NationStates Jolt Archive

What I am trying to do here is point out that arguing that a foetus is alive because it is a few living cells is like saying those few cells in my liver are alive. Both are true, yes, but both actions that kill those cells are, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable choices.
killing a few liver cells does not kill you though
but killing a few fetus cells kills a human. no matter how you think about it it is still human, it is not a dog or a cat or a bird it is a human fetus becoming a human child.

This is a case of overgeneralization, more commonly referred to as stereotype. I am radically pro-life, and I'm in favor of chaste civil unions for gays.
so...

you're alright with them so long as they don't:
1. get married
2. fuck

is that about right?

Just because you're against gay marriage doesn't mean you "don't like" gays. I know 3 gay americans, and have a positive relationship with each of them.
but it's not alright for them to enjoy their sexuality like you do, right? you like them as people, but not what they do behind closed doors, no, that's not allowed.

Please, try to refrain from making the obvious joke.
what joke?

OMG EVRY TME I SCRACH MYSLF I KLL OVR 1,000,000,000 DIFFERNT LIVING THINGS? dude, Im guessin ya'll are conservative Pro-War Repubs no? every time your war boys shoot a bullet you're killing over nine trillion things. You say you cant kill an unbourn child while murdering hundreds of thousand already born ones? Hypocracy level is reaching about 500%. thats five times over what should be posible? Ill stop having protected sex when you guys get your act together. Contact me when im an old fart will ya? Ive got a life to live.

Ok. A zygote is an organism because it has it's own, unique set of DNA. Therefore, it is a seperate organism from mother.
So a cloned zygote is not a human, because it does not have a unique set of DNA?

You ever tell them to their face they should lead chaste lives?

Yes, I do.

I kill a cow to eat, that is not wrong
I disagree. In western countries, at least, raising a cow for food and slaughtering that cow involves more suffering for the cow than the pain an abortion would cause the foetus. As killing cows is not necessary for one to eat, in my opinon, this makes killing the cow more 'wrong' than abortion.
However, that is a bit off topic.


I, personally, would not get an abortion. (Nor would I willingly get myself into a position where an unwanted pregnancy would be possible/likely.) This is mainly because of my current circumstances, which include a family who could and would assist me in raising a child. Also, the concept of abortion makes me feel a little uneasy.

My question to those against abortion is, what do you propose should be done about it?

Women are going to get pregnant. Some women who don't want to get pregnant are going to get pregnant. Some women who are incapable of raising a child are going to get pregnant.

Adoption is not an acceptable alternative. Not enough people adopt. Most people who want to raise a child want to have their own, and many of those who can't use IVF.

When abortion is illegal, what you get is a lot of desperate pregnant women (and girls) attempting backyard abortions. This is very dangerous, and the foetus ends up just as dead as in a regular abortion. Lots of young women end up dead too, for no good reason.

The moral debate over whether abortion is 'right' or 'wrong' is pointless. It would be 'wrong' to outlaw it, in my opinon.

Ok. A zygote is an organism because it has it's own, unique set of DNA. Therefore, it is a seperate organism from mother.
you're the biologist, you should know that dna does not define an organism.

again: identical twins share the same dna. are they one organism?

a person with chimeria has two sets of dna. is that person two organisms?

and this is all your opinion. which is no more valuable than my opinion or anyone else's.

Ok, so it is my opinion I should have pick a better word/pharse, like 'you know is the truth'. But you can't really disagree with me. What other solid reasons could there be that doesn't involve ONLY opinion without an outside uncontrollable factor?

(oi, forums are slow to load -__-)

killing a few liver cells does not kill you though
but killing a few fetus cells kills a human. no matter how you think about it it is still human, it is not a dog or a cat or a bird it is a human fetus becoming a human child.
The only proof you have given me to support this argument supports my argument as well. When you come up with something new I will as well.

Look, the three things that actually matter are rape, incest, and risk in death of the mother otherwise we all learned in school that absence is the best way to go. Thus abortion shouldn't really be allowed to those who just had an 'accident' but those who really need it. That is it, the facts, anything other than what I wrote before is going off of opinion/religous beliefs and that shouldn't matter in this situation.
And how do you tell who really needs it? A polygraph test before you see the doctor?

So a cloned zygote is not a human, because it does not have a unique set of DNA?

an interesting argument.

I apologise for not being clear. I meant "unique" in the sense of the DNA being unique from the mother's DNA.

Explain why this is so.

Actually, let me first explain why it is not.

A fetus is not a human. A criminal is.

There.

You said a mouthful there, didn't you? I just can't help but be reminded that according to christian doctrine, all humans are born sinners. Therefore all sinners are human. Criminals certainly are as human as anyone.

Ok. A zygote is an organism because it has it's own, unique set of DNA. Therefore, it is a seperate organism from mother.

Yup, And that egg I scrambled this morning had its own seperate set of DNA. you like food? howabout meat?

and this is all your opinion. which is no more valuable than my opinion or anyone else's.

Ok, so it is my opinion I should have pick a better word/pharse, like 'you know is the truth'. But you can't really disagree with me. What other solid reasons could there be that doesn't involve ONLY opinion without an outside uncontrollable factor?

(oi, forums are slow to load -__-)

no, it's not the truth. the truth is that this matter is up for debate. otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we?

and you just stated your opinions without any reasons for them, without proof, without anything and somehow expect everyone to bow down and accept it as true?

you're the biologist, you should know that dna does not define an organism.

again: identical twins share the same dna. are they one organism?

a person with chimeria has two sets of dna. is that person two organisms?

I never said I was a biologist.

Identical twins? Speaking in the most technical of terms, yes. I realize that they are individuals, but they come from the same egg and sperm. Genetically speaking, yes, they are the same organism.

Just as, genetically speaking, a person with chimeria is two organisms.

Yup, And that egg I scrambled this morning had its own seperate set of DNA. you like food? howabout meat?

What does this have to do with any thing?

What's with all the religeous freaks on this site?
I thought most people were atheists
give the religeous talk a rest please, it's getting annoying

I am radically pro-life, and I'm in favor of chaste civil unions for gays.



Not to completely derail the thread, but

*chaste" You mean, not having sex, yes? (correct me if i'm wrong, please)

So you're in favor of gay couples joining in civil unions, which are supposely like marriage but not in name, but not having sex.

Isn't that one of the supposed points of getting hitched (at least for the more conservative folk anyway), that you can boink this person all you want, without any moral reprecussions?

A "chaste" gay civil union makes about as much sense as a "chaste" straight marriage

just my two cents, is all...

Yes, I do.
That must have been an interesting conversation.

I meant "unique" in the sense of the DNA being unique from the mother's DNA.
What if it's the mother that was cloned? Then the DNA of the zygote is identical to the DNA of the mother.

You said a mouthful there, didn't you? I just can't help but be reminded that according to christian doctrine, all humans are born sinners. Therefore all sinners are human. Criminals certainly are as human as anyone.
I'm not Christian. This thread is not about Christian doctrine. Take your sin away from here. :p

an interesting argument.

I apologise for not being clear. I meant "unique" in the sense of the DNA being unique from the mother's DNA.

hunh. So are we pro-life or Pro-what-the-government-and-church-tell-us?

hunh. So are we pro-life or Pro-what-the-government-and-church-tell-us?
the church has ruined a lot for us, if not for them, we would be much more medically advanced. Im just glad about the renaissance

You said a mouthful there, didn't you? I just can't help but be reminded that according to christian doctrine, all humans are born sinners. Therefore all sinners are human. Criminals certainly are as human as anyone.
In that same vein, all people are sinners. If a foetus is a person, the foetus is guilty of original sin, and is not the innocent little babe that the anti-abortion people keep calling it.

I never said I was a biologist.

Identical twins? Speaking in the most technical of terms, yes. I realize that they are individuals, but they come from the same egg and sperm. Genetically speaking, yes, they are the same organism.

Just as, genetically speaking, a person with chimeria is two organisms.

umm... no, that's not how organisms are defined. try again, please.

i mean, we learned the qualities of an organism in grade 8 (which of course i've forgotten) and unique dna isn't a qualification for an organism. dolly the sheep was as much an organism as her clone.

please learn the qualifications of an organism before you start saying that two organisms (identical twins) are one and that one organism (chimeric person) is two.

What's with all the religeous freaks on this site?

By "freaks" do you mean all religious people? If so, I would ask, what's with your atheistic bigotry?

I thought most people were atheists

You thought wrong. Where on Earth did you get that idea?

give the religeous talk a rest please, it's getting annoying

No.

If you're annoyed, give yourself a rest. Religious views are an integral part of the abortion debate, and despite your attempts to suppress religious expression, they will be voiced.

I disagree. In western countries, at least, raising a cow for food and slaughtering that cow involves more suffering for the cow than the pain an abortion would cause the foetus. As killing cows is not necessary for one to eat, in my opinon, this makes killing the cow more 'wrong' than abortion.
However, that is a bit off topic.


I, personally, would not get an abortion. (Nor would I willingly get myself into a position where an unwanted pregnancy would be possible/likely.) This is mainly because of my current circumstances, which include a family who could and would assist me in raising a child. Also, the concept of abortion makes me feel a little uneasy.

My question to those against abortion is, what do you propose should be done about it?

Women are going to get pregnant. Some women who don't want to get pregnant are going to get pregnant. Some women who are incapable of raising a child are going to get pregnant.

Adoption is not an acceptable alternative. Not enough people adopt. Most people who want to raise a child want to have their own, and many of those who can't use IVF.

When abortion is illegal, what you get is a lot of desperate pregnant women (and girls) attempting backyard abortions. This is very dangerous, and the foetus ends up just as dead as in a regular abortion. Lots of young women end up dead too, for no good reason.

The moral debate over whether abortion is 'right' or 'wrong' is pointless. It would be 'wrong' to outlaw it, in my opinon.

they would do that yes, their choice, they took thier own life into thier hands, it is only too bad the infand would die too, that is the truely tragic loss. not to say that it is not sad the lady died but......

That must have been an interesting conversation.


What if it's the mother that was cloned? Then the DNA of the zygote is identical to the DNA of the mother.


I'm not Christian. This thread is not about Christian doctrine. Take your sin away from here. :p

Sorry, man. I don't know what came over me. I'm a private christian. I tend not to get into it with these scary prosyletizing types, because I think they're fucked in the head, but anyway, sorry.

The only proof you have given me to support this argument supports my argument as well. When you come up with something new I will as well.

the difference is your killing another human being , not just a few of your own cells, hide behind the lie that it is only an embreo if you want, but it is still human and you would be a killer.

In that same vein, all people are sinners. If a foetus is a person, the foetus is guilty of original sin, and is not the innocent little babe that the anti-abortion people keep calling it.

Ask the catholics what they think. They believe that an unborn feotus or a newborn that dies is not a sinner. If they were unable to baptise, then their belief is that the soul goes to limbo, because it was impossible for the soul to have sinned, and yet it had not been consecrated in the baptism ceremony.

Personally I think it's a PR exercise, because the church would lose a lot of customers if they said that dead babies were going to hell. That says a lot for their credibility.

the difference is your killing another human being , not just a few of your own cells, hide behind the lie that it is only an embreo if you want, but it is still human and you would be a killer.
You have yet to prove to me that it is a human being and not simply a bundle of cells. Pretend that I'm an idiot (I know it isn't hard). Now, explain to me why it's a person in terms that the idiot-me can understand.

By "freaks" do you mean all religious people? If so, I would ask, what's with your atheistic bigotry?



You thought wrong. Where on Earth did you get that idea?



No.

If you're annoyed, give yourself a rest. Religious views are an integral part of the abortion debate, and despite your attempts to suppress religious expression, they will be voiced.

Debate my ass, they've been enforcing the same code for near two millenia now. They're still reading from a script over eighteen hundred years old and calling it truth. Bigotry? Coming from a Christian/Catholic/Protestant? Tears are being brought to my eyes the sheer hypocracy. Look around you, look at your past you saying the word Bigot in any form... Words cant explain your idiocy.

I will say one thing. Look up "harlequin fetus" on Google. I warn you, the images you will find are horribly, horribly disturbing, disturbing enough that'd I'd be banned for posting them. As you look at the harlequin fetus, keep in mind, this child won't live a total of twenty-four hours, and will live that short span in excruciating pain. The pain is so intense, in fact, that the less-than-one-day lifespan is a blessing. As far as I'm concerned, somebody who would allow a child to come into being just to live less than a day and do so in horrible agony shouldn't be allowed to be a parent anyway. And that's not the only deformity. There are children born with no faces. Children born with exposed spines. The only reason there's debate about the legality of abortion is because the doctors who handle these deformities are simply too tramautized to speak of them. I don't like the idea of an abortion just because you don't want the kid. But sometimes, it'd just be an act of horrible cruelty to let the kid live. Sure, abortion is wrong, but sometimes, the kid would live their life in such misery, the greater sin would be to refuse to abort them.

Ask the catholics what they think. They believe that an unborn feotus or a newborn that dies is not a sinner. If they were unable to baptise, then their belief is that the soul goes to limbo, because it was impossible for the soul to have sinned, and yet it had not been consecrated in the baptism ceremony.

Personally I think it's a PR exercise, because the church would lose a lot of customers if they said that dead babies were going to hell. That says a lot for their credibility.
Yeah, but I'm a Protestant. I don't believe in Purgatory or Limbo. I also don't believe in Dante's version of hell: why do righteous people go to hell simply because they never had the opportunity to learn about Christ? That just doesn't work for me.

they would do that yes, their choice, they took thier own life into thier hands, it is only too bad the infand would die too, that is the truely tragic loss. not to say that it is not sad the lady died but......
So you're quite happy for thousands if not millions of women to die horribly painful deaths to avoid a social stigma simply because you won't let them have a medical procedure?

so...

you're alright with them so long as they don't:
1. get married
2. fuck

is that about right?

Yes.

but it's not alright for them to enjoy their sexuality like you do, right? you like them as people, but not what they do behind closed doors, no, that's not allowed.

I'm a virgin, by my own choice. Partially because i'm only 16, and partially because i'm currently planning on becoming a Catholic priest.

ok, here's my reasoning for chaste civil unions for gays.

1. The purpose of marriage is to provide an environment for the creation and formation of children.

2. The purpose of sex is to produce children (no, it's not for fun. I'm not bringing morals into it, i'm speaking on biological terms.)

3. Sex, outside of marriage, is done either:
a: lacking the intent of having children (just to have fun)
or
b: without a stable environment for the raising of children having been estabolished

Since gays cannot have children, they should not have sex because of thesis #2. They should not get married because they cannot have children. It's nothing against them.

Furthermore, I know that gays do not choose to have homosexual tendencies.

what joke?[/QUOTE]

Debate my ass, they've been enforcing the same code for near two millenia now. They're still reading from a script over eighteen hundred years old and calling it truth. Bigotry? Coming from a Christian/Catholic/Protestant? Tears are being brought to my eyes the sheer hypocracy. Look around you, look at your past you saying the word Bigot in any form... Words cant explain your idiocy.
Some are reading from that old script, but some of us are more progressive. Blanket statements like that are rarely true, and I can think of several examples to counter yours. However, this debate is on abortion, not the rigidity of religion, so I will spare you.

You have yet to prove to me that it is a human being and not simply a bundle of cells. Pretend that I'm an idiot (I know it isn't hard). Now, explain to me why it's a person in terms that the idiot-me can understand.
I would not say you are an idiot, please don't confuse my frustration for me thinking you are one, I am having multiple debates now and yes I can get rowled up, as for my proof, please bear with me, I will try a few analogys if I can.
first
you have a male who is only a boy, over time he becomes a man, he is still a male however, that never changed.
so you have an embreo, it is human, in nine months it will be a human child, but from the moment of conception it is still human, it may not be a "child" but it is a human much in the same way the boy was not a man but he was still a male. I hope this makes clear the point I am trying to make, I am not saying it is always wrong to kill a human, I am just saying that you should know that you are and to make sure that there is suffectiant reason for the human to die, and yes I do believe there are times when there is justifiiable reasons, but most abortions are not justifiable.

By "freaks" do you mean all religious people? If so, I would ask, what's with your atheistic bigotry?



You thought wrong. Where on Earth did you get that idea?



No.

If you're annoyed, give yourself a rest. Religious views are an integral part of the abortion debate, and despite your attempts to suppress religious expression, they will be voiced.

do you like reading people whining about a god that obviously does not exist?
I think not, so stop with it
I will start to believe when I see some concrete evidence that there is a god, hows that make you feel?

Im sorry if I offended any pro-abortion religous people but that person steped beyond the lines.

Yeah, but I'm a Protestant. I don't believe in Purgatory or Limbo. I also don't believe in Dante's version of hell: why do righteous people go to hell simply because they never had the opportunity to learn about Christ? That just doesn't work for me.

No worries, just like prohibition of abortion, it's not biblical. Soon when I get things pulled together I will start a thread that will demonstrate biblically that nobody goes to Hell, or is denied Heaven, simply for not hearing about Christ.

I would not say you are an idiot, please don't confuse my frustration for me thinking you are one, I am having multiple debates now and yes I can get rowled up, as for my proof, please bear with me, I will try a few analogys if I can.
first
you have a male who is only a boy, over time he becomes a man, he is still a male however, that never changed.
so you have an embreo, it is human, in nine months it will be a human child, but from the moment of conception it is still human, it may not be a "child" but it is a human much in the same way the boy was not a man but he was still a male. I hope this makes clear the point I am trying to make, I am not saying it is always wrong to kill a human, I am just saying that you should know that you are and to make sure that there is suffectiant reason for the human to die, and yes I do believe there are times when there is justifiiable reasons, but most abortions are not justifiable.
Don't worry, the idiot comment was more me making fun of myself than anything else. And thank you for the more detailed explanation; now I have something I can try to work with to make a concrete countering argument. It will be hard though, because I am finding you to be a convincing person.

EDIT: I believe I have found a compelling countering argument. Towards the end there you said you believe that sometimes there are justifiable reasons. I'm assuming those reasons are rape and the safety of the mother. My argument: if you allow abortion only for those instances, how do you prove that the abortion is for that reason? I'm pretty sure a polygraph test is out; rape tends to bring out strong emotions that might register oddly on the polygraph machine. So, unless you can find a way to prove that a woman is aborting her baby for your compelling reasons, how will you turn away the others?

Yeah, but I'm a Protestant. I don't believe in Purgatory or Limbo. I also don't believe in Dante's version of hell: why do righteous people go to hell simply because they never had the opportunity to learn about Christ? That just doesn't work for me.

I'm with you on that one too. Of course, I think that most of what being a Christian, which is to say someone who follows the doctrine as set down in the words and example of Jesus, not interpreting text randomly as it suits me, like one big game of scattergories...anyway, my feelings about it are that it should focus on appreciation and respect, not condemning anyone who isn't as sanctimonious and self-righteous as themselves.

umm... no, that's not how organisms are defined. try again, please.

i mean, we learned the qualities of an organism in grade 8 (which of course i've forgotten) and unique dna isn't a qualification for an organism. dolly the sheep was as much an organism as her clone.

please learn the qualifications of an organism before you start saying that two organisms (identical twins) are one and that one organism (chimeric person) is two.

I was speaking strictly in terms of genetics. For all genetic purposes, clones and identical twins are the same person.

It's obvious that clones and identical twins are seperate organisms, and that a person with chimeria is one organism.

Yes.
I'm a virgin, by my own choice. Partially because i'm only 16, and partially because i'm currently planning on becoming a Catholic priest.

ok, here's my reasoning for chaste civil unions for gays.

1. The purpose of marriage is to provide an environment for the creation and formation of children.

2. The purpose of sex is to produce children (no, it's not for fun. I'm not bringing morals into it, i'm speaking on biological terms.)

3. Sex, outside of marriage, is done either:
a: lacking the intent of having children (just to have fun)
or
b: without a stable environment for the raising of children having been estabolished


So, no room for "Love of one's spouse to be", huh?

You know, there are many, many people who have been raised in nontraditional families (yes, even gay families) and have had stable enviroments and have come out okay. On the inverse, there are many many people who have come out of traditional, married, til death do you part familes and are really, really messed up. This has been the case since time itself.

It's not the family structure that makes it stable , it's how much love and time and actual parenting people are willing to invest. Like the popular bumper sticker says, "Love makes a family"

And what do you think two straight people who want to get married, but have no interest in children, do? Not get married? Not enjoy those legal, civil rights that married couples get?

by the by, if sex is juts for making babies, explain the clitoris to me? It's existance is all the proof I need that sex is for more than just babies...

do you like reading people whining about a god that obviously does not exist?
I think not, so stop with it
I will start to believe when I see some concrete evidence that there is a god, hows that make you feel?

Don't tell me, or any one else, that God "obviously does not exist".
If you aren't willing to let religious people tell you that God exists, that is fine. But, don't turn around and say that he "obviously does not exist". You don't have to believe if you don't want to, but don't tell us what not to believe if you don't want us to tell you what to believe.

well I am off to bed, this has been fun and I am trying to see both sides, however in a debate you must always pic one side or the other, and I usually pick a side, weather a believe it or not because when you force others to explain their beliefs , you always learn, I am very mixed about the subject myself believing that their is a right and wrong time for abortion, and I am trying to define my boundrys on it based on logic and morals at the same time which is a very hard task indeed, for where one says yes the other says no. I have to go now, but I would appreciate anyone who has anything to say on the matter for either side to email me at kaos@spfd2600.org. I would read more than one post at a time because it is hard to make a case at the speeds in which this blog can go. well, till tomorrow G'Night and G'Luck, this has been my first forum experiance on this site and the first one of this magnatude anywere, I just blew the number of posts I have made at all forums combined out of the water with this once debate. thx for making it a fun one.

Don't tell me, or any one else, that God "obviously does not exist".
If you aren't willing to let religious people tell you that God exists, that is fine. But, don't turn around and say that he "obviously does not exist". You don't have to believe if you don't want to, but don't tell us what not to believe if you don't want us to tell you what to believe.

okay then. I guess its okay to hold a sword to my throat and tell me "God exists, or die". I say this again. Purge your posts of hypocracy and we might beleive you for maybe a second.

do you like reading people whining about a god that obviously does not exist?

I don't mind it. If you don't like it, stay away from abortion threads, and for G-D's sake don't start yetanother "Proof against G-d" thread. Nor try to turn this into one of them.

Or if you like, start such a thread, and include your allegedly obvious proof that G-d does not exist. It's called free speach, so enjoy it, genius.

I think not, so stop with it

No.

You actually don't think much, do you? Or else you don't read/listen very well.

Unless your name is Max Berry or you are one of his Mods, you might wish to save your attempts to censor other posters here.

I will start to believe when I see some concrete evidence that there is a god, hows that make you feel?

It makes me feel like, if it's true, you must be a very wise person. I myself believe in G-d soley based upon concrete evidence. However since it is gnostic in nature, I can only tell you where the path is, I cannot make you take it, and I cannot offer you any objective proof.

But what I feel more is pity for you because you sound like a hypocrite... unless you provide me with concrete evidence in the absence of Diety, I will continue to pity you.

Don't worry, the idiot comment was more me making fun of myself than anything else. And thank you for the more detailed explanation; now I have something I can try to work with to make a concrete countering argument. It will be hard though, because I am finding you to be a convincing person.

EDIT: I believe I have found a compelling countering argument. Towards the end there you said you believe that sometimes there are justifiable reasons. I'm assuming those reasons are rape and the safety of the mother. My argument: if you allow abortion only for those instances, how do you prove that the abortion is for that reason? I'm pretty sure a polygraph test is out; rape tends to bring out strong emotions that might register oddly on the polygraph machine. So, unless you can find a way to prove that a woman is aborting her baby for your compelling reasons, how will you turn away the others?
yet more grey area, I will ponder this and hope we speak again, I am very interested in continuing but my body is telling me there is a limit to the amount of time one can stay up before mental shut down. my email is kaos@spfd2600.org, if you want drop a line and I will consider this new argument and get back to you on it :)

yet more grey area, I will ponder this and hope we speak again, I am very interested in continuing but my body is telling me there is a limit to the amount of time one can stay up before mental shut down. my email is kaos@spfd2600.org, if you want drop a line and I will consider this new argument and get back to you on it :)
Sleep. Otherwise you will hate yourself in the morning. I personally will be turning in once I get a response on another thread. As for getting back to me on this new argument, don't worry about it. I'm not here to change anyone's minds, I'm just here to make people think.

Well, since i'm going to go to bed, I guess I might as well alienate everyone before I go.

You have been warned.

So, no room for "Love of one's spouse to be", huh?

No. No room for it. If you are planning on getting married, then it's a matter of being able to restrain yourself until you're married.

You know, there are many, many people who have been raised in nontraditional families (yes, even gay families) and have had stable enviroments and have come out okay. On the inverse, there are many many people who have come out of traditional, married, til death do you part familes and are really, really messed up. This has been the case since time itself.
It's not the family structure that makes it stable , it's how much love and time and actual parenting people are willing to invest. Like the popular bumper sticker says, "Love makes a family"

Valid points.

And what do you think two straight people who want to get married, but have no interest in children, do? Not get married? Not enjoy those legal, civil rights that married couples get?

If they want to get married, but are not interested in children, then, pardon my harsh language, but they are getting married to have sex. Sex is the dividing line between married and unmarried couples, in my opinion. Married couples can have sex, unmarried couples cannot.

If they want a tax break, they should get a civil union. Marriage is a religious ceremony, centered around, in coarse terms, having sex, then raising the children that are the result of that sex.

Good night.

Sleep. Otherwise you will hate yourself in the morning. I personally will be turning in once I get a response on another thread. As for getting back to me on this new argument, don't worry about it. I'm not here to change anyone's minds, I'm just here to make people think.
It is up to you, I would appreciate it because you are making good counter points :) I like that.

Marriage isnt actually a very stable environment for raising children seeing as 2/3 of all marriages end in divorce.

Back to the original topic; a fetus is not alive as such until just before it is born. While in the womb the fetus is not really aware of its surrounding or anything that is happening, it relies on the mother to survive, and so is not technically alive.

Also i would dearly love to see someone explain how abortion is wrong without making a reference to god or the bible.

okay then. I guess its okay to hold a sword to my throat and tell me "God exists, or die". I say this again. Purge your posts of hypocracy and we might beleive you for maybe a second.

Have I, at any point, on this thread, even mentioned God, until he was mentioned?

Anyone?

If they want a tax break, they should get a civil union. Marriage is a religious ceremony, centered around, in coarse terms, having sex, then raising the children that are the result of that sex.

Civil Unions don't get nearly as many rights as marriages. Other than that, not a bad argument, I suppose.

Well, since i'm going to go to bed, I guess I might as well alienate everyone before I go.

You have been warned.



No. No room for it. If you are planning on getting married, then it's a matter of being able to restrain yourself until you're married.



Valid points.



If they want to get married, but are not interested in children, then, pardon my harsh language, but they are getting married to have sex. Sex is the dividing line between married and unmarried couples, in my opinion. Married couples can have sex, unmarried couples cannot.

If they want a tax break, they should get a civil union. Marriage is a religious ceremony, centered around, in coarse terms, having sex, then raising the children that are the result of that sex.

Good night.

yup. you alienated the rest of us. besides laughing at this I can pretty much tell that you didn't beleive a word of it. well at least I hope you didn't. good night, dont let those evil orgasms eat you while you sleep.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do. If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.

I wouldn't want anything to do with a "god" like that. Or its bible.

I skipped the middle 18 pages of this thread after reading the original poster's post record. There is no debate here just one lonely, arguably pathetic, person who likes to troll message boards with controversial topics. In the off chance he DOES read a reply, I would like him to know it is WHETHER not weather.

Back to the original topic; a fetus is not alive as such until just before it is born. While in the womb the fetus is not really aware of its surrounding or anything that is happening, it relies on the mother to survive, and so is not technically alive.

Also i would dearly love to see someone explain how abortion is wrong without making a reference to god or the bible.

Both of these points I have argued against before.

The first one, I cannot offer much evidence on, other than saying that SELF-RELIANCE IS NOT ONE OF THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE.

For the second one, let me tell you that I have argued that killing a 20 year old woman for no reason isn't wrong, and that you can't say that it's wrong without getting into morals. Also, I present you this: Many people say "justify your religion [which is based on a certain Holy Book, such as the Bible or the Torah] without using the Book." [which, may I reiterate, is the BASIS for the religion]

Ok, i'm going to bed now. It's the only way i'm going to make this headache go away.

Have I, at any point, on this thread, even mentioned God, until he was mentioned?

Anyone?

uh, so you want to be a priest but you dont worship god. This sounds fishy. especially if this is your defense for the slaughter of an estimated 10,000,000,000 over the past eighteen hundred years? someone tell me that god does NOT sybolize hate, bloodshed, and political coruption?

and you did mention god before, sorry if you where trying to prove something.

uh, so you want to be a priest but you dont worship god. This sounds fishy. especially if this is your defense for the slaughter of an estimated 10,000,000,000 over the past eighteen hundred years? someone tell me that god does NOT sybolize hate, bloodshed, and political coruption?
Alright; God does not symbolize hate, bloodshed, or political corruption. People take His name and His word and twist it around until they can use it to justify those things. BIG difference.

Don't tell me, or any one else, that God "obviously does not exist".
If you aren't willing to let religious people tell you that God exists, that is fine. But, don't turn around and say that he "obviously does not exist". You don't have to believe if you don't want to, but don't tell us what not to believe if you don't want us to tell you what to believe.
Then why tell me that a form of deity does exist?
I do not understand this
I believe in science, it is a much more explicable subject

Alright; God does not symbolize hate, bloodshed, or political corruption. People take His name and His word and twist it around until they can use it to justify those things. BIG difference.
thats actually reasonable. I thought I was going to be able to gleefuly point out every slaughter of over 500,000. Zut Alors! I dont think I can now.

Debate my ass, they've been enforcing the same code for near two millenia now.

As relates to this thread, you are absolutely wrong. In the Dark and Middle Ages, under church law, abortions were allowed up until the time of "quickening", which was the feotus' first "kick". Prior that it was considered "fruit", which is how it is dealt with in the Bible.

So... same code for over two millenia, but not lately... different code today.

They're still reading from a script over eighteen hundred years old and calling it truth. Bigotry? Coming from a Christian/Catholic/Protestant? Tears are being brought to my eyes the sheer hypocracy.

And if you were black, or if you are, I suppose that you would say, or do say, that only white people can be racist? The sheer illogic of your post brings chortles to my throat.

Look around you, look at your past you saying the word Bigot in any form...

Look at my past?

Have we met?

Do you know what my religious beliefs are? Was my rebuttal of a poster who seeks to supress the expression of religious believers sufficient to define for you what my religious beliefs are?

Do you even know what my position on abortion is?

Can you please post anything here that I have said that indicates to you any of my beliefs, other than that people have the right to free expression regardless of their beliefs, and that atheists are not immune to being bigots?

Words cant explain your idiocy.

Close. Your idiocy can't help explain my words to your mind.

Nighty night.

thats actually reasonable. I thought I was going to be able to gleefuly point out every slaughter of over 500,000. Zut Alors! I dont think I can now.
Yeah, I'm a strange breed. I'm one of those Christians who regularly argues against the Bible. My reasoning: the Bible was for a long time only kept in print by monks, most of whom didn't read Latin. They could easily have misprinted something without realizing it, changing religion for centuries to come. Also, I think King James was a bigot, which could be reflected in his version of the Bible. The only way to know the Word is to translate it personally from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit. Not an easy task.

Then why tell me that a form of deity does exist?
I do not understand this
I believe in science, it is a much more explicable subject

If you believe in science then you should understand that science can never prove nor disprove the existance of G-d.

Then why tell me that a form of deity does exist?
I do not understand this
I believe in science, it is a much more explicable subject

You can't prove God exists.
You can't prove he doesn't exist.

Thus, by your argument, he doesn't exist?

...now, I'm very much atheist, but I try not to go around saying that God doesn't exist. Belief (or, for that matter, disbelief) in god is just that - a BELIEF. It can't be proven wrong or right. An atheist demanding that a religious man acknowledge the lack of a god is being just as intolerant and stupid as a religious man telling an atheist "you're wrong, convert now."

If you're pro-science, go ahead and tout your point - science is all about showing what is true according to the evidence, you can go ahead and provide evidence for evolution and the big bang and so on. And you'll be right - the whole point of scientific theories is that it DOESN'T rely on subjective beliefs. Most of Einstein's early detractors believed that Einstein was wrong, that the world couldn't POSSIBLY be so ludicrous - and they set up experiments to prove him wrong, but then had to admit that the results proved him right. It's not an issue of what people believe or not, in science.

In religion, it is. Don't try to apply scientific principles ("prove it") to religion - because religion is not science. The two are separate and different.

You can't prove God exists.
You can't prove he doesn't exist.

Thus, by your argument, he doesn't exist?

...now, I'm very much atheist, but I try not to go around saying that God doesn't exist. Belief (or, for that matter, disbelief) in god is just that - a BELIEF. It can't be proven wrong or right. An atheist demanding that a religious man acknowledge the lack of a god is being just as intolerant and stupid as a religious man telling an atheist "you're wrong, convert now."

If you're pro-science, go ahead and tout your point - science is all about showing what is true according to the evidence, you can go ahead and provide evidence for evolution and the big bang and so on. And you'll be right - the whole point of scientific theories is that it DOESN'T rely on subjective beliefs. Most of Einstein's early detractors believed that Einstein was wrong, that the world couldn't POSSIBLY be so ludicrous - and they set up experiments to prove him wrong, but then had to admit that the results proved him right. It's not an issue of what people believe or not, in science.

In religion, it is. Don't try to apply scientific principles ("prove it") to religion - because religion is not science. The two are separate and different.
Thank you for talking about the intollerant thing, I was trying to get that point across all night without saying it, and it looks like I won the bet

Yeah, I'm a strange breed. I'm one of those Christians who regularly argues against the Bible. My reasoning: the Bible was for a long time only kept in print by monks, most of whom didn't read Latin. They could easily have misprinted something without realizing it, changing religion for centuries to come. Also, I think King James was a bigot, which could be reflected in his version of the Bible. The only way to know the Word is to translate it personally from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit. Not an easy task.

SANSKRIT??? :eek:

Anyway it seems to me that if some illiterate is copying letters that he doesn't understand there is much less chance of error than if someone who can read it does it, because the latter could subconsciously let his own thoughts on the matter confuse the translation.

*clip above*

(sigh) History is wonderful:

A) yes, more people are racist these days, Racism came into affect well after the greeks and Romans enslaved people. ya see, they enslaved people because they knew they where smarter then them. They enslaved them to teach their children and it was not uncommon for them to release their slaves on their deathbed.

B) After all reformations of the reinassance AND enlightenment ages, Jews where still treated like mud, The Irish where still starved to death by unfair taxes and relegious prossecution, Hitler Slaughtered 1/3 Jews on the Planet, my geneology is that I consist of three dominent groups, Jewish, Irish, and a group of Pacifist Germans living in Pensylvania: the Amish, who are harrased and abused by Tourists. You tell me to trust Humanity on instinct, and ill tel you to go #&*! a wombat.

No Hesperia im not fired up just offended that people like you still exist in this world.

Well, as much fun as this has been, I'm afraid I must turn in. It's 12:30 and I have a 9:30 class tomorrow... er, today. Goodnight.

SANSKRIT??? :eek:

Anyway it seems to me that if some illiterate is copying letters that he doesn't understand there is much less chance of error than if someone who can read it does it, because the latter could subconsciously let his own thoughts on the matter confuse the translation.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure parts of the Old Testament are in Sanskrit. I could be wrong, though.
Now, goodnight.

Thank you for talking about the intollerant thing, I was trying to get that point across all night without saying it, and it looks like I won the bet

*LMAO&PIMPaMSOMN*

Yeah. Right. ;)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure parts of the Old Testament are in Sanskrit. I could be wrong, though.
Now, goodnight.

*still LMAO*

It's so much fun to talk with well-informed people! ;)

Sweet dreams.

If you believe in science then you should understand that science can never prove nor disprove the existance of G-d.


nope you are right but it can prove that the people who spread christianity into europe are liers. by star charts, Jesus was born in late spring-early summer. It was a scam because the people living there had a big holiday yearly where they had lots of big sex orgy's and the Christians sayed "yeah, because its Jesus' B-day" and the Pagans sayed "Okay, we're ignorent, can I be a christian?"

It has also explained why Moses was able to cross the sea, it was ice agey and sometimes climate change did that, not an earthquake

God, no, almost everything else in the bible yes.

*LMAO&PIMPaMSOMN*

Yeah. Right. ;)
Hows that make you feel?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure parts of the Old Testament are in Sanskrit. I could be wrong, though.
Now, goodnight.You ARE wrong. Good night.

Hows that make you feel?

Embarassed and in pain. I peed in my pants and milk spurted out of my nose. Weren't you paying attention? HOW DO YOU THINK IT MAKES ME FEEL???

Yes.



I'm a virgin, by my own choice. Partially because i'm only 16, and partially because i'm currently planning on becoming a Catholic priest.

ok, here's my reasoning for chaste civil unions for gays.

1. The purpose of marriage is to provide an environment for the creation and formation of children.

2. The purpose of sex is to produce children (no, it's not for fun. I'm not bringing morals into it, i'm speaking on biological terms.)

3. Sex, outside of marriage, is done either:
a: lacking the intent of having children (just to have fun)
or
b: without a stable environment for the raising of children having been estabolished

Since gays cannot have children, they should not have sex because of thesis #2. They should not get married because they cannot have children. It's nothing against them.

Furthermore, I know that gays do not choose to have homosexual tendencies.

what joke?[/QUOTE]

First of all, in biological terms, sex IS fun. You'll realize that when you finally have it. And sex within marriage is REALLY fun!

Next, So what exactly is a "chaste" civil union? An agreement between friends?

I had nothing better to do than look up the Vatican idea of procreation when I got home tonight. It was entertaining:

"(20) Human procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible collaboration with the fruitful love of God..."

Responsible collaboration...with the fruitful love of God. Sounds like a threesome. Maybe God isn't so bad after all!

Gotta love the Catholics. Confess your sins, and you're saved. In my next life I'll have to be a Catholic. Encourage poor people not to use birth control (yes birth control is EVIL!!!) so they have half a dozen or more kids that they can't feed or care for, who grow up just as ignorant, poor, and "spiritually enlightened" as their parents.

Here's another one, this one regarding gays: "Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence."

cul·pa·ble adj.
Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

pru·dence
n 1: discretion in practical affairs [ant: imprudence] 2: knowing how to avoid embarrassment or distress; "the servants showed great tact and discretion" [syn: discretion, discreetness, circumspection]

Meanwhile, make sure that any sexual predator who also happens to be a man of the cloth will never be prosecuted or stand responsible for what he's done if at all possible. He raped young boys? Well, by golly, let's just move him to a different parish, and keep hush-hush! After all, his "culpability for homosexual acts" should be judged carefully; maybe it's not his fault he molests boys.
Ok, I'm bored now.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Success

nope you are right but it can prove that the people who spread christianity into europe are liers. by star charts, Jesus was born in late spring-early summer. It was a scam because the people living there had a big holiday yearly where they had lots of big sex orgy's and the Christians sayed "yeah, because its Jesus' B-day" and the Pagans sayed "Okay, we're ignorent, can I be a christian?"

It has also explained why Moses was able to cross the sea, it was ice agey and sometimes climate change did that, not an earthquake

God, no, almost everything else in the bible yes.

Congratulations. You have proven capable of presenting facts rather than insults and hypocritical bigotry. Welcome to the civilized world. :)

thank you Velvetpunk for remining us all of the Catholic priests and thier little boys, wow am I glad I never went anywhere alone with a priest as a child

Back to the issue. There is NO intelligent reason, why a woman should not have an abortion. The life growing inside her is HERS alone, so it is up to her what to do with it. No other human or god has any authority in this matter.

Congratulations. You have proven capable of presenting facts rather than insults and hypocritical bigotry. Welcome to the civilized world. :)

This is completely inlike SOMEONE we know (meaning me) hows this make everyone out there feel?
pretty good eh?

Success

Meanie! :(

(sigh) History is wonderful:

A) yes, more people are racist these days, Racism came into affect well after the greeks and Romans enslaved people. ya see, they enslaved people because they knew they where smarter then them. They enslaved them to teach their children and it was not uncommon for them to release their slaves on their deathbed.

B) After all reformations of the reinassance AND enlightenment ages, Jews where still treated like mud, The Irish where still starved to death by unfair taxes and relegious prossecution, Hitler Slaughtered 1/3 Jews on the Planet, my geneology is that I consist of three dominent groups, Jewish, Irish, and a group of Pacifist Germans living in Pensylvania: the Amish, who are harrased and abused by Tourists. You tell me to trust Humanity on instinct, and ill tel you to go #&*! a wombat.

No Hesperia im not fired up just offended that people like you still exist in this world.

Um, the Amish may be pointed at and laughed at by quite a few tourists, but they are one of the most sought-after groups for mediation in the world. For all the people who might see them as a curiosity, there are just as many people who hold deep respect for the Amish.

This is completely inlike SOMEONE we know (meaning me) hows this make everyone out there feel?
pretty good eh?

I'm rolling in puppies! :)

Back to the issue. There is NO intelligent reason, why a woman should not have an abortion. The life growing inside her is HERS alone, so it is up to her what to do with it. No other human or god has any authority in this matter.

I agree 10000%. If that's possible. A woman should have ultimate dominion over her own body.

thank you Velvetpunk for remining us all of the Catholic priests and thier little boys, wow am I glad I never went anywhere alone with a priest as a child

Any time. :D

Wow, now it's time to be seroius:
Abortion is very important to many people, and I feel that it should be free to save the country millions of dollars in welfare. Those children of those people who are not economically stable, often grow up to be the scum, because the parents are never home (usualy out working to feed the child) this child usually becomes a hellraiser andends up in jail for destroying someone else's life, or collecting a monthly welfare check. Now, can you tell me that Abortion is still morally wrong if it is to prevent a future murder, or even in the case of a rape victim?
In fact, maybe Abortion can be used for a tax, that only the rich who get pregnant have to pay (just because protection exists, doesnt mean that everyone uses it) This tax could be used for sex education in schools, attacking the problem at the roots.

My thanks to everyone for putting up with my BS when I was just getting back on track

(sigh) History is wonderful:

A) yes, more people are racist these days, Racism came into affect well after the greeks and Romans enslaved people. ya see, they enslaved people because they knew they where smarter then them. They enslaved them to teach their children and it was not uncommon for them to release their slaves on their deathbed.

B) After all reformations of the reinassance AND enlightenment ages, Jews where still treated like mud, The Irish where still starved to death by unfair taxes and relegious prossecution, Hitler Slaughtered 1/3 Jews on the Planet, my geneology is that I consist of three dominent groups, Jewish, Irish, and a group of Pacifist Germans living in Pensylvania: the Amish, who are harrased and abused by Tourists. You tell me to trust Humanity on instinct, and ill tel you to go #&*! a wombat.

No Hesperia im not fired up just offended that people like you still exist in this world.

Is that addressed to Hesperia or to me? Because you quoted me and then went into a couple of points that had no relation to anything I said... other than showing your bigotry at the end there.

You know what, people?!

Greneda's right. ABORTION IS MURDER. YOU ARE MURDERING 40 MILLION BABIES. AND ANYONE WHO GOES TO HAVE AN ABORTION ENJOYS IT SUBCONSCIOUSLY UNLESS THEY DON'T AND REPENT AND GO KILL GAY PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF JESUS!!!!!!!!!1111

There is no free will! God has a plan for everyone! And soon he will come back and he will destroy the gays and the atheists and the infidels and ABOVE ALL THE UNREPENTANT ABORTIONISTS!!!

JESUS WILL COME BACK AND HE WILL RULE OVER ALL TEH NATIONS WITH AN IRON STICK!!!!

YOU!!!!! OBEY THE STICK!!!!!!

You know what, people?!

Greneda's right. ABORTION IS MURDER. YOU ARE MURDERING 40 MILLION BABIES. AND ANYONE WHO GOES TO HAVE AN ABORTION ENJOYS IT SUBCONSCIOUSLY UNLESS THEY DON'T AND REPENT AND GO KILL GAY PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF JESUS!!!!!!!!!1111

There is no free will! God has a plan for everyone! And soon he will come back and he will destroy the gays and the atheists and the infidels and ABOVE ALL THE UNREPENTANT ABORTIONISTS!!!

JESUS WILL COME BACK AND HE WILL RULE OVER ALL TEH NATIONS WITH AN IRON STICK!!!!

YOU!!!!! OBEY THE STICK!!!!!!

Again with the religeous fanatics...

As I was saying, it is legal for a reason, if you want to complain about it, go ahead, but just understand, it is the woman's right to choose, and it is supposed to be one of the hardest things for a woman to do

Again with the religeous fanatics...

"OBEY THE STICK!"? You actually took that SERIOUSLY? :D

"OBEY THE STICK!"? You actually took that SERIOUSLY? :D
of course, it's 3 AM, I take almost everything seriously at 3 AM :D

Those who do not OBEY THE IRON STICK OF JESUS will be SMOTED! SMOTED WITH THE IRON STICK OF SMOTING!

ALSO, GOD WILL PLAN FOR YOU TO GET AIDS! IT'S IN THE BIBLE PEOPLE!!!!! AND EVOLUTION IS A LIE!!!! THE DINOSAUR BONES WERE THERE FROM 1969 WHEN THE DEVIL CAME TO EARTH!!!!

(^_~ Don't worry. I'm so *very* full of shit here.)

Back to the issue. There is NO intelligent reason, why a woman should not have an abortion. The life growing inside her is HERS alone, so it is up to her what to do with it. No other human or god has any authority in this matter.

See, now you have opened up another can. If the life growing inside her is HERS alone (acknowledging that the fetus is a life, your words, not mine), then when does that life no longer belong to the mother? At what point does it become murderous for the mother to take the life of the child?

Personally, I am all in favour of the woman's right to make a choice. However, if the woman chose to have unprotected sex, then nature should take it's course. Isn't that what Darwinism is all about? Rape or deception are cases in which the law should show some common sense, but I think what we are doing is not supporting a woman's right to choose, but deifying a woman's right to change her mind.

If they want to get married, but are not interested in children, then, pardon my harsh language, but they are getting married to have sex. Sex is the dividing line between married and unmarried couples, in my opinion. Married couples can have sex, unmarried couples cannot.

If they want a tax break, they should get a civil union. Marriage is a religious ceremony, centered around, in coarse terms, having sex, then raising the children that are the result of that sex.

Good night.

Some people, even if they don't want children, marry because they love each other and they to express that in a tangible way. I suspect most people who want to get married, children or not, marry for this reason. They don't "just want to have sex" because in our society (any really) they would and they do. This is a very simplistic and naive POV.

Here, you say that marriage is a religious ceremony. If it's a religious ceremony...there should be civil unions for EVERYONE, not just gays. Government is not supposed to be in the business of the church, so why no thave civil unions for everyone?

You say that couples who do not want children could get civil unions. But you say that gays should have "chaste" civil unions. Why not heterosexual couples who do not want children? Shouldn't their union also be chaste?

Your arguments sound like they come from someone who really doesn't understand much about human nature, has never married for love (which is what marriage SHOULD be for) and really doesn't seem to have much interest in love or emotions. What you think is plain naive, dare I say even silly. I dont' care if you have "3 gay friends" or not...you're still clearly bigoted, because you WOULD allow a heterosexual civil union not to be chaste.

That's...prejudiced. Your "compromise" is just as bigoted as outlawing gay unions altogether.


Ge-Ren

well, facts are facts, and minds can be changed, read my previous posts.
killing is killing is killing. now what we need to establish is a reason for the kill, I kill a cow to eat, that is not wrong, now tell me why you kill children and we shall see if it is wrong. if you answer is nothing more than "I had reckless sex and now I am pregnant" then it is wrong. if you say" I was raped" or "I could die if I have this child because of medical complications" then you may just be right. If I killed the cow for no real reason I would consider that wrong too.
No we dont need to establish a reason for 'the kill'. What on earth gives you this idea? We have (those of us living in free societies) the benefit of an established premise of freedom. The only things that need to be justified are reasons for interfering in people's freedom in any way shape or form whatsoever.

Look, the three things that actually matter are rape, incest, and risk in death of the mother otherwise we all learned in school that absence is the best way to go. Thus abortion shouldn't really be allowed to those who just had an 'accident' but those who really need it. That is it, the facts, anything other than what I wrote before is going off of opinion/religous beliefs and that shouldn't matter in this situation.
Because we were told X in school inalienable rights should be alienated...sorry I'm not buying. Inalienable doesnt mean 'except when you do something naughty, stupid, immoral, or have acted other than how your teachers suggested you should'. If inalienable rights were intended to be alienated due to any reason whatsoever they would have been called something else, for instance conditional privledges.

1. The purpose of marriage is to provide an environment for the creation and formation of children.

2. The purpose of sex is to produce children (no, it's not for fun. I'm not bringing morals into it, i'm speaking on biological terms.)

3. Sex, outside of marriage, is done either:
a: lacking the intent of having children (just to have fun)
or
b: without a stable environment for the raising of children having been estabolished

Since gays cannot have children, they should not have sex because of thesis #2. They should not get married because they cannot have children. It's nothing against them.

Furthermore, I know that gays do not choose to have homosexual tendencies.

what joke?
1 actually only one reason, not the only reason.
2 again not true, only one purpose, not the only purpose (biologically not speaking morally)
So there's no reason for people not to have homosexual sex after all...

Marriage is a religious ceremony,
No, marraige is a social institution.

For the second one, let me tell you that I have argued that killing a 20 year old woman for no reason isn't wrong, and that you can't say that it's wrong without getting into morals.
Actually I can.

I HAVE to say this.

Christianity is not the only religion that states that murder is wrong, and, it infact does not to my knowledge say anything about abortion. Christianity states that murder is wrong as do most religions and government laws and people I have talked to. The person who first wrote this thread did not state their religion, so they might be of any religion for all you guys know. I don't see the need for anti-christian people to use this very important issue to slam on certain people's beliefs.

Some of the major issues I see are:

1) "Is abortion murder?"

I would advice most of you to read up about the development of a child from conception. I for one was most amazed at how developed a baby is when most women find out they are pregnant (which I usually just after they have missed a period at 6 weeks, after the heart is already beating and brainwaves recordable.)

2) "If so, at what stage of the pregnancy should we consider it so?"

Does life begin when the egg and the sperm combine? Is this is the beginning of life?

“But each of us began life as a single cell. A single cell does not look much like what we normally think of a human being looking like. Some say that clearly this is not a human being, because it doesn't look human. But can we judge entirely be appearances? (Beauty is only skin deep; perhaps humanness is too ..) What really makes someone human?”



Or, does it begin at 3 weeks pregnancy when the baby’s heart starts beating?

Or, maybe it really begins at 6 weeks when the baby’s brain waves can be measured and he/she starts to move his/her arms and legs. Some people class life as ending when the brain waves stop so should we say it begins when they begin?

Or does it begin at 18 weeks when the baby starts kicking strong enough so that the mother can feel it? (In some cases though, women start feeling it at 16 weeks others not until 24 weeks.)

Or should we class a baby as alive (and abortion as murder) at 20 weeks when babies are considered “viable” (the earliest a child could be born and still have a chance to survive). If you agree with this, then you should also consider that “Forty years ago doctors put the age of viability at about 30 weeks into pregnancy, or ten weeks premature”.

On this issue I would love to hear people’s opinion. When does life begin/end? Does it have to do with the “chance” that we can have life? When our heart starts/stops beating? When our brain’s starts/stops working? Or, when we Start/stop moving?

I advise you read up on this, one of my sources is: http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/when.htm

3) "Whose life is more important, the mothers or the child’s?"(This applies to the VERY rare case where the mother would likely die if she did not abort and NOT her social life)

With every pregnancy there is SOME risk to the mother that complications in pregnancy/labor might cause her death. In some other cases it is a near certainty.

Should this be one of the cases that we encourage abortion?

4) "If we outlaw abortion, other than in circumstances where the mother's life is in danger, then will women put themselves AND there babies lives in danger through dangerous illegal abortions?"

Should we leave abortion legal for those that really want them to save their lives at least.

5) "If we leave abortion as legal, we must address the emotional and physical affects on women (and men)?

What are they, and how can we be sensitive to them?

It cannot be deigned that some women are actually pressured in huge ways to have an abortion, whether or not they feel pressured to make this decision it’s a choice that can and has affect women in bad ways physically and emotionally.

Others do not have the knowledge of fetal development at the time of their abortion and later are left with guilt when they do find out. I have read a lot of stories about abortion affecting women in terrible ways. Not only do the hormones of pregnancy suddenly stop (which affects mood) they have gone through in some cases a very painful physical and emotional experience which in some cases has left women infertile for life. I shutter and feel so much for the poor women when I read the stories of women when they repeat the words of their doctors “hang on I have to make sure I have all the parts here”.

I urge anyone who feels it ok to pressure another person into abortion or to give a woman a hard time who as had an abortion to read this page: http://www.abortionconcern.org/stories/index.php

or, to do some research of your own on the affects on women. I am sure that abortion must affect men a lot as well, although I have not researched into the affect on them; however you just have to listen to a song like “brick” by Ben Folds Five to hear one man’s touching story.

I would be interested to hear about any men who have real life experience with abortion and how they feel about it, and how much they knew about how developed the baby was when they were aborted.

6) "Sometimes I hear people putting down and pressuring women/couples that are not in "perfect" conditions that choose to keep there babies! Is this ok?"

I have heard of and seen parents, boyfriends/husbands, and society put pressure on women to actually have abortions…even after they state that this is not something that they want to do. This I find to be one of the cases that I detest for these women would have to be the ones least likely to be able to live with there decisions for the rest of their lives if they are pressured into doing it. What reassurance do they get “it was your choice”.

If a woman is not married, if her “partner” decides he doesn’t want a baby, if her parents can’t deal with her having a baby out of wedlock etc, do those people have any right to tell the woman to abort? I say NO, not even the boyfriend, for the reason that, both man and woman had the choice of birth control (or not having sex at all), and know that birth control is not 100% effective, but abortion is a medical procedure that has to happen on the woman’s body. It aborts the baby of both the mother and the father, and so can have emotional affects for both partners, and life/financial affects on both partners if the baby is born, but, it is the woman who has to have the procedure and risk the complications, so in my opinion the decision is hers and hers alone.

I urge those people who are anti-Christian in their views on abortion and that link Christianity to pro-life to consider that some religious families put pressures on their daughters to actually abort their pregnancies, which to me is almost pro-death rather than pro-choice. Do those people feel as angry about these pressures, and the pressures of society (single mum victimization), and pressures from a partner of the woman who has fallen pregnant as they do about the pressure for women to keep a baby?

I am very interested in all views on what I have said and if I have any of my facts wrong.

If you would like you can even email me at mellieanne@gmail.com

I don't think I'm qualified to comment on this. I will probably never have to deal with this, since I am male (and highly unlikely to ever have sex with a woman, but that's another story). It's not something I can decide, because I don't know what a pregnancy is like, and I don't know what an abortion is like. I'm too inexperienced to give an opinion, so I'll keep them to myself. But if I had to choose, I'd be pro-choice.

Some people, even if they don't want children, marry because they love each other and they to express that in a tangible way. I suspect most people who want to get married, children or not, marry for this reason. They don't "just want to have sex" because in our society (any really) they would and they do. This is a very simplistic and naive POV.
Exactly, Ge-Ren. My partner and I are not married, but we are in a long-term relationship and - guess what - we have sex already!!! (Gasp). We will probably get married at some point, not to facilitate sex since it's already part of out lives, but because WE LOVE EACH OTHER, want to spend the rest of our lives together, and want to show that to the world. And neither of us want children. We are not irresponsible re: sex, but no method of contraception is 100% full-proof, even if used exactly as directed. Why should he, I AND and unwanted child be punished for that? Adoption is only a credible alternative to such a problem if (a) you don't mind knowing there's a kid out there who shares your genes and (b) if you don't mind 9 months of potential misery, culminating in immense pain. If pro-lifers view this attitude as selfish, that's up to them. It is I suppose; I don't want a child, pure and simple. However, I also don't want to punish a child for its mere existence, which is exactly what would happen if I had one. Foetuses don't have emotions, real children do.

And yes, by the way, I *am* intending to be steralised!

Having sex before marriage has NOTHING to do with it. It's having UNPROTECTED sex that is the problem. What needs to happen is not the banning of abortion, but the increase of proper sex education. If the teens are knowledgable, understand the consequences of their actions, and can take measures to prevent complications, then the rate of abortion goes down AS WELL AS sexually transmitted diseases.

God doesn't love you any less for having pre-marital sex. The old testament tells you otherwise, but any good Christian knows that the Old Testamant is there for historical purposes. The New Testament tells us that you don't go to hell for pre-marital sex, and certainly not abortions.

I think people need to talk more about facts in this discussion.

Does it disturb anyone else that the viable age of the premmy baby for women in australia is younger than the age it is still legal for them to get abortions?

So some of the baby's are kept alive when born premature and others and aborted after this date?

I think people need to talk more about facts in this discussion.

Does it disturb anyone else that the viable age of the premmy baby for women in australia is younger than the age it is still legal for them to get abortions?

So some of the baby's are kept alive when born premature and others and aborted after this date?

Not being Australian, I wasn't aware of this. It is, indeed, disturbing.

I think people need to talk more about facts in this discussion.

Does it disturb anyone else that the viable age of the premmy baby for women in australia is younger than the age it is still legal for them to get abortions?

So some of the baby's are kept alive when born premature and others and aborted after this date?

You realise that this is, in the VAST majority of cases, when the life of the mother is endangered and that 99% of abortions are performed before this time.

I posted a link earlier.

Having sex before marriage has NOTHING to do with it. It's having UNPROTECTED sex that is the problem. What needs to happen is not the banning of abortion, but the increase of proper sex education. If the teens are knowledgable, understand the consequences of their actions, and can take measures to prevent complications, then the rate of abortion goes down AS WELL AS sexually transmitted diseases.

God doesn't love you any less for having pre-marital sex. The old testament tells you otherwise, but any good Christian knows that the Old Testamant is there for historical purposes. The New Testament tells us that you don't go to hell for pre-marital sex, and certainly not abortions.

Unfortunatly, most people that are completely and utterly against abortion are ALSO against sexual education.

You see, this is my theroy. If they remove sexual education, that brings about more "sinning"-after all, if people arn't taught about contraceptives, they won't use them. And if all options are gone once the baby is there, then it brings about a "punishment" of sorts-the dad runs, leaving the pregnant mom to deal with it on her own. And when the single mom is at home crying with her child because she feels lost, BING! Excellent chance for religion.

Of course, it might not be as...devious as me, but eh, who knows?

Also have to add that it's in America as as Australia well that baby's can be aborted after the viable time. From the below site you can see it lists where in US you can get a 2nd trimester abortion or late term abortion, which I think is even less restrictive than Australia on when you can abort.

http://www.abortion.com/index.php

That Australia bit, horrible as it is, is an anecdote, and doesn't belong in a serious discussion of facts or viewpoints. All anecdotes do is serve as propaganda for one side. Besides which, you fail to provide any statistical value for your claim.

EDIT: That's also an anecdote. This has no relevance.

Unfortunatly, most people that are completely and utterly against abortion are ALSO against sexual education.

You see, this is my theroy. If they remove sexual education, that brings about more "sinning"-after all, if people arn't taught about contraceptives, they won't use them. And if all options are gone once the baby is there, then it brings about a "punishment" of sorts-the dad runs, leaving the pregnant mom to deal with it on her own. And when the single mom is at home crying with her child because she feels lost, BING! Excellent chance for religion.

Of course, it might not be as...devious as me, but eh, who knows?


I have to disagree, I think that more education might make people have less abortions when you think of how women are aborting babies whose hearts are already beating (that starts at 3 weeks), whose brain is already working (brainwaves can be measured at 6 weeks) and in some cases babies that are old enough that they can survive outside the womb are aborted legally.

Statistics and figures:

"At a minimum, more than 165,000 abortions are done each year to unborn babies who are in the second and third trimester.Given the large amount of abortions done each year, the actual number of abortions done after the first twelve weeks of pregnancy is quite large, even though it is a small percentage of the 1.3 million abortions done annually.


Number of abortions Weeks of pregnancy
90,000 13-15 weeks
60,000 16-20 weeks 15,000 21 or more weeks
600 after 26 weeks*
*(after the unborn child is 6 months old)"

So there you go 600 babys after 6 months!!! All of these are AFTER the second trimester 13 weeks when the baby is fully formed.

Also I heard someone say that most babys aborted in this late stage are because they might kill the mother....well:

"The Centers for Disease Control reports over 17,000 abortions in 1993 done at 21 weeks or later.

The above figures were published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in Facts in Brief, September 1995. Information from abortionists, clinic employees, and other sources, however, suggests that the figures for later-term abortions are too low. For example:

In 1984, then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop estimated that about 4,000 "third trimester" (after 26 weeks) abortions occur each year in the United States, and that "less than five percent of that number have induced abortion because of a known defect in the fetus."
Dr. Martin Haskell, who specializes in partial-birth abortions which are done on late-term babies, reported that he had performed over 1,000 of these abortions himself. The late Dr. James McMahon admitted performing over 2,000.
An employee of Kansas abortionist George Tiller wrote in 1991, "I saw the medical records of every abortion patient for a period of over six months. At least (conservatively) an average of ten (24-30-week gestation) late-term abortions were done each week" in that facility alone - - which would be over 500 a year.
"

DID YOU READ THAT LESS THAN 5% of the third trimester abortions were because of a defect in the fetus!!

Statistics and figures:

"At a minimum, more than 165,000 abortions are done each year to unborn babies who are in the second and third trimester.Given the large amount of abortions done each year, the actual number of abortions done after the first twelve weeks of pregnancy is quite large, even though it is a small percentage of the 1.3 million abortions done annually.


Number of abortions Weeks of pregnancy
90,000 13-15 weeks
60,000 16-20 weeks 15,000 21 or more weeks
600 after 26 weeks*
*(after the unborn child is 6 months old)"

So there you go 600 babys after 6 months!!! All of these are AFTER the second trimester 13 weeks when the baby is fully formed.

Also I heard someone say that most babys aborted in this late stage are because they might kill the mother....well:

"The Centers for Disease Control reports over 17,000 abortions in 1993 done at 21 weeks or later.

The above figures were published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in Facts in Brief, September 1995. Information from abortionists, clinic employees, and other sources, however, suggests that the figures for later-term abortions are too low. For example:

In 1984, then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop estimated that about 4,000 "third trimester" (after 26 weeks) abortions occur each year in the United States, and that "less than five percent of that number have induced abortion because of a known defect in the fetus."
Dr. Martin Haskell, who specializes in partial-birth abortions which are done on late-term babies, reported that he had performed over 1,000 of these abortions himself. The late Dr. James McMahon admitted performing over 2,000.
An employee of Kansas abortionist George Tiller wrote in 1991, "I saw the medical records of every abortion patient for a period of over six months. At least (conservatively) an average of ten (24-30-week gestation) late-term abortions were done each week" in that facility alone - - which would be over 500 a year.
"

DID YOU READ THAT LESS THAN 5% of the third trimester abortions were because of a defect in the fetus!!

source: http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/aborstats.html

If you were to accept a fetus as dying when it is aborted then:

The number of unborn babies who die every year from abortion (1.3 million) is more than eleven times greater than the combined total of Americans who die annually from:

accidental falls (12,000)
drownings (4,000)
poisonings (6,000)
car accidents (40,000)
suicides (30,000)
homicides (25,000)

That makes me think that abortion is out of control and not used as a last last resort as I think it should be. I don't know it just makes me sad, especially when I read how it affects people physically and emotionally, and I read stories of women filled with regret at what they have done and feel unable to really talk about it to anyone.

when abortion was made legal an arguement for it was that it would be a rare last resort choice. I think it has become anything but rare.

If you were to accept a fetus as dying when it is aborted then:

The number of unborn babies who die every year from abortion (1.3 million) is more than eleven times greater than the combined total of Americans who die annually from:

accidental falls (12,000)
drownings (4,000)
poisonings (6,000)
car accidents (40,000)
suicides (30,000)
homicides (25,000)

That makes me think that abortion is out of control and not used as a last last resort as I think it should be.

i don't see how those numbers relate to abortion in the slightest. personally, i think if you compare the number of live births to the number of parents able to financially provide adequately for each of their children then the logical conclusion is that there are far too few abortions. when you compare the number of children waiting for adoption with the number that will EVER be placed in a home, the logical conclusion is that there are not enough abortions happening. if only women were more prepared to take responsibility and put their own selfish needs aside, we would see a dramatic rise in abortion and a dramatic drop in the number of suffering children in America (and in the world in general).


I don't know it just makes me sad, especially when I read how it affects people physically and emotionally, and I read stories of women filled with regret at what they have done and feel unable to really talk about it to anyone.
yeah, it makes me sad how much of a stigma there is against abortion, when women who choose to abort an unplanned pregnancy should actually be receiving praise and thanks.

when abortion was made legal an arguement for it was that it would be a rare last resort choice. I think it has become anything but rare.
I think we can all agree that there are too many abortions. Ideally, contraception would be 100% and we wouldn't need them.

However, I think making abortions illegal or more difficult is NOT the answer. Making contraception more freely and cheaply available is one good route that I can think of. Someone on these boards from the US said they had to pay $40 a month for the Pill. That's insane. Lots of people can't afford things that.

And still, I don't think abortion is a first resort for the vast majority of women. It just happens that birth control fails, and what's next?

Statistics and figures:

"At a minimum, more than 165,000 abortions are done each year to unborn babies who are in the second and third trimester.Given the large amount of abortions done each year, the actual number of abortions done after the first twelve weeks of pregnancy is quite large, even though it is a small percentage of the 1.3 million abortions done annually.


Number of abortions Weeks of pregnancy
90,000 13-15 weeks
60,000 16-20 weeks 15,000 21 or more weeks
600 after 26 weeks*
*(after the unborn child is 6 months old)"

So there you go 600 babys after 6 months!!! All of these are AFTER the second trimester 13 weeks when the baby is fully formed.

Also I heard someone say that most babys aborted in this late stage are because they might kill the mother....well:

"The Centers for Disease Control reports over 17,000 abortions in 1993 done at 21 weeks or later.

The above figures were published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in Facts in Brief, September 1995. Information from abortionists, clinic employees, and other sources, however, suggests that the figures for later-term abortions are too low. For example:

In 1984, then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop estimated that about 4,000 "third trimester" (after 26 weeks) abortions occur each year in the United States, and that "less than five percent of that number have induced abortion because of a known defect in the fetus."
Dr. Martin Haskell, who specializes in partial-birth abortions which are done on late-term babies, reported that he had performed over 1,000 of these abortions himself. The late Dr. James McMahon admitted performing over 2,000.
An employee of Kansas abortionist George Tiller wrote in 1991, "I saw the medical records of every abortion patient for a period of over six months. At least (conservatively) an average of ten (24-30-week gestation) late-term abortions were done each week" in that facility alone - - which would be over 500 a year.
"

DID YOU READ THAT LESS THAN 5% of the third trimester abortions were because of a defect in the fetus!!

source: http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/aborstats.html
look at your source and tell me it's not biased.

pro life groups always have these outrageous stats and timelines for fetal development. hell, there was one that claimed that a fetus was viable at 4 months.

find an unbiased source, please.

perhaps one that does not refer to the fetus as a child.

I think we can all agree that there are too many abortions. Ideally, contraception would be 100% and we wouldn't need them.

i suppose i agree with the second part of that, but i certainly do not think there are too many abortions. i think there are too few. in a perfect world, with perfect contraception, there would be no need for abortion, but in this world we need MORE, not fewer, abortions.

You guys, the poster certainly can have an opinion. And if you don't agree, then fine, don't agree. But do not, under any circumstance, say he's wrong and you are right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, not just you.

And I agree with his post.

And there are far too many abortions.

ok, here's my reasoning for chaste civil unions for gays.

1. The purpose of marriage is to provide an environment for the creation and formation of children.

no, it's not.

2. The purpose of sex is to produce children (no, it's not for fun. I'm not bringing morals into it, i'm speaking on biological terms.)

so is oral sex wrong too? many gay couples don't engage in anal sex (especially the lesbians) and otherwise, they do all the foreplay a straight couple would, so does that make foreplay wrong?
women past 40-50 can't have kids anymore, but they can still have an orgasm. explain how this is so if the only purpose of sex is to have kids. shouldn't the vagina collapse after menopause then? since one can't have kids anymore, why would one need to be able to have sex?

3. Sex, outside of marriage, is done either:
a: lacking the intent of having children (just to have fun)
or
b: without a stable environment for the raising of children having been estabolished

so what about married couples who fuck for fun?
does this mean that infertile people aren't allowed to have sex?

Since gays cannot have children, they should not have sex because of thesis #2. They should not get married because they cannot have children. It's nothing against them.
they can have kids, there's no link between homosexuality and infertility.
and again, what gay sex is generally the same as straight foreplay... more or less as far as i know.

Furthermore, I know that gays do not choose to have homosexual tendencies.
oh, so you know gay people who are forcing themselves to ignore a large part of who they are (their sexuality) because people like you can't stand the thought of them getting it on with a person of the same sex?

or are they bisexual and just date the opposite sex?

I was speaking strictly in terms of genetics. For all genetic purposes, clones and identical twins are the same person.

It's obvious that clones and identical twins are seperate organisms, and that a person with chimeria is one organism.

then why did you say that the twins are one organism and the chimeric person is two?

an organism is not defined by its genetics.

and if you were so intersted in biology, you would know that.

by the by, if sex is juts for making babies, explain the clitoris to me? It's existance is all the proof I need that sex is for more than just babies...

hell yeah!

If they want to get married, but are not interested in children, then, pardon my harsh language, but they are getting married to have sex.
what if they want to build a life together?
what if they want to take care of each other and grow old together?

Sex is the dividing line between married and unmarried couples, in my opinion. Married couples can have sex, unmarried couples cannot.
umm... yes we (unmarried couples) can have sex. it's not like there's some built in biological chastity belt that gets unlocked when we say "i do".

hell, we can fuck like bunnies without being married.

If they want a tax break, they should get a civil union. Marriage is a religious ceremony, centered around, in coarse terms, having sex, then raising the children that are the result of that sex.
no, marriage started as a societal thing then the religions got into it.

I think it's really funny about how people get all worked up about this. There are natural herbs that if you eat them, you have an abortion. God made them, too.

Or, does it begin at 3 weeks pregnancy when the baby’s heart starts beating?

that doesn't happen until 7 weeks.

Or, maybe it really begins at 6 weeks when the baby’s brain waves can be measured and he/she starts to move his/her arms and legs. Some people class life as ending when the brain waves stop so should we say it begins when they begin?

there is no brain to speak of at 7 weeks. brainwaves aren't detectable until 20 weeks.

Also have to add that it's in America as as Australia well that baby's can be aborted after the viable time. From the below site you can see it lists where in US you can get a 2nd trimester abortion or late term abortion, which I think is even less restrictive than Australia on when you can abort.

http://www.abortion.com/index.php
you realise that's only permitted for health reasons, right?

when the pregnancy would kill or cripple the woman?

I am absolutly against abortion! I hate it and anyone with christian morals should hate it to! I think that if you chose to have sex there should be concequences. (spelt wrong) I myself am staying pure until my wedding night! :fluffle: or :)

so much for respecting other peoples opinions... are you saying that every act of sexual intercourse is has been consented to by the women. rape, as we all know, is an increasingly common and horrifying occurance. many wifes are forced into sex but marriage protects the man from any punishment.

many people, responsible and mostly moral people, make the choice to have sex and (hopefully) use protection. but it is still possible to fall pregnant.

i personal dont think that abortion would ever be the right option for me, but then i hope i never have to make that choice.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE DOES! they could go have sex then kill themselves for all I care! I'm just giving ya'll my views! I'm from the south so I have many morals like that (not that no one else does not)


Ya, the South.... Where the farmers fuck their livestock and fathers will do their sisters and daughters...

Nice fucking morality dumb-ass! :fluffle:

I've had a chance to read through this thread, and every time I read things on this subject, I am disgusted at my fellow Christians who try so hard to impose their views on others. This is nothing more than prosthyletzing, and I personally think that unless you are a missionary, that's not your job. Even if you are, how you choose to promote your religion should be carefully considered. Using the abortion argument has got to be one of the most volatile and sloppy methods of prosthelytization I know of. That is my general view: the rest is now specifically for Americans.

Despite my current President's assumption that religion and state are inexorably mixed (I am American) my country's Constitution clearly states that they are not. I have not seen a sound argument by any "pro-lifer" on this matter that tackles the legality of their beliefs, other than to say "this may be the majority opinion." Firstly, it is my firm belief it is not, and pro-lifers need to get over that. Many people are moderately for or against, and it is difficult to count them, though I suspect those for choice are more numerous -- the issue, for one reason or another, simply does not affect them. Secondly, the United States is NOT ruled by majority opinion: the government is in fact as interested in minority rights (meaning those in the minority) as the majority -- that is why we have a judicial branch. Saying you are in the majority thus your opinions are more valid is tyranny in the eyes of our laws, and it embarasses me that so many American conservatives forget that. It embarases me further how few of my fellow Americans really understand the nature of our laws, which are geared towards INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. This means that each INDIVIDUAL has to have their rights protected. Christians' rights are not trampled on if a woman chooses to have an abortion. Non-Christians' rights ARE trampled on if abortion is banned because of Christian moral values. That is why Roe v. Wade passed in the first place.
You speak of the child, but even I have to admit that abortion is sometimes merciful. I've seen how abandoned children live, and it is a sorry sight. I wish they could be adopted, but this is rarely the reality. In that case, who am I to deny a woman a right to choose what may potentially be mercy? Most women do not use abortion as birth control, and it is a painful decision for them to make. Where is our compassion for them when some of us are screaming at them that they will go to Hell from picket lines?

Jesus teach you that one? I doubt it.

As an individual (and a woman) I would not have an abortion unless the fetus was already dead or I could not survive giving birth. If I have an ectopic pregnancy, I would have no choice but to abort: neither the baby nor myself could survive. I am glad that a safe procedure is available for me in this unlikely but unfortunate situation. A late-term "abortion" is EXTREMELY rare -- it's usually an early delivery that goes wrong. There are MANY instances where a woman is forced to have an early delivery induced and the baby dies -- is that a "late term abortion?" Of course it's not. That is what nearly EVERY woman who has to have a child removed late-term goes through, and it's hell. Instead of having sympathy in such situations, my fellow Christians forget Jesus' MOST IMPORTANT message of love and compassion, and look at a part of the Bible that Jesus said OUTRIGHT was replaced by His New Testament to condemn a woman. Why are CHRISTIANS choosing the Jewish "Vengeful" God? Half of you would turn around and hate Jews for being non-believers...but you use THEIR textbook when you were told not to! That is against what we are. It makes you no better than the terrorists so many of you fear because they are "heathen Muslims." It embarasses me that you would be so foolish, gulible, and uninformed. I hear there was a time when Christians were the most educated people on Earth, but that time has clearly passed.

What this is really about is power. Christian conservatives see the abortion issue as a fight to gain moral power and majority in my country. The truth is, according to my country's laws...they should NEVER have had it. It is not theirs. The right to believe as they will IS theirs. The ability to impose it? A mistake that only now can be corrected because our country has realized a greater limit of diversity of thought and creed. We are being challenged to accept our laws we hold so dear, and Christians everywhere are FAILING to heed the lesson. We are FAILING when we assert our power as we do. We are FAILING our country for lacking compassion, for misunderstanding the Bible, our Constitution, and our laws, and our fellow Americans who do not share the same beliefs as us. We should be EMBARRASSED at our ignorance, and ashamed of our insistence of superiority.

The Bible said the meek shall inherit the earth.

Christians, look how badly you've behaved now that you are not "meek."

Guess in the end, in Earth will no longer belong to you.

Ge-Ren


....will you marry me?
:D

Ya, the South.... Where the farmers fuck their livestock and fathers will do their sisters and daughters...

Nice fucking morality dumb-ass! :fluffle:

Nice fucking prejudices, n00B!

so much for respecting other peoples opinions... are you saying that every act of sexual intercourse is has been consented to by the women. rape, as we all know, is an increasingly common and horrifying occurance. many wifes are forced into sex but marriage protects the man from any punishment.

many people, responsible and mostly moral people, make the choice to have sex and (hopefully) use protection. but it is still possible to fall pregnant.

i personal dont think that abortion would ever be the right option for me, but then i hope i never have to make that choice.

There is no longer a marital exception to rape, at least not in the USA.

Please, just shut up. What the hell is wrong with you right wing wack jobs? You harp so much on the "right to life", yet once the child is born, you don't give a damn about it. What you want is to be back in the dark ages where men control everything, and women don't have any rights. So just shut up you fasist pigs, and stop trying to force your beliefs on others

OMG, this always goes the same way!!! Someone says something agin abortion, someone else rants about a woman's body, then morals are argued about, then brainwaves! IT ALWAYS GOES THE SAME FRAGGIN' WAY! Can I just say that the "woman's right to do what she wants with her body" argument MAY NOT be valid, because it is entirely probable the baby is sentient, and therefore is a separate being. I hope everybody here does agree that about at about 36 weeks is wrong - beyond that there is no difference between the unborn and the born, except that it is smaller and less physically developed.

Please, no-one use the "ooh, how would YOU like to be raped" argument against me. I could not be made pregnant due to some chromosonal anomalies that resulted in my being male - and don't say "So, therefore you can't argue because you don't know what it's like to be woman" - this is the same as saying that humans can't argue about animal rights because they aren't rabbits or suchlike, and that white people can't talk about how terrible the slavery trade was, because they're not black.

Basically, I am tryin' to make two points here: The baby may not be a part of the mother just 'cos it's inside her (please think on that); and please don't use stupid firey flamey arguments.

(My hand hurts from all that typing!) Just because I'm white male Christian pro-life doesn't mean I'm fascistic and sexist. I really do feel sorry for the women involved - but I still don't feel that it justifies taking a life. See? That is what compassionate conservatism should be like! Now can we all discuss this sensibly like men of goodwill, and not accuse each other of being mass-murderers or misogynists????

Heya,

If you feel so strongly against abortion and feel that it is a serious crime, stop complaining about it and do something productive. No, I don't mean protest clinics and harass potential patients. Women seeking an abortion are already under enough stress without needing more. Instead, put your principles where your mouth is and offer, sincerely, to pay for the pregnancy, adopt the child, and raise it. Give the woman seeking an abortion a real and viable option other than abortion. Until you do this, all your arguements are insincere. If you feel that strongly against abortion, you will do anything, including giving up your own life by dedicating it to the raising of a child who would otherwise have been aborted. Otherwise, please stop with the holier than thou arguements, it's getting tiresome.

Matthew 7,1 Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

Heya,

If you feel so strongly against abortion and feel that it is a serious crime, stop complaining about it and do something productive. No, I don't mean protest clinics and harass potential patients. Women seeking an abortion are already under enough stress without needing more. Instead, put your principles where your mouth is and offer, sincerely, to pay for the pregnancy, adopt the child, and raise it. Give the woman seeking an abortion a real and viable option other than abortion. Until you do this, all your arguements are insincere. If you feel that strongly against abortion, you will do anything, including giving up your own life by dedicating it to the raising of a child who would otherwise have been aborted. Otherwise, please stop with the holier than thou arguements, it's getting tiresome.

Matthew 7,1 Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

Well said! Yes - I do believe THAT MUCH that it's wrong. But I can't give up my life, I'm studying at the moment… maybe later… from a Right Wing Wack Job (so it is said).

You bible bashers really annoy me. Just because Christians believe one thing doesn't mean everyone should. Making people do stuff they don't want to and taking away their freedoms is bordering on facism. Osama Bin Laden made non-muslims obey muslim laws. A christian makes a non-christian obey christian laws and he is an ethical person. Very hypocritical.

Before you jump the gun, I'm not calling you bible bashers terrorists or comparing you Osama. I'm just pointing out that he had/has a very similar mindset.

Please do see my previous post about not insulting. Making people do stuff they don't want to and taking away their freedoms - bordering on Fascism? Are you an Anarchist? That's what the law on HAVING TO DO THE CENSUS and TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM TO MURDER do! Oh dear, Britain the fascistic nation!./ Sorry about that! but think about it - if Abortion is killing, then allowing abortion is taking away the foetus's freedom to live - "inalienable rights… LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - although not sure about the current president's execution record sitting too well with the "life"….

America has this thing see, its called seperation of church and State. What it means is that religion has no place in politics, let it sway your opinion all you like but don't take that to the Supreme Court. Its already legal up until the end of the 1st trimester in all of the US, start liking it.

edit for clearity: a fetus is essentially a parasite up until birth, it feeds of the host entity until it reaches substantial size then detaches.

America has this thing see, its called seperation of church and State. What it means is that religion has no place in politics, let it sway your opinion all you like but don't take that to the Supreme Court. Its already legal up until the end of the 1st trimester in all of the US, start liking it.

edit for clearity: a fetus is essentially a parasite up until birth, it feeds of the host entity until it reaches substantial size then detaches.

So that automatically means that it doesn't feel pain? Think about it: Foetuses are voiceless. No one assumes they're alive, because all they look like (mostly) is a lump on the outside of the woman. What about the photos of the young ones moving about? There was a guy in The Independent who was most arrogant - he said that you couldn't judge whether something was alive or not based on whether it was, well, doing the things living beings do, like moving and smiling. Guess we can't assume he is alive either…

…my basis for argument against abortion is purely moral, not religious. When I was an atheist I was still against it. I just do not feel that there are many cases that justify killing. (Herald the great flamethrowing match on whether they're alive or not…). :PS: about the whole parasite thing - do you believe that a baby *1 hour* from being born isn't alive, and could be ritualistically cut up (just an example!)? 'Cos that's where your argument is going, and it seems really whacky to say that life magically flows into the child when it's born. When? When the head or the whole thing co'mes out?

…my basis for argument against abortion is purely moral, not religious. When I was an atheist I was still against it. I just do not feel that there are many cases that justify killing. (Herald the great flamethrowing match on whether they're alive or not…). :PS: about the whole parasite thing - do you believe that a baby *1 hour* from being born isn't alive, and could be ritualistically cut up (just an example!)? 'Cos that's where your argument is going, and it seems really whacky to say that life magically flows into the child when it's born. When? When the head or the whole thing co'mes out?
if you're looking for the argument on when life begins, go back a couple pages. 'cause we've been there and done that. and then had pro-lifers throw numbers that were absolutely wrong for fetal development on top of it for sites with obvious biases.

You have not explained why women should be the only exception to the rule that a person cannot legally be forced to donate part of their body.

I can refuse to donate an organ TO MY OWN CHILD. I can refuse to donate an organ to my own child, EVEN IF THE CHILD WOULD DIE AS A RESULT. I can refuse to donate an organ to my own child, even if the child will die as a result, AND EVEN IF THEY NEED THE ORGAN BECAUSE OF MY OWN ACTIONS.

No one can legally force me to donate my body, ever.

Explain why ONLY women (and ONLY while pregnant), should lose this fundamental right.


By having sex you prepare yourself to donate whatever organs a child may need. You donate your body if a willing child needs it. If you are not prepared for this to happen, or at least prepared to deal with the consequences, you are irresponsible and selfish. Take some responsibility, stop just indulging yourself at the expense of others(the dead baby).

I am aware that the next post against my arguement is going to involve rape. Rape is a violent act against a woman. For a woman who has been raped to go to the doctor and ask for another violent act to be committed inside her body is crazy. Killing an innocent child is just senseless. Kill the rapist, not the baby. Being a rapist is not genetic, the baby will not be a rapist.

that whole arguement about when life starts is just dumb. It completely avoids the fact that even if it isnt alive, it will be soon enough. The whole argument is just a way of people trying to justify the fact that they are selfish, uncaring murderers, who want to give up responsibility and live a life of being a peice of crap. I have a new idea, we should let babies abort pro-death women. Honestly, where is the unborn woman's "right to choose"??

I am aware that the next post against my arguement is going to involve rape. Rape is a violent act against a woman. For a woman who has been raped to go to the doctor and ask for another violent act to be committed inside her body is crazy. Killing an innocent child is just senseless. Kill the rapist, not the baby. Being a rapist is not genetic, the baby will not be a rapist.
I know that I wouldnt want to keep the child if i was raped. it would be a constant reminder of the nightmare i had lived through and would feel that I wouldnt be able to move on with my life.

I am aware that the next post against my arguement is going to involve rape. Rape is a violent act against a woman. For a woman who has been raped to go to the doctor and ask for another violent act to be committed inside her body is crazy. Killing an innocent child is just senseless. Kill the rapist, not the baby. Being a rapist is not genetic, the baby will not be a rapist.
gee, so i suppose when somebody incurs a broken leg (which would have to be due to a violent act) then they shouldn't ask for the doctor to perform another violent act by setting the bone, right? and if somebody is in a violent car wreck, they shouldn't let the doctors violently cut into their body to repair their organs and save their life, right?

rape is a violation. forcing a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want is a violation. you propose nothing more than a 9-month-long rape, so get off your high horse.

Because the only purpose of women is have kids.
[/sarcasm]

Honestly, I think that that's all those who oppose a woman's right to choose have as an "argument".

That's untrue. Those against abortion believe that the fetus is a living human and has a right to life.

Analogies mean nothing. I can't change your minds. Go ahead, indulge yourselves.

That's untrue. Those against abortion believe that the fetus is a living human and has a right to life.
so do some people who support abortion. personally, i believe that it doesn't matter whether or not a fetus is a person or not...even if it is a human being and does have a right to life, i still 100% support abortion at any time, for any reason.

i completely agree with bottle

i suppose i agree with the second part of that, but i certainly do not think there are too many abortions. i think there are too few. in a perfect world, with perfect contraception, there would be no need for abortion, but in this world we need MORE, not fewer, abortions.

I want abortions to be freely available to women, like you do, with no judgement and prejudice or anything. I just think the actual process is unpleasant and distressing. Bear in mind I WAS speaking of an ideal world. :p

rape is a violation. forcing a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want is a violation. you propose nothing more than a 9-month-long rape, so get off your high horse.
Can't agree more. How would you feel every day for nine months? I don't think I'd be able to take it. :(

QUOTE]
By having sex you prepare yourself to donate whatever organs a child may need. You donate your body if a willing child needs it. If you are not prepared for this to happen, or at least prepared to deal with the consequences, you are irresponsible and selfish. Take some responsibility, stop just indulging yourself at the expense of others[/QUOTE]
I love how it's all about responsibility and consequences. All of which the woman has to bear. If men had uteruses this wouldn't even be an issue.

I love how it's all about responsibility and consequences. All of which the woman has to bear. If men had uteruses this wouldn't even be an issue.

dont give me that gender crap, im not saying the women should have to bare all the burden, granted, it is in thier body, but the man should be forced by law to pay for and support the child (maybe he is, not absolutely certain on law pertaining to this)....it is a responsibilty for both parties. But yea, it is all responsibilities and consequences, thats life, if you dont want to deal with responsibilitys and consequences dont have sex. Or, if you dont like either of those, I say again, responsibilities and consequences are part of life, if you dont want them dont kill a child, kill yourself, the world will be a better place. Give the children a chance to live, maybe they will do something with thier lives that is good for other people, not just stimulating for themselves.

Is that addressed to Hesperia or to me? Because you quoted me and then went into a couple of points that had no relation to anything I said... other than showing your bigotry at the end there.
Look up Bigot. it was adressed to the quote hesperia deleted.

Wrong. Your inhumane relegions Relished that. Therefore I can not allow any relegious fanatic to speak up against their version of murder without looking at the fact that it will take a few centuries of Pro-woman choise to come anywhere close to the equality of the slaughter that was caused by your fanatical religons lasting for 2 milenia and ending about thirty years ago. The crimes commited to the Irish and Jewish people far surpass that of 1.3 million yearly abortions. Also whoever put that statistic in is a fool. America doesn't make up much of world population. so eleven times that is to be expeted with countries like India and China. and look at the stats of the poll.

dont give me that gender crap, im not saying the women should have to bare all the burden, granted, it is in thier body, but the man should be forced by law to pay for and support the child (maybe he is, not absolutely certain on law pertaining to this)....it is a responsibilty for both parties. But yea, it is all responsibilities and consequences, thats life, if you dont want to deal with responsibilitys and consequences dont have sex. Or, if you dont like either of those, I say again, responsibilities and consequences are part of life, if you dont want them dont kill a child, kill yourself, the world will be a better place. Give the children a chance to live, maybe they will do something with thier lives that is good for other people, not just stimulating for themselves.

huh. I dont get this. Teenagers make up most pecentage. you are so not going to tell us to stop having sex, might as well try surviving jumping out of a ship in outer space in some boxers and a martini. You have obviously never had sex or come anywhere close. I dont know if they teach history at goody goody biblical schools where they refuse to acknowlage themselves ans genocidal maniacs but not to long ago some awesome things started happening. people began getting more and more freedom like the choise to get an abortion. are you TRYING to take away the rights of women? or are you an idiot who has no fredom and does everythingthing a specific person tells them to? Sorry sir, there is no in between.

huh. I dont get this. Teenagers make up most pecentage. you are so not going to tell us to stop having sex, might as well try surviving jumping out of a ship in outer space in some boxers and a martini. You have obviously never had sex or come anywhere close. I dont know if they teach history at goody goody biblical schools where they refuse to acknowlage themselves ans genocidal maniacs but not to long ago some awesome things started happening. people began getting more and more freedom like the choise to get an abortion. are you TRYING to take away the rights of women? or are you an idiot who has no fredom and does everythingthing a specific person tells them to? Sorry sir, there is no in between.


Huh? Please never ever post again amongst an intelligent conversation. None of your incoherent babbling came anywhere neear making a point.
I am a teenager, but not all teenagers need to be selfish. Maybe you think murder is awesome, congradulations. You are a moron. Next time you want to post, please make some sense. It is much easier to hold a debate with people who can at least formulate something resembling an argument. So after your drugs wear off feel free to come back and try to tell me what you meant to say. Please try spelling things at least closer to what you mean to spell, and have your sentences follow some chain of thought. I would rather argue with people who aren't idiots. giving women the right to abortion is not more freedom, becasue it also serves as taking freedom away from those who are killed. And I do think teenagers today should stop having sex, or at least start having sex responsibly (be prepared for a child if it comes). Teenagers need to stop the drugs and alcohol too. sorry if this wouldnt fit your rainbow swirl dream.

Look up Bigot. it was adressed to the quote hesperia deleted.

Wrong. Your inhumane relegions Relished that. Therefore I can not allow any relegious fanatic to speak up against their version of murder without looking at the fact that it will take a few centuries of Pro-woman choise to come anywhere close to the equality of the slaughter that was caused by your fanatical religons lasting for 2 milenia and ending about thirty years ago. The crimes commited to the Irish and Jewish people far surpass that of 1.3 million yearly abortions. Also whoever put that statistic in is a fool. America doesn't make up much of world population. so eleven times that is to be expeted with countries like India and China. and look at the stats of the poll.

Oh it was addressed to a quote that Hesperia deleted, and just happened to lead with a hollowed-out quote of mine? If you're that competent at your work or school, I suggest that you practice saying "would you like fries with that?"

Since you're obviously one of those "highly educated and intelligent" people who believes that war and sexism were invented by Christianity, please back this up. Show me historical records of how women were respected prior to the christian era, and how people of different religions did not oppress eachother?

Refute my own statement of how abortion was allowed by the christian church during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, up until the baby kicked. Can you do this? Can you back up any part of your hateful screed with anything that even resembles intelligence &/or education?

And again, can you point to anything in my posts that have indicated my religious beliefs to you? Hint: not in this thread. Because without that, you are simply slapping generalized prejudices on someone who disagrees with you, without any clear basis for putting that person into the category that you are generalizing. And you are doing so with a great deal of venomous hatred.

Bigot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I took your advice and looked it up. Imagine my surprise when I found nothing in there that defines a bigot as being unilateral, that is, that that target of a bigot cannot be a bigot himself. Apart from that it is a pretty good description of how you have presented yourself in this thread. Unless, like a Black who (individually) believes that only Whites can be racists, you place yourself outside of those groupings.

You want to whine about how religions can and have been oppressive? Take it to another thread. And please don't leave out Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mediterranean Paganism. Mezoamerican Paganism, and of course Atheistic Communism.

You are a hateful little bigot and your words are proof positive. Can you post anything that I have said that puts this charge on me?

I haven't finished reading the entire 27 pages of posts here yet, but I wanted to offer my opinion since I find in this, I differ from both sides rather greatly.

I'm an American Christian. I don't believe abortions are right ... I believe they're a sin. However, I very much also believe this country was founded with a basis of freedom of religion (even though the founding fathers were mostly Christians, which brought quite a few Christian concepts into the legal realm ... hence all this trouble).

What's that mean? I don't think we, as Christians, are allowed to impose our views on others. If you want to argue the legality of an issue, you have to do out outside your spiritual morality. If you don't, you're just trying to start a theocracy. If that's what you want, go move to the Vatican.

Personally, I try to legislate that abortion be illegal after the first trimester. After that, the baby is rather well formed and ... but it doesn't matter ... that's where my "scientific" definition of life is, so I feel that after that point, it could be classified as murder.

Other Christians ... Jesus said go out and make disciples, not go out and rule the world according to my wishes. Heck, the New Testament never even told us to abandon slavery. It was a social institution at the time (just like abortion is becoming). We just believe as Christians we shouldn't own slaves.

Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible at all. However, if you challenge your antagonist to show you why they are opposed to it, you'll usually get one of three different arguments.

The most common comes from Psalm 139:13-16, where King David writes that God formed him in the womb. If you are given this argument, ask the Fundamentalists if they believe God has ordained them to be the next King of Israel. The obvious answer is "no." Once they say this, ask them why, therefore, do they claim that a verse God used to describe the creation of a pre-ordained King of Israel should be applied to them as well. Do they also claim to be the next messiah because of God's description of Christ's inception in Mary's womb? Of course not. But Fundamentalists like to take this verse out of context and claim it applies to every human ever conceived.

It does not. You can also refer them to Jeremiah 1:4-10, where another pre-ordained prophet of God described his life in the womb as well. However, in Jeremiah's case, he says that God knew him before he was ever conceived in the womb. Since most Fundamentalists use the argument that God "knew" his pre-ordained leaders in the womb, and, therefore, it must mean that God considers us fully human at conception, what does it mean when God says he knew us before we were even conceived? Does it mean we are fully human even before the egg and the sperm come together? Of course not.

The second most common argument comes from the Ten Commandments, where we are told "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But this begs the question of "kill what?" Does this commandment mean we cannot kill anything, even a fly? No. It means we should not kill another human being. Of course, the Fundamentalist believes a pre-born fetus is the same as a full-term human being. God, however, does not. In Exodus 21:22-25 we read that if a man accidentally kills a pregnant woman, that man should be condemned for committing murder. However, if he only kills the fetus - that is, if she miscarries - he is not condemned for murder. Clearly, then, God does not consider the pre-born fetus as being the same as a human being, in which case the Commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill (a human)" does not apply.

And the third comes from several Old Testament books where God condemned the Jews for offering their children as sacrifices to a false god called Baal. This is used less often than the other arguments because it makes no mention of pre-borns. The children being sacrificed where full-term, already-born human babies. And, as we have seen above in Exodus 21:22-25, God does not see a developing fetus as being equal to a full-term human being.

For those people that stated other figures from when things develop for the fetus, I think you should have also given your sources of information rather than just to slam my sources and state your own figures without saying where you got them from.

I have found a large variation in the figures from one source to another on the stages of development however I have never read anywhere that the first brainwaves are at 20 weeks as one person suggested (without reference) and would be interested in what scientific study suggests that.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just want to know the facts and am interested in when people think life begins - from the facts. I am just trying to state that I think a major issue is when life begins. Is it when they egg is implanted? Is it when the heart starts to beat? Is it when the first brainwaves occur. Or is it whenever the lady gives birth to the baby regardless of if the baby is premature or late etc? I think that this is a major issue related to abortion.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Pregnancy_week_by_week?OpenDocument
at this site it says at 8 weeks the brain is now active and has brianwaves.
That is a government site,
"Week 8 - The embryo is now known as a foetus and is about 2.5cm in length. All of the bodily organs are formed. The hands and feet, which previously looked like nubs or paddles, are now evolving fingers and toes. The brain is active, and has brain waves."

I have read differences in when our first brain waves are, but I have never read anywhere that they are at 20 weeks!?!?! What is your source? How do we know you are not just plucking dates out of the air to support your opinion. At least I am trying to present facts and encouraging people to research for themselves. Maybe there are so many variations in figures because some people just pluck those out of mid-air.

Try to tell me that the government site listed is pro-life biased and not true in a country that allows abortion much after 8 weeks - go on. Maybe you are so stuck in your beliefs that you cannot face the facts of how quick human development in the womb is?

I have had an ultrasound at 11 weeks and saw my baby with fingers and toes and could even see it's heart beating. It was tiny but had all it's parts it even moved, and from what I have read (from various sorces) by this time it's tiny brain was working. How can someone argue that what I have seen living inside me with my own eyes, and what science proves has a heart beat and brainwaves, is not alive?

Now I am not stating what I state to put down anyone who has had an abortion.
I feel for women who have choosen to make that difficult decision and for some women it is unfortunately the only way they see out of the situation, and they do it for the right reasons for them - usually that they don't think they can provide the right kind of life for there child.

All I am trying to do is make sure that when people decide what they think of abortion they have the facts.

How many of you on here believe that abortion is ok in the case of rape?

Thought i'd say something on abortion and rape, not sure if anyone else will, hopefully this doesnt get me in too much trouble...please read the entire thing and don't take a line out of context.

I have read a little about women's experience with rape and abortion. I have heard that some women feel the desire to want to get rid of the baby, and other do not. I feel it is a decision that the woman is to make herself as is it is her baby has a abnormality (as we know many people have quite happy forfilling lives regardless of disabilities).

I have actually read that psychologically it can be a very positive thing for a rape victim NOT to have an abortion. The reason being that, she remains innocent in her own eyes. Where he was selfish, she was selfless, where he took what was not his, she gave all she had.

I really want to state that an abortion is not an un-rape, it doesnt make it better, in many cases the rape affects the woman for long after it occurs regardless of if she becomes pregnant. There are women who have been raped and then had abortions, and are in counseling not for the rape but for the abortion! In rape, the trauma is "Someone hurt me." In abortion, the trauma is "I hurt and killed someone else -- my child." That brings even more grief.

Regardless, it is very very few of the abortions that happen do so because of rape.

I think we need to support women through the decision if they are considering abortion, letting them know that they are ok and will still have your love and support if they chose to abort or to keep the baby - regardless of our own views.

Sometimes I wonder what the sigma of singlemotherhood in society might have of the decision of a woman keeping or aborting her baby....worth thinking about perhaps?

Sometimes I wonder what the sigma of singlemotherhood in society might have of the decision of a woman keeping or aborting her baby....worth thinking about perhaps?

Didn't stop my mom.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

This arguments pops up so often. "How dare you abort the savior of humanity."

Think about it. A fetus that is aborted was not likely to become a child that was especially loved or taken good care of. People get abortions for a reason: they feel that, for whatever reason, they are unable to care for the resulting child. Why not trust these people in their decision, instead of speaking for God and declaring that your view of what God wants should be superior to the actual person involved's judgment.

You give more consideration to a bundle of cell in another person's womb than the billion in Africa who slowly starve, the uncounted millions of AIDs victims, countless sufferers around the world. They were born, unwillingly, into a world that does not care and will not take care of them. Why not divert your energies towards those billions already alive than the handful of unborn?

Didn't stop my mom.

Good to hear :D
:)

Good to hear :D
:)
I respect my mom all the more for her strength and willingness to raise a child as a single mother in the Lower East Side.

I want to say that we have a lot of people on this planet. So much that diease and hunger are wide spread. Aboriton is a form of human population control. I support wholeheartly. A women should be able to chose if she wants to hace an abortion or not. You should have no say.

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion.

Now, some people disagree with abortion but think that it’s ok under certain circumstances. An example of one of those circumstances is...a young and beautiful woman is walking down a dark alley at night and a group of guys jumps her and they rape her. A little while later she begins to notice changes in her body so she takes a home pregnancy test and it turns out positive. She hasn’t had sex with anyone at all except when those guys raped her. So it is obvious how she got pregnant. Now she has to make the decision weather to carry this baby and raise it when it is born or to have it slaughtered by doctors... that is one possible scenario that could very easily happen. Many people would say that she should have the right to kill that baby because of how it got there. But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do. If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.


HA! Four points:
1)Not everyone is Christian, so the whole nation shouldn't be forced to follow the Bible
2)Rape is more common than you would admit
3)It's debatable (and widely debated) at what point a baby becomes a sentient being anyway
4) There are already a number of doctors doing abortions on the sly. If we outlawed abortion, it would be like the Prohibition - amount of abortions would probably actually increase. Better to just regulate it instead.

That's all I have to say on this over-contemplated subject. Why don't you take your ultra-Biblical self over to the Sudan and try to stop the violence taking place there, instead of whining about a controversial but medically accepted practice that may or may not end the life of a we're-not-sure-if-it's-sentient-yet being, or at least become a vegetarian. Do you have any idea how many cows get killed every year for meat? They're a lot smarter than an unborn baby, too. Give me a break.

I myself was once a victim of rape and let me tell you, the idea of having a baby that was concieved out of that act discusted me. For two and a half weeks after I was raped, the only thought going through my head was if I was pregnant. And if I was, could I keep it? I have always been agianst abortion, even in such a situation, till I had to face it myself. Trust me, when you're only 16, the idea of becoming a mother isnt that appealing... I was so scared, I didn't want to have to make such a decison, and I'm glad i didn't have to, but had I had too, I can't imagine what I would've done...

6 Weeks
The embryo looks like a tadpole. It's the size of a BB pellet from crown to rump (crown-to-rump length is used because the baby's legs are usually not well developed yet and are bent and hard to measure). Ultrasound usually detects a heartbeat by now. Between 17 and 56 days the embryo is most susceptible to drugs, disease, and other factors that interfere with normal growth.

20 Weeks
Your baby weighs about 5 ounces (140 grams). The nervous system is starting to function. The genitalia are now fully developed and you can see if it's a boy or a girl. It can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon -- if you haven't already -- you'll feel your baby move, which is called "quickening."

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

and this is a medical source.

brainwaves like a newborn are at 24 weeks, if you're curious.

:mp5: A fetus is still a living human being... the child has a heart and it well stop if you well kill it, so in the end the doctor is a murderer and so is the child's mom! They're no better of than a homicide killer, but they have a mask... and why can't they atone for they immoral deeds, love birds and killers are no different? What type of socity are we going to!??? :headbang:

:mp5: A fetus is still a living human being... the child has a heart and it well stop if you well kill it, so in the end the doctor is a murderer and so is the child's mom! T
Zygotes do not have hearts.

Most premature baby to survive James Elgin Gill was born to Brenda and James Gill (both Canada) on May 20, 1987 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 128 days premature and weighing 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). The normal human gestation period is 280 days (40 weeks). Much of James's body was still developing, including his skin, hands, ears, and feet, with his eyes still fused shut. James survived and is now a healthy teenager.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553587129/002-0011115-4756812?v=glance&vi=reviews (if you don't like my source also read the guiness book of records, if you don't believe them go sue them I don't want to hear it.)

Which is 21 weeks. (280days-128days=152days. 152days/7days(in a week) = 21.714....weeks).

From my reading though it is mostly the lungs that are the problem with premature births and not the brain.

Also interested in reading where you got the brainwaves at 24weeks from as that contradicts everything i've read.

Also many women feel quickening as early as 16 weeks, we would feel it earlier than that, however the baby is just too small earlier than that for us to feel it's movements.

At my ultrasound at 11weeks there was a lot of room in the embryonic sack for the baby to move around in (and I saw the baby move)...this changes as the baby grows, there becomes less room for it to move around unnoticed by the mother.

Most premature baby to survive James Elgin Gill was born to Brenda and James Gill (both Canada) on May 20, 1987 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 128 days premature and weighing 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). The normal human gestation period is 280 days (40 weeks). Much of James's body was still developing, including his skin, hands, ears, and feet, with his eyes still fused shut. James survived and is now a healthy teenager.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553587129/002-0011115-4756812?v=glance&vi=reviews (if you don't like my source also read the guiness book of records, if you don't believe them go sue them I don't want to hear it.)

Which is 21 weeks. (280days-128days=152days. 152days/7days(in a week) = 21.714....weeks).

From my reading though it is mostly the lungs that are the problem with premature births and not the brain.

Would you support moving up the limit for abortions (to 3 months, for instance), or outlawing abortion all the way up to fertilization?

I ask, because you can give all the evidence you want that mid-term fetuses are baby-like in appearance and manner, but there is hardly any way to "humanize" a single cell.

Teenagers need to stop the drugs and alcohol too. sorry if this wouldnt fit your rainbow swirl dream.
Hate to burst your moralistic bubble, but experimenting with risk-taking behaviours is part of a normal adolescence. It's more the environment of that risk, and other relationships etc. that shape how things turn out...

Also interested in reading where you got the brainwaves at 24weeks from as that contradicts everything i've read.
My lecture notes and straight from my Professor's mouth.
We are of course, referring to the cerebral cortex here, as that is what determines consciousness, rather than primitive functional areas such as the brainstem.
Her notes are sourced from Kandel, Schwartz and Jessel, Principles of Neuroscience, 4th edition.

Would you support moving up the limit for abortions (to 3 months, for instance), or outlawing abortion all the way up to fertilization?

I ask, because you can give all the evidence you want that mid-term fetuses are baby-like in appearance and manner, but there is hardly any way to "humanize" a single cell.

When I had my first ultrasound what I saw was not a single cell but a tiny baby that moved that's heart was beating. 11 weeks is still in the first trimester when many people have abortions. I think if you have the morning after pill you are probably most often just distroying a single cell, but by the time we skip a period it is already around week 6-8. (they count from the first day of your last period) Four weeks if she is on the ball, has regular periods of 28 days and doesnt wait a few days (or a week or two to make sure you isnt late) You cannot test earlier as pregnancy tests work by measuring the amount of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in the blood. These work best 2 weeks after you ovulate and most women don't really know exactly when they are ovulating. Then the woman has to decide if she wants an abortion or not....how long do you think she gives herself to think on this? would vary. Then she decides to get an abortion. Then she decides to book into the hospital. Then she does it. So what do you get?

"Q: At what gestational age are most abortions performed?

Half of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at or before 8 weeks LMP (last menstrual period). Modern technology can detect a baby's heartbeat eighteen days after conception. Six weeks from conception, signals from the fetal brain can be detected, and the baby moves spontaneously.

Thirty-nine percent of abortions are performed on babies between 9 and 12 weeks from a woman's last menstrual period, for a total of 89 percent performed by the end of the first trimester, when the baby is six to ten weeks along. A baby at this stage can respond to touch and sound.


In 1987, 90,700 (six percent) were done between 13 and 15 weeks LMP, 55,910 were performed on babies 16-20 weeks LMP, and 9,030 babies of 21 weeks LMP or more were killed by abortion. By about the 14th seek, a baby's lungs are functioning and her or she practices "breathing" amniotic fluid. Vocal cords are formed by the thirteenth week, and except for a lack of air, the baby could be heard to cry.
Statistical source: Family Planning Perspectives 23:75, March/April 1991
"

It is a hard call to say about bans etc, however, women arn't aborting a single cell as you suggested by this stage it's not a single cell anymore. With the morning after pill it would be a cell I think.

It's a very difficult decision, so I think it should be legal but the facts about what women are aborting should be made very known. I've heard so many people say "it's not alive" "its a bunch of cells"...which isnt exactly accurate for abortions.

Those arguements sadly are what people tell women considering an abortion that it's a bunch of cells, that it's not a person yet, and etc, which is just false. I am for proper education on this matter, as painfull as it is to accept. So that decisions with knowledge can be made.

Hate to burst your moralistic bubble, but experimenting with risk-taking behaviours is part of a normal adolescence. It's more the environment of that risk, and other relationships etc. that shape how things turn out...
</QUOTE>
please keep the name of the person you are quoting in there preebles, I did not say the above and do not want it associated with me.
<QUOTE>

My lecture notes and straight from my Professor's mouth.
We are of course, referring to the cerebral cortex here, as that is what determines consciousness, rather than primitive functional areas such as the brainstem.
Her notes are sourced from Kandel, Schwartz and Jessel, Principles of Neuroscience, 4th edition.

Ok, you seem to know a lot about a baby's development. Straight question for you then. Should abortion be legal or illegal? If legal to what stage of gestation should it be legal until and why?

Ok, you seem to know a lot about a baby's development. Straight question for you then. Should abortion be legal or illegal? If legal to what stage of gestation should it be legal until and why?
I wouldn't say a lot...
But as you could probably see from my other posts, I think abortion should be legal at all stages of pregnancy.
The fact remains that most will be done in the early stages anyway. I found stats stating that 99% were performed in Australia are performed before 16 weeks.
Ethically, I justify this by my belief that it is the way of least harm. Harm to the child, mother and people around her; to have the choice there.
I'm attaching a link to a good article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Abortion-a-private-decision/2004/11/07/1099781245817.html?oneclick=true)

:mp5: A fetus is still a living human being... the child has a heart and it well stop if you well kill it, so in the end the doctor is a murderer and so is the child's mom! They're no better of than a homicide killer, but they have a mask... and why can't they atone for they immoral deeds, love birds and killers are no different? What type of socity are we going to!??? :headbang:
Stop whining, Abortion is very important if the woman is raped, or cannot afford to keep the child, or if it will be born with a severe disability

I found some stats, Her Majesty Moonlight, about when in gestation abortions are performed, and I was right. The majority of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks. About 1% are performed after 21 weeks gestation. These are American stats (http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/gestation.asp) but I couldn't find Australian ones.

I hope that allays your concerns...

NB: The rest of that site is the usual awful emotive 'pro-life crap'. :( I didn't realise till after I followed a few of their links. I feel dirty now. Apparently birth control for teenagers is a recipe for disaster... :rolleyes:

"Instead of apportioning blame, Major-General Jeffery has a sane solution: provide education and support for people to make the right decision for themselves. Above all, the decision to have a child should be a matter for private consideration, not something determined by the state or those who believe they have a divine right to limit a woman's right to self-determination."

I agree with this a lot. I would no like to see backyard abortions and the less surgical abortions done on women the better

I just don't want to see the country going the other way where women feel guilty for actually keeping there baby when they feel nervous about whether they would make a good parent (if they don't have a partner or arn't rich etc). I think worries about that are pretty normal for someone that finds out they are pregnant "Am I going to be a good parent?".

Just want to make sure you know I was referring to the Sydney Morning Herold link.

I agree with this a lot. I would no like to see backyard abortions and the less surgical abortions done on women the better
Yup

I just don't want to see the country going the other way where women feel guilty for actually keeping there baby when they feel nervous about whether they would make a good parent (if they don't have a partner or arn't rich etc). I think worries about that are pretty normal for someone that finds out they are pregnant "Am I going to be a good parent?".

Well, abortion has been legal for years and that hasn't happened. And you have to realise that the decision to have an abortion is not an easy one, and I'm quite sure that in the majority of cases, a woman only does it because she perceives that this is the BEST route. It's not about being "not rich," it's about being poor, or in a violent situation, or just at such a time that it would ruin your life.
There is no slippery slope...

When I found out I was pregnant, the father of my child started with "you know if you choose to have an abortion I will support you in your decision". I said, "at the moment I am considering all my options." but over the next days he got worse and worse. He started saying "If you have this baby I don't see why I should give you any money for it." He got his friend to come on the phone to me and tell me how stupid he thought I was for not getting an abortion and how bad life would be for me if I had a baby and he asked me to consider the fathers rights in all this. The condom broke...however he never really wanted to put one on which makes me think he might have broken it, in anycase I think if you are having sex with a woman you have to accept there is a chance she will get pregnant. They just made me feel selfish and dumb. It probably wont suprize you that I don't like to talk to them anymore.
So pressure does happen. I just don't like the thought that other women are treated like this when they don't want to abort. His friend told me he doesnt see why he has to pay for the baby when he doesnt want it but that he would pay for me to have an abortion, and all this while I had terrible morning sickness. I also mentioned that I wanted to breastfeed my baby and probably could not work while doing so and I got "there is no way I am going to support you and the baby while you play single dole bludging mum." I decided to keep the baby anyway. I am determined that my baby will have a happy, healthy life and I will do everything I can to make it so.

I am no millionaire but I have what I need a car, stuff for the baby, and I just really want to be the best mum I can. Thankfully I have support from elsewhere. It is a hard decision to make, I did what I thought was right. I don't think its wrong to being a baby into the world without everything being absolutely perfect for them - when is life ever absolutely perfect?

With the way they treated me, I did start to feel guilty for deciding that I would definately not have an abortion, but why should I feel guilty for feeling unable to kill the baby inside of me?

When I found out I was pregnant, the father of my child started with "you know if you choose to have an abortion I will support you in your decision". I said, "at the moment I am considering all my options." but over the next days he got worse and worse. He started saying "If you have this baby I don't see why I should give you any money for it." He got his friend to come on the phone to me and tell me how stupid he thought I was for not getting an abortion and how bad life would be for me if I had a baby and he asked me to consider the fathers rights in all this. The condom broke...however he never really wanted to put one on which makes me think he might have broken it, in anycase I think if you are having sex with a woman you have to accept there is a chance she will get pregnant. They just made me feel selfish and dumb. It probably wont suprize you that I don't like to talk to them anymore.
So pressure does happen. I just don't like the thought that other women are treated like this when they don't want to abort. His friend told me he doesnt see why he has to pay for the baby when he doesnt want it but that he would pay for me to have an abortion, and all this while I had terrible morning sickness. I also mentioned that I wanted to breastfeed my baby and probably could not work while doing so and I got "there is no way I am going to support you and the baby while you play single dole bludging mum." I decided to keep the baby anyway. I am determined that my baby will have a happy, healthy life and I will do everything I can to make it so.

I am no millionaire but I have what I need a car, stuff for the baby, and I just really want to be the best mum I can. Thankfully I have support from elsewhere. It is a hard decision to make, I did what I thought was right. I don't think its wrong to being a baby into the world without everything being absolutely perfect for them - when is life ever absolutely perfect?
I'm not sure what this is supposed to all mean though. With all sympathy surely you are not blaming the existence of abortions for your poor choice in sexual partners? :confused:

No I am just stating the fact that I would not be the only woman who would have felt pressure to get an abortion.

And whether you like it or not, there are people in the world that would rather kill a baby, than part with there money or lifestyle. It is no concern for the baby or if it is a human, sometimes it is no concern for the woman herself given the complications and risks, and the awfullness of the procedure. In a lot of ways I think that abortion is a great thing for women's rights and the opposite at the same time. There are some men that have no problem with the affects of the pill or morning after pill on women and certainly have no problem with the pain and affects of abortion on women. To these men women are good for sex and with abortion even if mistakes are made and they dont take the pills we ask them too they can be flushed out and used again.

And whether you like it or not, there are people in the world that would rather kill a baby, than part with there money or lifestyle. It is no concern for the baby or if it is a human, sometimes it is no concern for the woman herself given the complications and risks, and the awfullness of the procedure. In a lot of ways I think that abortion is a great thing for women's rights and the opposite at the same time. There are some men that have no problem with the affects of the pill or morning after pill on women and certainly have no problem with the pain and affects of abortion on women. To these men women are good for sex and with abortion even if mistakes are made and they dont take the pills we ask them too they can be flushed out and used again.
I'm well aware of there being many undesirable types of person in the world, I try to not invite them home for dinner, and I try to avoid copulating with them. Granted people make mistakes, and at times undesirable people can be manipulative and deceiving. But as soon as someone starts pressuring you to do something you dont want to do, you can choose to do as they say, choose to ignore them, or even choose dissassociate with them, or minimilise your association with them (ie only with a good friend present). You have options, none of the which the law can or should interfere with.

Having the option of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not you choose to form healthy or unhealthy associations. There are laws to protect you from pressure that incapacitates your ability to choose, and so far as I know in no free society can a doctor legally perform an abortion if you object.

When I found out I was pregnant, the father of my child started with "you know if you choose to have an abortion I will support you in your decision". I said, "at the moment I am considering all my options." but over the next days he got worse and worse. He started saying "If you have this baby I don't see why I should give you any money for it." He got his friend to come on the phone to me and tell me how stupid he thought I was for not getting an abortion and how bad life would be for me if I had a baby and he asked me to consider the fathers rights in all this. The condom broke...however he never really wanted to put one on which makes me think he might have broken it, in anycase I think if you are having sex with a woman you have to accept there is a chance she will get pregnant. They just made me feel selfish and dumb. It probably wont suprize you that I don't like to talk to them anymore.
So pressure does happen. I just don't like the thought that other women are treated like this when they don't want to abort. His friend told me he doesnt see why he has to pay for the baby when he doesnt want it but that he would pay for me to have an abortion, and all this while I had terrible morning sickness. I also mentioned that I wanted to breastfeed my baby and probably could not work while doing so and I got "there is no way I am going to support you and the baby while you play single dole bludging mum." I decided to keep the baby anyway. I am determined that my baby will have a happy, healthy life and I will do everything I can to make it so.
I am no millionaire but I have what I need a car, stuff for the baby, and I just really want to be the best mum I can. Thankfully I have support from elsewhere. It is a hard decision to make, I did what I thought was right. I don't think its wrong to being a baby into the world without everything being absolutely perfect for them - when is life ever absolutely perfect?
In what way is that real pressure? If you were not financially depending on the man you could and should just say good-bye. That's all.
You decided you wanted the baby, that's perfectly fine. But there are great numbers of women who decide otherwise and then those get under pressure from other people not to have an abortion for whatever reasons.
But the only authority in this question is the pregnant woman.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason.


Did you really just say that?? And do you honestly, whole-heartedly believe that??

So let me get this straight, a young, beautiful, innocent woman is walking outside after sun down and some sick, twisted, demented, heartless asshole rapes her...she becomes pregnant. She shouldn't abort because the rape/pregnancy was GOD'S WILL?!?!?!?! Are you for fuckin real!?!?!

What about the young woman. She didn't choose to have sex, she didn't want that to happen. She was raped, forced to let some sick, twisted asshole have sex with her and get her pregnant. So that's it for the woman? She gets no say?? She gets no choice? Even though she didn't give herself willingly, she should not abort the pregnancy because it's GOD'S WILL?!?!

You really need a reality check, and maybe a good kick in the ass. Think about what the hell you're saying. Put yourself in that situation. What would you do? I'm sure you're going to say keep it, blah blah blah. I fuckin doubt it. If something as horrible as rape happened to you, I highly doubt you would want to carry the child of some sicko who violated, disrespected and used you.....all against your will.

Even with all that aside. Who are you to decide what is a good decision for someone?? In a pregnancy, or otherwise. People have freedoms, the right to choose. You don't know what situations most women are in, but apparently abortion at the time is what they need to do and what would be right for their situation.

@Rolanda: don't get upset. There are always retards who still believe that god had anything to say in this matter. But this is just not god's business nor anyone other's business. The only authority in this question is the pregnant woman. NO ONE ELSE.

BTW: anyone who has read the Bible would wonder why god would care about one life if he has no problem wiping out entire populations.

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion.

Now, some people disagree with abortion but think that it’s ok under certain circumstances. An example of one of those circumstances is...a young and beautiful woman is walking down a dark alley at night and a group of guys jumps her and they rape her. A little while later she begins to notice changes in her body so she takes a home pregnancy test and it turns out positive. She hasn’t had sex with anyone at all except when those guys raped her. So it is obvious how she got pregnant. Now she has to make the decision weather to carry this baby and raise it when it is born or to have it slaughtered by doctors... that is one possible scenario that could very easily happen. Many people would say that she should have the right to kill that baby because of how it got there. But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do. If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.


This is a perfect example on how religion screws with people.

Ok, AP is an agnostic NS, that is, without a real belief one way or another as to whether a God or spirituality exists. It is also well versed in the sciences. Now, the way that two groups are treating each other seems to be inciting an ideology of war against one another. This is not necessarry.

Read the old and new testament, then look at the big bang theory, and think about whether or not matter can either be created or destroyed (it is more complex than this, but so is theology compared to what AP has written).

Harsh words are coming from two groups that are both somewhat inconsistent in their belief systems. The moral of the story, both ideologies have uncertainty and inconsistency. Stop praising yourselves as morally or intellectually superior and the other as inferior. To a reasonable observer most of you, not all, are beginning look like fools.

If it is a womans right to choose and hers alone, explain how having or not having an abortion only effects the woman.
If you believe it is morally wrong explain how a fetus qualifies as a living human being.
Discuss why abortion should never be justified.
Alternative, discuss situations where abortion is justified.
Illustrate how the implications of stances transcend abortion.

All this can be done based on the teaching of religion and spirituality, the concept of rights, and the use of science. There is no need to mention and bash a God, hold yourself as morally superior, or consider yourself intellectually superior in this discussion. Offer reasoning, discredit others, refute, and rebutt. Then, alter viewpoints accordingly, do not act irrationally.

Ok, AP is an agnostic NS, that is, without a real belief one way or another as to whether a God or spirituality exists. It is also well versed in the sciences. Now, the way that two groups are treating each other seems to be inciting an ideology of war against one another. This is not necessarry.

Read the old and new testament, then look at the big bang theory, and think about whether or not matter can either be created or destroyed (it is more complex than this, but so is theology compared to what AP has written).

Harsh words are coming from two groups that are both somewhat inconsistent in their belief systems. The moral of the story, both ideologies have uncertainty and inconsistency. Stop praising yourselves as morally or intellectually superior and the other as inferior. To a reasonable observer most of you, not all, are beginning look like fools.

Well I don't know about you but I know I tend to believe in logical and reasonable answers for those really big questions. I also tend not to believe that some invisible man created all that I see. There are better chances of there being aliens on the billions of worlds that are out there then there is of a invisible man running the show and that he created everything especially people.

Well then... discuss the reasoning offered by those religeous individuals as to why abortion is wrong. Some are not stating it is wrong because a god said so. They have offered moral explanations as to why killing should not be tolerated.

Read other AP posts, we stand for the same thing with respect to the use of logical reasoning in discussions of whether an act is morally right or wrong.

Also when refering to a religeous diety understand that is not considered to be a man, or any other physical being for that matter, but a spiritual one.

How many of you on here believe that abortion is ok in the case of rape?

I think it's ok. I think it's completely the mother's decision. In fact, I think that some RETROACTIVE abortions would do society lots of good.

Fortunatly I will never have to have an abortion(as I cant have children) but I do believe that it is the womans choice and should be allowed to have an abortion. The only reason that I would disapprove of is the abortion of a child due to its sex. In many places in London that I know of, parenst arent allowed to find out the sex of the child to prevent the abortion of girls.

When I found out I was pregnant, the father of my child started with "you know if you choose to have an abortion I will support you in your decision". I said, "at the moment I am considering all my options." but over the next days he got worse and worse. He started saying "If you have this baby I don't see why I should give you any money for it." He got his friend to come on the phone to me and tell me how stupid he thought I was for not getting an abortion and how bad life would be for me if I had a baby and he asked me to consider the fathers rights in all this. The condom broke...however he never really wanted to put one on which makes me think he might have broken it, in anycase I think if you are having sex with a woman you have to accept there is a chance she will get pregnant. They just made me feel selfish and dumb. It probably wont suprize you that I don't like to talk to them anymore.
So pressure does happen. I just don't like the thought that other women are treated like this when they don't want to abort. His friend told me he doesnt see why he has to pay for the baby when he doesnt want it but that he would pay for me to have an abortion, and all this while I had terrible morning sickness. I also mentioned that I wanted to breastfeed my baby and probably could not work while doing so and I got "there is no way I am going to support you and the baby while you play single dole bludging mum." I decided to keep the baby anyway. I am determined that my baby will have a happy, healthy life and I will do everything I can to make it so.

I am no millionaire but I have what I need a car, stuff for the baby, and I just really want to be the best mum I can. Thankfully I have support from elsewhere. It is a hard decision to make, I did what I thought was right. I don't think its wrong to being a baby into the world without everything being absolutely perfect for them - when is life ever absolutely perfect?

And that was YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE. Other women have the right to choose abortion. What's right for you isn't right for every other woman on this planet.

By having sex you prepare yourself to donate whatever organs a child may need. You donate your body if a willing child needs it. If you are not prepared for this to happen, or at least prepared to deal with the consequences, you are irresponsible and selfish. Take some responsibility, stop just indulging yourself at the expense of others(the dead baby).

In no other case can I be forced to donate an organ, even if I am selfish and irresponsible. Even if I origingally give consent, I can remove that consent at any point.

I do NOT 'donate my body if a willing child needs it'. I say "Get this thing out of me because I don't want it attached to me". And guess what? Everyone else has the same right, and there's no reason I shouldn't have it.

Feel free to call me names, because I don't give a damn about your opinion of me.

But stay the fuck away from my legal rights to keep my body to myself. I can remove consent for 'donating my body'. That's what an abortion IS.

If it is a womans right to choose and hers alone, explain how having or not having an abortion only effects the woman.

I think few if any acts at all effect no one besides the instigator/s of the act.
Discuss why abortion should never be justified.
In a totalitarian society it would have to be justified, however in a free society the onus is opposite, one need not justify freedom to act, but rather any infringement on such freedom cannot be allowed unless it is justified within the context of presumed freedom.

Illustrate how the implications of stances transcend abortion.
According to many who willingly gave their lives, freedom transcends life, death and anything else in between, including abortion. For myself, there are many existences which I would rather not experiance and would choose to not live, I class freedom as more important than an unlived life. Without freedom we all would have unlived lives.

If it is a womans right to choose and hers alone, explain how having or not having an abortion only effects the woman.

in our modern society, pretty much every choice you make will effect other people...my choice of breakfast food impacts other people, for crying out loud, since my choice to pick up a bagel at the mom&pop place next door is pretty much keeping their business afloat :P. we don't give or deny freedoms based on who is "effected," since pretty much every one of our freedoms "effects" other people.


If you believe it is morally wrong explain how a fetus qualifies as a living human being.

if a fetus is a human being, and has exactly the same rights that you or me or any other human has, then abortion should be 100% legal at any time, for any reason. no human being has the right to force another human being to give up their organs or tissues, and no human being can be compelled to use their body for service to another person if they withhold their consent...we call that "slavery" or "rape." the only way to make a fetus' rights trump a woman's right to choose is if fetuses are given rights that no living human being has.


Discuss why abortion should never be justified.

abortion should never be justified because it needs no justification. having an abortion is a good, responsible, healthy choice for more than half of the pregnancies that occur, and a woman doesn't need to justify having an abortion any more than she needs to justify brushing her teeth or paying her bills...if she does what is healthy and responsible she should be praised, not asked to justify her good behavior.


Alternative, discuss situations where abortion is justified.

again, abortion never needs to be justified. the only situation in which abortion is wrong is if the woman in question does not consent to the abortion.


Illustrate how the implications of stances transcend abortion.

as i have said, the only way to build pro-life legislation is to grant fetuses superhuman status, and to give rights to the "unborn" than none of the "born" enjoy. i'd say the implications of that are pretty obvious.

I officially feel dumber for reading this. I wish you could be raped, knocked up, then tied down by a government official until a 12lb baby comes out of you screaming. Then I hope you wake up from this nightmare in a cold sweat and decide to either be more compassionate...OR STAY THE HELL OF THE BUSINESS OF PEOPLE WHOSE SITUATION YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND!!

I mean...um...who are you to judge? :)
Stop flaming.

if a fetus is a human being, and has exactly the same rights that you or me or any other human has, then abortion should be 100% legal at any time, for any reason. no human being has the right to force another human being to give up their organs or tissues, and no human being can be compelled to use their body for service to another person if they withhold their consent...we call that "slavery" or "rape." the only way to make a fetus' rights trump a woman's right to choose is if fetuses are given rights that no living human being has.



Lol I am not taking sides

But if you are assuming a fetus is a human ... then there are TWO cases of super human rights being given

1 force the mother to keep the baby ... the organ tissue thing
2 allow the mother to kill the baby

So in eather case super human rights are given

(I personaly am making no such assumptions) just pointing out that alowing abourtion in the case of it being a human gives super human rights too ... but now alowing it gives another group super human rights

(so dont get so mad about one group geting more rights then the other lol)

its all about your POV on what a fetus is

.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life?

Given the epistemological uncertainty regarding the child's actions you can't use those kinds of arguments. The child could equally be the next Adolph Hitler: why would you take that chance?

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either God predetermines the course of people's lives, as you claim when you talk about a foetus which is destined to find a cure for cancer, in which case any woman having an abortion is doing so because it's part of God's plan, or people have a choice, in which case it's ridiculous to talk about a mother "murdering the world" by aborting a would-be super-foetus.

It may be attractive to imagine oneself confounding God's Big Plan, but a tad egomaniacal. The GBP is inconfoundable or non-existent.

Given the epistemological uncertainty regarding the child's actions you can't use those kinds of arguments. The child could equally be the next Adolph Hitler: why would you take that chance?

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either God predetermines the course of people's lives, as you claim when you talk about a foetus which is destined to find a cure for cancer, in which case any woman having an abortion is doing so because it's part of God's plan, or people have a choice, in which case it's ridiculous to talk about a mother "murdering the world" by aborting a would-be super-foetus.

It may be attractive to imagine oneself confounding God's Big Plan, but a tad egomaniacal. The GBP is inconfoundable or non-existent.

Good point … that maybe it was part of gods plan to have the abortion! Seriously anyone that presumes to know what a supreme being is thinking needs a wee bit of a reality check. (assuming there is even a god … not an assumption I am willing to make)

What makes you or anyone else the undisputed spokeperson for "God"? If I suggest God's plan is for everyone to take responsibility for themselves, and this includes reproduction, and further assert that contraception and abortion are viable tools to use, why should this opinion on God's plan be any more or less worthwhile, viable, valid etc than yours?

I'm sure that with a bit of fishing around in the Bible I can put together some random quotes to back my opinion with THE SCRIPTURE.

And if I want to go elsewhere and quote from the Vedas, or Buddhist scriptures, of the Quoran, on what basis, apart from dogmatic assertion that your particular religion is superior to others, would you refute these authorities?

In short, the assertion that you know "God's Plan" and are an authority on IT is just that, an assertion unsupported by anything other than your tautological dogmatism. Such an assertion may be illustrative of your personal beliefs but contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion or to your argument. It is a meaningless statement.

What makes you or anyone else the undisputed spokeperson for "God"? If I suggest God's plan is for everyone to take responsibility for themselves, and this includes reproduction, and further assert that contraception and abortion are viable tools to use, why should this opinion on God's plan be any more or less worthwhile, viable, valid etc than yours?

I'm sure that with a bit of fishing around in the Bible I can put together some random quotes to back my opinion with THE SCRIPTURE.

And if I want to go elsewhere and quote from the Vedas, or Buddhist scriptures, of the Quoran, on what basis, apart from dogmatic assertion that your particular religion is superior to others, would you refute these authorities?

In short, the assertion that you know "God's Plan" and are an authority on IT is just that, an assertion unsupported by anything other than your tautological dogmatism. Such an assertion may be illustrative of your personal beliefs but contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion or to your argument. It is a meaningless statement.

Lol :) seems a lot like the post above (mine) but better stated over all :)

All I have to say is: Not everyone is Christian and anti-abortion. You don't like them? Don't have one.


So many problems would be solved if Christians could just get that bit of philosophy through their heads.

If you don't like it, don't do it.

But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.

Actually, you *do* choose, at least when and how you end your own life. That's why people can commit suicide, or refuse to be resuscitated, or even why they can choose to have a heart transplant, or chemotherapy in order to prolong that life. It's about choice. If you believe in the Chrisitian God, then you believe in not only good and evil, but the ideal that God created mankind to have freedom of choice, freedom to do what they choose to with their life, and their world.

Are you for capital punishment? I should think not, if you truly believe that life is sacred. Otherwise, you would support people picking and choosing when and how to end another life, and you've already said that is wrong.

God has a plan for everyone. ...If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world.

This is a moot point for atheists and people who don't believe in the Christian God (though I'm positve that some other religions are probably against abortion, as well). Do you think that only Christians and those other religions should be forbidden to have abortions, or that the entire country should conform to one religious code?

Another great 'what if' would be, "What if the woman was going to be a nun, and save thousands of people, like Mother Theresa, but was turned away from the Church for bearing an illigetimate child?". Or how about, "What if the mother was going to cure cancer, or discover an alternative fuel resource, but couldn't support herself, or attend college while raising a baby?". And you've ignored a very common reason that women in the described scenario have abortions at all, "What if the rape caused damage to the woman and her reproductive system, and the odds were that either the mother and baby would both die, or at least be seriously, seriously damaged, to the point of being unable to lead a real life?"

And the entire world will never rest in the hands of one single child. It's not possible, so that was a specious and patronizing comment to make.

What I don't understand is how people like you refuse to entertain the obvious question, "What if it was God's plan for a woman to have an abortion? What if God was teaching her something, or that that abortion would cause her to make another decision later on down the road that would really impact the world?" If you want to use the "God's will for the baby to LIVE!" argument, you must also accept the reverse.

After all, in the Christian Bible, it was God's will, not Satan's, that Judas betray Christ, because that action is what led to the kingdom of Heaven being opened, and the sins of the world forgiven. The same applies to Peter denying Christ three times, because that guilt is what drove him to found Christianity.

Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

Does anyone ask children in Africa if they want to die of AIDS, or starve to death? Did anyone ask the children in Iraq if they wanted to die in rubble, or grow up in an unstable, war-torn nation ruled by military might and terror? Of course not.

I'm genuinely curious. How would you recommend asking a mass of flesh and tissue inside of a woman's womb that has yet to form a brain a question? How would you interpret the answer? That's why it doesn't get to pick and choose, because it can't, because it's not really alive yet. You can claim that life starts in the womb, fine. It can't really be proven, so it can't be used in an argument. And for the sake of my sanity, the word is 'whether', not 'weather'.

Would anyone who is not suicidal really want to die, in any way? That's a pointless question.

If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.

My mother has been on a waiting list to adopt a child for nearly ten years now. Don't tell me that adoptions are common. They are messy, difficult, and nearly impossible to achieve in this country of paperwork. Also, the financial cost for both biological and adopting parents is astronomical.

Have you ever carried a child? Would you like to carry a child you don't want, can't safely deliver, and don't need for nine months?

You've used the words "slaughter" and "butcher" to refer to abortions.

Slaughter: 1) The killing of animals especially for food. 2) The killing of a large number of people; a massacre.
Butcher: 1) One who slaughters and dresses animals for food or market. The act of doing so. 2) One who sells meats. 3) One that kills brutally or indiscriminately. The act of doing so.

As you can clearly see, both words are used incorrectly. Just because a word gives you dramatic effect does not mean that you should use it poorly. It weakens your arguments considerably.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.

Not. Everyone. In. The. World. Is. Christian. Grow up, and get over it. Just because someone does not believe what you do religiously does not make them stupid. Some people have sex because they love their partner. Loving someone and sharing something beautiful with them is not a crime, nor should it be considered a sin.

There are religious men who have killed their daughters when they became pregnate, to prevent them from dishonering their families and bringing a "sinful child" into the world. Majority of abortions are had by girls in families likie these, who are afraid of what their parents will do to them if they have the baby, or even reveal their pregnancy.

And here are some fast facts about abortion that punch several holes in your "teens-are-the-ones-having-all-of-the-abortions-and-they-shouldn't-even-be-having-sex" theory. Sample statistic: "About 80% of women having abortions were over the age of 18."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact2.htm

well now a days women have a one night stand and say "well thats ok I can just get an abortion!" its become a 1st resoucre! that is bad because abortions are bad for you! why can't they just use the day after pill, or they could just not do it at all!

Yes, but if all goes right with the girl, and she had a decent partner, she won't even *be* pregnate. Did you know that not every sexual encounter automatically results in the birth of a child?

I don't understand. You're against abortion, but you're for women taking a pill that will make sure that if a sperm actually managed to reach an egg and fertilize it, it will be rendered useless?

Honey... that's one of the most common types of abortion.

I do agree with the fact that I don't have the right to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body. But if she is going to kill our kid she has another thing comming. get off it ladie, that is a kid inside you , it is not your body it is your kids body. If a women ever aborted my kid, three lives would prolly be ruined. 1. the kid 2. I would kill her cuz she killed my kid ( what parent would not seek justice over the wrongful death of their child and since laws will do nothing I would have to get my own justice) 3. Mine, cuz I would stand up in court and say, "Yes, I killed my childs murderer" and not regret it one bit.

So you're telling us that you are so concerned with the sancity of life that you would go out and kill someone because you believe that they violated it? :p

Marvelous.

You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.
Yeah they can/have/do/will always do. Everybody I know is a killer and hardly ever give any second though about it. You thinking that people are above that sort of thing is a joke.

I know, but an argument based on God not existing is just as irrelevant as an argument based on God existing.

You know, I bet a conversation in the Middle Ages went just like this:

Galileo: "You know, I bet the sun is the centre of the universe. In fact, I'd wager that the Earth revolves around it!
Bishop: "No! The sun revolves around the Earth!"
Galileo: "Prove it."
Bishop: "You cannot! It is the will of God, both unprovable, and undeniable!"
Galileo: "The sun-revolving-the-Earth Theory is irrelievant to my studies, though, because you can't prove it."
Bishop: "An argument based on that Theory not being true is just as pointless as an argument based on it being true, then."
Galileo: *boggle* (o.0) "But... What about the theory I can prove?!"
Bishop: "Shush up, now, and off you go, my son, to house arrest..."

:p ;)

ok well I know people who have used abortion as a 1st resources dear! so back off! You might not know anyone but there are people out there that do that kind of stuff! Bush wants it to be a last resources, good try though may next time Preebles

Yes, but how many people do you really know? In the last three years, there have been only 1,312,990 abortions in the United States. Did you know every one of those women? No? Then you can't project a sterotype on them.

How many people die each year from drunk driving and drunk drivers? I know a lot of people who drink a whole lot, and then, as their first resort, they drive themselves home. Does this mean that everyone involved in those accidents, and all of the people who died were just like those people I know? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

God has a plan for everyone.
Your whole argument hinges on the existence, common acceptence, and government institutionalization of religion. The government is, unfortunately for you, agnostic. You lose!

God has a plan for everyone.

I stopped reading here. Not everyone is a Christian, and even those who are may disagree.

Going back to your "God has a plan" thing-


The Bible states that God grants us free will, correct?

So then how is God omniscient and knows our fate already, IF WE HAVE FREE WILL? If we have free will God cannot know what path we will chooose? How can there be a "master plan"?

This is a discussion that I had with another Christian Friend of mine. The way we explained it made sense, so maybe it'll make ssense to you, too.

Ok. We, as a human race have free will, according to the belief found in Christianity and other Abrahamic Religions. God knows what we are going to do already, but we as mere mortal humans cannot know God's plan for us. So, we have a free will, but God already knows what we are going to do. I think that the only thing in your argument that doesn't have any back up is that "If we have a free will {sic, no comma} God cannot know what path we will choose?" Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and just all-around all knowing, he knows what is going on in our lives. He knows that sometimes the things we have to go through pretty much suck. He knows that because the Christian faith believes that Jesus Christ (Who was an actual person, who was crucified; there is proof. Just adding that because someone once told me that there was no person named Jesus Christ who died on the cross.) was human and God all at once (how cool is that?) and had to experience things like skinned knees, hurt feelings, and other upsetting events just the same as you and me.

But back to the original post, does that make any sense? God knows what we are going to do because He is omnipotent and all-knowing, but we have the impressionof a Free will because we can't know His ultimate plan for us.

And, I don't know if you are Christian or not, but thank you for respecting the religion enough to capitilize "God" and "Bible." It kind of makes me sad when people don't.

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion.

Now, some people disagree with abortion but think that it’s ok under certain circumstances. An example of one of those circumstances is...a young and beautiful woman is walking down a dark alley at night and a group of guys jumps her and they rape her. A little while later she begins to notice changes in her body so she takes a home pregnancy test and it turns out positive. She hasn’t had sex with anyone at all except when those guys raped her. So it is obvious how she got pregnant. Now she has to make the decision weather to carry this baby and raise it when it is born or to have it slaughtered by doctors... that is one possible scenario that could very easily happen. Many people would say that she should have the right to kill that baby because of how it got there. But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do. If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.

And what of the freanks who rape their daughter. You want the women be carry the child their of FATHER? Their boy/brother or girl/sister?

Given the epistemological uncertainty regarding the child's actions you can't use those kinds of arguments. The child could equally be the next Adolph Hitler: why would you take that chance?

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either God predetermines the course of people's lives, as you claim when you talk about a foetus which is destined to find a cure for cancer, in which case any woman having an abortion is doing so because it's part of God's plan, or people have a choice, in which case it's ridiculous to talk about a mother "murdering the world" by aborting a would-be super-foetus.

It may be attractive to imagine oneself confounding God's Big Plan, but a tad egomaniacal. The GBP is inconfoundable or non-existent.

That feeds into the question of free will. Psych classes usually don't spend any time on this, but B.F. Skinner said that nothing we do is free will; it is all a result of conditioning. He contends that we just don't know enough about psychology yet; as soon as we do, we will understand that there is no free will. The comment that an abortion might be part of God's plan is interesting...

Just another comment... I think both sides get blurred by emotion and pervert the issues. From the pro-lifers who use death threats, violence, lies, and overly graphic images, to the pro-choicers of Planned Parenthood who deem it appropriate to sell shirts that say "I had an abortion"...
I'm amazed by both sides. I'm pro-choice, as I've already loudly announced, but I think even the pro-choicers lose sight of the consideration of the mother; they are so concerned with furthering their "cause" that they forget the source and personal nature of that cause.

And what of the freanks who rape their daughter. You want the women be carry the child their of FATHER? Their boy/brother or girl/sister?

Agreed. Another concern is paying for medical care, time off from work or school (pregnancy is taxing emotionally and physically -- sometimes to the point of incapacitation,) care for the mother, etc...

Another thing I find amazing is that a lot of people who are "pro-life" are also pro death penalty. Obviously they aren't as concerned with the sanctity of life as they claim; if those cells become a murderer or rapist, etc, it's perfectly fine to stick a needle in their arm. But the cells produced by that criminal must be protected at all costs, right?

This site agrees with everything that was posted by grenada before some idiot kicked them off...
www.ucfrevolution.bravehost.com

Hey all of you retards... They never said anyhting about predetermind courses for our lives. They said that God has a plan for each of us. It is up to us to either follow it or ignor him. God doesnt control what we do. He didnt allow us to come up with abortion, we are living our own lives even if God approves. If a child is bron, it is born for a reason. So don't kill it. God bless Grenada.

Lol I am not taking sides

But if you are assuming a fetus is a human ... then there are TWO cases of super human rights being given

1 force the mother to keep the baby ... the organ tissue thing
2 allow the mother to kill the baby

So in eather case super human rights are given

on the contrary, allowing a woman to simply refuse to allow her body to be used to maintain the life of another human is NOT a superhuman right. any human being in the free world has the right to say, "no, i don't want my organs/tissues/blood/body being used for that." whether or not the other person will die is irrelevant to this right, as no human can be forced to donate their body against their will. a woman has the right to demand a fetus be removed from her body at any time, for any reason, based on our laws regarding the ownership of one's own body...whether or not the fetus dies as a result doesn't have any impact on her right to exercise that choice.


(I personaly am making no such assumptions) just pointing out that alowing abourtion in the case of it being a human gives super human rights too ... but now alowing it gives another group super human rights

sorry, it does not. allowing a woman to abort if she chooses is the ONLY course that is consistent with our moral values about one's own body belonging to oneself and no other. if you believe that a person can be forced to let their body be used for purposes they don't agree with then you support slavery, period. to say a woman's body belongs to anybody other than her is a gross violation of the most fundamental human rights we cherish.


(so dont get so mad about one group geting more rights then the other lol)
its all about your POV on what a fetus is
again, even if the fetus is given EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE WOMAN, that would still mean that the right to choice should be guaranteed. the fetus has the right to say that no other being can feed off of its body, and so does the woman. the fetus has the right to remove itself from the woman's body whenever it wishes to break that connection, just as the woman has the right to break that connection. but neither the woman nor the fetus has the right to FORCE another human being to biologically support their life.

no born human being has the right to force a woman to give up her freedom, her organs, her blood, and her right to choose her medical care...so how can anybody possibly justify giving a fetus such rights? simple: "pro-life" people don't care about the fetus' rights, and don't have any intention of actually giving rights to fetuses, they want to give rights to THEMSELVES. they want to have the right to dictate what other people do, and they want to take away other peoples' right to make choices that Pro-Life America doesn't approve. their actions clearly show that the welfare of children isn't a priority in the slightest, and i think it's funny how transparently selfish these self-proclaimed "advocates of the unborn" really are.

This site agrees with everything that was posted by grenada before some idiot kicked them off...
www.ucfrevolution.bravehost.com

Yeah, Grenada... I notice that you took some parts of your first post wholesale from that site. Word of caution: don't call the Mods that kicked you off "idiots", or else you'll eventually get ISP banned.

Hey all of you retards... They never said anyhting about predetermind courses for our lives. They said that God has a plan for each of us. It is up to us to either follow it or ignor him. God doesnt control what we do. He didnt allow us to come up with abortion, we are living our own lives even if God approves. If a child is bron, it is born for a reason. So don't kill it. God bless Grenada.

So if it's up to use to either follow Gpd's plan or ignore it, why can't we choose to ignore it?

. . .

If a child is bron, it is born for a reason. So don't kill it. God bless Grenada.

Who the fuck has been talking about killing a child who has been "bron"? ...or even BORN? Maybe you should look up "abortion", Grenada, it's not about killing anyone who has been born.

So if it's up to use to either follow Gpd's plan or ignore it, why can't we choose to ignore it?

Because Grenada wouldn't like it. :)

OMG, this always goes the same way!!! Someone says something agin abortion, someone else rants about a woman's body, then morals are argued about, then brainwaves! IT ALWAYS GOES THE SAME FRAGGIN' WAY! Can I just say that the "woman's right to do what she wants with her body" argument MAY NOT be valid, because it is entirely probable the baby is sentient, and therefore is a separate being. I hope everybody here does agree that about at about 36 weeks is wrong - beyond that there is no difference between the unborn and the born, except that it is smaller and less physically developed.

Please, no-one use the "ooh, how would YOU like to be raped" argument against me. I could not be made pregnant due to some chromosonal anomalies that resulted in my being male - and don't say "So, therefore you can't argue because you don't know what it's like to be woman" - this is the same as saying that humans can't argue about animal rights because they aren't rabbits or suchlike, and that white people can't talk about how terrible the slavery trade was, because they're not black.

Basically, I am tryin' to make two points here: The baby may not be a part of the mother just 'cos it's inside her (please think on that); and please don't use stupid firey flamey arguments.

(My hand hurts from all that typing!) Just because I'm white male Christian pro-life doesn't mean I'm fascistic and sexist. I really do feel sorry for the women involved - but I still don't feel that it justifies taking a life. See? That is what compassionate conservatism should be like! Now can we all discuss this sensibly like men of goodwill, and not accuse each other of being mass-murderers or misogynists????


Do you know why it always goes the same way? Because the facts don't change. I'm not talking about the rhetoric flowing back and forth, but the pure simple facts.

Fact 1) It takes a man and a woman to concieve, but only women can be pregnant.

This fact leads to rhetoric on both sides. On one side we hear arguments that men should stay out of it because they cannot understand being pregnant and will never have to deal with it. But, as you stated its not really a man's falt he is not designed to carry a baby. Should men have no input or rights on reproduction? On the other side we hear that women should not have sex if they do not want to get pregnant. Here is my compromise rhetoric for this fact: Men should have rights on reproduction! They should have the right NOT to have sex if they do not believe in abortion rights and have any doubt as to their potential partners beliefs! Problem solved.

Fact 2) Although science keeps improving and thus moving the line, there is a point where a child can survive outside the womb without a mother. Once that line is crossed there is absolutely no question of the child's status as being a seperate living being.

There is no real rhetoric relating to this fact. I've yet to see anyone disagree that if a "child" is at a point where it can be "born" and survive, case closed.

Fact 3) (see fact 2) Before the line is crossed, the fetus is in a parasitic relationship with the mother. That is, while the mother can survive without the fetus, the fetus cannot survive without the mother.

On this fact the rhetoric is mostly on one side. Some pro-lifers refuse to acknowledge the parasitic relationship. Perhaps its the word they do not like. The arguments on both sides are basically whether the parasitical nature of a fetus gives the mother a right to end the relationship, or the responsibility to continue the relationship. Why argue it? The answer is 100 percent subjective. No two people use exactly the same criteria to decide this question even if their ultimate answers match.

Fact 4) It is impossible to say with certainty where life truely begins.

Again, why argue it? The answer is 100 percent subjective. Pick a criteria, don't like the answer? Pick a new criteria. It can and will go on back and forth forever. Why bother with it.

Fact 5) A living breathing woman is a human being.

Not a lot of argument on this fact. The rhetoric is whether the woman's status as a human being, gives her control over her body. The true argument is whether a woman's rights over her body are greater than less than or equal to the rights of the fetus.

This brings us to the real issue. Public policy versus personal choice. If I look at the facts and filter them through my own subjective standards and criteria I come out pro-life. It would be my personal choice not to terminate. My standards and criteria are based on my personal life experiences, religious beliefs, values, morals, and even superstitions. These feelings may change as I experience more of life. These are all very subjective criteria, but that is ok since I am only deciding for myself.

In respect to public policy, I remove all my subjective standards and criteria and look just at the facts. When I do that I come out pro-choice.

By having sex you prepare yourself to donate whatever organs a child may need. You donate your body if a willing child needs it. If you are not prepared for this to happen, or at least prepared to deal with the consequences, you are irresponsible and selfish. Take some responsibility, stop just indulging yourself at the expense of others(the dead baby).

I 100 percent agree! Men SHOULD stop having sex! Seriously if men stopped having sex there would never be a need for abortion! If men would just take the time to be responsible and stop indulging themselves at the expense of others (the dead baby) the whole thing would be cleared up instantly.

dont give me that gender crap, im not saying the women should have to bare all the burden, granted, it is in thier body, but the man should be forced by law to pay for and support the child (maybe he is, not absolutely certain on law pertaining to this)....it is a responsibilty for both parties. But yea, it is all responsibilities and consequences, thats life, if you dont want to deal with responsibilitys and consequences dont have sex. Or, if you dont like either of those, I say again, responsibilities and consequences are part of life, if you dont want them dont kill a child, kill yourself, the world will be a better place. Give the children a chance to live, maybe they will do something with thier lives that is good for other people, not just stimulating for themselves.

I applaud the fact that you agree that men should be equally forced to bear the burden of a child. Unfortunately there is no way to equalize the burden. I truely wish there were. Even if you could force financial support, you cannot force fatherhood.

You stated previously that rape should not be a reason for abortion. How exactly would a rapist daddy figure into raising a child? I'm just curious.

I did not catch if you gave an opinion as to cases where its the mother's life or the childs life. I'd be interested in knowing how you would stand on that.

With the way they treated me, I did start to feel guilty for deciding that I would definately not have an abortion, but why should I feel guilty for feeling unable to kill the baby inside of me?


You absolutely should not feel guilty. But neither should you have been guilted if your decision was the opposite. The point of pro-choice is choice, your choice.

No I am just stating the fact that I would not be the only woman who would have felt pressure to get an abortion.

Oh man. Private pressures are all around for everything! I was pressured to pursue a specific education path by my parents. I get pressured by my kids to join various school organizations. Women who want abortions are privately pressured by their family or friends to keep babies. That is all part of personal relationships.

Did some stranger, with absolutely no personal conection to you or the childs father pressure you to have an abortion?

Lol I am not taking sides

But if you are assuming a fetus is a human ... then there are TWO cases of super human rights being given

1 force the mother to keep the baby ... the organ tissue thing
2 allow the mother to kill the baby

So in eather case super human rights are given

(I personaly am making no such assumptions) just pointing out that alowing abourtion in the case of it being a human gives super human rights too ... but now alowing it gives another group super human rights

(so dont get so mad about one group geting more rights then the other lol)

its all about your POV on what a fetus is

Um I'm not sure I am hip to the super-human rights thing, but your logic does not ring true. His/her logic is that no human has the absolute right to enslave and or rape another (I simplified his/her statement). To allow otherwaise in the case of a fetus would be granting rights no regular human has.

You say if this is true the mother's right to "kill" the fetus is a same type right. But that is faulty. If someone holds you against your will and you effect that person's death while you escape you are not considered a murderer by society. If you are being raped and effect the rapists death while avoiding the crime you are also no considered a murderer.

So the right to defend your own body and freedom IS currently a right shared by most. Thus it is not the same super-human right.

Hey all of you retards... They never said anyhting about predetermind courses for our lives. They said that God has a plan for each of us. It is up to us to either follow it or ignor him. God doesnt control what we do. He didnt allow us to come up with abortion, we are living our own lives even if God approves. If a child is bron, it is born for a reason. So don't kill it. God bless Grenada.

*cough* I reiterate my earlier point of OBEY THE STICK!!!!!!111oneoneone
BECAUS IF YOU DON'T JESUS WILL KILL YOU!!!111

Lets take this arguemet further.

Is Masturbating wrong? Because we are killing sperms which could potentially become a baby and finally a person.

We may argue about 'wet dreams', but 'wet dreams' is involuntary, like a mother who's baby misconcieve due to natural circumstances.

So masturbation is wrong. As with Abortion. Because it is murder. :D

*goes off to www.xxx.com*

I'm morally opposed to abortions, but I'm pro-choice. I've explained it before, so I'm not going to here.

Think about that.

What we do with our bodies is up to us as individuals. Once you're out here, and not a symbiote sucking your nutrition like a leech or other parasite, then you can be making choices. Even tiny newborns make choices, they are constrained by their physical weakness but they are making choices on an ongoing basis. It's part of life, whether you're human or another type of creature.
We depend on each other, we are a communal species. We draw together with like-minded folks, where they are available.
The myth that women are out aborting babies willy-nilly is a mean-spirited myth that condenses within it the misogyny of our culture. The urgent need to remind women that they are not as fully human as men, all the while depending on women for the progeny that keep the species going is mind-boggling to me and I often forget that it exists out there, until I am reminded by the blatant blathering of individuals who feel it is critically important that we attend to the domination of women instead of solving world hunger or some other useful task.
How I feel about abortion, sex, and other activities affects my body and soul. What you believe should direct your personal life, so avoid having an abortion since you feel so strongly about it. And, if you are a man, butt out completely, unless you're in a committed relationship with a woman who is considering an abortion (although what you're doing with someone whose views are so diametrically opposed to yours is one of those mysteries of life).
Governments, churches, and other folks cannot form your moral character by imposing rules, laws, and constraints on your behaviour. I look to my own belief structure for the guidelines for living my life.

A wise lady once told me this:

"If abortion equals murder, and meat equals murder, then abortion equals meat."

Thereby, Greneda and his cronies ought to be thankful we aren't all feasting upon baby steaks.

(God help anyone who takes that seriously. x_@;)

I'm morally opposed to abortions, but I'm pro-choice. I've explained it before, so I'm not going to here.

Think about that.

Gotchyer back! ;)