wanted to give opportunity to other souls. I want to get healthy and then have a kid and give it every bit of love I can. So how is that for pro-life? I don't have an abortion and kill myself and my child. Or give myself a chance to have a child?

Yes there are always extreme cases and issues. I would love to believe most Pro-lifers wouldn't want to exchange one life for another.

So here I am, with my stance of Pro-choice, let us not force women to die because they can't have a child. Let us not be "pro-abortion" and force every child to die. Lets try not to be so extreme and try to be more understanding.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and I respect that. This is just my opinion.

Please feel free to attack me all you would like. I stand strong in my views and I will not force them apon anyone else I am just sharing and I hope no one will force theres upon me. Although, I will listen. And please don't mention anything about any mistakes with spelling or grammer. I could care less.

Have a great day everyone! =)

Also, yes the life of the baby is more important than that of the mother. The entire point of life is to continue reproducing and propagating that life. If a mother would rather kill a child than sacrifice herself for it, then she is a bad mother.

you are a disgusting human being.

a woman should have to die for an embryo that implants itself in her fallopian tubes instead of her uterus, so rather than develop normally, it will kill her before it gets anywhere near being viable?

and if all there is to live is reproduction, then what a sad existence this is.

Huh? I have heard stories of women being 7 months pregnant and claiming not to know but I never actually believed them. So your saying that most women are this stupid? Wow, I really need to re-examine my view of women. :rolleyes:

when i used to read ym and things like that, i read a story authored by a girl who carried to term without knowing.

she exercised throughout the pregnancy, carried high and spotted regularly each month. one day she stayed home from school with back pain and she went to the bathroom and out comes a baby.

The rights and wellbeing of a human being outweight the 'rights' or wellbeing of an embryo, zygote or fetus.

It is barbaric, nihilistic madness to assert otherwise.

The rights and wellbeing of a human being outweight the 'rights' or wellbeing of an embryo, zygote or fetus.

It is barbaric, nihilistic madness to assert otherwise.
its PETA-esque

Yeah sure Grave there all paid actors arent they, and those cars going more
than 200kms an hour to get away from the cops and hitting cars at in
tersections then crashing, are all an elaborate hoax! lol


Give me a break. You must be the sort of person that thinks the Matrix is a documentary, and the Blair Witch was real tapes.


No stereotyping is just a bullcrap PC word that really doesnt have any
substance to it, hence why I dont believe in them.


Doesn't it get boring... being wrong ALL the time?

The word 'stereotype' comes from a substantially older word, far predating the popular concept of 'PC' behaviour... and means "An unvarying form or pattern, specif., a fixed or conventional notion or conception, as of a person, group, idea, etc., held by a number of people and allowing for no individuality, critical judgement, etc."

So, no matter what you call it, or what you THINK you do... what you ACTUALLY do, is stereotyping.


I know it doesnt.
Wrong, he does exist.

Prove it.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Give me a break. You must be the sort of person that thinks the Matrix is a documentary, and the Blair Witch was real tapes.

Yeah right.



Doesn't it get boring... being wrong ALL the time?

How am I wrong, are you denying these things happen, some of these reality

shows Grave are, believe it or not, in fact nothing but reality.

The word 'stereotype' comes from a substantially older word, far predating the popular concept of 'PC' behaviour...

And what words that?


and means "An unvarying form or pattern, specif., a fixed or conventional notion or conception, as of a person, group, idea, etc., held by a number of people and allowing for no individuality, critical judgement, etc.


But thats nothing but an intellectual theory, based on the notion that people

are forced to be certain ways by other people.

People fall naturally into these positions.

Do you understand?

Where do you see no individuality?

And why the critical judgement?



So, no matter what you call it, or what you THINK you do... what you ACTUALLY do, is stereotyping.

lol when are you going to get it Grave, I dont believe in stereotypes, you

either are or you arent.


Prove it.

Its called Faith, are you saying millions of people worldwide, and through the

ages have been wrong?

Its called Faith, are you saying millions of people worldwide, and through the

ages have been wrong?

Yes. Faith = belief without evidence.

You want examples where the majority have been wrong? Easy. Santa Claus, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, etc. etc.

[QUOTE]




Its called Faith, are you saying millions of people worldwide, and through the

ages have been wrong?


Absolutely.

The christian faith claims that every faith except it is wrong.
The muslim faith claims every other faith is wrong.

We atheists just go one tiny small step forward .and say that it isnt 99% of religious faiths that are wrong, it is 100%.

Yes. Faith = belief without evidence.

You want examples where the majority have been wrong? Easy. Santa Claus, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, etc. etc.

But their not religons, are they, Santa Claus and the Easter bunny were

storys made up to make kids happy, the leprechauns are anyones guess.

But their not religons, are they, Santa Claus and the Easter bunny were

storys made up to make kids happy, the leprechauns are anyones guess.

*hint, hint*

Absolutely.

The christian faith claims that every faith except it is wrong.
The muslim faith claims every other faith is wrong.

We atheists just go one tiny small step forward .and say that it isnt 99% of religious faiths that are wrong, it is 100%.

So your as bad as them in a sense.

You advocate no belief at all, thats a belief too.

But their not religons, are they, Santa Claus and the Easter bunny were storys made up to make kids happy...
which is more plausible: that a small mammalian animal would hide candies shaped like bird's eggs for human children to find and consume, or that an all-powerful and all-good being would choose to create a half-diety child for the purpose of murdering that child in order to forgive the human race for breaking the rules that the diety set down in the first place?

personally, i find the bunny more believable.

So your as bad as them in a sense.

You advocate no belief at all, thats a belief too.
i haven't seen anybody claim that having beliefs is a bad thing. why would it be?

personally, i find the bunny more believable.

HAHAHa.

Thanks, I needed that.

personally, i find the bunny more believable....

So go pray to it.

i haven't seen anybody claim that having beliefs is a bad thing. why would it be?

I dont know, your the one preferring to believe in a rabbit that brings eggs

every year, not me.

I dont know, your the one preferring to believe in a rabbit that brings eggs

every year, not me.
*sigh* i never said that. what i said is that i find it more likely that a egg-bearing rabbit arives each year than that the Judeo-Christian God exists. this does not mean that i believe in the literal existence of the Easter Bunny. please read more carefully.

this issue seems to have you confused. another player was pointing out that all major religions insist every OTHER religion is wrong, and that atheists are simply increasing the number of religions they reject by 1. to paraphrase an old quote, you are simply an atheist who rejects one fewer God than all other atheists. when you explore your reasons for rejecting all other religions then you will understand why atheists reject yours.

you replied to this point with, "So your as bad as them in a sense. You advocate no belief at all, thats a belief too."

nobody said that beliefs were bad, so advocating a belief wouldn't be bad at all. that would mean that the original poster couldn't be "as bad as" anybody simply because s/he advocates a certain belief system, because beliefs aren't a bad thing. also, nobody said that atheism wasn't a belief, so i'm not sure what point you were trying to argue; atheism obviously is a belief, and i haven't seen anybody ever try to claim otherwise.

So your as bad as them in a sense.

You advocate no belief at all, thats a belief too.

In my book, your common or garden athiest just doesn't believe anything god-related in the first place. Agnostics too, but where an agnostic doesn't believe because "who knows?", athiests don't believe because "who cares?".

It's a stand-point, an opinion, a world view, but not a belief and not a matter of faith.

also, nobody said that atheism wasn't a belief, so i'm not sure what point you were trying to argue; atheism obviously is a belief, and i haven't seen anybody ever try to claim otherwise.

Ooops. I did... :)

(And stand by my opinion. Opinion being different from a belief.)

In my book, your common or garden athiest just doesn't believe anything god-related in the first place. Agnostics too, but where an agnostic doesn't believe because "who knows?", athiests don't believe because "who cares?".

It's a stand-point, an opinion, a world view, but not a belief and not a matter of faith.
lol, i stand corrected. i can't believe somebody is trying to deny that atheism/agnosticism are beliefs.

a belief is a) the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something, or b) something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. if you BELIEVE that it is impossible to prove the existence of god, as an agnostic would do, then that's your belief. if you BELIEVE that there's no God, or that all of the currently proposed god models are false, then that's your belief.

this semantic crap is ridiculous. atheism is a belief. agnosticism is a belief. any number of religious tennets are beliefs. how justified, well supported, rational, or true a belief is doesn't change the fact that it is a belief. whether or not your belief in something is based on anything approaching logic doesn't change whether or not it is a belief.

Ooops. I did... :)

(And stand by my opinion. Opinion being different from a belief.)
oh give me a break. it's an opinion, not a belief?!

OPINION, (N):

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

or

a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

or

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

an opinion is a specific type of BELIEF, darling. that's the way the English word is defined. not all beliefs are opinions, but all opinions are beliefs.

lol, i stand corrected. i can't believe somebody is trying to deny that atheism/agnosticism are beliefs.Sorry!!! ;)



a belief is a) the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something, or b) something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. if you BELIEVE that it is impossible to prove the existence of god, as an agnostic would do, then that's your belief. if you BELIEVE that there's no God, or that all of the currently proposed god models are false, then that's your belief.

Well I must say that I believe I've only ever used the word 'belief' in context of faith. There's no evidence I have never done so and I daresay there's a possibility of evidence that I have (in which case my belief in that fact is shattered, but I'll survive...). My opinion, however, is that there is no reason to use 'belief' in that context. Opinions are more maleable and even now I'm prepared to accept that the words 'opinion' and 'belief' might not actually be on different sides of rather thin fence for everyone and that it is just a pecularity of my particular harvesting of the language from birth that has ingrained within me a 'belief' that there is such a difference in meaning and context between the two words...

this semantic crap is ridiculous. atheism is a belief. agnosticism is a belief. any number of religious tennets are beliefs. how justified, well supported, rational, or true a belief is doesn't change the fact that it is a belief. whether or not your belief in something is based on anything approaching logic doesn't change whether or not it is a belief.I agree that justification, support, rationale and truth have no bearing. My mind, however, likes to separate them out in the same was as 'world view' and 'faith' are separate things. Your milage may vary. (As might eveyone elses.)

Edit: (And dictionary definition accepted, as a dictionary definition. I suppose I'm confusing 'personal use and understanding' with 'general use and understanding', in which case I'm obviously wrong and will change my opinion forthwith.)

(Another edit for something I forgot to add, but don't want to conduse things, so...)

Edit: (And dictionary definition accepted, as a dictionary definition. I suppose I'm confusing 'personal use and understanding' with 'general use and understanding', in which case I'm obviously wrong and will change my opinion forthwith.)

...but I still believe the distinctrion should be made, even though it isn't.

I'm curious, are there any women in this discussion? Cause it seems to be a whole lot of men discussing something that concerns women.

Call me barbaric, but if I were to get pregnant in the near future (and probably later as well), I wouldn't hesitate to have an abortion. I have no medical reasons. I have no financial reasons (except for the fact that I'm still a student at university). I simply do not want kids (right now). And if I accidently get pregnant (if birth control for some reason fails) I will abort the pregnancy as soon as possible. I think it's my right.
(This being said, I think abortion should only be allowed in the first 3 months of the pregnancy.)

I'm curious, are there any women in this discussion? Cause it seems to be a whole lot of men discussing something that concerns women.

Call me barbaric, but if I were to get pregnant in the near future (and probably later as well), I wouldn't hesitate to have an abortion. I have no medical reasons. I have no financial reasons (except for the fact that I'm still a student at university). I simply do not want kids (right now). And if I accidently get pregnant (if birth control for some reason fails) I will abort the pregnancy as soon as possible. I think it's my right.
(This being said, I think abortion should only be allowed in the first 3 months of the pregnancy.)

I'm almost a woman (assuming you define 'woman' as 'over 18'... I'm 17 :p ), and I'm pro-choice. I know of two other women in the debate, and they're both pro-choice. I don't think men *shouldn't* be allowed to debate. And there are quite a few pro-choice guys here too... and we *need* them to stay and debate (because otherwise we'll lose a couple of our strongest debaters).

I hold a similar belief to you (I think... I'm extrapolating from your comments, I hope I'm not way off here). If I got pregnant while still in the education system, I would not hesitate to have an abortion (well, ok, I'd hesitate. But only long enough to discuss it with the father and grab some information pamphlets). To me, my education is the most important thing, because I truly believe that I *need* that to have any chance of making a living wage in the future.

Luckily for all the anti-abortion people here, I'm also not too big on random wild sex, so I shouldn't have that much to worry about.

I'm almost a woman (assuming you define 'woman' as 'over 18'... I'm 17 :p ), and I'm pro-choice. I know of two other women in the debate, and they're both pro-choice. I don't think men *shouldn't* be allowed to debate. And there are quite a few pro-choice guys here too... and we *need* them to stay and debate (because otherwise we'll lose a couple of our strongest debaters).

I hold a similar belief to you (I think... I'm extrapolating from your comments, I hope I'm not way off here). If I got pregnant while still in the education system, I would not hesitate to have an abortion (well, ok, I'd hesitate. But only long enough to discuss it with the father and grab some information pamphlets). To me, my education is the most important thing, because I truly believe that I *need* that to have any chance of making a living wage in the future.

Luckily for all the anti-abortion people here, I'm also not too big on random wild sex, so I shouldn't have that much to worry about.


Still being a student is a big factor, cause if the pregnancy forces you to drop out, you won't have a degree, and therefore will have less chances of being able to support yourself and your child.
This being said, I'd probably still have an abortion if I were out of university. I simply don't want to have kids (yes, feel free to call me selfish), but also if I should have the child without wanting it, I don't think I'd be a very good mother. (Adoption is out of the question: if I go to the trouble of giving birth to a baby, I don't want to wonder the rest of my life what happened to it afterwards etc, not to mention the effect on the kid knowing that it's mother didn't want it)

And of course men shouldn't be excluded from the debate, but a few more women wouldn't go amiss. After all, it is a female issue.

I'm curious, are there any women in this discussion? Cause it seems to be a whole lot of men discussing something that concerns women.

Call me barbaric, but if I were to get pregnant in the near future (and probably later as well), I wouldn't hesitate to have an abortion. I have no medical reasons. I have no financial reasons (except for the fact that I'm still a student at university). I simply do not want kids (right now). And if I accidently get pregnant (if birth control for some reason fails) I will abort the pregnancy as soon as possible. I think it's my right.
(This being said, I think abortion should only be allowed in the first 3 months of the pregnancy.)

i'm a woman. i'm also one of the few people who are actually pro-abortion; i think safe, medical abortion is one of the best discoveries of human history, and i would be extremely happy if the number of such abortions each year were to increase by a factor of 10. i don't support forcing women to abort under any circumstances, but i support a woman's right to have a fetus removed from her body at any time, for any reason, with no restrictions, waiting periods, or other nonsense.

i'm a woman. i'm also one of the few people who are actually pro-abortion; i think safe, medical abortion is one of the best discoveries of human history, and i would be extremely happy if the number of such abortions each year were to increase by a factor of 10. i don't support forcing women to abort under any circumstances, but i support a woman's right to have a fetus removed from her body at any time, for any reason, with no restrictions, waiting periods, or other nonsense.

Thank you.

Thank you.
welcome. but believe me, you will also meet pro-life women around these forums. there's an interesting mix of people and opinions, often in combinations that are surprising.

also, i've been impressed by the number of relatively sane pro-life people around these parts; for every crazy "pro-life" nutter who screams about the murder of the unborn you will also find a calm and polite pro-lifer who is prepared to debate the issue like an adult.

welcome. but believe me, you will also meet pro-life women around these forums. there's an interesting mix of people and opinions, often in combinations that are surprising.

also, i've been impressed by the number of relatively sane pro-life people around these parts; for every crazy "pro-life" nutter who screams about the murder of the unborn you will also find a calm and polite pro-lifer who is prepared to debate the issue like an adult.

I'd actually rather have an interesting, mature, mutually respectful debate with a pro-lifer, than talk to a fanatical pro-choicer who can't respect someone else's opinion.
I'm glad to hear that there are many "sane" pro-lifers. Opinions may differ, but respect is the key.

I'm curious, are there any women in this discussion? Cause it seems to be a whole lot of men discussing something that concerns women.

Call me barbaric, but if I were to get pregnant in the near future (and probably later as well), I wouldn't hesitate to have an abortion. I have no medical reasons. I have no financial reasons (except for the fact that I'm still a student at university). I simply do not want kids (right now). And if I accidently get pregnant (if birth control for some reason fails) I will abort the pregnancy as soon as possible. I think it's my right.
(This being said, I think abortion should only be allowed in the first 3 months of the pregnancy.)
I'm a woman. I am pro-choice, out of respect for individual civil and human rights. I could never choose abortion for myself, but because I have a choice, I cannot deny others the right to the same choice. I also fully support attempting to bring children to full term, with proper medical supervision, but I have heard a lot of compelling arguments from the pro-abortion side. Not enough to make me change my mind, but certainly enough to increase my respect and understanding for their stance.

How am I wrong, are you denying these things happen, some of these reality
shows Grave are, believe it or not, in fact nothing but reality.


Some elements of some of those shows may be unscripted, but to take that to represent the whole would be folly.


And what words that?


I don't have the acute accent on my keyboard.


But thats nothing but an intellectual theory, based on the notion that people
are forced to be certain ways by other people.
People fall naturally into these positions.
Do you understand?
Where do you see no individuality?
And why the critical judgement?


No. Terminalia. You don't understand the definition. Read it again.


lol when are you going to get it Grave, I dont believe in stereotypes, you
either are or you arent.


See, that ISN'T stereotyping. An individual either is a thing, or isn't. But, you keep saying things like "All women gossip"... which has no basis in fact, and isn't allowing for the fact that some don't gossip. Thus, it is stereotyping.

This really isn't that hard. If you don't believe in it, wy are you arguing AGAINST it so hard... and with so little understanding.


Its called Faith, are you saying millions of people worldwide, and through the
ages have been wrong?

Yes. And so are you.

Or are the Moslems right? Was Jesus just a prophet?

I'm a woman. I am pro-choice, out of respect for individual civil and human rights. I could never choose abortion for myself, but because I have a choice, I cannot deny others the right to the same choice. I also fully support attempting to bring children to full term, with proper medical supervision, but I have heard a lot of compelling arguments from the pro-abortion side. Not enough to make me change my mind, but certainly enough to increase my respect and understanding for their stance.

I am a pro-choice, anti-abortion woman. I mostly agree with your stance, in that I would most likely (I say this because I have never actually been in the situation to choose) never have an abortion. If I had ever been very sexually active when I was still an undergraduate student and had gotten pregnant, I can't really say what I would have decided. However, at this point, my boyfriend (of three years) and I have discussed the issue thoroughly. While neither of us wants to have a child *right now*, we do want to have children eventually so, in the event that birth control failed, we would continue the pregnancy.

Personally, I think that sex should be part of a committed, loving relationship and that you shouldn't enter into a sexual relationship without discussing eventualities with your partner and figuring out what you (as a couple) believe would be the best course of action in the event of a pregnancy. However, I also realize that not everyone shares my views on sex, relationships, abortions, or children - and I leave that choice up to them, as they are the ones living their lives.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Some elements of some of those shows may be unscripted, but to take that to represent the whole would be folly.

Well which bits do you think are scripted, and remember I'm talking cop

reality shows, not shows like Survivor or manhunt.


I don't have the acute accent on my keyboard.

huh?


See, that ISN'T stereotyping. An individual either is a thing, or isn't. But, you keep saying things like "All women gossip"... which has no basis in fact, and isn't allowing for the fact that some don't gossip. Thus, it is stereotyping.

They do, and they love it.

They cant help it.


This really isn't that hard. If you don't believe in it, wy are you arguing AGAINST it so hard... and with so little understanding.

Because I know its bullcrap.


Yes. And so are you.

You dont know that, your just voicing wishful thinking.

Or are the Moslems right? Was Jesus just a prophet?

No, Jesus was the Son of God.

Even the Jews know that, they just wont admit it.

See, that ISN'T stereotyping. An individual either is a thing, or isn't. But, you keep saying things like "All women gossip"... which has no basis in fact, and isn't allowing for the fact that some don't gossip. Thus, it is stereotypingThey do, and they love it.

They cant help it.
I can present to you (or could if we able to meet up) a number of women who don't like it. While this does not in anyway invalidate a claim that "most women like to gossip" (maybe they do, that's an impression I get but who knows if it holds worldwide?) it certainly does invalidate the point that "all women love to gossip" which you are trying to perpetuate, and as such you have just commited, or at least perpetuated, a stereotype. To say that $Random_Woman likes to gossip is either right or wrong (or needs to be qualified as "when not running to catch a bus" or something), but to say that all women do is definitely wrong (I can falsify the statement) and by gist of being a generalisation is therefore a stereotype. You should know this.




Or are the Moslems right? Was Jesus just a prophet?No, Jesus was the Son of God.

Even the Jews know that, they just wont admit it.That's evading the question, which was about Moslems.

Using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. These same people that are having abortions would be devestated if a drunk driver killed their 3 year old kid when they did the same thing by aborting one of their own. There is no difference.

Another point to ponder, what gives women the right to decide to abort their babies when many times there are fathers willing to raise them.

Using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. These same people that are having abortions would be devestated if a drunk driver killed their 3 year old kid when they did the same thing by aborting one of their own. There is no difference.


yes, there is. in one situation, the parent (specifically, the mother) is deciding to prevent their "child" from ever existing. in the other situation, somebody else is killing the child that the parents decided to have, rear, and love. the situations aren't even remotely comparable.


Another point to ponder, what gives women the right to decide to abort their babies when many times there are fathers willing to raise them.
as i have said before, the man is welcome to have the fetus, and do whatever he likes with it, he is simply not welcome to use the female's body to incubate it if she doesn't want to. when men are able to bear children then they can make decisions about their own pregnancies, but until then it isn't their body and therefore isn't their choice.

Using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. These same people that are having abortions would be devestated if a drunk driver killed their 3 year old kid when they did the same thing by aborting one of their own. There is no difference.

Another point to ponder, what gives women the right to decide to abort their babies when many times there are fathers willing to raise them.
I think we're more or less all agreed (across all camps) that using aboortion instead of birth control is wrong[1]. (All the fertilisation-prevention kinds of contraception, at least, there are differeing views about implantation-prevention ones, etc).

Without in any way trying to insult you, can I point out that the loss of an independant, fully-aware and loved child of three being killed by an irresponsible third-party doesn't equate too well to the properly requested and thought-out removal of a pretty anonymous clump of cells from a mother before it has any way of thinking or surviving or contributing in any way to the outside world.

And when us men are able to either take the unborn child home in a jar or even attached to our own insides, then we have the right to take control of our children, rather than (as would need to, and probably does sometimes, happen currently) force an unwilling woman to go to full term for a child she has no affinity to yet must suffer for.

[1] For future respondees' reference, I'm using 'wrong' as in 'unwise' and probably 'irresonsible' if done to excess, not 'immoral'...

I think we're more or less all agreed (across all camps) that using aboortion instead of birth control is wrong. (All the fertilisation-prevention kinds of contraception, at least, there are differeing views about implantation-prevention ones, etc).

i don't think it's wrong, just unwise. having an abortion involves risks, increasingly so as the pregnancy progresses, so it is far safer for a woman to prevent pregnancy to begin with rather than aborting it once it has occured. however, i don't see anything at all wrong with abortion or birth control, so neither one is more wrong than the other.

[QUOTE]






Wrong, he does exist.

I'm a Christian, and therefore believe in God - but I make a point of never just slapping down a flat statement like this. I agree that faith is all the 'proof' that a Christian requires (if that makes any sense) but blunt statements like this only convinces atheists etc that Christians are simply blind sheep who won't listen to reason; at the same time I get irritated by atheists who call all Christians idiots. Better by far to just live and let live, surely.

Just so this post is actually topic related: I am pro-life (male, too, for the record) except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother, but I am disturbed by the inhuman methods used to abort foetuses (especially those aborted late in the term of gestation).

Hargh!

i don't think it's wrong, just unwise. having an abortion involves risks, increasingly so as the pregnancy progresses, so it is far safer for a woman to prevent pregnancy to begin with rather than aborting it once it has occured. however, i don't see anything at all wrong with abortion or birth control, so neither one is more wrong than the other.

Yep, sorry, incorrect words perhaps ("again?" I hear you say? :)). I meant 'wrong' in the way of 'unwise', in that it is generally accepted to not be the best approach to pre-emptively and deliberately refuse to use methods of contraception "because I can always get a termination". And I've probably commited the sin of over-generalisation anyway, as I can't expect there to not be someone out there who actually prefers to do it that way (especially given one particular account given on here about an acquaintance with seven abortions to her name, though I'm not too sure if that was because of choice, necessity or acquiescence...).

Yep, sorry, incorrect words perhaps ("again?" I hear you say? :)). I meant 'wrong' in the way of 'unwise', in that it is generally accepted to not be the best approach to pre-emptively and deliberately refuse to use methods of contraception "because I can always get a termination". And I've probably commited the sin of over-generalisation anyway, as I can't expect there to not be someone out there who actually prefers to do it that way (especially given one particular account given on here about an acquaintance with seven abortions to her name, though I'm not too sure if that was because of choice, necessity or acquiescence...).
ahh, gotcha. sorry for being such a stickler about semantics, i just always like to be really clear with my word choice around here...people don't have cues like tone of voice to help them understand what connotation i mean.

[QUOTE=E B Guvegrra]I can present to you (or could if we able to meet up) a number of women who don't like it.


Well they must be the most quiet and tight lipped women around then lol


While this does not in anyway invalidate a claim that "most women like to gossip" (maybe they do, that's an impression I get but who knows if it holds worldwide?)

It seems too.

Throughout history as well strangely enough.

it certainly does invalidate the point that "all women love to gossip" which you are trying to perpetuate, and as such you have just commited, or at least perpetuated, a stereotype. To say that $Random_Woman likes to gossip is either right or wrong (or needs to be qualified as "when not running to catch a bus" or something), but to say that all women do is definitely wrong (I can falsify the statement) and by gist of being a generalisation is therefore a stereotype. You should know this.

A few here and there dont really count, 99% of women gossiping about stuff

more than makes up for the odd one that doesnt.

Men are just as guilty of it, women just get into it alot more, and of course

for alot longer.


That's evading the question, which was about Moslems.

I answered it.

ahh, gotcha. sorry for being such a stickler about semantics, i just always like to be really clear with my word choice around here...people don't have cues like tone of voice to help them understand what connotation i mean.
No wirries, this is why I should have been more careful, though I suppose I was concentrating on another part of the emphesis.

Shall we :fluffle: and make up? ;)

No wirries, this is why I should have been more careful, though I suppose I was concentrating on another part of the emphesis.

Shall we :fluffle: and make up? ;)
if i knew how to make that icon, we'd be in business :).

anyhow, back to topic:

just because it is wiser to use birth control (and to avoid ever being in the position of needing an abortion) does not mean that having the abortion as an option should be denied. that would be like saying that we shouldn't let a kid go to the emergency room after falling off their bike because they should have been wearing an all-body protective padding suit; they may have been wearing helmet and pads, but protection isn't 100%...should we simply not let kids ever ride bikes, then, since there is no 100% way to prevent an accident?

I'm a Christian, and therefore believe in God - but I make a point of never just slapping down a flat statement like this. I agree that faith is all the 'proof' that a Christian requires (if that makes any sense) but blunt statements like this only convinces atheists etc that Christians are simply blind sheep who won't listen to reason;

Your new here, so your raw, just so you know, I have given pages and pages

of why I believe in Jesus, sometimes you just get worn out repeating

yourself, and just fall back on simple statements.

Anyway welcome aboard, Arrrrrr.

"All women gossip"... which has no basis in fact, and isn't allowing for the fact that some don't gossip. Thus, it is stereotyping
:D Haven't met one who didn't yet though...=P


The thing I don't get is why you would try to deny someone their choice. The baby is half themselves. It is like taking the DNA of two people and cloning a split of them. To say they cannot control themselves is not only illogical but *cough* Idiotic.

And just because I'm an arse, I'm going to through this out here and say Jesus was Both Black and Gay. I prove my point by pointing out where he 'came' from, and how he only hung out with a 'guys only group' :p ;)

I'm a Christian, and therefore believe in God - but I make a point of never just slapping down a flat statement like this. I agree that faith is all the 'proof' that a Christian requires (if that makes any sense) but blunt statements like this only convinces atheists etc that Christians are simply blind sheep who won't listen to reason; at the same time I get irritated by atheists who call all Christians idiots. Better by far to just live and let live, surely.

awesome! a very wise perspective. making flat statements like "God is real" doesn't accomplish anything, and it doesn't advance the discussion at all. nice to see that there is somebody who understand what a waste of time it is to post such statements.


Just so this post is actually topic related: I am pro-life (male, too, for the record) except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother, but I am disturbed by the inhuman methods used to abort foetuses (especially those aborted late in the term of gestation).
you realize that late-term abortions are most often performed on fetuses that have already died in the womb, right? does it really matter how the corpse is removed?

also, since late-term abortions are NEVER performed on an elective basis in the US, that means that the ONLY reason a late-term is performed is to protect the life and safety of the woman...would it be more humane to let her die? would it be more human to allow a fatally deformed fetus to irreperably damage her internal organs, or even kill her, rather than removing it in the manner that will cause the least possible damage to her?

:D Haven't met one who didn't yet though...=P

now you have :).


The thing I don't get is why you would try to deny someone their choice. The baby is half themselves. It is like taking the DNA of two people and cloning a split of them. To say they cannot control themselves is not only illogical but *cough* Idiotic.
that's not a solid argument, i am afraid. if it were possible to clone people there would still be NO moral case for allowing the original person to own or control the clone; a clone is exactly the same thing as an identical twin, and is still a totally seperate and individual human being. there would be no grounds for treating a clone as a part of the original person's body, or for treating the clone as anything less than a full human being.

I can present to you (or could if we able to meet up) a number of women who don't like it. While this does not in anyway invalidate a claim that "most women like to gossip" (maybe they do, that's an impression I get but who knows if it holds worldwide?) it certainly does invalidate the point that "all women love to gossip" which you are trying to perpetuate, and as such you have just commited, or at least perpetuated, a stereotype. To say that $Random_Woman likes to gossip is either right or wrong (or needs to be qualified as "when not running to catch a bus" or something), but to say that all women do is definitely wrong (I can falsify the statement) and by gist of being a generalisation is therefore a stereotype. You should know this.
... not to mention that a lot of men love to gossip, too. :-)

... not to mention that a lot of men love to gossip, too. :-)

When we do it it's rumour.
It conjugates differently due to gender, like an extreme version of French.
He rumours, she gossips.
Like that.
:p

now you have :).


that's not a solid argument, i am afraid. if it were possible to clone people there would still be NO moral case for allowing the original person to own or control the clone; a clone is exactly the same thing as an identical twin, and is still a totally seperate and individual human being. there would be no grounds for treating a clone as a part of the original person's body, or for treating the clone as anything less than a full human being.

Ah, Arguing with a female am I? Interesting.

Well. You're then defending the moral position of it all. So now I know where I have to focus.
Moral? Out of curiousity, do you give much moral value to the life of someone who made a mistake? For that is who uses abortion the Most. Teen-girls who made a mistake. Who enjoyed themselves without thinking, got drunk, found a jerk who convinced them he loved them, and then pricked them and left.

Obviously one who made a mistake is not of great value to you. Why do I say this? For if you were to take away abortion from these girls, then I'm afraid you would practically ruin their life, and the one of the baby.
What teen can support (Especially true in America) a baby, and still get a good education, and afford an appropriate upbringing? The sad and frank truth is, no one. Their lives would be just as screwed up. In fact, they would probably end up becoming the 'lower class' placing a strain on society, needing resources to fix. Social welfare (In Canada) Does have a purpose, however if they can be prevented from having their life messed up, and needing it, why should they be denied the choice of what they want to do with the rest of their life.

When we do it it's rumour.
It conjugates differently due to gender, like an extreme version of French.
He rumours, she gossips.
Like that.
:p
yeah, like how you change the spelling and pronunciation of the word "slut" when using it to refer to a male who is promiscuous...it becomes "stud."

When we do it it's rumour.
It conjugates differently due to gender, like an extreme version of French.
He rumours, she gossips.
Like that.
:p

:D Nah, if guy's do it, it's 'passing on information'.

I suppose general rule, if girls do it, it's usually who fucked who, or who's the most annoying idiot to ever walk the earth.
Guy's are more like.... Dude... That Dude...... Said to that Dude....."Dude.... You suck". They're so Cool Dude.

:p

Ah, Arguing with a female am I? Interesting.

Well. You're then defending the moral position of it all. So now I know where I have to focus.
Moral? Out of curiousity, do you give much moral value to the life of someone who made a mistake? For that is who uses abortion the Most. Teen-girls who made a mistake. Who enjoyed themselves without thinking, got drunk, found a jerk who convinced them he loved them, and then pricked them and left.

Obviously one who made a mistake is not of great value to you. Why do I say this? For if you were to take away abortion from these girls, then I'm afraid you would practically ruin their life, and the one of the baby.
What teen can support (Especially true in America) a baby, and still get a good education, and afford an appropriate upbringing? The sad and frank truth is, no one. Their lives would be just as screwed up. In fact, they would probably end up becoming the 'lower class' placing a strain on society, needing resources to fix. Social welfare (In Canada) Does have a purpose, however if they can be prevented from having their life messed up, and needing it, why should they be denied the choice of what they want to do with the rest of their life.

huh? i'm not arguing against abortion, or saying abortion is immoral...i don't even know how you would possibly have thought that i was, considering my posts on this topic. i was simply explaining that your clone argument isn't valid.

yeah, like how you change the spelling and pronunciation of the word "slut" when using it to refer to a male who is promiscuous...it becomes "stud."

You mean a

Sweet
Little
Unforgettable
Thing


(If you don't get it, Read down the capital letters.

huh? i'm not arguing against abortion, or saying abortion is immoral...i don't even know how you would possibly have thought that i was, considering my posts on this topic. i was simply explaining that your clone argument isn't valid.

:P Peesh. I don't read who posts what, I just post after reading the other posts. I'm not some sort of Super-Human, I'm male. :D

Well they must be the most quiet and tight lipped women around then lolAs quiet as 'the lads' are, they just don't like to 'gossip'. One's quite a chatterbox, but seems to most love explaining how company procedures work, rather than saying anything about "what our Sharon's boyfriend said Jimmy had done last weekend", another is an information sink and will listen and learn and possible make personal use of the information she has gathered from those those that are gossiping, but is very restrained herself and appears to be unconcerned about integrating herself into gossipping circles. Of this set of half a dozen women (not a group, some haven't even met each other) that I'm presenting as circumstancial evidence, there's none of them are like any other of them, and the only generalisation that I can make about them is that do not like gossipping at all.

It seems too.(I was confused what you meant, at first, until I realised you meant "to".) Like I said, maybe they do, but you cannot say for sure.
Throughout history as well strangely enough.Yes, possibly, but this still doesn't mean (even without my direct evidence to the contrary) that they all do.

A few here and there dont really count, 99% of women gossiping about stuff more than makes up for the odd one that doesnt.When you effectively say that "all women love gossipping", you are wrong/misinformed/sloppy with your phrasing if there is just one woman that doesn't.

Back to the original argument, you said (in the deep mists of time) that you don't believe in stereotypes, yet you obviously believe in at least one stereotype as you believe all women gossip, which is a stereotype. It is (perhaps) a substantially correct stereotype if, indeed, most women do gossip, but it is a template that you use to define the whole of womankind and you do so incorrectly. You have no reason to take my stated proof against it on face value, of course, but my own opinion of the situation is that you are exhibiting the belief of a stereotype.

Men are just as guilty of it, women just get into it alot more, and of course for alot longer.No argument from me on this point, but only because my general experience is the same, not because I know it to be true.

:P Peesh. I don't read who posts what, I just post after reading the other posts. I'm not some sort of Super-Human, I'm male. :D
ooh, watch, i'm gonna go Terminalia on this guy:

SEE, THAT'S PROOF! ALL MEN ARE LAZY AND NEVER EVER EVER READ POSTS! ALL MEN ARE THAT WAY, ALL OF THEM, EVEN THOUGH MAYBE THERE ARE A FEW THAT AREN'T, BUT ALL OF THEM ARE THAT WAY!

ooh, watch, i'm gonna go Terminalia on this guy:

SEE, THAT'S PROOF! ALL MEN ARE LAZY AND NEVER EVER EVER READ POSTS! ALL MEN ARE THAT WAY, ALL OF THEM, EVEN THOUGH MAYBE THERE ARE A FEW THAT AREN'T, BUT ALL OF THEM ARE THAT WAY!

=O You'd Mock a male? Horrible little Child arentcha!

And I'd say that is Gossip, Passing on this so called info you apparently have on all Men. =O! A gossiper, mocker AND a liar! Does it ever stop?!

My only question is what you were doing with all the men in the world (As you would obviously have to be in our homes to see whether or not we kind of just skimmed the posts and read only those we found worthy of our devine attention.)
:p

=O You'd Mock a male? Horrible little Child arentcha!

And I'd say that is Gossip, Passing on this so called info you apparently have on all Men. =O! A gossiper AND a liar! Does it ever stop?!

My only question is what you were doing with all the men in the world (As you would obviously have to be in our homes to see whether or not we kind of just skimmed the posts and read only those we found worthy of our devine attention.)
:p
yeah, that's pretty much my question to Terminalia; he strikes me as the sort of guy who doesn't get much attention from the ladies, but he acts as though he has some amazing insider information into the behavior of 99% of the women on the planet.

*Nods Sagely*

Most likely he does. It's called 'Oprah'. She's like some sort of Uber-Spy-Bit..........*cough*.
This occurs to me post-posting. This would of course, mean he read Oprah, something no man could really honestly admit too...Meaning his Manhood is now in suspect...

Anyways....
Meh. If not for Stereotypes where would be in life hmm?
How can you be a 'rebel' against something undefined? =o Therefore, all Stereotypes exist for the sole purpose of giving teenagers something to pretend they're rebelling against when really we're simply conforming to a different cause.
Right? :p

Or are the Moslems right? Was Jesus just a prophet?No, Jesus was the Son of God.
Even the Jews know that, they just wont admit it.That's evading the question, which was about Moslems.I answered it.With respect, you never mentioned Moslems, you mentioned Jews.

Whatever 'even the Jews know', the Moslems happen to think that Jesus was really a prophet (and not even the greatest of them, for that honour was reserved for Muhammad (spelling taken from the following resource).

See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam), for example, and especially:

However, Muslims disagree with the Christian theology concerning the unity of God (the doctrine of the Trinity and that Jesus is the eternal Son of God).

Checking out the pages on how Jews view Jesus reveals (in this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparing_and_contrasting_Judaism_and_Christianity) specifically) that there's certainly a discrepancy in belief such that:Judaism rejects the notion that Jesus or any human could be God, or that God could be joined to the material world in such fashion.This does not disallow Jesus being the Son of God, if read with that idea in favour, but the Messiah/Moshiach is prophecised as a "descendant of King David" and "The traditional Jewish understanding of the messiah is fully human, born of human parents, without any supernatural element," so where I was previously unsure as to whether your statement about the Jewish POV was correct, I now feel able to openly question even that factlet.

(These details are backed up by on other on-line resources, but I consider Wikipedia to be a handily condensed version and one which, by dint of the peer-review process, should be considered free of most bias that other places might be considered to possess.)

Ah, Arguing with a female am I? Interesting.

Well. You're then defending the moral position of it all. So now I know where I have to focus.
Moral? Out of curiousity, do you give much moral value to the life of someone who made a mistake? For that is who uses abortion the Most. Teen-girls who made a mistake. Who enjoyed themselves without thinking, got drunk, found a jerk who convinced them he loved them, and then pricked them and left.

Obviously one who made a mistake is not of great value to you. Why do I say this? For if you were to take away abortion from these girls, then I'm afraid you would practically ruin their life, and the one of the baby.
What teen can support (Especially true in America) a baby, and still get a good education, and afford an appropriate upbringing? The sad and frank truth is, no one. Their lives would be just as screwed up. In fact, they would probably end up becoming the 'lower class' placing a strain on society, needing resources to fix. Social welfare (In Canada) Does have a purpose, however if they can be prevented from having their life messed up, and needing it, why should they be denied the choice of what they want to do with the rest of their life.


That's what adoption is for.
Let me tell you a little story. We'll go back to the year 1983. A pregnant woman went in to have an abortion and the nurse told her she knew a couple who couldn't have kids and wanted to adopt. This woman decided she would be kind to this couple and have the baby, but put it up for adoption so this couple could adopt me. I'm now a senior in college doing very well. I wouldn't be here if this lady, my birth mother whom I've never met, had aborted me.
There are so many couples in this world who can't have kids and want to adopt, like my adoptive parents, and an utter lack of children (in America) to adopt. These couples are rarely able to adopt within America because everyone, ESPECIALLY teenage girls who made mistakes because they were irresponsible and went out and had sex (drunk or not drunk, it's still a stupid thing to do) without using protection, is having an abortion.
Now, I'm pro-life (obviously) but I do believe that in certain circumstances abortion should be used. Namely if the baby will die anyway, or if the baby will be severely handicapped and live a horrible life.
You know, I think that people on both sides should look at the other side carefully. Someone has probably already said this (I didn't feel like reading all 40-something pages of posts), but both sides have valid arguements, and I believe that you can't argue your case without a good working knowledge of the other side. If you don't, it's pure ignorance. And though they say "ignorance is bliss," in the opinion of most well-educated individuals, "ignorance is stupidity."
That's my stance on this issue. Feel free to tear me apart or refute my arguement. I already know it will happen.

That's what adoption is for.
Let me tell you a little story. We'll go back to the year 1983. A pregnant woman went in to have an abortion and the nurse told her she knew a couple who couldn't have kids and wanted to adopt. This woman decided she would be kind to this couple and have the baby, but put it up for adoption so this couple could adopt me. I'm now a senior in college doing very well. I wouldn't be here if this lady, my birth mother whom I've never met, had aborted me.
There are so many couples in this world who can't have kids and want to adopt, like my adoptive parents, and an utter lack of children (in America) to adopt. These couples are rarely able to adopt within America because everyone, ESPECIALLY teenage girls who made mistakes because they were irresponsible and went out and had sex (drunk or not drunk, it's still a stupid thing to do) without using protection, is having an abortion.
Now, I'm pro-life (obviously) but I do believe that in certain circumstances abortion should be used. Namely if the baby will die anyway, or if the baby will be severely handicapped and live a horrible life.
You know, I think that people on both sides should look at the other side carefully. Someone has probably already said this (I didn't feel like reading all 40-something pages of posts), but both sides have valid arguements, and I believe that you can't argue your case without a good working knowledge of the other side. If you don't, it's pure ignorance. And though they say "ignorance is bliss," in the opinion of most well-educated individuals, "ignorance is stupidity."
That's my stance on this issue. Feel free to tear me apart or refute my arguement. I already know it will happen.
you don't have to worry about us tearing your argument apart...we've already torn it up several times on this thread alone :).

Using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. These same people that are having abortions would be devestated if a drunk driver killed their 3 year old kid when they did the same thing by aborting one of their own. There is no difference.

Another point to ponder, what gives women the right to decide to abort their babies when many times there are fathers willing to raise them.

Wow, after 40+ pages and 4 threads I had hoped to hear a new argument. Oh, well, cest la vive.

To your first sentence, emotionally, I have to say I agree with you. However, I defy you to define 'right' or 'wrong' when trying to deal with other people. The truth is, that you cannot do so objectively. Morality is relative, and wholly subject to the individual and their experiences. What gives you the right to tell someone what decisions they make in their own life are right or wrong?

To your second sentence. That may be absolutely true. But you have no right to tell them how they should feel in any given situation. If they wanted to throw a party and thank the drunk driver for killing their 3 year old (and if they absolutely believed the kid was in a 'better place' they should do so) they have every right to do so. You have absolutely no authority to tell them how they should feel in a given situation. While I personally may have become very upset if someone I had been intimate with had had an abortion without consulting me first, that doesn't give me the right to tell them they should be upset too.

To your third. Yes, there is. One event they assign emotional signifigance to, the other they may not. Again, it isn't your place to tell someone else what should or should not be emotionally signifigant to them.

To your second paragraph. Once us men are capable of carrying a baby to term with the same percentage of success a woman has, then we would have every right to make the statement, "I am willing to care for it, so you must let me." However, as long as the woman has to deal with ALL the physical changes, ALL the risks to life and limb, ALL of the hormonal rollercoaster of emotion, ALL the risks to job and financial viability, and all the lifestyle responsibility for those first nine months, a man has no right to force those things on her if she doesn't want to deal with them.

Here is an anology to help you understand. Me and a friend sit down one night, and after a few drinks come up with an idea for some new invention. Unfortunately, to do so, one of us will have to risk life, health, financial viability, and be effectively drugged on hormones for nine-months. If my freind doesn't want to do it, I have no right to force him to.

I think we're more or less all agreed (across all camps) that using aboortion instead of birth control is wrong. (All the fertilisation-prevention kinds of contraception, at least, there are differeing views about implantation-prevention ones, etc).

While I personally would have moral issue with myself or my current partner doing so, I hold the opinion that noone has the right to decide for another person what is morally the right or wrong thing for their life. In that sense, I am not in aggreement that using abortion instead of birth control is an absolute moral wrong.

That's what adoption is for.
Let me tell you a little story. We'll go back to the year 1983. A pregnant woman went in to have an abortion and the nurse told her she knew a couple who couldn't have kids and wanted to adopt. This woman decided she would be kind to this couple and have the baby, but put it up for adoption so this couple could adopt me. I'm now a senior in college doing very well. I wouldn't be here if this lady, my birth mother whom I've never met, had aborted me.
There are so many couples in this world who can't have kids and want to adopt, like my adoptive parents, and an utter lack of children (in America) to adopt. These couples are rarely able to adopt within America because everyone, ESPECIALLY teenage girls who made mistakes because they were irresponsible and went out and had sex (drunk or not drunk, it's still a stupid thing to do) without using protection, is having an abortion.
Now, I'm pro-life (obviously) but I do believe that in certain circumstances abortion should be used. Namely if the baby will die anyway, or if the baby will be severely handicapped and live a horrible life.
You know, I think that people on both sides should look at the other side carefully. Someone has probably already said this (I didn't feel like reading all 40-something pages of posts), but both sides have valid arguements, and I believe that you can't argue your case without a good working knowledge of the other side. If you don't, it's pure ignorance. And though they say "ignorance is bliss," in the opinion of most well-educated individuals, "ignorance is stupidity."
That's my stance on this issue. Feel free to tear me apart or refute my arguement. I already know it will happen.

Oh yes, this thread is about abortion, not religion (getting confused about the Athiest one over there ----> somewhere... :))

I think that your story is indeed an interesting one, and I'm glad that it turned out well for you. (And, presumably, your birth mother? You say you've never met, but have you found out how she has fared since you arrived?) Not every adoption (or fostering) turns out that well, is all I'm saying.

(I had a story to tell, regarding a friend's ex-girlfriends from a care-home but it's frankly depressing so I've decided to delete it for the time-being. Let's just say that a 'horrible life' can result from more than severe handicap, such as having to be brought up in a care-home during your formative years.)

yeah, like how you change the spelling and pronunciation of the word "slut" when using it to refer to a male who is promiscuous...it becomes "stud."

I freely admit that I am weird, and have non-stereotypical, male views on sex, but among my group of friends, we still use 'slut' to describe the few among us, who are in any way promiscuous.

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

Yes, but one scientist can do something revolutionary for mankind. The odds that a criminal will do something revolutionary on a path to destroy mankind (a la genocidal dictators) is statistically insignificant.

While I personally would have moral issue with myself or my current partner doing so, I hold the opinion that noone has the right to decide for another person what is morally the right or wrong thing for their life. In that sense, I am not in aggreement that using abortion instead of birth control is an absolute moral wrong.

I think I'll going back and insert an addendum regarding that. (In case you missed it, 'wrong' was used in the sense of (medically?) 'inadvisable', not 'immoral', give or take...)

And how about with the 'baby' dying with her?
Plus the chance of the baby dying of less than (but, like the other stat, sufficiently close to for decision purposes) 100%
Plus the chance of the mother dying as almost (but not quite) 0%


Perhaps you can give me the percentage chance of the doctor going to hell for murder.

Perhaps you can give me the percentage chance of the doctor going to hell for murder.Hmmm... Difficult one. It'd be nice to first know what the actual percentage chance is of a Judeo-Christian 'God' actually existing.

(Oh dear, drifting over to religion again...)

Ok, here we go. I personally think abortion is murder. However, the government should NOT make abortion illegal b/c then we'll just go back to the days of when abortions were done in back alleys and basements, more people will die and then what will we have? Lots of illegal abortions and lots of dead people.

With that said, however...

I am pro-choice, PRIOR TO CONCEPTION. If you are stupid enough to get yourself pregnant (mind you, this is outside of rape and incest, when the woman is abused and doesn't have the choice) then you need to deal with the consequences of your decision. There are plenty of people in the world who can't have children who would love to take care of yours, and just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to live. Adoption is a wonderful thing.

Yes, I understand people don't want to be pregnant, but hey, you weren't careful when you had sex. Now deal with it.

Thanks. :)

until you are willing to admit that a pile of nails and lumber is a house, you cannot claim that a fetus is a child.

A pile of nails and lumber isn't going to build itself. Don't even begin to give me that crap about how a fetus lying in the street isn't going to grow. Let's get this straight:

AN EGG: Is going to die NO MATTER WHAT. You put it in the freezer and it survives, it will never amount to life as an egg. The egg will be devoid of life for it's entire existance as an egg.

A ZYGOTE: This thing will grow into a human being. It's true that it needs a womb (or some kind of science), but it has the capabilities to become a human. I wouldn't call it a human being just yet, but it is still infused with human life nonetheless.

in response to pithica who says that morality is relative I say that may be alright for you but it is not alright for me.

awesome! a very wise perspective. making flat statements like "God is real" doesn't accomplish anything, and it doesn't advance the discussion at all. nice to see that there is somebody who understand what a waste of time it is to post such statements.


you realize that late-term abortions are most often performed on fetuses that have already died in the womb, right? does it really matter how the corpse is removed?

also, since late-term abortions are NEVER performed on an elective basis in the US, that means that the ONLY reason a late-term is performed is to protect the life and safety of the woman...would it be more humane to let her die? would it be more human to allow a fatally deformed fetus to irreperably damage her internal organs, or even kill her, rather than removing it in the manner that will cause the least possible damage to her?

Ah, you have the truth of it. Admittedly, the information I found that disturbed me WAS indeed obtained from sources that were very pro-life, so it was more than a little biased (it didn't mention that most foetuses were already dead) - and I agree to your last point, absolutely.

A pile of nails and lumber isn't going to build itself.

and an embryo isn't going to develop by itself, either.


Don't even begin to give me that crap about how a fetus lying in the street isn't going to grow.

just because you don't like the fact that my argument is valid doesn't mean you can simply order me not to make the argument. or atleast, you can TRY to order me not to...:)


Let's get this straight:
AN EGG: Is going to die NO MATTER WHAT. You put it in the freezer and it survives, it will never amount to life as an egg. The egg will be devoid of life for it's entire existance as an egg.

A ZYGOTE: This thing will grow into a human being. It's true that it needs a womb (or some kind of science), but it has the capabilities to become a human. I wouldn't call it a human being just yet, but it is still infused with human life nonetheless.

an egg will become a human being if the correct progression of circumstances occur. the same is true for a zygote. if you put a zygote in the freezer and it survives it still will never become a baby unless you provide it with the necessary physiological and chemical conditions. a female body provides many of the necessary directions and instructions for a growing fetus, and supplies the chemical stimuli that direct the fetus' own mechanisms; without those products of the female body (or science's simulations of them) the zygote will never develop into anything.

i know you don't like the fact that you are wrong, but i would really appreciate if you would remain calm and refrain from using personally-directed profanity. this is a subject that is high-tension for many people, and avoiding inflamatory language will help us keep things mellow enough for productive discussion.

Ah, you have the truth of it. Admittedly, the information I found that disturbed me WAS indeed obtained from sources that were very pro-life, so it was more than a little biased (it didn't mention that most foetuses were already dead) - and I agree to your last point, absolutely.
i can understand why people would be alarmed by the idea that a woman could carry a fetus for 8.9 months and then decide she wants it aborted; that does seem to be extremely irresponsible, and even cruel. but the simple fact is that no elective late-term abortion has been legally performed in the United States in at least 15 years, and even before that i have NEVER seen record of any such procedure. late-term abortions are performed either because they are medically necessary for the mother's safety, or because the fetus is already dead, and therefore i don't see why people try to use the gross-out tactic of describing D&Es or such procedures...we don't judge the morality of medical procedures based on ickiness alone, so if that procedure is being used to save a life then who the hell cares how yucky it is?

Checking out the pages on how Jews view Jesus reveals (in this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparing_and_contrasting_Judaism_and_Christianity) specifically) that there's certainly a discrepancy in belief such that:This does not disallow Jesus being the Son of God, if read with that idea in favour, but the Messiah/Moshiach is prophecised as a "descendant of King David" and "The traditional Jewish understanding of the messiah is fully human, born of human parents, without any supernatural element," so where I was previously unsure as to whether your statement about the Jewish POV was correct, I now feel able to openly question even that factlet.

Off topic, but to take that statement one step further, Jesus (Yeshua bar Yosep, the one people call Christ) would have only gotten his Davidian lineage from his father, since Mary was an Aaronite. So to say that he is not the son of Joseph, litterally, is to deny the prophecy of the Moshiach, and to deny his claim to Messiah.

Hargh!

oy where's polly?

Ok, here we go. I personally think abortion is murder. However, the government should NOT make abortion illegal b/c then we'll just go back to the days of when abortions were done in back alleys and basements, more people will die and then what will we have? Lots of illegal abortions and lots of dead people.I think that's what a lot of us so-called 'pro-abortionists' here also think.


With that said, however...

I am pro-choice, PRIOR TO CONCEPTION. If you are stupid enough to get yourself pregnant (mind you, this is outside of rape and incest, when the woman is abused and doesn't have the choice) then you need to deal with the consequences of your decision. There are plenty of people in the world who can't have children who would love to take care of yours, and just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to live. Adoption is a wonderful thing.My experieince (from the sidelines, not directly) is that there are actually a lot less people in the world willing to take on unwanted children than there are unwanted children in the first place. Also, the stupity is often enforced ignorance, rather than miscalculation, forgetfullness or not doubling up on your protection. That's all.


Yes, I understand people don't want to be pregnant, but hey, you weren't careful when you had sex. Now deal with it.Hindsight can often be 20:20. I heavily endorse being careful when having sex (or abstaining, where applicable, though not enforced as a primary policy) but would you disallow trapeze-artists a safety-net?

an egg will become a human being if the correct progression of circumstances occur. the same is true for a zygote. if you put a zygote in the freezer and it survives it still will never become a baby unless you provide it with the necessary physiological and chemical conditions. a female body provides many of the necessary directions and instructions for a growing fetus, and supplies the chemical stimuli that direct the fetus' own mechanisms; without those products of the female body (or science's simulations of them) the zygote will never develop into anything.

It's nice that you scan over my posts, but at least read what I type into them. No circumstances can turn an egg into a baby. It's like saying that, with the right circumstances, you can make bread out of water.

There are so many couples in this world who can't have kids and want to adopt, like my adoptive parents, and an utter lack of children (in America) to adopt.

That is a flat-out lie. Check the orphanages and foster care system if you think there is really a lack of adoptable children.

Unless of course, you meant blonde, blue-eyed, perfectly healthy infants. Then, there might be a lack.

That's what adoption is for.

Adoption, as has been pointed out many times in this thread is not an option for every pregnant female, or unwanted child. Adoption also does not cancel out risks to the mother that she may not be willing to take.

Let me tell you a little story. We'll go back to the year 1983. A pregnant woman went in to have an abortion and the nurse told her she knew a couple who couldn't have kids and wanted to adopt. This woman decided she would be kind to this couple and have the baby, but put it up for adoption so this couple could adopt me. I'm now a senior in college doing very well. I wouldn't be here if this lady, my birth mother whom I've never met, had aborted me.

And the world would never know the difference, just as it would never know the difference had I never been conceived.

There are so many couples in this world who can't have kids and want to adopt, like my adoptive parents, and an utter lack of children (in America) to adopt. These couples are rarely able to adopt within America because everyone, ESPECIALLY teenage girls who made mistakes because they were irresponsible and went out and had sex (drunk or not drunk, it's still a stupid thing to do) without using protection, is having an abortion.

You are missing some qualifiers in that first sentence. There are so many couples who can't have kids but are only willing to adopt perfectly healthy, white, correct sex, newborn babies, whose mother is not an addict, and has little to no risk of passing an STD on to the child. These couples are rarely able to adopt in America, because they are EXTREMELY selective in their choice of children. Evidence of this can be found in the MILLIONS (and some reports show hundreds of millions) of children in orphanages, foster homes, or as wards of the state. Abortion has nothing to do with the criteria by which couples eliminate those children from their list of possible adoptees.

Now, I'm pro-life (obviously) but I do believe that in certain circumstances abortion should be used. Namely if the baby will die anyway, or if the baby will be severely handicapped and live a horrible life.

Having a parent that never wanted you, and thinks of you as an unwanted burden, or 'that thing that ruined my life' is a severe handicap and likely to cause a horrible life.

You know, I think that people on both sides should look at the other side carefully. Someone has probably already said this (I didn't feel like reading all 40-something pages of posts), but both sides have valid arguements, and I believe that you can't argue your case without a good working knowledge of the other side. If you don't, it's pure ignorance. And though they say "ignorance is bliss," in the opinion of most well-educated individuals, "ignorance is stupidity."

I have looked at the other side carefully. In fact, on multiple occassions, I through the same arguments you are throwing around at others. I marched on the state capital multiple times in jr high, highschool, and college to get the law changed. I got arrested twice in pro-life demonstrations. I picketed abortion clinics. I pasted signs of dead babies on posterboards. I know EXACTLY what the other side is saying. In my own personal life, I would even say I generally agree with them. But I also grew up, and learned to stop making arbitrary decisions that effect other peoples lives based on my own emotions. I looked at the situation rationally and realized, that while I may disagree with how another person chooses to run their own life, that it is the height of arrogance to step in and try and make their decisions for them. And for all my earlier talk about aboritionists and would-be mothers 'playing god', that by trying to make a moral decision for them, I was in fact 'playing god', and being a hypocrite to boot.

That's my stance on this issue. Feel free to tear me apart or refute my arguement. I already know it will happen.

I hope that wasn't seen by you as a personal attack. It's my stance on the issue. I am all for you having your opinion, I likely even agree with your opinion. However, it is my contention that noone has the right to force others to agree with their opinion, and that is precisely what most of the Pro-life rhetoric is attempting to do.

There are plenty of people in the world who can't have children who would love to take care of yours, and just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to live. Adoption is a wonderful thing.

Yes, and all of those couples should go out and adopt a child who needs a home right now, instead of waiting for a perfect recently born infant.

Yes, but one scientist can do something revolutionary for mankind. The odds that a criminal will do something revolutionary on a path to destroy mankind (a la genocidal dictators) is statistically insignificant.

I would say that there are very few scientists who do something revolutionary for mankind. Most simply build the next iteration of tools using the last iteration. It's progress certainly, but it's a rare person that completely changes the paradigm. Not every scientist is a DaVinci, Newton, Einstein, or Curie. The odds that a generic scientist will do something revolutionary on a path to enlighten mankind (a la cure for cancer) is statistically insignificant.

I think I'll going back and insert an addendum regarding that. (In case you missed it, 'wrong' was used in the sense of (medically?) 'inadvisable', not 'immoral', give or take...)


Yeah, I caught it about six posts down. I jumped the gun in my excitement.

It's nice that you scan over my posts, but at least read what I type into them. No circumstances can turn an egg into a baby. It's like saying that, with the right circumstances, you can make bread out of water.

You never know, parthenogenesis has worked in other animals, even other mammals...

Perhaps you can give me the percentage chance of the doctor going to hell for murder.

Statistically, since there has been no evidence to support the claim. 0%.

Until we can get a statistically significant polling of those who have died we can't get any more accurate than that.

been trying to read all the posts....managed to read most, so am quite happy with myself. Yay!

let's see if i get the argument so far....
Most pro-choice people = I might not like it but its up to the people to choose.
Most pro-life people = hate abortion except in situations that i agree with?

Looks more like a difference on whether abortion is up to the individual or the society.

To the people using "religion" as some sort of argument. All i can say is HAHAHAHAHA. If your going to use a book that's 2000 years old to say why abortion is wrong, I htink i'm going to use "where's Waldo?" as my philosophical outlook on life.
Pro-life people in general. you guys accept abortions when you think its morally justified. Your no different from the pro-choice people. You just narrow the choices. Don't be hypocrites. Allow people to make their own choices. how dare you say people are being selfish, etc... You only show your arrogance by thinking you can dictate what is right and wrong for EVERYONE.
Pro-choice. Well i'd probably fall into this catergory. People should have the choice. But that does not mean that we should make it ok. Oh Penny your pregnant again? Don't know who the father could be? oh don't worry, go abortion! yay. People should know the concequences of what they are doing.

as a general rule i accept everyones point of views, as they are your views. Just in a bad mood at the moment

I am pro-choice, PRIOR TO CONCEPTION. If you are stupid enough to get yourself pregnant (mind you, this is outside of rape and incest, when the woman is abused and doesn't have the choice) then you need to deal with the consequences of your decision. There are plenty of people in the world who can't have children who would love to take care of yours, and just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to live. Adoption is a wonderful thing.

Yes, I understand people don't want to be pregnant, but hey, you weren't careful when you had sex. Now deal with it.


Uh, 'guy who didn't read the thread', abortion IS a way of dealing with the 'consequences of your decision'.

It is also a point of note, that many pro-lifers seem to repeatedly espouse children as some form of punishment for promiscuity. I thought all life was sacred and that all children are precious? Could it be that you yourselves realize that being the slave to genetic impetus and the requirements of childrearing is not something to be advised in all people?

in response to pithica who says that morality is relative I say that may be alright for you but it is not alright for me.

Thank you for proving my point for me!

I agree. Morality is relative.

See how simple this is, kids?

It's nice that you scan over my posts, but at least read what I type into them. No circumstances can turn an egg into a baby. It's like saying that, with the right circumstances, you can make bread out of water.

Uh...yeah, there is. Or, didn't your daddy explain this to you.

If circumstance finds a sperm joining with that egg, the egg attaches itself properly to the uterin wall, gets ample nutrients and the right environment, is carried to term, survives the delivery, it in fact becomes a baby.

Also, if circumstance finds flour, salt, some sugar, yeast (or none), and grain added to that water (and other ingredients to taste), it is allowed to rise, and then baked properly, you can quite easily make bread from water.

i would like to point out how similar abortion is to slavery. In slavery, black people were used because they were considered less than human and because it was convenient and cheaper than using paid lobor. Now lets look at abortion. abortion is used because it is convenien and cheaper than raising and is practiced upon those who are considered less human. now i dont want to hear that unborn children are not humans for supporters of slavery most likely used this arguement back then too. The black slaves were also considered the property of their owners just as unborn children are considered property of their mother.


I would like to address those who think that abortion should be used to prevent children from being born whose parents cannot give them the best everything or who are so bad off that any children they do have will not be able to amount to anything. Who here has a perfect life? who are we to deny life to these unborn children because they will not have a great life. How are we to know that they won't. Unborn children are precious and all human life is precious not because of what they are or who they will become but because they have life and life is something that should be respected and not something which should be thrown in the garbage because it is incovenient or unwanted. We have no idea what will happen to the babies if they are born but we certainly do if they are ruthelessly killed.

Yes, but one scientist can do something revolutionary for mankind. The odds that a criminal will do something revolutionary on a path to destroy mankind (a la genocidal dictators) is statistically insignificant.

The person who invented the atomic bomb was a scientist.

i would like to point out how similar abortion is to slavery. In slavery, black people were used because they were considered less than human and because it was convenient and cheaper than using paid lobor. Now lets look at abortion. abortion is used because it is convenien and cheaper than raising and is practiced upon those who are considered less human. now i dont want to hear that unborn children are not humans for supporters of slavery most likely used this arguement back then too. The black slaves were also considered the property of their owners just as unborn children are considered property of their mother.

Bad comparison. Embryos can be scientifically demonstrated to not even meet all of the requirements to be called an organism, much less a human.

Bad comparison. Embryos can be scientifically demonstrated to not even meet all of the requirements to be called an organism, much less a human.

i told you not to do that because the slave owners didn't think that slaves met the requirements to be human either.

i told you not to do that because the slave owners didn't think that slaves met the requirements to be human either.

And were they correct?

i would like to point out how similar abortion is to slavery. In slavery, black people were used because they were considered less than human and because it was convenient and cheaper than using paid lobor. Now lets look at abortion. abortion is used because it is convenien and cheaper than raising and is practiced upon those who are considered less human. now i dont want to hear that unborn children are not humans for supporters of slavery most likely used this arguement back then too. The black slaves were also considered the property of their owners just as unborn children are considered property of their mother.

I would like to point out how different abortion is to slavery. Black people can be absolutely proven to have the same equipment, and respond to the same stimuli as white people. Black people have the same nervous systems. And, unlike fetuses, black people can quite easily survive without forcing themselves on another person, taking the resources of same, and risking the life of that person.

I also could care less what you don't want to hear. It can be scientifically discerned that black people fit all the criteria of being both alive and being human. Until you can scientifically determine the same with an early term zygote they can be considered human or non-human at any given person's discretion. The burden of proof is on you to prove their humanity.


I would like to address those who think that abortion should be used to prevent children from being born whose parents cannot give them the best everything or who are so bad off that any children they do have will not be able to amount to anything. Who here has a perfect life? who are we to deny life to these unborn children because they will not have a great life. How are we to know that they won't. Unborn children are precious and all human life is precious not because of what they are or who they will become but because they have life and life is something that should be respected and not something which should be thrown in the garbage because it is incovenient or unwanted. We have no idea what will happen to the babies if they are born but we certainly do if they are ruthelessly killed.

To address your questions in order, since I have used your words before. In order...

Noone has a perfect life. Or alternatively, since I refuse to believe there even exist arbitrariy perfection, everyone has a perfect life. It just is.

Who are you to force responsibility on people you haven't even met and don't understand the circumstances of their life. Who are you to say that their life must be made worse?

Beyond those questions, I call BS. Unborn children are not 'precious', they are extremely common. Human life is also common, and not precious, much less sacred. If life is something that 'should be respected', let me ask you, Do you eat meat? How about vegetables? Ever killed a fly? Shenanigans and more shenanigans. You cannot live without killing something. Even the act of not killing will eventually kill you.

i told you not to do that because the slave owners didn't think that slaves met the requirements to be human either.

Except that slaves meet the requirements of being human, whether or not their owners thought they did. 16 cells in a fluid sac do not. I defy you to list a set of criteria for being human that includes them and doesn't also include a severed hangnail or a chimpanzee.

i would like to point out how similar abortion is to slavery. In slavery, black people were used because they were considered less than human and because it was convenient and cheaper than using paid lobor. Now lets look at abortion. abortion is used because it is convenien and cheaper than raising and is practiced upon those who are considered less human. now i dont want to hear that unborn children are not humans for supporters of slavery most likely used this arguement back then too. The black slaves were also considered the property of their owners just as unborn children are considered property of their mother.

You're coming at this argument too late in the cycle. You're judging someone who is already pregnant and comparing "how many hands can I buy as slaves vs. how many hands can I employee as persons in their own right in order to get the most profit" in one argument with "having found myself in a situation where I must think about my own future, potentially the future of my child, the opportunities of my life to be lost or gained through going ahead with this pregnancy and the biological, physiological, mental, social and financial burdens placed upon me by each choice made, which of two choices (both of which are non-optimum in nature) should I pursue?". The choice of the newly-pregnant-but-unwilling mother is not one of a solution that gives most profit, but of one that causes least problems (physical, mental, social, etc, as well as financial of course, but not in the same way).

Black slavery was wrong. All slavery was wrong (with the possible exception of criminals given a sentence of indentured servitude, though by today's standards even this should be done fairly, in proportion to the crime and with civil protections for their health and welfare) but black peoples were largely used as slaves because:
They were perceived as having a lower quality of life.
They didn't speak English (or any other European language, though this generally only countered when that country's men were the slavers)
They were uneducated (by western standards) and therefore less intelligent and no more than children to be given useful work to do to 'earn their keep'
They weren't able to resist the Europeans' arms
Their 'country' (an artificial European-enforced concept of boundaries) did not complain too much as long as small remunerations were received
Iin most cases, one 'nation' of people assisted the European in enslaving a rival culture's population for political end
They found it harder to blend into the general population if they ran away.


To compare slavery with abortion misses the point on so many levels.

On adoption: If, personally, I were to decide to parent a child, I would want to start with an older child (6 and up). Why? Because I'm more interested in opening a line of communication with a child and figuring out where to go from there... I think they're great little people in the right circumstances. Infants and toddlers haven't developed as many cognitive systems yet (and please don't argue this with me, I just finished exams on this very topic for my Educational Psychology refresher class). Yes, they've got their own personality, but their communication skills are lacking.

On children of rape: I know a 13 year-old boy who was the product of a rape. His father, married to his mother at the time, locked her up, repeatedly beat her, and raped her. She decided to bear the child. Michael is a great kid today, but he's ultra-sensitive, prone to anxiety, and skittish. His mother has promised to throw him out of the house when he turns 18. While it's her decision whether or not to house him, he doesn't need that threat on his head at 13 years of age. I love him like a nephew, he's a great kid, but he's had a hard life and some pretty harsh ordeals to get past in his life. It's not as easy as it sounds, but it's not a guarantee that the kid will live a tortured life. Either way, I still think it's up to the victim. Either she can handle it or she can't.

On victim's guilt: Society, in the case of rape, often finds external circumstances that contribute to rape. Beauty, forgetting to lock doors, "supposed" consent, wearing revealing clothing, flirting, etc. Often, in circumstances of date rape or post-bar-flirting, the perpetrator is not convicted because it is implied that the victim was willing at first and changed her mind later. Theoretically, it is the right of the woman to change her mind at any point in the process (legally speaking), but that doesn't lift the blurring of the lines when we're talking about getting the guy off the hook.

Rape is a violent crime. We all know that. So why are rapists getting less time in jail than drug dealers?

Either way, any victim of crime is subject to guilt. Victims of rape (or any sexual assault) often take that guilt to the next level. Either they were at fault because they didn't prevent appropriately or because they were unequipped at the time to fight off their attacker. While it was hard for me, the guilt wasn't the hardest part, the loss of trust was. The man who raped that young woman who killed herself after her abortion should not be tried for rape, he should be tried for murder... not of a fetus, but of a mature young woman. Her death was a direct result of his actions.

Rape victims, for the record, who come forward to the police face a series of haranguing questions, physical exams (that can be uncomfortable and demeaning), and the possibility that their attacker STILL won't be caught. Coming forward can alleviate some of that guilt, though. At least the victim takes an active role and can say she did her best to try to keep the guy from attacking anyone else.

On abortion: I think forcing a woman who is physically, emotionally, or psychologically unable/unwilling to carry the fetus to term (or raise a child) is tantamount to rape. It is the same thing as forcing sex on them. How is forcing a woman who is unprepared for pregnancy or motherhood to bear a child any different from forcing a woman who is unprepared or unwilling to perform sexual acts? You've still removed her choice. Maybe it's just my view from here...

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.

That sounds like rubbish to me no offensive to your views. You get the choise to start with. Once you've made your choise to procreate, then if you get pregent its murder to kill it. An ova isn't a potential Einstein yet because you need a sperm to. But once they have joined, you've got your potential human, and you should not be allowed to kill it.

Ok, here we go. I personally think abortion is murder. However, the government should NOT make abortion illegal b/c then we'll just go back to the days of when abortions were done in back alleys and basements, more people will die and then what will we have? Lots of illegal abortions and lots of dead people.


Which is why the government should make abortion illegal. Abortion should be unsafe; then the risk of the people who do it dying should make them think twice. Seriously, if someone goes in to kill their fetus, which they should have absolutely NO right to do, then I don't care if they get hurt or killed in the process! It's like if a robber breaks into someone's house to steal stuff, and then trips all over the house and gets severely injured, it serves them right.


I am pro-choice, PRIOR TO CONCEPTION. If you are stupid enough to get yourself pregnant (mind you, this is outside of rape and incest, when the woman is abused and doesn't have the choice) then you need to deal with the consequences of your decision. There are plenty of people in the world who can't have children who would love to take care of yours, and just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to live. Adoption is a wonderful thing.

Yes, I understand people don't want to be pregnant, but hey, you weren't careful when you had sex. Now deal with it.

Thanks. :)

Exactly.

You get the choise to start with. Once you've made your choise to procreate, then if you get pregent its murder to kill it.

And what if they did not choose to procreate?

You have to remember, creating more humans is what sex is naturaly intended for. If you want to use it for other purposes no one can stop you. But its your problem if you get pregnent, why take it out on your baby? Why take away another persons life? Its murder.

The person who invented the atomic bomb was a scientist.

If you think that abortion is right because you may kill a potential criminal then I have a question. Do you believe in the death penalty? Should anyone whos broken a law or stolen a chocholate bar be killed because the world will be a better place without them? Can say yes to that, that a petty theft deserves death?

That sounds like rubbish to me no offensive to your views. You get the choise to start with. Once you've made your choise to procreate, then if you get pregent its murder to kill it. An ova isn't a potential Einstein yet because you need a sperm to. But once they have joined, you've got your potential human, and you should not be allowed to kill it.

I think we're close to an understanding, then. If a mutual decision is made to procreate then (while I'd still argue some leeway for unforseen circumstances popping up within the next couple of months) there's no reason for an abortion and everyone's happy, but a choice to have sexual intercourse without the intention of procreation can be dealt with accordingly if a little accident happens despite the best intentions (and precautions) of the couple concerned

Sounds good to me. ;)

If somone honestly believes that abortion is murder, then they cannot accept that a rape victim is allowed to have an abortion.

"Abortion is murder" people believe that if a rape victim is pregnant, the government should forbid her from having an abortion. No matter how old she is. No matter who raped her.



This is true even if the victim is 13 years old, and even if the rapist was her brother or father.

You have to remember, creating more humans is what sex is naturaly intended for. If you want to use it for other purposes no one can stop you. But its your problem if you get pregnent, why take it out on your baby? Why take away another persons life? Its murder.We humans are social creatures. We are not dictated to by strict seasons of mating, between which we head out on our own, shunning our own kind lest they prey upon resources that we need. We congregate in groups and socialise, and one of the social activities (though much more privalidged than most others) is sex. The fact that we understand the link between sex and pregnancy (or at least should do) is a further indication that we are not bound by the animalistic urge to procreate alone. Witness also the bonobos, who use non-reproductive sex to a greater degree than just about any nymphomaniac/sex-mad human manages to do... Sex != reproduction, though it can happen.

If somone honestly believes that abortion is murder, then they cannot accept that a rape victim is allowed to have an abortion.

"Abortion is murder" people believe that if a rape victim is pregnant, the government should forbid her from having an abortion. No matter how old she is. No matter who raped her.



This is true even if the victim is 13 years old, and even if the rapist was her brother or father.


The only other people in the world who have such contempt for women are the taliban, and perhaps fundementalists in iran and saudi arabia.

If you think that abortion is right because you may kill a potential criminal then I have a question. Do you believe in the death penalty? Should anyone whos broken a law or stolen a chocholate bar be killed because the world will be a better place without them? Can say yes to that, that a petty theft deserves death?

Did I say that I think abortion is right because you might kill a potential criminal?

You have to remember, creating more humans is what sex is naturaly intended for. If you want to use it for other purposes no one can stop you. But its your problem if you get pregnent, why take it out on your baby? Why take away another persons life? Its murder.

A few posts ago you said it was a *potential* human, now you say it is a person. Make up your mind before you try and argue, otherwise your views are too wishywashy to mean anything.

That sounds like rubbish to me no offensive to your views. You get the choise to start with. Once you've made your choise to procreate, then if you get pregent its murder to kill it. An ova isn't a potential Einstein yet because you need a sperm to. But once they have joined, you've got your potential human, and you should not be allowed to kill it.
as i have said many times, the choice to have sex is not the same thing as the choice to be pregnant. i'm going to use the skiing analogy AGAIN, so look away if this is old to you:

Dave goes skiing. He falls, and breaks his leg. He goes to the doctor to try to get his leg set, but the Doctor says, "Sorry, but you chose to go skiing. You could have chosen to not ski, and then you wouldn't be in this mess, so you are just going to have to live with the consequences."

also, keep in mind: an ova or a sperm are just as much potential humans as embryos are...in some ways, even more so. an individual ova might end up joining with a defective sperm, in which case the resulting embryo has NO chance of ever becoming a human. had that ova joined with a non-defective sperm it would have had a much better chance to become a human, so the ova was actually MORE of a potential for human life before fertilization than afterwards.

personally, i have no problem killing potential humans, be they gametes or embryos, if the human parties involved consent to the killing. a potential human is not a human, any more than the cheese and bread in my fridge is a sandwich, so i don't see any reason at all to consider the two equivalent.

Which is why the government should make abortion illegal. Abortion should be unsafe; then the risk of the people who do it dying should make them think twice. Seriously, if someone goes in to kill their fetus, which they should have absolutely NO right to do, then I don't care if they get hurt or killed in the process! It's like if a robber breaks into someone's house to steal stuff, and then trips all over the house and gets severely injured, it serves them right.

Been there, done that... it didn't discourage abortions, it just caused more depression, more death, and more suicide. Chew on this... the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder. The most common perpetrator of that murder is her husband/boyfriend/significant other.

You should have absolutely NO right to FORCE something on a woman that she chooses NOT to endure because there are OTHER options that give her DIFFERENT opportunities just because YOU are a self-righteous, pompous, narrowminded nutjob.

If you want to thump the bible on this and say women who have premarital sex should burn or that abortion is murder (based on your religious beliefs) or that premarital pregnancy should be punished, take another look at that bible of yours. Are you male? Are you wearing a hat? If not, you should be punished. Are you female? Do you wear pants EVER? If so, you should be punished. Have you ever shaken a woman's hand (if you're male)? Than you should be whipped, and she should be burned. I have a zippo if you'd like to borrow it.

i told you not to do that because the slave owners didn't think that slaves met the requirements to be human either.

The inherent flaw in your logic here is that the slave-owners were referring to born, developed human beings who did meet the scientific requirements necessary to be considered an "organism".

Its wrong to kill an embryo, an infant, an adolesent, and an adult. Example in case the Lacy Peterson trial. Why was it wrong for Peterson to kill his wife and his child. I mean if his wife would have had an abortion, than it wouldn't be considered murder. Maybe he didn't want the kid and the only way to get rid of the kid was to get rid of Lacy as well :sniper: ...... Yea i know what kinda Bull is that right :confused: :eek: :mad: ? exactly, a life is a life, if life is conceived than its still alife weither its in a woman or not its still wrong. PRO CHOICERS ARE MURDERS :mp5: :sniper: You were man or woman enough to make the child be man or women enough to take care of it. :fluffle: YEA YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT SUCKS DON'T IT :headbang: undefined

Which is why the government should make abortion illegal. Abortion should be unsafe; then the risk of the people who do it dying should make them think twice. Seriously, if someone goes in to kill their fetus, which they should have absolutely NO right to do, then I don't care if they get hurt or killed in the process! It's like if a robber breaks into someone's house to steal stuff, and then trips all over the house and gets severely injured, it serves them right.

So much for life being sacred. Jesus the hypocracy is getting thick. Make up your minds.

And No, (and I can't believe I am stooping to respond to this poppycock), it isn't anything like a robber breaking into someone's house to steal stuff. 1. Having sex isn't illegal. 2. Getting pregnant isn't illegal. and 3. Having an abortion isn't illegal. Even less, none of those acts can even be suggested to be objectively immoral nor any statistically provable detriment to society. So no, your analogy is crap.

You have to remember, creating more humans is what sex is naturaly intended for. If you want to use it for other purposes no one can stop you. But its your problem if you get pregnent, why take it out on your baby? Why take away another persons life? Its murder.

Have you even read a psychology book? Ever taken any kind of biology course? Sex is about a LOT more that procreation. It is a way to form very strong pair bonds, a way to improve overall health, and a way to prevent depression. People have ALWAYS used it for more than just making babies. If you want to live some pathetic procreation only fantasy, no one can stop you. But you have no right to try and prevent others from benefiting from all it's other uses.

Response to your two questions.

Why subject a baby to an unwanted burden you were forced to bear?

Prove that it's a person or even alive before the middle of the second trimester or so. I defy you to do so before I answer this nonsense.

And to your last statement, since you haven't bothered to read the thread. No it isn't murder. It doesn't meat any of the qualifications for murder. We've already explained this to you people.

If you think that abortion is right because you may kill a potential criminal then I have a question. Do you believe in the death penalty? Should anyone whos broken a law or stolen a chocholate bar be killed because the world will be a better place without them? Can say yes to that, that a petty theft deserves death?

Wow this is almost too easy...

Yes, I believe in the death penalty. I believe it is the more humane option when compaired with life imprisonment.

No, breaking of any given law should not equal death. Duh! But neither should an act of passion between consenting adults who have no desire to procreate result in an automatic and arbitrary life sentence of servitude (and possible death for the mother) to their little mistake.

No, and your analogy is lacking. Sex isn't against the law. Unprotected sex isn't against the law. Abortion isn't against the law. Can you not honestly see how ludicrous it is to try and compar it to theft or the death penalty?

*edits all the ridiculous, frivolous, pointless, and visually distracting animated ~crap~ before posting*

Its wrong to kill an embryo, an infant, an adolesent, and an adult. Example in case the Lacy Peterson trial. Why was it wrong for Peterson to kill his wife and his child. I mean if his wife would have had an abortion, than it wouldn't be considered murder. Maybe he didn't want the kid and the only way to get rid of the kid was to get rid of Lacy as well ...... Yea i know what kinda Bull is that right? exactly, a life is a life, if life is conceived than its still alife weither its in a woman or not its still wrong. PRO CHOICERS ARE MURDERS You were man or woman enough to make the child be man or women enough to take care of it. YEA YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT SUCKS DON'T IT undefined


Aah, that's better. So, here's the thing. Do you condone abortion in cases of rape? If not, you're a hypocrit. If so, you're STILL a hypocrit. Let me explain:

If you do not condone abortion in cases of rape, you negate your point which was, I believe, "you were man or woman enought o make the child be man or women enough to take care of it." (Did not correct grammar despite my desire to because I wanted to use a direct quote.) In the case of rape, the woman did not choose to help create the child. Her responsibility for the baby, in this case, only goes so far as being at fault for NOT having a surgical proceedure that makes pregnancy illegal. It wasn't her responsibility or ability to stop the pregnancy, therefore it is not her responsibility to follow through with it. You, by your argument, would still force her to bear the child on the grounds that she would become a murderer if she aborted.

If you DO condone abortion in cases of rape, then it's only murder if the embryo's father didn't commit a crime against the mother. I assume that even you can see the nonsensical hypocracy in that (so I won't bother to elaborate with an example unless you insist that I don't know what I'm talking about).

"Thou shalt not kill..." unless you were raped... it makes no sense.

Its wrong to kill an embryo, an infant, an adolesent, and an adult. Example in case the Lacy Peterson trial. Why was it wrong for Peterson to kill his wife and his child. I mean if his wife would have had an abortion, than it wouldn't be considered murder. Maybe he didn't want the kid and the only way to get rid of the kid was to get rid of Lacy as well ...... Yea i know what kinda Bull is that right? exactly, a life is a life, if life is conceived than its still alife weither its in a woman or not its still wrong. PRO CHOICERS ARE MURDERS
You were man or woman enough to make the child be man or women enough to take care of it.
YEA YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT SUCKS DON'T IT?

That was 30 seconds of my life I would really appreciate back.

To answer your questions. It was incorrect for him to kill his wife and child because he has no right to deprive another citizen of life without the sanction of the state (due process or militarily) or an order of necessity.

No, you're right, an abortion isn't murder. I am really getting lost in your analogy here. Could you repeat your comparison a little more coherently.

If you truly believe that a life is a life and is therefor sacred you should go ahead and kill yourself now, because that is the only way you cannot deprive something else of it's life.

I believe you mean murderERs, which is a falshood. Abortion doesn't qualify as murder in any way shape or form. Not even in the Bible does it do so.

Quit ordering people around by the way. Your demagoguery is arrogant and hypocritical. It is along the lines of saying, "You were man enough to drive a little too fast, you should be man enough to spend the rest of your life in jail because of it."

To your last statement. Bragging about winning a debate is bad form. Especially when done after such a pathetic argument as this. It just makes you look foolish.

Its wrong to kill an embryo, an infant, an adolesent, and an adult. Example in case the Lacy Peterson trial. Why was it wrong for Peterson to kill his wife and his child. I mean if his wife would have had an abortion, than it wouldn't be considered murder. Maybe he didn't want the kid and the only way to get rid of the kid was to get rid of Lacy as well ...... Yea i know what kinda Bull is that right? exactly, a life is a life, if life is conceived than its still alife weither its in a woman or not its still wrong. PRO CHOICERS ARE MURDERS. You were man or woman enough to make the child be man or women enough to take care of it. YEA YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT SUCKS DON'T IT undefined


Wow.... Wow... Almost makes me want to have us all guess your age...

Ok to start, you are intitled to your opinion, That is fine, but that doesn't make you "right" a persons opinion is never just wrong or right, it is just their view. Second, I think saying all pro choicers are murders is very ignorant.

I feel like all, 44 pages I think it is now can be simply summed up....

There are basic groups of opinions, some branch off, but this is what I have picked up upon here....

Group A) Abortion is murder, no one under any circumstance should be allowed to do so, even if it is means more deaths of adult women. Due to having them done unsafely.

Group B) Abortion is wrong, except if the mother has been raped or her life is at risk. Yet, it still should be Illegal.

Group C) Same as B except it should be legal due to those reasons but only for those reasons.

Group D) I most likely would never do it, I don't think it is right. Although, I don't think I have the right to take the choice away from the mom/parents.

Group E) I don't see anything wrong with it, If I wasn't ready for any reason I would do it.

I am sure I have missed some, and there are always offshoots.

My opinion.... Simple.....

I think all life is precious but I don't think ANYONE has the right to say that the life of an unborn child is worth more than the mothers... If her life is at risk, it is her choice as to which should be saved.

If a woman is raped, I would love think it would give her insentive(sp?) to make something positive out of the situation and love the child as much as possible. Yet, I think she has the right to not have the child. She made no mistakes, it is in no way her fault she got pregnant...

If someone does everything in their power to prevent getting pregnant minus not having sex at all, (Like using a condom AND being on a birth control pill) And they are really not ready; I don't like the idea of them giving it up, it seems like it happened for a reason, but I think it is their choice.

The father, I think should always be part of the decision, but it is ultimatly the mother's choice, because it is her body.

Pro-life, Pro-choice, things aren't that simple. It is not black and white, but unfortunatly you can not make a grey area law.

People should live up to the results of their actions, but sometimes it isn't something they did wrong, or did at all. Sometimes it just is...

*Please don't attack any spelling or grammar mistakes, it is one of my faults and I accept that.*

Using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. These same people that are having abortions would be devestated if a drunk driver killed their 3 year old kid when they did the same thing by aborting one of their own. There is no difference.

Another point to ponder, what gives women the right to decide to abort their babies when many times there are fathers willing to raise them.

As soon as we can transplant the fetus into HIS womb...I say move that fetus!!!

exactly, a life is a life, if life is conceived than its still alife weither its in a woman or not its still wrong. PRO CHOICERS ARE MURDERS :mp5: :sniper: You were man or woman enough to make the child be man or women enough to take care of it. :fluffle: YEA YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT SUCKS DON'T IT :headbang: undefined

and if you read any of the earlier discussion, you'd notice that there is some disagreement as to when a separate human live starts.

and i'm curious, i'm pro-choice, never had an abortion... how the hell am i a murderer? being pro-choice doesn't mean that you've been in that situation yourself anc chose to have an abortion, it means that you realise that while you may want to do one thing, someone else might want to choose to do something differently. thus, you allow everyone to deceide for themselves what they want.

you know, like how adults deceide to do things for themselves rather than have people tell them what to do?

If the taliban outlaws abortion in the US, what will they outlaw next?

Also, anti-abortion people hold women in contempt.

If the taliban outlaws abortion in the US, what will they outlaw next?

Also, anti-abortion people hold women in contempt.

as do the people who want mandatory councelling for women seeking abortions.

it's one thing for women who are still under the age of majority, but over 18, they're adults and capable of their own decisions.

On adoption: If, personally, I were to decide to parent a child, I would want to start with an older child (6 and up). Why? Because I'm more interested in opening a line of communication with a child and figuring out where to go from there... I think they're great little people in the right circumstances. Infants and toddlers haven't developed as many cognitive systems yet (and please don't argue this with me, I just finished exams on this very topic for my Educational Psychology refresher class). Yes, they've got their own personality, but their communication skills are lacking.

On children of rape: I know a 13 year-old boy who was the product of a rape. His father, married to his mother at the time, locked her up, repeatedly beat her, and raped her. She decided to bear the child. Michael is a great kid today, but he's ultra-sensitive, prone to anxiety, and skittish. His mother has promised to throw him out of the house when he turns 18. While it's her decision whether or not to house him, he doesn't need that threat on his head at 13 years of age. I love him like a nephew, he's a great kid, but he's had a hard life and some pretty harsh ordeals to get past in his life. It's not as easy as it sounds, but it's not a guarantee that the kid will live a tortured life. Either way, I still think it's up to the victim. Either she can handle it or she can't.

On victim's guilt: Society, in the case of rape, often finds external circumstances that contribute to rape. Beauty, forgetting to lock doors, "supposed" consent, wearing revealing clothing, flirting, etc. Often, in circumstances of date rape or post-bar-flirting, the perpetrator is not convicted because it is implied that the victim was willing at first and changed her mind later. Theoretically, it is the right of the woman to change her mind at any point in the process (legally speaking), but that doesn't lift the blurring of the lines when we're talking about getting the guy off the hook.

Rape is a violent crime. We all know that. So why are rapists getting less time in jail than drug dealers?

Either way, any victim of crime is subject to guilt. Victims of rape (or any sexual assault) often take that guilt to the next level. Either they were at fault because they didn't prevent appropriately or because they were unequipped at the time to fight off their attacker. While it was hard for me, the guilt wasn't the hardest part, the loss of trust was. The man who raped that young woman who killed herself after her abortion should not be tried for rape, he should be tried for murder... not of a fetus, but of a mature young woman. Her death was a direct result of his actions.

Rape victims, for the record, who come forward to the police face a series of haranguing questions, physical exams (that can be uncomfortable and demeaning), and the possibility that their attacker STILL won't be caught. Coming forward can alleviate some of that guilt, though. At least the victim takes an active role and can say she did her best to try to keep the guy from attacking anyone else.

On abortion: I think forcing a woman who is physically, emotionally, or psychologically unable/unwilling to carry the fetus to term (or raise a child) is tantamount to rape. It is the same thing as forcing sex on them. How is forcing a woman who is unprepared for pregnancy or motherhood to bear a child any different from forcing a woman who is unprepared or unwilling to perform sexual acts? You've still removed her choice. Maybe it's just my view from here...

Once again, kudos to Riven Dell. Take a bow, Riven Dell.

Excellent. I concur, I think, with every pont, and it's very well written.

as do the people who want mandatory councelling for women seeking abortions.

it's one thing for women who are still under the age of majority, but over 18, they're adults and capable of their own decisions.

It really depends what you mean by counselling. I mean, if we are talking about making absolutely sure that they know all the options, possible side effects, and possible ramifications of each option before performing any medical procedures, I'm all for it. But if it means "WE WILL CONVINCE HER TO NOT DO IT AT ALL COSTS!!!!" that really isn't counselling.

i wouldn't be alive if my mother wasn't pro-choice,

That's only because you're using the politically correct wording for pro-abortion. You see, if you instead said your mom was pro-abortion, then someone could point out to her (or to you) the hipocrisy inherent in supporting a practice that is, in essence, murder in the same level and almost in the same scale as the Nazi "Final Solution."

But, you choose to call abortion "a choice." That's a more "acceptable" term. After all, who could possibly be against letting anyone decide about what's going on inside their bodies, right?

Except, an abortion IS a murder. No one is asking that person inside the woman's body whether they choose to live or die.

THAT is why I am personally against abortion, and refuse to call those who support abortion at any moment, "pro choice."

As soon as we can transplant the fetus into HIS womb...I say move that fetus!!!

His womb...

dont you think thats a little sick dear?

That's only because you're using the politically correct wording for pro-abortion. You see, if you instead said your mom was pro-abortion, then someone could point out to her (or to you) the hipocrisy inherent in supporting a practice that is, in essence, murder in the same level and almost in the same scale as the Nazi "Final Solution."

Except all pro-choice people are not pro-abortion, as has been pointed out numerous times.


Except, an abortion IS a murder. No one is asking that person inside the woman's body whether they choose to live or die.

The "person" inside the woman's body is not scientifically a person at all. Thus, your only reasons to think it is a person are religious or emotional in nature. You can't legislate based on that.

THAT is why I am personally against abortion, and refuse to call those who support abortion at any moment, "pro choice."

Well, there are very few people who "support abortion at any moment," so I guess you won't run into that problem very often.

Statistically, since there has been no evidence to support the claim. 0%.

Until we can get a statistically significant polling of those who have died we can't get any more accurate than that.

0 divided by 0 is not 0%. Even you should know that. I mean it's alright to say that the argument should not be religious, but religion is an important, real issue. You can't disregard something as important as someone suffering for all eternity. Even if there is no scientific proof, it is still not worth the risk.

If circumstance finds a sperm joining with that egg, the egg attaches itself properly to the uterin wall, gets ample nutrients and the right environment, is carried to term, survives the delivery, it in fact becomes a baby.

Look, here is my point. You can't say that a beer is made out of water. It doesn't sound right, since it excludes mentioning all the other things that go into it. You also can't say that the beer is made out of the bottle it is contained in. The nutrients and environment help to develop the zygote, but are not part of the zygote. An egg cannot create a baby. An egg and a sperm can. Removing the nutrients and womb means that the zygote will never be fully developed, but it doesn't mean that it isn't life.

You cannot say that a human is made out of bread, cheese or coke. You can say that a human builds itself from materials taken from these items, though. It is a similar situation, just pushed back years beyond the zygote phase.

and i'm curious, i'm pro-choice, never had an abortion... how the hell am i a murderer?
You are in support and tolerant of this barbarism, but I guess you haven't performed an abortion yourself. That leaves you only as an accomplice.

Anti-abortion people are misogynists. They are barbarians like the taliban.

0 divided by 0 is not 0%. Even you should know that. I mean it's alright to say that the argument should not be religious, but religion is an important, real issue. You can't disregard something as important as someone suffering for all eternity. Even if there is no scientific proof, it is still not worth the risk.

*You* can't disregard something as important as someone suffering for all eternity (although, as hell is really nothiing more than separation from God, you could argue that those who are already separated won't feel any different). However, you also can't make the choice for the person in the situation in the absence of scientific proof that it is wrong.

Removing the nutrients and womb means that the zygote will never be fully developed, but it doesn't mean that it isn't life.

No, but the fact that it cannot sense and respond to stimuli as an organism does mean that it is not an organism.

That's only because you're using the politically correct wording for pro-abortion. You see, if you instead said your mom was pro-abortion, then someone could point out to her (or to you) the hipocrisy inherent in supporting a practice that is, in essence, murder in the same level and almost in the same scale as the Nazi "Final Solution."

But, you choose to call abortion "a choice." That's a more "acceptable" term. After all, who could possibly be against letting anyone decide about what's going on inside their bodies, right?

Except, an abortion IS a murder. No one is asking that person inside the woman's body whether they choose to live or die.

THAT is why I am personally against abortion, and refuse to call those who support abortion at any moment, "pro choice."

AHAHAHA! Yes, because pro-LIFE isn't a euphanism, is it now? Despite the fact that the group's SOLE intent is to oppose ABORTIONS... but, you know, let's not call ourselves 'anti-abortion'... we don't want to be on the anti side of anything. We want a name that is positive... and who can disagree with being 'pro-life'.

Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion, and here's why (try an pay attention):

Pro-choice: Everyone should have the CHOICE to have an abortion, with no one forcing them to either have one or not have one.
Pro-abortion: Either "everyone should ALWAYS have an abortion (direct opposite of anti-abortion) or "Abortions should be encouraged (since there are a few people here of that opinon who use the lable 'pro-abortion'.

Also, abortion cannot be murder, because it's not illegal. The 'person' inside the mother cannot be asked it's opinion because it HAS no opinion. As long as it is aborted before it developes a nervous system, it will NEVER have an opinion. So it's 'opinion' is irrelevent.

The 'person' inside the mother cannot be asked it's opinion because it HAS no opinion. As long as it is aborted before it developes a nervous system, it will NEVER have an opinion. So it's 'opinion' is irrelevent.

Also, does anyone ever bother asking the 'person' inside the womb if he *does* want to live?

Also, does anyone ever bother asking the 'person' inside the womb if he *does* want to live?

'Course not. Because even anti-abortion people know that it hasn't even got a brain at the point where elective abortions are legal.

Well, I always thought they did... except those nutters that thought the brain was the first thing to form... or that it was fully formed by 8 weeks... or... you know, I think we need to direct more funding towards education. I think that if people had actually paid attention to their biology courses, this wouldn't even be an issue (plus, then we'd never have to hear the 'if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys' argument...).

I have a question for all your pro-lifers.
Are you against the death penalty? What about the war in Iraq?

And I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.

[QUOTE=Hatikva]I have a question for all your pro-lifers.


Are you against the death penalty?

No.

What about the war in Iraq?

Could have been handled a lot better.

[QUOTE]


Are you against the death penalty?

No.


New flash: death penalty means killing someone i. e. murder. So the guy sticking the needle into a fully grown sentient conscious human is a murderer.
But I guess not to you, since you're pro death penalty.

But someone aborting a "clump" of cells, an organism but in no way yet a human IS a murderer?

Hey, I'm all for respecting other people's opinions, but flawed logic...

It really depends what you mean by counselling. I mean, if we are talking about making absolutely sure that they know all the options, possible side effects, and possible ramifications of each option before performing any medical procedures, I'm all for it. But if it means "WE WILL CONVINCE HER TO NOT DO IT AT ALL COSTS!!!!" that really isn't counselling.

no, they mean like psychiatraic councelling, because any woman who doesn't want to have a kid after she's found out she's pregnant must have something wrong with her. therefore, she must be talked out of it.

it's one thing to say "ok, well these are your options, this is how you can prevent this kind of thing in the future, if you need to talk to someone after you go through with your decision, this concellor is available to you."

They do, and they love it.
They cant help it.


Kind of a dumb thing to say.
Stereotyping again, Terminalia.

I know lots of women that despise gossip, and I know a fair few guys that gossip... you are just being silly. Please stop.


No, Jesus was the Son of God.
Even the Jews know that, they just wont admit it.

Prove it. You make such blanket assertions without a grain of evidence... tell you what... you put "in my opinion...." before it, and we'll accept it as opinion... but if you want to state it as fact, I need evidence.

Some Jews do know it and accept it. Most Jews neither accept nor know it, since Jesus failed to qualify as Messiah, and they should know, they wrote the prophecy.

Your new here, so your raw, just so you know, I have given pages and pages

of why I believe in Jesus, sometimes you just get worn out repeating

yourself, and just fall back on simple statements.

Anyway welcome aboard, Arrrrrr.

You still don't get it though... just because you have 'pages and pages' of reasons why YOU THINK it is real... that doesn't make it so... and by slapping it down as a blanket statement (without any REAL evidence) you are just going to cause friction...

but then, that's what you do, isn't it?

New flash: death penalty means killing someone i. e. murder. So the guy sticking the needle into a fully grown sentient conscious human is a murderer.
But I guess not to you, since you're pro death penalty.

But someone aborting a "clump" of cells, an organism but in no way yet a human IS a murderer?

Hey, I'm all for respecting other people's opinions, but flawed logic...

How is it flawed?

For a start, you have laid down your own rule as to what you think a human

is or isnt, to justify critisising my logic.

So this clump of cells, isnt human according to you, well according to me it

is, you are human from the moment of conception.

Do I believe in some Abortion?

(even though Ive said what Im about to say, countless times, it is

necessary unfortunately, to repeat it for newbies, or people who just enjoy

being pains in the butt, every ten pages or so)

Yes, mothers life in danger, rape, serious health problems with the baby.

Do I believe in mass blanket Abortions, no questions asked, its the womans

choice, let her depose of it like a bit of garbage, no.

As for your simplistic view of how can I condemn people to capital

punishment, but want to spare 'a clump of cells' its simply called punishing

the guilty, and sparing the innocent, do you even know which one is which?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Kind of a dumb thing to say.
Stereotyping again, Terminalia.

Oh give it a rest Grave, you know I think sterotyping is a load of crap.


I know lots of women that despise gossip, and I know a fair few guys that gossip... you are just being silly. Please stop.

Lots of women, how manys that?

I find that hard to believe.

And Ive admitted men like gossipping too, but its

attributed alot more to women as they do alot more of it, if you want to deny

that, go ahead, however you will look quite silly, because its true.


Prove it. You make such blanket assertions without a grain of evidence... tell you what... you put "in my opinion...." before it, and we'll accept it as opinion... but if you want to state it as fact, I need evidence.

I have said in my opinion.

A grain of evidence, theres a whole beach full of evidence.

Have you ever considered the horrible possibility, that millions no billions of

people if you look through history, believing in an unseen force could count

as evidence, that far outweighs your skeptisism.

What makes you so right, and them so wrong.


Some Jews do know it and accept it. Most Jews neither accept nor know it, since Jesus failed to qualify as Messiah, and they should know, they wrote the prophecy.

He didnt fail but, he came back from the dead and appeared before many

people who knew him before hand.

The Jews got their messiah, but because he didnt lead them like a mighty

king to slay all their Romans oppressers, and bought a message of peace

instead, they rejected him.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You still don't get it though... just because you have 'pages and pages' of reasons why YOU THINK it is real... that doesn't make it so... and by slapping it down as a blanket statement (without any REAL evidence) you are just going to cause friction...

And what you fail to understand Grave, is you have yet to give me any

decent reason why I shouldnt believe.



but then, that's what you do, isn't it?

No I don't actually, if you cant handle an apposing point of view, then dont

bother debating.

I am allowed to Kill another Human being in Self Defense.

So Pro-Lifers who do not desire exceptions to laws for the mothers saftey are in effect saying she loses her right to self preservation. And If They pass a law banning it without such an excemption, for every mother that dies, we should kill a pro-lifer, because after all, they don't want the right to self defense.

And one more note, in the Bible, Killing an unborn child (by way of beating a woman) merrited a 15 silver piece fine. That was it. As ordered by Jewish Law, aka, God's law. So I would think 600 dollars today, is a fair rate of inflation, and acceptable by god's laws, and doesn't require the beating.

No healthcare services should be allowed to perform abortions if they are to apply for thier tax allowances. Free and easily avaliable abortion encourages irresponsible behavior.

i am a male christian. i dont know if abortion is alright, and i dont know if it should be legal or not. in my opinion, i repeat, IN MY OPINION, i think that it should be the women's choice whether to go through pregnancy or not. i would rather see the women of america go through birth and let their child live and be adoped by a family that could let them live a long life, but that is not my choice. i think that abortion is kinda fuct up, but im not saying that i am right because i dont fully understand the women's point of veiw. that is why i take niether side, but encourage birth control or adoption. a life is very important. but if abortion is the sad choice of a woman, i will accept that. if you dont want children, please use birth control so this wont be an issue, but if you do get pregnant, think. a child's whole future depends on the woman and her alone. i've seen a baby almost aborted then live, and he is the cutest motherfucker ever. so women out there, i think that abortion is your choice. not a males. sorry to everyone who disagrees, but thats what i think.

i am a male christian. i dont know if abortion is alright, and i dont know if it should be legal or not. in my opinion, i repeat, IN MY OPINION, i think that it should be the women's choice whether to go through pregnancy or not. i would rather see the women of america go through birth and let their child live and be adoped by a family that could let them live a long life, but that is not my choice. i think that abortion is kinda fuct up, but im not saying that i am right because i dont fully understand the women's point of veiw. that is why i take niether side, but encourage birth control or adoption. a life is very important. but if abortion is the sad choice of a woman, i will accept that. if you dont want children, please use birth control so this wont be an issue, but if you do get pregnant, think. a child's whole future depends on the woman and her alone. i've seen a baby almost aborted then live, and he is the cutest motherfucker ever. so women out there, i think that abortion is your choice. not a males. sorry to everyone who disagrees, but thats what i think.

Out of curiosity, and off topic, why do you not use the term 'man', is it one

done deliberately on your part, or is this a sign of a generation so

brainwashed by PC, that will not even accept men as worthy of being given a

title declaring what age they are at?

Your sad title 'Im a male and I have no say,' pretty much sums up alot

of problems in Western society involving this issue, particularly.

Do you call women 'females' so blandly no matter what age they are as well?

Why do you do so with men?

Is this because you have no conception of what a man really is?

I am not having a go at you, Im just a bit worried as to how you think.

On topic I disagree with you saying men have no right in deciding whether

the baby lives or not.

How is it flawed?

For a start, you have laid down your own rule as to what you think a human

is or isnt, to justify critisising my logic.

So this clump of cells, isnt human according to you, well according to me it

is, you are human from the moment of conception.

Do I believe in some Abortion?

(even though Ive said what Im about to say, countless times, it is

necessary unfortunately, to repeat it for newbies, or people who just enjoy

being pains in the butt, every ten pages or so)

Yes, mothers life in danger, rape, serious health problems with the baby.

Do I believe in mass blanket Abortions, no questions asked, its the womans

choice, let her depose of it like a bit of garbage, no.

As for your simplistic view of how can I condemn people to capital

punishment, but want to spare 'a clump of cells' its simply called punishing

the guilty, and sparing the innocent, do you even know which one is which?

Human or not human: I base myself on the scientifically observable differences, already mentioned several times by others in this thread, between a 2-month old embryo and a newly born baby.

Death penalty to me is not simply punishing the guilty. Guilt to me doesn't justify killing anyone. But as this is not the topic of the thread I will not elaborate my views.

I do admit that my reply was a bit rash, and not well argumented, so I apologise. Despite what you might think from my reply, I do usually prefer to respectfully compare opinions (and respectfully try to argument those opinions, in the hope of convincing). Sleep deprivation is my only excuse.

I think it can be looked at from a slightly different angle.

Men are not given the same protection under the law and women have been known to use this against them.

Remember we are supposed to have equal protections under the letter and meaning of the Law.

After conception a woman under the present law has three options..

1) Bring that child to term and retain ownership....
To be used for some 18 years in most legal ways
allowed as she sees fit.
2) Abort the protoplasmic goo upto and including after the
point where given a knife it could cut itself free and
leave under it's own power.
3) Bring it to term and give it away.

Men oddly enough have none of these protections although women through the ages have used their rights to imfringe on men's lives and livelyhood with no real defense.

So I ask.. what happens were to protect men equally under the law...

Walk into a Court Office and Declare you were aborting your rights to said protoplasm...

or

Even after emergence allowing men to but their rights up and give them away.

Equal protection under the law .... what a concept..


Or you could disagree.....

I think it can be looked at from a slightly different angle.

Men are not given the same protection under the law and women have been known to use this against them.

Remember we are supposed to have equal protections under the letter and meaning of the Law.

After conception a woman under the present law has three options..

1) Bring that child to term and retain ownership....
To be used for some 18 years in most legal ways
allowed as she sees fit.
2) Abort the protoplasmic goo upto and including after the
point where given a knife it could cut itself free and
leave under it's own power.
3) Bring it to term and give it away.

Men oddly enough have none of these protections although women through the ages have used their rights to imfringe on men's lives and livelyhood with no real defense.

So I ask.. what happens were to protect men equally under the law...

Walk into a Court Office and Declare you were aborting your rights to said protoplasm...

or

Even after emergence allowing men to but their rights up and give them away.

Equal protection under the law .... what a concept..


Or you could disagree.....

As Bottle is so fond of (rightly) pointing out, you can't have equal rights without equal responsibility.

The INSTANT that a zygote can be transplanted (from the point of conception, or near that point) into a man, men will have a right to equal responsibility and rights.

Until then, many people here think a form of 'paper abortion' should be open to men - they can sign off all interest in the child. They lose all visitation rights (and indeed, any right to have anything to do with the child), but they also waive all financial responsibilities.

Of course, that would only be equal if women had the legal option of abortion.

Of course, that would only be equal if women had the legal option of abortion.

Yes but see that is already a given that this "paper abortion" is nothing more than equal protection the right of the woman is explicidly implied..

Now what I hope is that if said child can not be used as a tool in blackmail / extortion / entrapment / or guilt fewer mistakes will be made that require correction by abortion.

Seems simple enough to me...

As Bottle is so fond of (rightly) pointing out, you can't have equal rights without equal responsibility.


And just because it is 4 am I will cover this point.

Part of the problem requiring these additional
Equalizations under the law is that Men have all the responsibilities under the law and none of the rights.

Take the case of entrapment... Man and woman has sex... consentual and care free... Woman is asked and respondes yes she is on the Pill.... One nighter takes place.

10 months later the man is given a summons to appear in Family court...... seems the woman has lied and wanted to become preggers....and she has called upon the State to extort at gun point from the man a percentage of his labors.

Up to this point her options were stated above...

Abort
Keep and use
Give away...

the man's options???

Pay or go to jail....

Seems the woman has at this point all the Rights and none of the responsibilities....

But of course you could disagree...

New flash: death penalty means killing someone i. e. murder. So the guy sticking the needle into a fully grown sentient conscious human is a murderer.
But I guess not to you, since you're pro death penalty.

But someone aborting a "clump" of cells, an organism but in no way yet a human IS a murderer?

Hey, I'm all for respecting other people's opinions, but flawed logic...

You absolute dumbshit. I knew someone would jump on that. The death sentence involves killing somebody because they can't be integrated into normal society. It's terminating life to remove a dangerous criminal. Abortion is not even in the same league, as it is terminating life solely for the mother's convenience.

WAAAH!!! Those poor slut mothers shouldn't have to find a foster home for their children. It would be much easier to poison them to death.

AHAHAHA! Yes, because pro-LIFE isn't a euphanism, is it now? Despite the fact that the group's SOLE intent is to oppose ABORTIONS... but, you know, let's not call ourselves 'anti-abortion'... we don't want to be on the anti side of anything. We want a name that is positive... and who can disagree with being 'pro-life'.

Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion, and here's why (try an pay attention):

Pro-choice: Everyone should have the CHOICE to have an abortion, with no one forcing them to either have one or not have one.
Pro-abortion: Either "everyone should ALWAYS have an abortion (direct opposite of anti-abortion) or "Abortions should be encouraged (since there are a few people here of that opinon who use the lable 'pro-abortion'.

Also, abortion cannot be murder, because it's not illegal. The 'person' inside the mother cannot be asked it's opinion because it HAS no opinion. As long as it is aborted before it developes a nervous system, it will NEVER have an opinion. So it's 'opinion' is irrelevent.

Well, I see at least 3 excellent points here.

Take a bow, Shaed. *Applause*

Oh give it a rest Grave, you know I think sterotyping is a load of crap.


It doesn't matter what you think about it. What you do is stereotyping, whether or not you have 'what it takes' to accept that.


Lots of women, how manys that?
I find that hard to believe.
And Ive admitted men like gossipping too, but its
attributed alot more to women as they do alot more of it, if you want to deny
that, go ahead, however you will look quite silly, because its true.


Let me think.... well, I can think of 7 women that don't like gossip, off the top of my head, and I can think of 3 women in my 'circle of acquaintance' that DO like to gossip.

My reckoning is, that means twice as many women DON'T gossip as DO.


I have said in my opinion.
A grain of evidence, theres a whole beach full of evidence.
Have you ever considered the horrible possibility, that millions no billions of
people if you look through history, believing in an unseen force could count
as evidence, that far outweighs your skeptisism.
What makes you so right, and them so wrong.


What about the millions or billions that believe in gods OTHER than Jehovah god? What makes YOU right, and them wrong?


He didnt fail but, he came back from the dead and appeared before many
people who knew him before hand.
The Jews got their messiah, but because he didnt lead them like a mighty
king to slay all their Romans oppressers, and bought a message of peace
instead, they rejected him.

No, you THINK he reappeared after his death. (It hasn't been independently confirmed). Maybe they were just all incapable of dealing with the fact that their buddy had just been executed, and they let it happen without any single one of them lifting a finger to stop it.

Also, by the definitions of Messiah, they didn't get their Messiah. Stop trying to tell another religion what it believes, Terminalia. Your grasp of the mechanisms of your own religion are shaky enough...

And what you fail to understand Grave, is you have yet to give me any
decent reason why I shouldnt believe.


I'm not trying to convince you not to believe!

I am quite happy for you to be what you are... just stop stereotyping people according to your neanderthal convictions, and don't make claims of FACT for things that are just OPINION.


No I don't actually, if you cant handle an apposing point of view, then dont
bother debating.

The irony is breathtaking.

[QUOTE=Amor Fati]Human or not human: I base myself on the scientifically observable differences, already mentioned several times by others in this thread, between a 2-month old embryo and a newly born baby.

Science has decided something based on nothing other than brain activity,I

dont believe its absense in the fetal stage, makes the 'clump of cells' any

less human.


Death penalty to me is not simply punishing the guilty. Guilt to me doesn't justify killing anyone.

Tell that to the victims familys.

I do admit that my reply was a bit rash, and not well argumented, so I apologise. Despite what you might think from my reply, I do usually prefer to respectfully compare opinions (and respectfully try to argument those opinions, in the hope of convincing). Sleep deprivation is my only excuse.

No problem.

Out of curiosity, and off topic, why do you not use the term 'man', is it one
done deliberately on your part, or is this a sign of a generation so
brainwashed by PC, that will not even accept men as worthy of being given a
title declaring what age they are at?
Your sad title 'Im a male and I have no say,' pretty much sums up alot
of problems in Western society involving this issue, particularly.
Do you call women 'females' so blandly no matter what age they are as well?
Why do you do so with men?
Is this because you have no conception of what a man really is?
I am not having a go at you, Im just a bit worried as to how you think.
On topic I disagree with you saying men have no right in deciding whether
the baby lives or not.

Flame.

Ad hominem.

Just because not all men correspond to your idea of 'men' doesn't make them any less... or you any more... of a 'man'.

Many people dislike the term 'man' because it implies a certain age, in the same way that girl (although often used for any age of female) really carries a connotation of an under-16 female.

"Is this because you have no conception of what a man really is?"

IS there where you are going to tell us what a 'real man' is, Terminalia?

I find it amazing that someone who has willingly allowed himself to be 'indoctrinated' by a cult that worships a dead body, has the affrontery to accuse the PC movement (whatever that is, outside of some people's conspiracy theory) of brainwashing.

On topic, Terminalia, I disagree with you; saying men have a right in deciding whether a foetus 'lives' or not.

=Grave_n_idle]It doesn't matter what you think about it. What you do is stereotyping, whether or not you have 'what it takes' to accept that.

You call something stereotyping to justify aposing any general truths pointed

out.

Let me think.... well, I can think of 7 women that don't like gossip, off the top of my head, and I can think of 3 women in my 'circle of acquaintance' that DO like to gossip.

My reckoning is, that means twice as many women DON'T gossip as DO.

Well then you would be creating your own type of 'stereotyping' then, based

on nothing but your own circle of women friends, not women in general, who

absolutely love gossiping.

What about the millions or billions that believe in gods OTHER than Jehovah god? What makes YOU right, and them wrong?


Ah dodge a question by asking another one, well at least I'll be polite enough

to oblige.

I believe they are on the right track at least, but Jesus Christ is the true

representative of God.



No, you THINK he reappeared after his death. (It hasn't been independently confirmed).

His disciples saw him, thats good enough for me, if it was a cover up, as your

suggesting, the lie would have been exposed long before even these men bit

the dust.

Maybe they were just all incapable of dealing with the fact that their buddy had just been executed, and they let it happen without any single one of them lifting a finger to stop it.


Peter cut off a soldiers ear in the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus restrained

him and others from helping him, by saying 'as it is fortold in the scriptures,

so it must be carried out.

Jesus himself stopped anyone from helping him, a fact you convienantly left

out.

He also healed the soldier.


Also, by the definitions of Messiah, they didn't get their Messiah. Stop trying to tell another religion what it believes, Terminalia.

I said that already.


Your grasp of the mechanisms of your own religion are shaky enough...

lol insults, I know more about my religon as you call it, than you ever will.

=Grave_n_idle]I'm not trying to convince you not to believe!

Good, and you never will either.

I am quite happy for you to be what you are... just stop stereotyping people according to your neanderthal convictions, and don't make claims of FACT for things that are just OPINION.

Well you calling my opinion as 'neanderthal' and labeling it as a fact to do so

is hypocritical then. I am in fact not a neanderthal, that is your opinion only,

and probably others on here, but nevertheless does not make me one.


The irony is breathtaking.

lol I endevour to debate, how dont I?

You call something stereotyping to justify aposing any general truths pointed
out.


No, Terminalia. I call something stereotyping, because that is what you do. You apply a blanket statement, with no evidence, that attempts to attach a conceived notion to a group of people. That is stereotyping, and you seem very fond of it.

I think you have yet to post ANY provable truths, let alone 'general' ones


Well then you would be creating your own type of 'stereotyping' then, based
on nothing but your own circle of women friends, not women in general, who
absolutely love gossiping.


Don't be ludicrous, Terminalia. I didn't say that it applied to all women, I specifically stated a group of ten women, of which 7 do not enjoy gossip... thus providing a 70% no-gossip catchment in my sample group.

I fail to see how my sample group is not representative, and at least I am basing it on something real, not a 'all women gossip, because they do' assertion.



Ah dodge a question by asking another one, well at least I'll be polite enough
to oblige.
I believe they are on the right track at least, but Jesus Christ is the true
representative of God.


But they believe that Jesus was, at best, a prophet. Most believe him to be just some dead guy, or a pretender to godhood.

How can all those millions and billions of people be wrong, Terminalia?

The Koran says Jesus isn't god... how can they be wrong?

The Tanakh says Jesus isn't god, how can they be wrong?


His disciples saw him, thats good enough for me, if it was a cover up, as your
suggesting, the lie would have been exposed long before even these men bit
the dust.


How do you KNOW his disciples saw him? You weren't there.

The lie HAS been exposed, Terminalia. You just chose not to see it.


Peter cut off a soldiers ear in the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus restrained
him and others from helping him, by saying 'as it is fortold in the scriptures,
so it must be carried out.
Jesus himself stopped anyone from helping him, a fact you convienantly left
out.
He also healed the soldier.


Prove it. Take a text other than the bible, and prove a single line of what you just typed. I think that they could easily have amended the text, since the gospels were WRITTEN many years after the fact, so it looked like they tried to help.


lol insults, I know more about my religon as you call it, than you ever will.

No, Terminalia. You don't. I am not being insulting to you, you just have the most rudimentary understanding of christianity - which is fine, that is all that is needed for a pawn.

What is the one cause for divorce that Jesus allowed?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Flame.
Ad hominem.

Rubbish, how am I attacking him?


Just because not all men correspond to your idea of 'men' doesn't make them any less... or you any more... of a 'man'.


This has nothing to do with what I was asking him.



Many people dislike the term 'man' because it implies a certain age,

Ridiculous, it means a mature male, and should not be replaced with the bland

PC'ism of male, to recognise a man soley on his sex.


in the same way that girl (although often used for any age of female) really carries a connotation of an under-16 female.

That can be used as a term of indearment, as boy can be used for men.

It can also be used as an insult to describe either sex of mature age, but

usually in this case its aimed at men.


IS there where you are going to tell us what a 'real man' is, Terminalia?

Why, do you need to know?

I find it amazing that someone who has willingly allowed himself to be 'indoctrinated' by a cult that worships a dead body,

Respectful Grave... never let it be said, you tried not to cause offense when

discussing somones religon, your far too mature for that, arent you.


has the affrontery to accuse the PC movement (whatever that is, outside of some people's conspiracy theory) of brainwashing.

It is brainwashing, any way of thought that tells people they have to think

this, and say that or else, is sinister to say the least, I'm surprised you can't

see that, or if you can your not saying why.


On topic, Terminalia, I disagree with you; saying men have a right in deciding whether a foetus 'lives' or not.

Not as much right as the woman has I admit, but to say they have none is

ridiculous.

Good, and you never will either.


Get over it already! I don't want to convert you.


Well you calling my opinion as 'neanderthal' and labeling it as a fact to do so
is hypocritical then. I am in fact not a neanderthal, that is your opinion only,
and probably others on here, but nevertheless does not make me one.


I didn't say you were a neanderthal, Terminalia.

*sigh*

Do you ever actually read a post before you launch into your responses?

I said your CONVICTION was neanderthal, and I stick to that.

Neanderthals seem to have had a very basic society, that basically boiled down to males dominating females by the exertion of physical power as a pretence to supremacy, and had a complex 'superstition' to rationalise all the intricacy of life that they didn't have the science to cope with.

Thus, I consider your convictions, as presented on the forum, to be 'neanderthal'.

It is brainwashing, any way of thought that tells people they have to think
this, and say that or else, is sinister to say the least, I'm surprised you can't
see that, or if you can your not saying why.


You don't see the irony here, do you?

What about if the way they tell people what to do is by a set of 'commandments' that THEY claim are divinely inspired?

(And yet, they don't have the originals).

By YOUR definition, Christianity is brainwashing.

Hello,

I'm new to these threads and posts. I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I have a question for the anti-abortion people.

If you believe in God and know your Bible, and base your decisions on that, then the question I have is:

If God gave us free will (and this includes all that we do, not just to believe in him, but to follow, etc.) then by pushing legislation for abortion, you are trying to enforce "free will" which in itself can not be.

How can you justify this?

If you truly believe, then you know that each person must make their choices and learn from them.

Are you not then, interfering with God's plan for these people by taking the option from them?

Thank you.

Grave_n_idle]Get over it already! I don't want to convert you.

Good.


I didn't say you were a neanderthal, Terminalia.

Calling my opinions neanderthalish, means you are, as the opinion maketh the


man.


I said your CONVICTION was neanderthal, and I stick to that.

Does that make it wrong?

Neanderthals seem to have had a very basic society, that basically boiled down to males dominating females by the exertion of physical power as a pretence to supremacy, and had a complex 'superstition' to rationalise all the intricacy of life that they didn't have the science to cope with.

They were also very in tune with nature, and quite peaceful, yes the men

were incredibly strong, but the women wouldnt have been tooth fairys either,

what proof do you have the men dominated the women using their physical

strength in Neanderthal society?


Thus, I consider your convictions, as presented on the forum, to be 'neanderthal'.

And where have I said men should beat up women who disagree with them,*

happy searching.

*(thats your view of what a neanderthal does, not mine)

What I primarily object too, is that men, Western men particularly, are

designated by PC too be nothing more than agreeable spineless doormats,

and never to show agression or anger in any circumstance, as this would

disempower the woman.

Out of curiosity, why is it acceptable to show women beating the living crap

out of men in movies and on TV but not the other way around, I admit I

have seen a few instances, but very rarely, surely in this day of 'equality'

women should be shown getting a hiding as well as much as men do.

Is this so to keep the girl power fantasy bubble from bursting?

And no, I am not turned on by women being beaten up.

I'm pro life for the simple reason that I don't know what the hell I would do in a situation where I saw abortion as an option (if I was raped/baby was ill etc), and therefore I see that I have no right to lecture other women in what to do.
The only time I see it as "wrong" or, in a way distasteful, is when the abortion is because she wants to get on with her career. If you care that much about it, and dont believe yourself capable of doing the two effectively at once, then you shouldn't be 'doing the act' as it were.
Hope I make sense :S

Well, I see at least 3 excellent points here.

Take a bow, Shaed. *Applause*

*goes to take a bow, and falls over due to being dizzy* :D

As well as about 20 spelling errors, now that I look back on it :p that's what I get for typing up points after taking Neurofen Plus.

But yay, a compliment on my debating from a good debater! *dances happily*

I'm pro life for the simple reason that I don't know what the hell I would do in a situation where I saw abortion as an option (if I was raped/baby was ill etc), and therefore I see that I have no right to lecture other women in what to do.
The only time I see it as "wrong" or, in a way distasteful, is when the abortion is because she wants to get on with her career. If you care that much about it, and dont believe yourself capable of doing the two effectively at once, then you shouldn't be 'doing the act' as it were.
Hope I make sense :S

You... mean pro-choice, right?

Because you believe the woman should have the choice? And that you don't think you have the right to tell her what to do?

Calling my opinions neanderthalish, means you are, as the opinion maketh the
man.


Whereas, I believe you judge a man by his actions, rather than his words.

If you act like a neanderthal, that is what you are like.


They were also very in tune with nature, and quite peaceful, yes the men
were incredibly strong, but the women wouldnt have been tooth fairys either,
what proof do you have the men dominated the women using their physical
strength in Neanderthal society?


How do you accomodate this information?

You know that the neanderthals became pretty much extinct about 32,000 years ago? And that there is evidence of early neanderthals fossils as old as circa 700,000 years?

How are you managing to accomodate scientific fact about neanderthals alongside a belief in Creation, as listed in scripture?


And where have I said men should beat up women who disagree with them,
happy searching.


I didn't say you have... but your 'barefoot and pregnant' mentality, coupled with your obsession with male strength and aggression, suggests it is but a small step from your position to a 'dragging them to the cave by their hair' rationale.


What I primarily object too, are men, Western men particularly, designated by
PC too be nothing more but agreeable spineless doormats, and never to
show agression or anger in any circumstance. as this would disempower the
woman.
Out of curiosity, why is it acceptable to shopw women beating the living crap
out of men in movies and on TV but not the other way around, I admit I
have seen a few instances, but very rarely, surely in this day of 'equality'
women should be shown getting a hiding as well as much as men do.
Is this so to keep the girl power fantasy bubble from bursting?
And no, I am not turned on by women being beaten up.

Has it ever occured to you that some men are respectful towards women, are not given to bursts of rage, do not allow themselves to become irrational and angry at others... not because they are spineless, but because they consider themselves to be more 'civilised' than the sum of their animal parts?

Oh, and thanks for the last line there. A little too much information, thanks, but nice of you to share.

*goes to take a bow, and falls over due to being dizzy* :D

As well as about 20 spelling errors, now that I look back on it :p that's what I get for typing up points after taking Neurofen Plus.

But yay, a compliment on my debating from a good debater! *dances happily*

*laughing at Shaed falling over, dizzy*

Spelling is optional... try looking back at something written before the last few hundred years... it's only recently that people have got hung up on 'precise' spellings...

The way I figure it, it's the thought that counts. And you made good points, and you made them clearly.

Looks like the Neurofen Plus may be a good investment.... :)

And thank you for the 'return' compliment. *deep bow, with flourish of hat*

=Nukeums]
If you truly believe, then you know that each person must make their choices and learn from them.

What are they learning but?

Perhaps this:

Anytime I like thanks to the Feminist lobby, I can just abort for any reason I

like.

Yeah great lesson.

This is completely undermining the sanctity of human life.


Are you not then, interfering with God's plan for these people by taking the option from them?

But is this Gods plan?

To condone mass slaughter of innocent and defenceless human life?

Sorry, but I don't think it is.

What are they learning but?
Perhaps this:
Anytime I like thanks to the Feminist lobby, I can just abort for any reason I
like.
Yeah great lesson.
This is completely undermining the sanctity of human life.

But is this Gods plan?
To condone mass slaughter of innocent and defenceless human life?
Sorry, but I don't think it is.

I don't think you get to question god's plan. It would be beyond your comprehension, what with moving in mysterious ways, and all...

By the same token as your anti-feminist argument... you COULD learn from the bible that it is okay to kill a foetus, so long as the 'mother' doesn't die (it's in there)... great lesson?

Grave_n_idle[/B]]I don't think you get to question god's plan. It would be beyond your comprehension, what with moving in mysterious ways, and all...

Not questioning it either.

By the same token as your anti-feminist argument... you COULD learn from the bible that it is okay to kill a foetus, so long as the 'mother' doesn't die (it's in there)... great lesson?

Actually... it doesnt.

Read this if you will:

[QUOTE]Here is what C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General, says about the matter. He was surgeon-in-chief of Children's Hospital, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and has authored books on the topic of abortion:
"I have spent thirty-six years in the practice of pediatric surgery, longer than anybody else now practicing in this country..
"Some raise Exodus 27 as a proof text that God doesn't regard the unborn child in the same way as He does the newly born child. But if you read the text carefully, you will find it says that if a man in argument with another man accidentally strikes a woman and she has a premature birth, there is to be a fine. Nothing here is premeditated.
"But if any further mischief is done—and I take that to mean a deformity of the baby or the death of the baby—then the old law applies of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
"Francis Schaeffer [author of a number of books on abortion] checked the exegesis [meaning] of these verses with five Hebrew scholars and was convinced that God means just that, and in no way does He mean to downgrade the worth of the unborn child."—C. Everett Koop, M.D., as told to Dick Bohrer, "Deception-On-Demand," in Moody Monthly, May, 1980.

[to Terminalia]
Has it ever occured to you that some men are respectful towards women, are not given to bursts of rage, do not allow themselves to become irrational and angry at others... not because they are spineless, but because they consider themselves to be more 'civilised' than the sum of their animal parts?

indeed. where i come from, we refer to the "manly" chaps as "little boys," and women wait until they mature enough to develop self control before we even consider dating them. any guy who has to flex and brag about how dominant and tough and non-sensitive he is doesn't warrant any attention, because that sort is just going to be looking for a mommy to take care of them and do all the chores that their big manly selves don't feel like doing.

Heres a thread you might like to join in on Grave.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363994

I kick off on pg 7, after reading continued begging for someone to appose

their pro gay marriage views, I happily accomadated them.

indeed. where i come from, we refer to the "manly" chaps as "little boys," and women wait until they mature enough to develop self control before we even consider dating them. any guy who has to flex and brag about how dominant and tough and non-sensitive he is doesn't warrant any attention, because that sort is just going to be looking for a mommy to take care of them and do all the chores that their big manly selves don't feel like doing.

OK I''ll bite, you make it sound like the women have little fault of their own in

this dating match up, might I suggest arrogance for one if thats so.

And the second part of the bragging tough guys getting little attention,

sounds pretty unrealistic, to say the least.

OK I''ll bite, you make it sound like the women have little fault of their own in

this dating match up, might I suggest arrogance for one if thats so.

And the second part of the bragging tough guys getting little attention,

sounds pretty unrealistic, to say the least.
actually, i never said anything about the women and their faults. you made that assumption all by yourself.

if you don't believe that "tough guys" get laughed at and spend Friday nights alone, then feel free to come visit...we LOVE watching the posing of insecure boys, and we've pretty much weeded out most of our own native population of these creatures :).

OK I''ll bite, you make it sound like the women have little fault of their own in

this dating match up, might I suggest arrogance for one if thats so.

And the second part of the bragging tough guys getting little attention,

sounds pretty unrealistic, to say the least.

Bragging tough guys get plenty of attention.

Unfortunately for them, it's of the "ahahaha! Look at the poor fool with too much time on his hands" category.

Seriously, I find muscles a complete turn off, because normally they're acquired at the expense of the mind. Giving a choice between a guy who weightlifts (or spends all his free time exercising) and a guy who spends his time debating or reading or, you know, thinking... well... it's not much of a choice (hint for the slow: I'd go for the smart chap, not the sports nut ;) )

But then again, apparently I'm a freak... what with liking intelligent guys and not ones that don't 'believe' in stereotypes and who value strength and child-birthing above all else. So feel free to discount my opinion :rolleyes:.

Bragging tough guys get plenty of attention.

Unfortunately for them, it's of the "ahahaha! Look at the poor fool with too much time on his hands" category.

Seriously, I find muscles a complete turn off, because normally they're acquired at the expense of the mind. Giving a choice between a guy who weightlifts (or spends all his free time exercising) and a guy who spends his time debating or reading or, you know, thinking... well... it's not much of a choice (hint for the slow: I'd go for the smart chap, not the sports nut ;) )

But then again, apparently I'm a freak... what with liking intelligent guys and not ones that don't 'believe' in stereotypes and who value strength and child-birthing above all else. So feel free to discount my opinion :rolleyes:.
i enjoy balance in my partners. somebody who neglects their body and is unhealthy isn't as attractive to me, but somebody who put their body forward as their best asset isn't worth my time either.

What are they learning but?
Perhaps this:
Anytime I like thanks to the Feminist lobby, I can just abort for any reason I
like.
Yeah great lesson.
This is completely undermining the sanctity of human life.

It has nothing to do with Feminism. A person can be completely unaware of Feminism and still recognize an individual's right to choice.