NationStates Jolt Archive

What Do You Think About Abortion?
Should It Be Legal Or Not?
Please Share Your Opinions.
Thank You

as long as you're not the baby.

I'm the type who doesn't like to touch the abortion issue with a ten foot stick.

I think both potential parents should have to agree that the child will be born before NOT aborting the child is legal.

I believe that ones body belongs to them.
SO if the mass of tissue surrounding the baby becomes a potential threat, the fetus should be allowed to abort that bitch. C-sect, incubater for baby.
$.75 bullet in the brain for mom.
Thin the herd.

Simply "It should be legal" or "It shouldn't be legal" doesn't leave much room for those who think it should be legal to a point, or under certain circumstances.

You do include the "until the heart is beating," option, but I must ask why you chose that particular developmental point?

Oh, God, not again.

Is this forum not divisive enough already? Arent you satisfied with the current level of conflict between the

1) the socialists and the capitalists
2) the pro world govt(UN) and pro national sovereignty people
3) The pro gun vs pro gun control people
4) the Bush is the messiah vs Bush is the devil people
5) the America is the saviour vs America is the great Satan people
6) the Europe is the last left before hell vs Europe is ideal society people
7) the insert "Canada" for "Europe" in the above people
8) The moderators are fair vs the mods are liberal apologists people
9) The Iraq liberation was great vs the Iraq invasion is a humanitarian crisis people
10) the forum is too divisive vs the forum is not divisive enough people


That being said, all I have to say about abortion is the following: Thank god I am a man so I do not have to deal with either ABORTION or CHILDBIRTH

What Do You Think About Abortion?
Should It Be Legal Or Not?
Please Share Your Opinions.
Thank You
Do You Want To Know What I Think About Abortion?
I Think You Should Capitalize Only Proper Nouns And Words At The Beginning Of Sentences.
I MEAN, IF YOU ARE GOING TO MISCAPITALIZE THINGS, AT LEAST DO IT LIKE THIS!
Your way requires hitting the shift key far too often. Normal capitalization expends less effort and makes posts easier to read.

I haven't heard a logical argument against abortion to this day. Personally, if I were to become pregnant at this point in my life (second year of college), I'd abort as soon as possible. Pregnancy itself is NOT something I could handle.

I haven't heard a logical argument against abortion to this day. Personally, if I were to become pregnant at this point in my life (second year of college), I'd abort as soon as possible. Pregnancy itself is NOT something I could handle.

And I think you should have every right to do that.

And I think you should have every right to do that.

Seriously,though, has anyone heard a logical argument against it?

Everything I have heard has used:

a.) prescriptive fallacy

b.) inaccurate terminology

c.) emotional appeals

or it has completely denied the fact that the pregnancy is unwanted, not just the result.

Seriously,though, has anyone heard a logical argument against it?

Everything I have heard has used:

a.) prescriptive fallacy

b.) inaccurate terminology

c.) emotional appeals

or it has completely denied the fact that the pregnancy is unwanted, not just the result.

The pregnancy is unwanted by the mother. That does not mean it is unwanted by the fetus(assuming of course that one believes it to be a living, thinking, feeling human being. If its just a bag of non sentient cells then no one including itself cares).

It should also be noted that given the prevalence, availability and low cost of various forms of birth control, sex /= pregnancy. There are even morning after pills. So, if a person remains pregnant after some pre determined point(1st trimester, 2nd trimester, 23 1/3 days, the 1st full moon following..whatever) then abortion should no longer be an option unless the mother's PHYSICAL health is in danger.

We all make CHOICES and are forced to live with the consequences. Staying pregnant after a certain point is a CHOICE and the mother should have to live with that choice. I'll leave it to people who have a clue about pregnancy to figure out what that cut off date should be.

I will take a firm stand on partial birth abortion though. I think this practice(except when the mother's LIFE is in GRAVE danger) is sick and evil. The big contradiction comes when I realize that I dont want women who elect for this procedure to actually have children.

The pregnancy is unwanted by the mother. That does not mean it is unwanted by the fetus(assuming of course that one believes it to be a living, thinking, feeling human being. If its just a bag of non sentient cells then no one including itself cares).

It should also be noted that given the prevalence, availability and low cost of various forms of birth control, sex /= pregnancy. There are even morning after pills. So, if a person remains pregnant after some pre determined point(1st trimester, 2nd trimester, 23 1/3 days, the 1st full moon following..whatever) then abortion should no longer be an option unless the mother's PHYSICAL health is in danger.

We all make CHOICES and are forced to live with the consequences. Staying pregnant after a certain point is a CHOICE and the mother should have to live with that choice. I'll leave it to people who have a clue about pregnancy to figure out what that cut off date should be.

I will take a firm stand on partial birth abortion though. I think this practice(except when the mother's LIFE is in GRAVE danger) is sick and evil. The big contradiction comes when I realize that I dont want women who elect for this procedure to actually have children.


First of all, late-term abortion is reserved for medical emergences, so you've got nothing to worry about.

Okay, now that mess is out of the way, I can talk about the contraceptives. Birth control fails. In some instances, even the morning-after pill failed. I know it is rare, but it happens.

Before a certain point in development, the only product of the pregnancy is biologically a clump of non-sentient cells.

You are right. Not terminating the pregnancy before a certain point is indeed a choice, and many women make that choice, whether it is wise or not. That's one reason why so many children are waiting to be adopted in the US. I know it's not a pleasant thought, but if a woman is just going to leave her offspring as a ward of the state, then they were both better off with the results of an abortion.

First of all, late-term abortion is reserved for medical emergences, so you've got nothing to worry about.

Okay, now that mess is out of the way, I can talk about the contraceptives. Birth control fails. In some instances, even the morning-after pill failed. I know it is rare, but it happens.

Before a certain point in development, the only product of the pregnancy is biologically a clump of non-sentient cells.

You are right. Not terminating the pregnancy before a certain point is indeed a choice, and many women make that choice, whether it is wise or not. That's one reason why so many children are waiting to be adopted in the US. I know it's not a pleasant thought, but if a woman is just going to leave her offspring as a ward of the state, then they were both better off with the results of an abortion.

All perfectly valid. The main argument against abortion I can think of is the same one preventing stem cell research. Mainly, theese are ignorant claims that embryos are living being with rights. WTF! People need this research! LIVING PEOPLE! What about THEIR rights!

What Do You Think About Abortion?
Should It Be Legal Or Not?
Please Share Your Opinions.
Thank You

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."-Ronald Reagan.

All perfectly valid. The main argument against abortion I can think of is the same one preventing stem cell research. Mainly, theese are ignorant claims that embryos are living being with rights. WTF! People need this research! LIVING PEOPLE! What about THEIR rights!

Precisely..what do we need more -- one more kid clogging up the adoption system, or a cure for cancer?

Precisely..what do we need more -- one more kid clogging up the adoption system, or a cure for cancer?

Why dont you ask the kid? Oh wait, you cant. He's dead.

Why dont you ask the kid? Oh wait, you cant. He's dead.

Actually, that's not quite true, for two reasons: 1. Gender has not yet been decided. 2. 'He' was never alive and therefore cannot be dead. It never existed as a being.

Actually, that's not quite true, for two reasons: 1. Gender has not yet been decided. 2. 'He' was never alive and therefore cannot be dead. It never existed as a being.

1. Saying "he" is better than saying "it".
2. Try explaining that to the kid who never got a chance at life.

OK!

*finds a pregnant woman*

"Excuse me ma'am."

*cups hands at her stomach*

"Hellllooooooo? Hello in there?! Would you rather have another kid in the adoption system, or the cure for cancer?"

*waits*

"Hmmm..."

*waits some more*

"I guess the kid can't answer. Who woulda thunk it? Sorry for bothering you ma'am."

Why dont you ask the kid? Oh wait, you cant. He's dead.
Can't. The clump of cells has no brain. Nice try.

OK!

*finds a pregnant woman*

"Excuse me ma'am."

*cups hands at her stomach*

"Hellllooooooo? Hello in there?! Would you rather have another kid in the adoption system, or the cure for cancer?"

*waits*

"Hmmm..."

*waits some more*

"I guess the kid can't answer. Who woulda thunk it? Sorry for bothering you ma'am."

So according to you, somebody who cannot speak isn't alive? Genius.

Ahhh!

Did I say they couldn't state their answer? Newp.

I said they couldn't answer.

Even a deaf, mute and blind person can convey their opinion on something.

Funnily enough, an unborn child can't.

Can't. The clump of cells has no brain. Nice try.

Since when does a brain consitute life? Besides, its all about that child getting a chance. But because of people like you he/she/it never got that chance to expirience life. Great job.

If conservatives are so against abortion, why are so many of them so agaist the things that would reduce the demand for them, i.e. contraception and sex-ed? Abstainance only doesn't work. I think after a few thousand years people would get that.

Ahhh!

Did I say they couldn't state their answer? Newp.

I said they couldn't answer.

Even a deaf, mute and blind person can convey their opinion on something.

Funnily enough, an unborn child can't.

To form an opinion on something you must have some life expirience. You, however want to rob it of that expirience.

Great job?

Why thank you.

I hope we can continue for some time.

As for life experiences? Psh-aw.

I do the same to the pigs that are killed for my sausages, the cows for my shoes.

Since when does a brain consitute life? Besides, its all about that child getting a chance. But because of people like you he/she/it never got that chance to expirience life. Great job.

Another emotional appeal. Not gonna work on me, kid.

Last I checked, life wasn't the argument. Otherwise, killing skin cells,puking, eating meat, etc. would be legally considered murder as well. Also, last I checked, a brain was required for sentience.

A child getting a chance? What about me getting a chance -- to finish college, to get a job, to have a family WHEN I'M READY?

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."-Ronald Reagan.
You want to know why abortion should be legal and you bring up Ronald Reagan? :gundge: :headbang:

To form an opinion on something you must have some life expirience. You, however want to rob it of that expirience.

No, you want to rob women of the experience they can get when not barefoot and pregnant.

Abortion is MURDER!!!!

Simple as that.

Abortion is MURDER!!!!

Simple as that.


Murder is the unlawful killing of a sentient being. First, abortion is legal. Second, a clump of cells with no brain is not sentient. Therefore, abortion is not murder.

If you're going to interact with educated, intelligent people in a civilized debate, try backing up your ideas with evidence.

Abortion is MURDER!!!!

Simple as that.
See, this is why abortion needs to stay legal. There's that chance we're killing off close-minded, obnoxious shouters.

"I'm pro-life in every case but yours" -guy who likes jokes

Murder is the unlawful killing of a sentient being. First, abortion is legal. Second, a clump of cells with no brain is not sentient. Therefore, abortion is not murder.

If you're going to interact with educated, intelligent people in a civilized debate, try backing up your ideas with evidence.
See, this is why abortion needs to stay legal. There's that chance we're killing off close-minded, obnoxious shouters.

"I'm pro-life in every case but yours" -guy who likes jokes
:upyours:

Gentlemen! I believe we can add another to the pile.

*throws a stone with "The Plutonian Empire" carved on it into a pile marked "Same Tired, Worthless Arguements"*

First of all, late-term abortion is reserved for medical emergences, so you've got nothing to worry about.

I believe definitions of "health risk" can be very flexible if the practicioner is of a suitable political disposition. However, I have to basis in fact for this belief and would therefore appreciate if anyone does know how many partial birt(DX) abortions take place and whether or not there was a real health risk associated with them.


Okay, now that mess is out of the way, I can talk about the contraceptives. Birth control fails. In some instances, even the morning-after pill failed. I know it is rare, but it happens.

Shit happens, thats life. We do the best we can and move on with the choices available to us.



Before a certain point in development, the only product of the pregnancy is biologically a clump of non-sentient cells.

So YOU say, and I tend to agree. However this is the sort of thing that societies decide as a whole. We decide ages of consent, maturity, pretty much everything in modern society. Society reaches a concensus and the rest are forced to abide by them. We sacrifice some personal liberties so that society can have some framework to function under.


That's one reason why so many children are waiting to be adopted in the US. I know it's not a pleasant thought, but if a woman is just going to leave her offspring as a ward of the state, then they were both better off with the results of an abortion.

While there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, they are mostly older children. There is a complete SHORTAGE of babies waiting to be adopted(In the USA), especially white babies. I know quite a few people whose only recourse to adobt a baby(they were sompletely qualified) was to go to China, at considerable($50,000+) expense. I think people also go to India, but I dont know any non Indians who have done this(Im Indian btw).

Gentlemen! I believe we can add another to the pile.
You forgot to include "ladies" ;)

Plus, I was simply voicing my opinions on abortion. Had no interest whatsoever in arguing with anyone.

I believe definitions of "health risk" can be very flexible if the practicioner is of a suitable political disposition. However, I have to basis in fact for this belief and would therefore appreciate if anyone does know how many partial birt(DX) abortions take place and whether or not there was a real health risk associated with them.

Shit happens, thats life. We do the best we can and move on with the choices available to us.

Yup. Hence why most people in favour of allowing abortion are called pro-choice.

If the contraception fails, there's another route to go if you don't want to have a child. Your choice.


So YOU say, and I tend to agree. However this is the sort of thing that societies decide as a whole. We decide ages of consent, maturity, pretty much everything in modern society. Society reaches a concensus and the rest are forced to abide by them. We sacrifice some personal liberties so that society can have some framework to function under.

Again, true, but for the advancement of society, more intellectual approaches are best (I believe). Most arguements in favour of abortion are based on civil and social liberty principles, and scientific proposals. Most arguements against abortion are emotional / based on morality. Science tends to be objective, and morals subjective, so science should win out.

While there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, they are mostly older children. There is a complete SHORTAGE of babies waiting to be adopted(In the USA), especially white babies. I know quite a few people whose only recourse to adobt a baby(they were sompletely qualified) was to go to China, at considerable($50,000+) expense. I think people also go to India, but I dont know any non Indians who have done this(Im Indian btw).

What, so older children shouldn't be adopted?

To form an opinion on something you must have some life expirience. You, however want to rob it of that expirience.

Come on! An embryo represents a possable lifeform, just like the sperm in my damn testicles, it is NOT a lifeform, it is POTENTIALLY a lifeform. Next you'll be arguing againt vasectomies. And back to stem cells: they are fertilised in a laboratory, no chance at becomming human. What's wrong with this?

Somewhere in the thread someone wrote that there a a lot of children waiting to be adopted. That is true, but newborns are not waiting. If you know you are going to have an abortion, then you don't want the child anyway. So why not put it up for adoption. The list back in 1986 for adopting a new-born caucasian was 5 years long. Who knows how long the list is now. The point is that any newborn is placed with a family.

What, so older children shouldn't be adopted?[/QUOTE]

Yes, but noone wants them. Should we kill them? Apparently they'd be better off as well.

Yup. Hence why most people in favour of allowing abortion are called pro-choice.

they are called pro choice because it sounds better that the other names someone could come up with for this type of advocacy. Same with pro life. Neither baby killers r us NOR mindless religious zealots make very good names for political movements.


If the contraception fails, there's another route to go if you don't want to have a child. Your choice.

Its a choice, one that might or might not be morally defensible. In any case, what about the partial abortion stuff? Are you sayings its acceptable even if the mother is only "not in the mood to be a parent right now"?


I dont know when the transition between "lump of cells" and "human life" begins, if ever, at conception ect ect. But we should pick a time and then stick with it.


Again, true, but for the advancement of society, more intellectual approaches are best (I believe). Most arguements in favour of abortion are based on civil and social liberty principles, and scientific proposals. Most arguements against abortion are emotional / based on morality. Science tends to be objective, and morals subjective, so science should win out.


1) complete bullshit. I can make a completely scientific and rational and moral (or so i believe anyway) argument for both cases. If you cannot then you havent thought about the issue deeply enough.

2) Science does not in any way trump morality. If it did, we would permit all sorts of behaviour such as dissecting people while they are still alive so that we can get a better understanding of how the body reacts while it is being dissected. Science and morallity have always balanced each other

3) The desire to have an abortion is essentially an emotional argument to begin with. There is no scientific/logical reason why a woman NEEDS to have an abortion other than when her life is at risk. So stating that pro choice people are all rational and scientific while pro choice people are simply religious/emotional idiots only reflects that you believe your opinion on the subject is the only valid one.


What, so older children shouldn't be adopted?

People apparantly do not wish to adopt older children with the same frequency as infants. Whether this is right wrong or somewhere in between is an issue that you would have to take up with them.

I will again state my point that there is no problem to get babies adopted into households thereby making your statement regarding abortions and wards of the state wholly incorrect. If you disbelieve me on the state of infant adoptions, that would be a separate point and then we could go about asking each other for sources ect.

Always the problem, that. You adopt less than a totally rigid stand and views get diluted. Serves me right I guess. Anyway...

they are called pro choice because it sounds better that the other names someone could come up with for this type of advocacy. Same with pro life. Neither baby killers r us NOR mindless religious zealots make very good names for political movements.

Its a choice, one that might or might not be morally defensible. In any case, what about the partial abortion stuff? Are you sayings its acceptable even if the mother is only "not in the mood to be a parent right now"?

I dont know when the transition between "lump of cells" and "human life" begins, if ever, at conception ect ect. But we should pick a time and then stick with it.


Yes, the terms chosen for both sides are rather rose-tinted, but they tend to show that side's viewpoint well enough, or the viewpoint the side thinks they have at any rate.

Pro-life : This side is in favour of giving the foetus every chance to become a human life.

Pro-choice : This side is favour of a woman's right to choose what happens to her body over the chance of a potential life.

As for partial abortion, I am only in favour of IT when carrying to term poses a risk to the mother's life / well-being, because from what I know partial abortion are carried out on viable foetii (foetuses? bleh). On the earlier forms of abortion, yes, I do favour the woman's right to choose, even if they don't feel like becoming a parent just right now.

The problem with finding a time and sticking with it is that due to people's moral ideas on the topic, and also due to simple scientific inability to exactly determine it, we can't agree on it. And the correct idea may not be the one accepted due to the braying of the masses, or pressure from groups.


1) complete bullshit. I can make a completely scientific and rational and moral (or so i believe anyway) argument for both cases. If you cannot then you havent thought about the issue deeply enough.

2) Science does not in any way trump morality. If it did, we would permit all sorts of behaviour such as dissecting people while they are still alive so that we can get a better understanding of how the body reacts while it is being dissected. Science and morallity have always balanced each other

3) The desire to have an abortion is essentially an emotional argument to begin with. There is no scientific/logical reason why a woman NEEDS to have an abortion other than when her life is at risk. So stating that pro choice people are all rational and scientific while pro choice people are simply religious/emotional idiots only reflects that you believe your opinion on the subject is the only valid one.

People apparantly do not wish to adopt older children with the same frequency as infants. Whether this is right wrong or somewhere in between is an issue that you would have to take up with them.

I will again state my point that there is no problem to get babies adopted into households thereby making your statement regarding abortions and wards of the state wholly incorrect. If you disbelieve me on the state of infant adoptions, that would be a separate point and then we could go about asking each other for sources ect.

1) I don't doubt it. As I said, MOST people on both sides share a prevailing view on the topic. There will always be exceptions. But from the varied sources I read / listen / watch, the tone I get is the pro-choice side tends to go for a more rational approach (about civil rights, giving people the right to choose and so on) while the pro-life side tends to go for a more moral approach (this is against my religion / this is about the murder of babies, murder is wrong). And while this is the case, the pro-choice camp gets my vote. If the pro-life group as a whole based their viewpoint on the scientific, rational and moral arguements you elude to, I would most certainly re-evaluate my position, but not while the over-riding tone of the pro-life group is "no-one should because we don't think it's right.".

2) Ack, my use of the word science is not exactly what I meant, but it seemed the best one at the time. Science here is meant to mean more than biology and chemistry, but include social sciences as well. To my mind, these sciences hold more weight than moral opinion, because they are held up to objective lights. Two identical stones will always fall at the same speed. Whether or not you believe one should drop faster. There are reasons why we do not dissect people that do not hinge on morality, reasons we don't kill all the homeless simply other than because it's wrong. I'm quite sure if they wanted to dissect someone alive, they would be able to find someone willing.

3) I never said that one side solely believed / stated one thing, rather stated what trends I see from them. Most, not all. There are also logical reasons not to carry to term even if it will not directly harm your health. It could impinge on your lifestyle, force changes you cannot cope with at the time. If a woman cannot care for a child as well as herself, logically she should choose not to have the child.
While the initial decision may be based on both logic and emotion, any discussion that may legalise or make illegal the decision should be based on ideas that can be tested and proven before ideas based on a person's personal perception of right and wrong.

Regarding what you said on adoption, I have no beef with that, aside from the idea that because people want more babies to adopt, more babies should be born. If you're adopting because you want to raise a child yourself, fine. If you want to give some child a better chance in life, what difference does their age make? Other than that:

"your statement on abortions and wards of the state" Buh? Can't see it.

And now it's hellishly late (relatively speaking. 1pm but been up for ages) so I take my leave from this forum, and depart this thread. Even if you pick apart this post, I'm done :p

If I think I'm right about something I live by it but I don't make everyone else do the same. Both sides of the abortion debate think they are right. Only one side demands everyone live by their choice. Against abortion? Fine, don't have one. Since I don't believe it's murder, let me make my choice. That's why one side is called "pro-choice." They believe people should make their own moral choices.

If I think I'm right about something I live by it but I don't make everyone else do the same. Both sides of the abortion debate think they are right. Only one side demands everyone live by their choice. Against abortion? Fine, don't have one. Since I don't believe it's murder, let me make my choice. That's why one side is called "pro-choice." They believe people should make their own moral choices.

We make other people live by the "dont MURDER people" thing. Pro life people think its murder, so they are apply the same standard to unborns(whatever you want to call them) as they do to those that are born. They arent imposing their views on others anymore than we do by making it illegal to shoot your neighbors. The state also protects those that cannot protect/consent for themselves.

The whole thing boils down to whether you define a fertilized egg as a human or a lump of cells. If its a lump of cells, the state has no right to impose itself upon the control of a woman over her own body, if its a human(or some function of a human) then the state has a right to defend its rights even against the will of the mother.

A remark about the poll itself:

"It Should Be Legal If The Fetus's Heart Isn't Yet Beating"
should be replaced by
"It Should Be Legal If The Fetus's Brain Isn't Yet Showing Human Activity"

The heart is just a pump, the brain is the person.

I believe that ones body belongs to them.
SO if the mass of tissue surrounding the baby becomes a potential threat, the fetus should be allowed to abort that bitch. C-sect, incubater for baby.
$.75 bullet in the brain for mom.
Thin the herd.

I love it. :fluffle:

That being said, all I have to say about abortion is the following: Thank god I am a man so I do not have to deal with either ABORTION or CHILDBIRTH

You must be sterile, asexual, or don't give a damn if you impregnate someone or not. Otherwise, at some point in your life you might have to face either abortion or childbirth. :(

... Personally, if I were to become pregnant at this point in my life (second year of college), I'd abort as soon as possible. Pregnancy itself is NOT something I could handle.

Then why not refrain from activity that could result in your becoming pregnant? :confused:

Dolphins have recreational sex, why not humans? :p

EDIT: ZOMG I came back! How'd that happen? OK, no more serious posts here by me ;)

If I think I'm right about something I live by it but I don't make everyone else do the same. Both sides of the abortion debate think they are right. Only one side demands everyone live by their choice. Against abortion? Fine, don't have one. Since I don't believe it's murder, let me make my choice. That's why one side is called "pro-choice." They believe people should make their own moral choices.

Pro-choice. Allow the baby to be born then when it is 18 years old ask it if it wants to live or not. By allowing the woman to make the coice during presgnancy we deny the child the right to choose. :eek:

Then why not refrain from activity that could result in your becoming pregnant? :confused:

1) Because it's one of the best recreational activities around.
2) Because it's 'in our nature' not to refrain from this activity. (unless for the asexual people, but they don't play a big role in the abortion debate).

So basicly, people want to do this. To say it in economic terms: The needs just are.

People also drive around in cars all the time. They run the risk of crashing. This does not mean that we should let them bleed to death because they knew they were engaging in a potentially lethal activity.

I'm extremely pro-life. Abortion should only be allowed if the chance of the mother dying is 100%. Any other case is unnapcceptable for an abortion. And this so called "morning after pill" is evil too and should be made illegal because it is the same thing as abortion. I will defend a childs right to live any day over some dumb teenagers right to execute her kid.

You are absolutely right, not living things should have no rights, we should be able to do whatever we like to them to improve the life of the living, which is the core discussion in stem cell and abortion. I don't what this pregnancy, it would make my life better if it was gone, I'm alive, it's not. I win. I'm one hundred percent with you. But why stop there. After a flawless argument like that lets keep this gravy train running. You know how many people are living in poverty right now? It's a lot and we can do something about it. There are dead people buried all over this land with expensive jewelry on. We should dig up the bodies and take the jewel, after all they are not alive and thus have no rights, and sell it all to be melted down and made into new jewelry. Then the profits can go to people in poverty who deserve the right to live a better life. NO LIFE, NO RIGHT. Screw the not yet born and the already dead, I want a better life. ME ME ME ME ME.

Is this forum not divisive enough already? Arent you satisfied with the current level of conflict between the

1) the socialists and the capitalists
2) the pro world govt(UN) and pro national sovereignty people
3) The pro gun vs pro gun control people
4) the Bush is the messiah vs Bush is the devil people
5) the America is the saviour vs America is the great Satan people
6) the Europe is the last left before hell vs Europe is ideal society people
7) the insert "Canada" for "Europe" in the above people
8) The moderators are fair vs the mods are liberal apologists people
9) The Iraq liberation was great vs the Iraq invasion is a humanitarian crisis people
10) the forum is too divisive vs the forum is not divisive enough people


That being said, all I have to say about abortion is the following: Thank god I am a man so I do not have to deal with either ABORTION or CHILDBIRTH

Those issues don't mean a thing; we still haven't covered "paper or plastic."

Well I'll start off with saying I'm christian, but I'm very much in support of stem cell research, but against abortion.

One thing that I don't think many people realize is its not just poor helpless people are getting abortions, a lot of rich people with emotional problems are getting pregent and then doing abortions, just because they don't want to deal with a baby.

Also If abortions were illegal politicians could stop getting votes just by being on one side of the issue but never actually doing anything on their opinions in office, and also they wouldn't be able to prevent stem cell research.

If abortion beomces legal and that was final I would hope that our society would start to become more aware and not get themselves in the situation in the first place.

You must be sterile, asexual, or don't give a damn if you impregnate someone or not. Otherwise, at some point in your life you might have to face either abortion or childbirth. :(

I was thinking more along the lines of not physically having to deal with either abortion or childbirth. Frankly, I was actually only thinking of childbirth but I had to make it relevant to the thread.

1) Because it's one of the best recreational activities around.
2) Because it's 'in our nature' not to refrain from this activity. (unless for the asexual people, but they don't play a big role in the abortion debate).

So basicly, people want to do this. To say it in economic terms: The needs just are.

People also drive around in cars all the time. They run the risk of crashing. This does not mean that we should let them bleed to death because they knew they were engaging in a potentially lethal activity.

People also dont drive extremely fast in the opposite lane of traffic without their seatbelts. Do you kinda understand the point I am making or should I insult your intelligence by spelling it out?

Its not really Roe v Wade anymore but Casey v PP of Southeastern Pennsylvania, but thats besides the point.

Opinions are like rear ends.
Some people's stink worse than other's.
Opinions that is.....

So here's my stinking opinion:

Being here is God's gift.
What if your parents had decided they didn't want to have you?
However, I have to agree that if the mother's life is in danger, then an abortion may be a consideration.

Blessings!

What if your parents had decided they didn't want to have you?

Would it matter? I wouldn't know and would have no say.

I believe definitions of "health risk" can be very flexible if the practicioner is of a suitable political disposition. However, I have to basis in fact for this belief and would therefore appreciate if anyone does know how many partial birt(DX) abortions take place and whether or not there was a real health risk associated with them.



Shit happens, thats life. We do the best we can and move on with the choices available to us.




So YOU say, and I tend to agree. However this is the sort of thing that societies decide as a whole. We decide ages of consent, maturity, pretty much everything in modern society. Society reaches a concensus and the rest are forced to abide by them. We sacrifice some personal liberties so that society can have some framework to function under.



While there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, they are mostly older children. There is a complete SHORTAGE of babies waiting to be adopted(In the USA), especially white babies. I know quite a few people whose only recourse to adobt a baby(they were sompletely qualified) was to go to China, at considerable($50,000+) expense. I think people also go to India, but I dont know any non Indians who have done this(Im Indian btw).

Well, physicians are going to do that with things other than abortion anyway. Many of them prescribe painkillers when they are completely unnecessary. That's just something that happens, and some cases are going to slip through no matter what.


Yes, I know shit happens, and we have to deal with it through the choices that are available to us. Abortion is completely legal and obviously available to those who are able to afford it.


Notice that I said "biologically." No one can argue that it is biologically anything else. They can argue that it is a person, a baby, or whatever they want in any other sense, but biologically it will remain a clump of cells with no brain.

I wish people would learn to look past age, skin color, disability, gender, health, etc. and HELP the children who are waiting to be adopted. It's a little weird to me for someone to be so adamant about adopting such a young life-form that he/she will not know that this person is not his/her biological parent, unless it is physically obvious. Something about that just creeps me out slightly.

Somewhere in the thread someone wrote that there a a lot of children waiting to be adopted. That is true, but newborns are not waiting. If you know you are going to have an abortion, then you don't want the child anyway. So why not put it up for adoption. The list back in 1986 for adopting a new-born caucasian was 5 years long. Who knows how long the list is now. The point is that any newborn is placed with a family.

If I know I am going to have the abortion, it is the pregnancy that I am concerned with, not the end result. Abortion ends unwanted pregnancies. Adoption ends unwanted parenthood.

1) Because it's one of the best recreational activities around.
2) Because it's 'in our nature' not to refrain from this activity. (unless for the asexual people, but they don't play a big role in the abortion debate).

So basicly, people want to do this. To say it in economic terms: The needs just are.

I have no problem with your philosophy. I do have a problem with people who are not willing to accept the responsibility of their actions and in this case it would be to provide for the baby that is a result of these actions.

...Screw the not yet born and the already dead, I want a better life. ME ME ME ME ME.

Talk about a selfish and self centered attitude. All for me and screw everyone else. I feel sorry for you.

That being said, all I have to say about abortion is the following: Thank god I am a man so I do not have to deal with either ABORTION or CHILDBIRTH
Amen.

...Notice that I said "biologically." No one can argue that it is biologically anything else. They can argue that it is a person, a baby, or whatever they want in any other sense, but biologically it will remain a clump of cells with no brain.

1. Would you accept the following? Death has been medically defined as the absence of both a heartbeat and brain activity. Therefore, we can define life as the presence of both a heartbeat and brain activity.

2. Next question is for someone with a lot more medical knowledge than I have; at what point in the development of a fetus is both brainwave and heartbeat measurable. Facts please not opinion. Source please if available.

3. If you accept the above definition of life, would you be against abortion at that stage in the development of the fetus except in cases where the life of the mother is at stake? If not, why not?

At 21 days after conception there is a measurable heart beat. Fact: At 40 days after conception, before the earliest abortions, there are measurable brain waves.
http://www.epm.org/articles/hsprolif.html

At 24 Weeks' Gestation:
· This is the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy.
· The interconnection or "wiring up" of the fetal brain has begun. The nerve cells of the neocortex begin to synapse with nerve cells from the thalamus, which is the relay point for the body's sensory input. Bursts of recognizable brain waves start to appear among the random signals.
· The earliest point at which a fetus can possibly survive outside the womb is about 23-24 weeks of gestation (500 grams or approximately 1 lb). At this stage the chance of survival is low and the risk of impairment and disability quite serious.
· Scientists say that this point of survivability will not change in the foreseeable future, because the fetal lung does not mature sufficiently to permit even mechanically-assisted breathing before week 23-24 of gestation.
http://www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html

But science also shows that by the third trimester the fetus has become much more human than once thought--exhibiting, in particular, full brain activity. In short, new fetal research argues for keeping abortion legal in the first two trimesters of pregnancy and prohibiting it in the third.

http://www.tnr.com/013100/easterbrook013100.html

Ok, so I cheated and goggled it. My first reference seems a little suspect but the other two look about right. Can we then conclude that at the start of the third trimester life is present and any termination of that life, except to save the life of the mother, should be illegal?

Anyone who thinks that abortion shouldn't be legal, because the child can be adopted, had better adopt a heroin baby.

1. Would you accept the following? Death has been medically defined as the absence of both a heartbeat and brain activity. Therefore, we can define life as the presence of both a heartbeat and brain activity. You are incorrect. The medicolegal definition of death is either cessation of circulatory functionor cessation of brain activity, including the brain stem. Frequently one precedes the other, but death can be determined to have occured with only one condition.

Can we then conclude that at the start of the third trimester life is present and any termination of that life, except to save the life of the mother, should be illegal?This is essentially the state of abortion law in the U.S. at this point in time. Abortion on demand is limited to the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions in second and third trimesters are done because the health of the mother is jeopardized.

This is another example on the public's ignorance of that case. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion. It would make it a state issue. Roe v. Wade federally guaranteed the right to an abolition nationwide; nothing more.

Despite being primarily a firm Liberal, abortion is an issue on which I am less certain.
On one hand, there is the issue of human life. I am not religious, but I still regard life as being somewhat sacred. People speak of being pro-choice, but does a foetus have any say in the matter? No.
On the other hand, there is the mother's life. People have their own lives to lead and should be allowed to make their own choices...
...But should you be able to take a life away because of that?
Overall, I'd say that abortion should be legal before the brain starts working. After that, only if the mother's life is at risk.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

All perfectly valid. The main argument against abortion I can think of is the same one preventing stem cell research. Mainly, theese are ignorant claims that embryos are living being with rights. WTF! People need this research! LIVING PEOPLE! What about THEIR rights!

It also ignores the fact that abortion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with stem cell research, but go figure.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."-Ronald Reagan.

Abortion is only opposed by persons who have themselves been born.

Go figure.

Since when does a brain consitute life? Besides, its all about that child getting a chance. But because of people like you he/she/it never got that chance to expirience life. Great job.

A brain itself does not constitute life. However, one of the requirements to be determined as a living organism is the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an organism. In human beings (and the vast majority of animals), this is accomplished through a nervous system. Until a rudimentary nervous system is developed, the embryo does not meet said stipulation.

Please, however, define child, so that we all know where you are coming from here.

I believe definitions of "health risk" can be very flexible if the practicioner is of a suitable political disposition. However, I have to basis in fact for this belief and would therefore appreciate if anyone does know how many partial birt(DX) abortions take place and whether or not there was a real health risk associated with them.

Dilation and extraction is a procedure only even possibly in late 2nd term and 3rd term pregnancies. In every state in this country 3rd term fetuses (which are at or damn close to viability) can only be aborted if the mother's life is in danger.

Some doctors are liberal with the 2nd term reasoning (as many states require a medical need for this time period), but other methods are generally used.

However, except in the one or two states in which 2nd term abortions are not restricted, there is always some sort of health risk required for said procedure.

While there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, they are mostly older children. There is a complete SHORTAGE of babies waiting to be adopted(In the USA), especially white babies. I know quite a few people whose only recourse to adobt a baby(they were sompletely qualified) was to go to China, at considerable($50,000+) expense. I think people also go to India, but I dont know any non Indians who have done this(Im Indian btw).

If these people really want a child, but are only willing to adopt an infant, they shouldn't be given a child in the first place.

And it is interesting that you add "especially white babies." Your later assertion that there is no problem at all getting infants adopted is laughable. There is no problem getting healthy, white infants with no risk of health problems adopted. If the baby is any other ethnicity, comes from a mother on drugs, or has any familial risk of health problems, it is just about guarranteed to become a ward of the state.

We make other people live by the "dont MURDER people" thing. Pro life people think its murder, so they are apply the same standard to unborns(whatever you want to call them) as they do to those that are born. They arent imposing their views on others anymore than we do by making it illegal to shoot your neighbors. The state also protects those that cannot protect/consent for themselves.

The whole thing boils down to whether you define a fertilized egg as a human or a lump of cells. If its a lump of cells, the state has no right to impose itself upon the control of a woman over her own body, if its a human(or some function of a human) then the state has a right to defend its rights even against the will of the mother.

This is exactly the issue.

And the only reasons to define an embryo as life are religious, subjective reasons. As such, anyone wishing to legislate such an idea is forcing their own personal religious decisions upon other people, in clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Pro-choice. Allow the baby to be born then when it is 18 years old ask it if it wants to live or not. By allowing the woman to make the coice during presgnancy we deny the child the right to choose. :eek:

Define child.

I'm extremely pro-life. Abortion should only be allowed if the chance of the mother dying is 100%. Any other case is unnapcceptable for an abortion. And this so called "morning after pill" is evil too and should be made illegal because it is the same thing as abortion. I will defend a childs right to live any day over some dumb teenagers right to execute her kid.

Define child.

Define kid.

You know what, I don't like abortion, but I really don't give a shit anymore about this issue.

This is another example on the public's ignorance of that case. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion. It would make it a state issue. Roe v. Wade federally guaranteed the right to an abolition nationwide; nothing more.

True a revesal might not outlaw abortion, but it would give the Congress the opportunity to outlaw abortion.

2. Next question is for someone with a lot more medical knowledge than I have; at what point in the development of a fetus is both brainwave and heartbeat measurable. Facts please not opinion. Source please if available.

Numerous sources are available, but they are very few and far between on the internet.

The circulatory system is the first organ system to fully form. I don't have a date on that, but I do know that it is prior to nervous system development. The heart is the first fully formed organ in development.

However, I can tell you that a rudimentary, mostly reflexive nervous system is developed about the end of the 1st trimester. Many states refer to this as the "quickening" because the fetus can now move of its own accord. And in all states but one or two, this is the absolute cutoff for elective abortions.

Measurable brain waves do not occur until somewhere around the 20th week (mid-2nd trimester).

Now, #1 wouldn't really work as how we define life, but you are somewhat close, so I figured I'd give you the development times.

3. If you accept the above definition of life, would you be against abortion at that stage in the development of the fetus except in cases where the life of the mother is at stake? If not, why not?

I can tell you the way I look at it. Personally, I am against abortion unless there is a significant health risk anyways.

Legally, I feel that elective abortion should be permissable (as it is) up until the rudimentary nervous system is developed. At this point, the fetus can theoretically feel pain and is, itself, an organism. The mother should have to prove a health risk before getting an abortion after this point. I wouldn't say "her life must be at stake" because we are still talking about an organism that is living off of her exactly as a parasite, regardless of what emotional significance we may attach to it.

Once the fetus has reached viability, the mother should have to demonstrate a risk to her life. Even in these cases, all measures should be taken to preserve both lives, if possible. However, if only one can be saved, it should be that of the already living and breathing mother.

You are incorrect. The medicolegal definition of death is either cessation of circulatory functionor cessation of brain activity, including the brain stem. Frequently one precedes the other, but death can be determined to have occured with only one condition

So we can define life as the presence of either a heartbeat or brain activity. We can roll the time frame back to four to eight weeks. No abortions after life begins unless for the healt of the mother.

How many of you will accept that?

RAR! I'm AGAINST abortion!

RAR! I'm FOR abortion!

RAR! I'm sick of seeing the same thread over and over again!

If you are going to bring up this topic again how about including something interesting and new to debate that is connected to this topic.

I suppose this is a newbie thread. Made by newbie for newbies to makes their newbie opinion known.

Maybe I should just ignore simple posts like this from now on and keep such comments to myself...

I think that Abortion should stay legalized because of the history of the United States government's actions towards reproduction in the past. Let me cite a case named...Griswold vs. CT where the Connecticut state government prevented the use of contraception to be used by a married couple just because the state wanted to have more children to be born into the work force. The same thinking was applied towards single, never married women and men. Let's also cite the former Comstock Laws that prevented the use of contraception on both the parts of men and women and deemed obscene material and also anything that advertised it. Let me also state that always during times of war, the government wants to replenish the lands by making it impossible for there to be access to contraception or abortion.

The fact of the matter is the United States government has no right to get involved in the reproductive rights of women and it has presented itself throughout history as nothing but out for its own self interest because of it. Not only that, but it is WOMEN that give birth to children, not MEN. I believe that if the roles were reversed men would want the right to get an abortion like women are today. The irony throughout all of this is that the entire fucking world needs women to have children, but is willing to refuse her autonomy as the ultimate decisionmaker to have a child or not. I personally do not understand why anyone would want to bring a child into a world like this, where their lives will be different because they are born either male or female.

Another factor that upsets me is that it is 1000 times easier for a male to get a vasectomy while it is 1000 times harder for a female to get a hysterectomy. I should know, I am 19 years old and want a hysterectomy and was refused outright, but if I were a male I don't think any doctor would have refused. You just think about that and you will see what the fuck I am talking about in a fucked up world like this.

So we can define life as the presence of either a heartbeat or brain activity. We can roll the time frame back to four to eight weeks. No abortions after life begins unless for the healt of the mother.

How many of you will accept that?The definition of life != the opposite of death. The absence of death is not all that's required for an organism to be considered "living." Cells die, but by themselves are not considered "a life."

Historically (and quite rationally), the time of "quickening" (or "ensoulment" according to early JudeoChristian belief) is considered the point that a fetus begins to be alive. That makes it somewhere early in the 2nd trimester. The majority of states restrict abortion past that point.

This is another example on the public's ignorance of that case. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion. It would make it a state issue. Roe v. Wade federally guaranteed the right to an abolition nationwide; nothing more.

Yes, you are correct. However, Roe v Wade has come to symbolize the whole abortion debate even though it is essentially a states rights issue.

So we can define life as the presence of either a heartbeat or brain activity. We can roll the time frame back to four to eight weeks. No abortions after life begins unless for the healt of the mother.

How many of you will accept that?

You know, a heart placed in an electrolyte solution will beat all on its own. I guess that means that a human heart is a full human being with all of the rights thereof....

Of course, I know you won't agree with this. That is why certain requirements have been set down about what is and is not considered an organism. One of those requirements is the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity. A fetus does not meet said requirement until there is a sufficent nervous system with which to do it.

Define child.

Sorry. Should have said fetus (that if allowed to live will become a child)

Of course, I know you won't agree with this. That is why certain requirements have been set down about what is and is not considered an organism. One of those requirements is the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity. A fetus does not meet said requirement until there is a sufficent nervous system with which to do it.

My point is this; If medical science and the legal system can define death, why can't they define the start of life? Why isn't the start of life the antithesis of death? :confused:

I think it should be legal up to a month after birth.

My point is this; If medical science and the legal system can define death, why can't they define the start of life? Why isn't the start of life the antithesis of death? :confused:

They can, and have, and it is the reason for which we have the restrictions upon abortions we currently have today - as I have already pointed out.

And the start of life is not the antithesis of death because you cannot be dead until you have already been alive. A rock is not dead, it is merely not alive.

Edit: This is not to imply that there is not still debate on the matter. However, certain requirements for the definition of a living entity have been basically agreed upon.

Sorry. Should have said fetus

Or embryo, since the vast majority of abortions (and pretty much all elective abortions) occur at this time point.

(that if allowed to live will become a child)

Possibly.

Or embryo, since the vast majority of abortions (and pretty much all elective abortions) occur at this time point.



Possibly.
More then a 50% chance that an egg won't survive to become a child.

And the start of life is not the antithesis of death because you cannot be dead until you have already been alive...
Edit: This is not to imply that there is not still debate on the matter. However, certain requirements for the definition of a living entity have been basically agreed upon.

I’m still confused, but given my age that might be quite understandable. :)

Antithesis = direct opposite. So, if death is defined as…why isn’t life defined as…?
We are talking about living human beings here, not mineral etc. Why must this be such a complicated issue? Oh, stupid me. Rational human beings are involved. :headbang:

What are those "requirements for a living entity?" :confused:

I’m still confused, but given my age that might be quite understandable. :)

Antithesis = direct opposite. So, if death is defined as…why isn’t life defined as…?
We are talking about living human beings here, not mineral etc. Why must this be such a complicated issue? Oh, stupid me. Rational human beings are involved. :headbang:

What are those "requirements for a living entity?" :confused:
Living does not equal being alive in the legal sense of the term. You can't die until you've been alive.

A cat is living, but you aren't charged with murder if you kill it. A skin cell is living, but you aren't charged with murder if you kill it.

untill the baby is born, it is not a human. It is a fetus with the potential to become a human. If you kill something that is nto a human, it is not considered murder. And thats why abortion is not murder, plain and simple enough for anyone to understand


now to what you all are talking about, as i said above, i believe that untill the baby is born it has the potential to become a human, not a human


and then my stance on abortion is that it should be the womans choice, as it is her body and her possible-baby. That argument has been said over and over again, but i also do believe that if you are really that anti-abortion, than dont get one, but dont prevent those who believe in it from getting one. It goes along with the whole mind-your-own-business thing, just dont get one, and feel higher than the people who do.


Oh, and if anyone has read Staying Fat for Sarah Burns by Chris Crutcher, there are plenty of good arguments in there

untill the baby is born, it is not a human. It is a fetus with the potential to become a human. If you kill something that is nto a human, it is not considered murder. And thats why abortion is not murder, plain and simple enough for anyone to understand


now to what you all are talking about, as i said above, i believe that untill the baby is born it has the potential to become a human, not a human


and then my stance on abortion is that it should be the womans choice, as it is her body and her possible-baby. That argument has been said over and over again, but i also do believe that if you are really that anti-abortion, than dont get one, but dont prevent those who believe in it from getting one. It goes along with the whole mind-your-own-business thing, just dont get one, and feel higher than the people who do.


Oh, and if anyone has read Staying Fat for Sarah Burns by Chris Crutcher, there are plenty of good arguments in there

Antithesis = direct opposite. So, if death is defined as…why isn’t life defined as…?

Death is not the direct opposite of life. *Staying alive* is the exact opposite of death.

We are talking about living human beings here, not mineral etc.

We are talking about the terms living, non-living, and dead. The rock example was used to demonstrate that non-living does not equate to dead.

What are those "requirements for a living entity?" :confused:

Individually:
- Must be able to obtain and utilize nutrients (ie. metabolism)
- Must be able to excrete wastes
- Must be able to sense and respond to stimuli

Also used to define life, but not generally on an individual basis:
- Must have some method of reproduction

1. Would you accept the following? Death has been medically defined as the absence of both a heartbeat and brain activity. Therefore, we can define life as the presence of both a heartbeat and brain activity.

2. Next question is for someone with a lot more medical knowledge than I have; at what point in the development of a fetus is both brainwave and heartbeat measurable. Facts please not opinion. Source please if available.

3. If you accept the above definition of life, would you be against abortion at that stage in the development of the fetus except in cases where the life of the mother is at stake? If not, why not?


1. That's pretty much the definition I was getting at. Thanks.

2. Someone answered this in the post after yours, so I won't repeat it and waste time.

3. I am against non-emergency abortion after a certain point, but not for biological reasons. It seems like common sense to me. If you can't decide to terminate within the first three to four months, then you might as well go through with it. You obviously had your doubts about termination to begin with, so you're probably better off (psychologically, I suppose) not having that option anymore.

By emergency abortion, I mean in any case in which the mother's life is at stake, or if the fetus has a medical problem for which the survival rate is unacceptable(say, less than 25%, maybe). For example, if it will be born with a large hole in its heart, the mother should be able to decide whether to abort when it is detected, or to give birth and let the newborn die from the severe birth defect.

If conservatives are so against abortion, why are so many of them so agaist the things that would reduce the demand for them, i.e. contraception and sex-ed? Abstainance only doesn't work. I think after a few thousand years people would get that.
Abstinence is the only form of birth control that works EVERY TIME it's tried.

Another emotional appeal. Not gonna work on me, kid.

Last I checked, life wasn't the argument. Otherwise, killing skin cells,puking, eating meat, etc. would be legally considered murder as well. Also, last I checked, a brain was required for sentience.

A child getting a chance? What about me getting a chance -- to finish college, to get a job, to have a family WHEN I'M READY?
Should've thought of that before you got pregnant (and yes, the guy who got you pregnant, as well). Sorry it is INCONVENIENT for you, easier to have sex and just abort than be responsible, isn't it?

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that works EVERY TIME it's tried.
and abstinance-only sex ed programs are the only form of sex education (and i use that term generously, in this case) that have been conclusively proven to INCREASE the likelihood that young people will have unprotected sex, contract STDs, and/or become pregnant before age 20.

Should've thought of that before you got pregnant (and yes, the guy who got you pregnant, as well). Sorry it is INCONVENIENT for you, easier to have sex and just abort than be responsible, isn't it?
abortion is often the most responsible choice in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. please demonstrate, objectively, how that is not the case before you attempt to wander on your emotive tangents.

This is exactly the issue.

And the only reasons to define an embryo as life are religious, subjective reasons. As such, anyone wishing to legislate such an idea is forcing their own personal religious decisions upon other people, in clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
The only reasons to define an embryo as life are not religious - many people who are not religious in the least are against abortion. Subjective, yes. Theoretically, all our laws are made by legislators, elected by us to reflect our own, subjective, values. If we made a law forbidding abortion because the Bible says it is wrong, then yes, it would be unconstitutional. However, if that law is made because the collective values of the people who elected their legislators believe it is wrong, then there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

abortion is often the most responsible choice in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. please demonstrate, objectively, how that is not the case before you attempt to wander on your emotive tangents.
And getting pregnant in the first place is not irresponsible? And my reasons are as subjective as yours - I believe the fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, is a life worthy of protection. You do not. Other reasoning I have seen has said the child is just going to be a ward of the state, so save them the misery. Then why not kill it after it is born? Why not at 2 years old, since no one wants it and it will have a bad life?

and abstinance-only sex ed programs are the only form of sex education (and i use that term generously, in this case) that have been conclusively proven to INCREASE the likelihood that young people will have unprotected sex, contract STDs, and/or become pregnant before age 20.


Bravo! Finally someone points this out!!

and abstinance-only sex ed programs are the only form of sex education (and i use that term generously, in this case) that have been conclusively proven to INCREASE the likelihood that young people will have unprotected sex, contract STDs, and/or become pregnant before age 20.
Conclusively? An abstinence program was instituted in one of the African countries, the name escapes me right now, and has been hugely successful in reducing AIDS, and other countries are looking at modeling their programs after it. I will look for a source. Your sources that abstinence programs increase these things?

And getting pregnant in the first place is not irresponsible? And my reasons are as subjective as yours - I believe the fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, is a life worthy of protection. You do not. Other reasoning I have seen has said the child is just going to be a ward of the state, so save them the misery. Then why not kill it after it is born? Why not at 2 years old, since no one wants it and it will have a bad life?

I'm going to give you a reason that sounds kind of stupid, but it actually makes sense, in a fucked up way -- waiting until after birth, or 2 years as you state, is laziness. Kill it before it develops a brain.

Conclusively? An abstinence program was instituted in one of the African countries, the name escapes me right now, and has been hugely successful in reducing AIDS, and other countries are looking at modeling their programs after it. I will look for a source. Your sources that abstinence programs increase these things?

That is because it shot down the common African myth that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. We already know that myth is complete bullshit in the US, so it's not exactly going to help us.

That is because it shot down the common African myth that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. We already know that myth is complete bullshit in the US, so it's not exactly going to help us.
Ha, that's a fucking awesome myth though!
:p

I'm going to give you a reason that sounds kind of stupid, but it actually makes sense, in a fucked up way -- waiting until after birth, or 2 years as you state, is laziness. Kill it before it develops a brain.
It has a brain at birth. It actually has a brain before birth - not sure of the exact stage of pregnancy. And, so you are saying, it is just laziness, and if you decided to overcome your laziness, you would kill a baby at birth, or at 2 years old?

It has a brain at birth. It actually has a brain before birth - not sure of the exact stage of pregnancy. And, so you are saying, it is just laziness, and if you decided to overcome your laziness, you would kill a baby at birth, or at 2 years old?
Overcoming the laziness would be killing it before it develops a brain.
Am I right, AFS?

Here is a site that seems to indicate abstinence is effective:

Abstinence Statistics (http://www.teen-aid.org/Abstinence_Education/What_Does_Research_Show/Understanding_Graphs.htm)

Overcoming the laziness would be killing it before it develops a brain.
Am I right, AFS?

Hell fucking yes, Neo-Anarchists! Ten points to...what's your house again? hehe..sorry, too much Harry Potter.

Anyway, someone has obviously forgotten to follow rule one -- before anything, READ THE POST IN ITS ENTIRETY.

That is because it shot down the common African myth that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. We already know that myth is complete bullshit in the US, so it's not exactly going to help us.
And why wasn't the "normal" teaching of contraception able to shoot down this myth? Why would they believe abstinence would be more effective than contraception?

Here is a site that seems to indicate abstinence is effective:

Abstinence Statistics (http://www.teen-aid.org/Abstinence_Education/What_Does_Research_Show/Understanding_Graphs.htm)

Those statistics rely heavily on other factors. Abstinence education ALONE does jack shit, unless you've got some heavy mind control going on behind those classroom doors.

And why wasn't the "normal" teaching of contraception able to shoot down this myth? Why would they believe abstinence would be more effective than contraception?

In those areas, contraception is not readily available. The abstinence they were teaching was more of an anti-rape thing than anything else.

Hell fucking yes, Neo-Anarchists! Ten points to...what's your house again? hehe..sorry, too much Harry Potter.

Anyway, someone has obviously forgotten to follow rule one -- before anything, READ THE POST IN ITS ENTIRETY.
I did:

"waiting until after birth, or 2 years as you state, is laziness. Kill it before it develops a brain." You did not state in your post, however, that you believed "it" had a brain at birth or at 2 or at any stage at all. You did not define your parameter. And, the statement seems to imply that the only thing wrong with killing "it", even with a brain, is that it is lazy, not that it is wrong.

unless you've got some heavy mind control going on behind those classroom doors.
That's what we used to joke about the little boxes being for.
In the health rooms, there were these little plastic boxes mounted too high up the walls for most kids to reach, encased in a steel mesh. We always made cracks about 'The Mind Control Box isn't on, ma'am!' whenever somebody wasn't listening to the teacher. Nobody ever did figure out what the hell those boxes were...

Those statistics rely heavily on other factors. Abstinence education ALONE does jack shit, unless you've got some heavy mind control going on behind those classroom doors.
I ask again: your source? And I am not saying that this source is conclusive, just that it shows evidence that an abstinence education can be effective. You have yet to show evidence that it does not.

I did:

"waiting until after birth, or 2 years as you state, is laziness. Kill it before it develops a brain." You did not state in your post, however, that you believed "it" had a brain at birth or at 2 or at any stage at all.
It's fairly obvious that it has a brain at/after birth, isn't it?

It's fairly obvious that it has a brain at/after birth, isn't it?
To me, certainly. I assume nothing about others. You know what happens when you assume ...

I did:

"waiting until after birth, or 2 years as you state, is laziness. Kill it before it develops a brain." You did not state in your post, however, that you believed "it" had a brain at birth or at 2 or at any stage at all. You did not define your parameter. And, the statement seems to imply that the only thing wrong with killing "it", even with a brain, is that it is lazy, not that it is wrong.


I was stating that it is lazy to wait until birth or two years to decide that one does not want to be a parent. Make the decision early, during the first 20 weeks at least, before it develops a brain.


I'm through with you. You're obviously not getting what I intended to convey through my posts, so I'm just wasting my time.

I was stating that it is lazy to wait until birth or two years to decide that one does not want to be a parent. Make the decision early, during the first 20 weeks at least, before it develops a brain.


I'm through with you. You're obviously not getting what I intended to convey through my posts, so I'm just wasting my time.
I'm trying to understand what you are saying, and in turn communicate my point of view. I thought the point of these forums was open and spirited debate. I apologise if I have offended - I have simply tried to convey to you a point of view different from your own, and one that I feel strongly about.

I ask again: your source? And I am not saying that this source is conclusive, just that it shows evidence that an abstinence education can be effective. You have yet to show evidence that it does not.
a few snippets of evidence that abstinence "education" doesn't work:

AGI — Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2003, accessed 2004, June 24). Facts in Brief: Sexuality Education, 2003.

Jemmott, John, et al. (1998). "Abstinence and Safer Sex HIV Risk-Reduction Interventions for African-American Adolescents, A Randomized Trial." JAMA, 279(19), 1529-1536.

Kirby, Douglas. (1999). "Sexuality and Sex Education at Home and School." Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews 10(2), 195-209. Same authors, (2000, July). "Effective Approaches to Reducing Adolescent Unprotected Sex, Pregnancy, and Childbearing." Report to the Surgeon General.

a few snippets of evidence that abstinence "education" doesn't work:

AGI — Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2003, accessed 2004, June 24). Facts in Brief: Sexuality Education, 2003.

Jemmott, John, et al. (1998). "Abstinence and Safer Sex HIV Risk-Reduction Interventions for African-American Adolescents, A Randomized Trial." JAMA, 279(19), 1529-1536.

Kirby, Douglas. (1999). "Sexuality and Sex Education at Home and School." Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews 10(2), 195-209. Same authors, (2000, July). "Effective Approaches to Reducing Adolescent Unprotected Sex, Pregnancy, and Childbearing." Report to the Surgeon General.
And here's one that shows the opposite, more recent, commissioned by the US Department of Health:

Abstinence Education Report (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence02/)

And here's one that shows the opposite, more recent, commissioned by the US Department of Health:

Abstinence Education Report (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence02/)
LOL, sorry, i will go with the CDC on this one...head to their site and you can learn all about how kids are more likely to contract STDs if they are in abstinence-only programs :). personally, i could care less if kids have sex, i just want them to be safe when they do it, and the simple fact is that programs that ONLY teach abstinence put kids in danger. comprehensive sex ed teaches abstinence in addition to the other important information, and (sadly) that reality totally negates your source. we're chatting about abstinence-ONLY education here, not about comprehensive programs that present abstinence as an option.

LOL, sorry, i will go with the CDC on this one...head to their site and you can learn all about how kids are more likely to contract STDs if they are in abstinence-only programs :). personally, i could care less if kids have sex, i just want them to be safe when they do it, and the simple fact is that programs that ONLY teach abstinence put kids in danger. comprehensive sex ed teaches abstinence in addition to the other important information, and (sadly) that reality totally negates your source. we're chatting about abstinence-ONLY education here, not about comprehensive programs that present abstinence as an option.
Hooray!
Somebody making logical sense!
*kneels in praise*

LOL, sorry, i will go with the CDC on this one...head to their site and you can learn all about how kids are more likely to contract STDs if they are in abstinence-only programs :). personally, i could care less if kids have sex, i just want them to be safe when they do it, and the simple fact is that programs that ONLY teach abstinence put kids in danger. comprehensive sex ed teaches abstinence in addition to the other important information, and (sadly) that reality totally negates your source. we're chatting about abstinence-ONLY education here, not about comprehensive programs that present abstinence as an option.
Heard something not too long ago (sorry, I don't remember the source) that it was the abstinence programs that were NOT really abstinence only that were the least successful.

By the way, I went to the CDC site, downloaded their chartbook, and found nothing that determined pregnancy/STD's by method of sex education.

its a sad state of affairs when the government wants to withold information from its citizens, via the education system. Education is supposed to teach you to objectively evaluate and employ critical reasoning. The bush administration would rather kids just shut up and did what they are told..... information is power, information about sex gives students the knoweldge to make an informed decision to have sex or not have sex, to have safe sex or unsafe sex.

abstinence only programs take away that ability, because they fail to provide enough information to make an informed decision. so when these kids get to that age, they dont know enough about sex to keep themselves safe.

fuck bush
fuck abstinence only

So what about a child how develops acute ecephalitis as an infant. Do you know what happens to that child? He/she cannot move, react, think, understand, feel, or communicate with the outside world in anyway. The child lives because of a machine. I wouldn't have the heart to let that child LIVE any longer. He/she does not even know the difference, only the parents have to go through the pain... So answering your question, without a brain YOU ARE NOT ALIVE!
Cogito Ergo Sum --Rene Descartes

fuck bush??
I COULDNT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF!!!
WHAT A MORON OF A PRESIDENT...

fuck bush??
I COULDNT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF!!!
WHAT A MORON OF A PRESIDENT...

I agree

And here's one that shows the opposite, more recent, commissioned by the US Department of Health:

Abstinence Education Report (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence02/)
The Bush administration has shown itself willing, time after time, to ignore scientific evidence contrary to its agenda. After ignoring science it doesn't agree with, it hires some one to give its opinion phrased as science.
When reading government published info from the Bush administration, beware.

The only reasons to define an embryo as life are not religious - many people who are not religious in the least are against abortion.

Saying "Someone believes X," does not mean that they have a logical reason for believing it. The only logical reasons to oppose early term abortion or define an embryo are religious in nature (ie. the existence of a soul). The only other reasons are "I just think it is" and misunderstandings of science.

Theoretically, all our laws are made by legislators, elected by us to reflect our own, subjective, values. If we made a law forbidding abortion because the Bible says it is wrong, then yes, it would be unconstitutional. However, if that law is made because the collective values of the people who elected their legislators believe it is wrong, then there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Wrong. We cannot restrict the rights of a minority just because the majority thinks so. By your definition of constitutional, Jim Crow Laws were perfectly constitutional, since the majority thought that blacks shouldn't vote. In order to restrict something, the government must be able to demonstrate an objective state interest in doing so.

Abortion laws should be left to the individual states. Abortion should be neither protected nor prohibited by the federal government.

And getting pregnant in the first place is not irresponsible?

Do you really expect people to go their entire lives (those who do not want children at all) without ever sharing a sexual experience? Do you expect them to refrain from expressing their love for their partner in this way?

That's a pretty high expectation. Even most of the clergy who vow celibacy fall at some point in time.

I can't remember which one, but one of our founders said something about law protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Somewhere in the thread someone wrote that there a a lot of children waiting to be adopted. That is true, but newborns are not waiting. If you know you are going to have an abortion, then you don't want the child anyway. So why not put it up for adoption. The list back in 1986 for adopting a new-born caucasian was 5 years long. Who knows how long the list is now. The point is that any newborn is placed with a family.
I mean, it's not like giving birth causes the mother unbelievable amounts of pain. :rolleyes:

Heard something not too long ago (sorry, I don't remember the source) that it was the abstinence programs that were NOT really abstinence only that were the least successful.

And you read this on what non-scientific extreme right-wing propoganda site?

Try the WHO website. They chart out teen pregnancies and STDs by country. The countries that teach comprehensive sex ed (including abstinence as being the only sure-fire way), as well as making contraceptives available, have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs - across the board.

By the way, I went to the CDC site, downloaded their chartbook, and found nothing that determined pregnancy/STD's by method of sex education.

I have found this info on the CDC website before, so my guess is that you didn't look in the right place.

The Bush administration has shown itself willing, time after time, to ignore scientific evidence contrary to its agenda. After ignoring science it doesn't agree with, it hires some one to give its opinion phrased as science.
When reading government published info from the Bush administration, beware.

In fact, every time any scientific advisor seems to be about to tell the administration something it doesn't want to hear, it fires said advisor and hires a scientist with little to no standing in their field, but who will say exactly what Bush wants to hear.

Edit: Notice that one of the people Bush appointed to the FDA committee on reproduction was an OB/Gyn who refuses to prescribe birth control to any non-married woman (regardless of why she needs it) and tells women with severe PMS to just read Scripture.

Should've thought of that before you got pregnant (and yes, the guy who got you pregnant, as well). Sorry it is INCONVENIENT for you, easier to have sex and just abort than be responsible, isn't it?
Yes! Damn you women for enjoying sex! :rolleyes:

I'm really sick of all the anti-abortion arguments being attempts to oppress women. It's really starting to piss me off.

I think that if you sat any fetus down and told it what life was going to be like, it would immediately opt for abortion. Abortion is an act of mercy.

In fact, every time any scientific advisor seems to be about to tell the administration something it doesn't want to hear, it fires said advisor and hires a scientist with little to no standing in their field, but who will say exactly what Bush wants to hear.

Edit: Notice that one of the people Bush appointed to the FDA committee on reproduction was an OB/Gyn who refuses to prescribe birth control to any non-married woman (regardless of why she needs it) and tells women with severe PMS to just read Scripture.
The administrations insistence that condoms should not be advised for the prevention of HIV is being laughed at by the Iranians!

The administrations insistence that condoms should not be advised for the prevention of HIV is being laughed at by the Iranians!

=)

We can only wish that the Catholic insistence of the same would be laughed at in Africa. Although it could be that both the Bush administration and the Catholic Church hierarchy are just trying to wipe out certain people.... nah, that's just too "conspiracy theory" for me, I think they're just idiots.

<snip>I have found this info on the CDC website before, so my guess is that you didn't look in the right place.It's either that or it has been removed because it is contrary to Bush&Co. policy. There is much information that used to be available through the CDC that has magically disappeared, especially in the areas of contraception, sex education and AIDS.

There is a simple solution to this conundrum and that is to hold a national referendum (or state-by-state if you aren't a federalist). The voters must register by social security number and current address and this information must be on the ballot. Should abortion be outlawed, the names of all those who voted to outlaw the procedure go into a lottery.

If a woman becomes pregnant and does not wish to keep the child the person whose name is drawn from the lottery pays:

1. All medical expenses of the pregnancy and the birth and the recovery of the mother should there be medical complications caused by the process;
2. All expenses that the mother may incur during pregancy, labor and the recovery period including income lost if she is incapacited by the pregnancy, labor and recovery period and could not work;
3. Is obligated to adopt the child(ren) and legally required to meet all its expenses until it is 18;
4. Must sign any petition or support any legislation outlawing war and the death penalty.

In other words, those who call themselves pro-life need to start putting their money where their mouths are.

Do you really expect people to go their entire lives (those who do not want children at all) without ever sharing a sexual experience? Do you expect them to refrain from expressing their love for their partner in this way?

That's a pretty high expectation. Even most of the clergy who vow celibacy fall at some point in time.

No one is saying like that and you know it. What is irresponsible is not taking advantage of the many forms of protection available before pregnancy occurs. Yes, I do know that protection is not 100% but I do not believe contraceptive failure is responsible for anything but a small handful of the unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion.

We can(at the same time) allow abortions(early on) and attach a social stigma to it so that they happen less often. Just because a thing is permitted, doesnt mean it should be encouraged. Alternatives(contraceptives and adoption) should be promoted as much as possible.

You turn this debate into a allow/disallow argument and we wind up with what we have today in America. Some groups actively ENCOURAGING abortion whenever possible and other groups actively PREVENTING abortion in all cases. And yes, I blame loony left(especially feminazis) as much as I do the religious zealots.

No one is saying like that and you know it. What is irresponsible is not taking advantage of the many forms of protection available before pregnancy occurs. Yes, I do know that protection is not 100% but I do not believe contraceptive failure is responsible for anything but a small handful of the unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion.

The vast majority of abortions do come from people who use protection. Check the stats.

We can(at the same time) allow abortions(early on) and attach a social stigma to it so that they happen less often. Just because a thing is permitted, doesnt mean it should be encouraged. Alternatives(contraceptives and adoption) should be promoted as much as possible.

No one has argued that they shouldn't.

You turn this debate into a allow/disallow argument and we wind up with what we have today in America. Some groups actively ENCOURAGING abortion whenever possible and other groups actively PREVENTING abortion in all cases. And yes, I blame loony left(especially feminazis) as much as I do the religious zealots.

I have seen one person in my entire life who encourages abortion, and she only does so after encouraging contraceptives beforehand.

The vast majority of abortions do come from people who use protection. Check the stats.


Add to this the (by now, familiar refrain) fact that certain places (and, for those who haven't seen this one before, I'm talking about the Rural Bible Belt) that 'condition' girls to be obedient to boys... that withhold access to birth-control, and that actively inhibit sex education.

Which adds up to a passive female population, being pursued aggressively by sexually active males (of their own age and above), with an inbuilt bias TOWARDS acquiescence, a lack of protection... and, often, a lack of ANY IDEA what sex entails.

Add to this the (by now, familiar refrain) fact that certain places (and, for those who haven't seen this one before, I'm talking about the Rural Bible Belt) that 'condition' girls to be obedient to boys... that withhold access to birth-control, and that actively inhibit sex education.

Which adds up to a passive female population, being pursued aggressively by sexually active males (of their own age and above), with an inbuilt bias TOWARDS acquiescence, a lack of protection... and, often, a lack of ANY IDEA what sex entails.

Yup. Even those that do have a clue are afraid to push the issue. I had a friend in high school that I begged to let me drive her to Planned Parenthood and get her on the pill. However, she was too afraid that her parents might find out to actually do it. Meanwhile, she listened to the older guys she dated when they said things like, "It's ok, you can't get pregnant when you're on your period."

No one is saying like that and you know it. What is irresponsible is not taking advantage of the many forms of protection available before pregnancy occurs. Yes, I do know that protection is not 100% but I do not believe contraceptive failure is responsible for anything but a small handful of the unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion.

why should it matter how an unwanted pregnancy comes about? if the woman does not wish her body to be used for the sustenance of another being, then how can we justly refuse her that choice? no living human being has right of claim to her body, so why do you propose to give such a right to a fetus?


We can(at the same time) allow abortions(early on) and attach a social stigma to it so that they happen less often.

you can do that. i will be spending my time and money encouraging the idea tha abortion is a good choice in many situations, and that abortion is the most responsible thing that many people can do in cases of unplanned pregnancy. i have spent years removing the social stigma from abortion in the minds of young people, and i will continue to do so for as long as is necessary. the freedom of choice is beautiful and wonderful, and those who attempt to stigmatize it are beneith contempt. those who attempt to preach that abortion is irresponsible are simply ignorant and arrogant, and you'd be surprised how many young people already know that :).

Just because a thing is permitted, doesnt mean it should be encouraged. Alternatives(contraceptives and adoption) should be promoted as much as possible.

while i 100% agree about promoting contraceptives, carrying to term with the intention of putting a baby up for adoption is the most cowardly, selfish, and irresponsible act that a pregnant woman can take, short of having the baby and abusing it herself. to encourage it is monstrous.


You turn this debate into a allow/disallow argument and we wind up with what we have today in America. Some groups actively ENCOURAGING abortion whenever possible and other groups actively PREVENTING abortion in all cases. And yes, I blame loony left(especially feminazis) as much as I do the religious zealots.
so because we have a polarization, that means we should simply give up? because there are people who support injustice, we should compromise our values and allow SOME injustice just to placate them? thanks, but no thanks. i will continue to stand for health, freedom, and justice, and i don't really care if anybody disagrees with me. if you are too lazy or selfish to stand for what you believe is right, if you simply will give in an cede ground to what you believe is wrong in order to avoid conflict, then i don't see how you can expect anybody to listen to you.

At 21 days after conception there is a measurable heart beat. Fact: At 40 days after conception, before the earliest abortions, there are measurable brain waves.
http://www.epm.org/articles/hsprolif.html

At 24 Weeks' Gestation:
· This is the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy.
· The interconnection or "wiring up" of the fetal brain has begun. The nerve cells of the neocortex begin to synapse with nerve cells from the thalamus, which is the relay point for the body's sensory input. Bursts of recognizable brain waves start to appear among the random signals.
· The earliest point at which a fetus can possibly survive outside the womb is about 23-24 weeks of gestation (500 grams or approximately 1 lb). At this stage the chance of survival is low and the risk of impairment and disability quite serious.
· Scientists say that this point of survivability will not change in the foreseeable future, because the fetal lung does not mature sufficiently to permit even mechanically-assisted breathing before week 23-24 of gestation.
http://www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html

But science also shows that by the third trimester the fetus has become much more human than once thought--exhibiting, in particular, full brain activity. In short, new fetal research argues for keeping abortion legal in the first two trimesters of pregnancy and prohibiting it in the third.

http://www.tnr.com/013100/easterbrook013100.html

Ok, so I cheated and goggled it. My first reference seems a little suspect but the other two look about right. Can we then conclude that at the start of the third trimester life is present and any termination of that life, except to save the life of the mother, should be illegal?

With current medical technology, no.

I would agree that by the third trimester abortion based on the grounds that a woman doesn't want the pregnancy should be illegal. Of course it already is.

But I also think we need to consider a woman's physical and mental health as well as her life. Many severe birth defects - the kind where if the fetus where to be born it wouldn't survive anyway - are not detected until very late in pregnancy. The last few weeks of pregnancy are some of the most physically dangerous to a woman, and birth itself is not without risks. Furthermore, it is extremely cruel to force a woman who wanted a child to continue carrying a fetus through the birth process knowing that it will die within a few short hours after birth.

We all make CHOICES and are forced to live with the consequences. Staying pregnant after a certain point is a CHOICE and the mother should have to live with that choice. I'll leave it to people who have a clue about pregnancy to figure out what that cut off date should be.

But how do you judge the all too common occurances where a pregnant mother is convinced (read pressured) by the father, her family, or her church to carry out the pregnancy, and only realizes that it is her decision and that she is probably destroying many of her dreams 6, 8, or 10 weeks later?

I will take a firm stand on partial birth abortion though. I think this practice(except when the mother's LIFE is in GRAVE danger) is sick and evil. The big contradiction comes when I realize that I dont want women who elect for this procedure to actually have children.

Umm. I hope someone has called you on this ignorance already. Partial Birth Abortion has ONLY, EVER, and IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES been done when the mothers life was severely at risk, the child was already dead, and/or the child was so severely deformed that it would not survive the birth process. No one in the US has EVER legally elected to have this procedure done. The only choice they were ever given in these cases was, "do it or almost certainly die".

But how do you judge the all too common occurances where a pregnant mother is convinced (read pressured) by the father, her family, or her church to carry out the pregnancy, and only realizes that it is her decision and that she is probably destroying many of her dreams 6, 8, or 10 weeks later?

Up until the point of viability, there is already an out for this - mental problems count as a health risk.

While there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, they are mostly older children. There is a complete SHORTAGE of babies waiting to be adopted(In the USA), especially white babies. I know quite a few people whose only recourse to adobt a baby(they were sompletely qualified) was to go to China, at considerable($50,000+) expense. I think people also go to India, but I dont know any non Indians who have done this(Im Indian btw).

There is a shortage of newborn, healthy, disease-free, low-risk, non-addict, white babes. Everyone else is filling up all the containers we can put them in. Part of this is not due to any racism or selecteeism on the part of the parents, as many do not care, but the legal paths to getting a child of another race, or an addict, or a handicapped child, etc are much more difficult. And newsflash, $50k is a bargain. The legal costs of getting a newborn inside the US are often much higher (unless the mother is a relative or freind), not to mention the constant threat of legal contest by the mother (which isn't as likely when they are half a world away).

This is not however an argument against abortion. It is ludicously illogical to say, 'there aren't enough healthy, white babys, so we should force all mothers into biological slavery.'

Is this forum not divisive enough already? Arent you satisfied with the current level of conflict between the

1) the socialists and the capitalists
2) the pro world govt(UN) and pro national sovereignty people
3) The pro gun vs pro gun control people
4) the Bush is the messiah vs Bush is the devil people
5) the America is the saviour vs America is the great Satan people
6) the Europe is the last left before hell vs Europe is ideal society people
7) the insert "Canada" for "Europe" in the above people
8) The moderators are fair vs the mods are liberal apologists people
9) The Iraq liberation was great vs the Iraq invasion is a humanitarian crisis people
10) the forum is too divisive vs the forum is not divisive enough people


That being said, all I have to say about abortion is the following: Thank god I am a man so I do not have to deal with either ABORTION or CHILDBIRTH

How exciting or useful would a public forum where everyone was getting along be?

Sorry... conflict drives these things. If I want fellowship and nodding, vapid agreement, I'll join a church.... and go protest abortion clinics.

:)

Those issues don't mean a thing; we still haven't covered "paper or plastic."


PAPER DAMNIT, ALL PLASTIC USERS ARE MURDERING DEFENSLESS BABY DOLPHINS.

People also dont drive extremely fast in the opposite lane of traffic without their seatbelts. Do you kinda understand the point I am making or should I insult your intelligence by spelling it out?

People, for the most part, don't go having unprotected sex with gangland crackwhore heroin addicts that share dirty needles. Do you kinda understand the point I am making, or should I insult your intelligence by spelling it out?

So we can define life as the presence of either a heartbeat or brain activity. We can roll the time frame back to four to eight weeks. No abortions after life begins unless for the healt of the mother.

How many of you will accept that?


You misread that. You have to have both to be considered a legally living human being. Loss of EITHER constitutes death, legally, and only the compunctions of close family members (or a procedure already underway) will prevent a doctor from signing a death certificate when one but not the other occurs.

Life is defined, as having a seperate biology, consuming resources, having the ability to reproduce, growth and development, and the ability to respond to stimuli. A fetus reaches those somewhere around the 12th week, when most states already set the limit for elective abortions. Human being, is defined with such terms as thinking, feeling, and sapience all of which require an active and functioning brain. A fetus gains this somewhere around the 20th week, which is where the remaining states set their limits for elective abortions, and where nearly all start placing VERY extreme limits on non-elective ones. Anything that occurs beyond that is VERY rare (less than 3% of all abortions, last I checked) and is almost exclusively the result of a fetus that is already dead, a fetus with a severe deformity or health condition that will prevent it from surviving birth, a fetus that is highly likely to kill the mother during birth, and/or one which constitutes a severe health risk to the mother even before it is born.

I really don't see how a rational human being cannot except the terms of the law as they are already defined.

You misread that. You have to have both to be considered a legally living human being. Loss of EITHER constitutes death, legally, and only the compunctions of close family members (or a procedure already underway) will prevent a doctor from signing a death certificate when one but not the other occurs.

Life is defined, as having a seperate biology, consuming resources, having the ability to reproduce, growth and development, and the ability to respond to stimuli. A fetus reaches those somewhere around the 12th week, when most states already set the limit for elective abortions. Human being, is defined with such terms as thinking, feeling, and sapience all of which require an active and functioning brain. A fetus gains this somewhere around the 20th week, which is where the remaining states set their limits for elective abortions, and where nearly all start placing VERY extreme limits on non-elective ones. Anything that occurs beyond that is VERY rare (less than 3% of all abortions, last I checked) and is almost exclusively the result of a fetus that is already dead, a fetus with a severe deformity or health condition that will prevent it from surviving birth, a fetus that is highly likely to kill the mother during birth, and/or one which constitutes a severe health risk to the mother even before it is born.

I really don't see how a rational human being cannot except the terms of the law as they are already defined.

Ack! Growth and development! That's the one I always forget! Thanks! =)

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that works EVERY TIME it's tried.

One, this is not true. Women of the modern era are quite capable of becoming pregnant without any sexual intercourse. This is a special case, but I fealt your absolute statement warranted calling you on it.

Two, abstinance has long been shown to have a very bad track record when compared with other birth control methodologies. It isn't that the method doesn't work, it's that it is very difficult for people to follow, as it goes against human nature. It is similar to the 'eat less, do more' method of weight-loss. It works every time it's strictures are followed, but it goes against biological imperatives and is therefore one of the worst (statisically) weight loss methods because people typically break the rules.

An estimated 1 billion children have been aborted in the last century.

As a comparison only 100 million died as a result of war in the last century!

You can draw your own conlusions on the justice and morality of abortion.

Rod.

An estimated 1 billion children have been aborted in the last century.

As a comparison only 100 million died as a result of war in the last century!

You can draw your own conlusions on the justice and morality of abortion.

Rod.

Define child.

Also, are you including pregnant women in your 100 million?

Also, where the hell are these numbers coming from? Obviously you have sources?....

Ack! Growth and development! That's the one I always forget! Thanks! =)

It's what I am here for. I always forget the 'leave waste' one, but I don't necessarily think that is true except under the broadest definition of waste.

People, for the most part, don't go having unprotected sex with gangland crackwhore heroin addicts that share dirty needles. Do you kinda understand the point I am making, or should I insult your intelligence by spelling it out?


You can try, but given your inability to follow a point I doubt that you would be very successful

An estimated 1 billion children have been aborted in the last century.

As a comparison only 100 million died as a result of war in the last century!

You can draw your own conlusions on the justice and morality of abortion.

Rod.
It's perfectly moral.

To paraphrase Carlin, "It has to be born for it to be a child".

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that works EVERY TIME it's tried.


No, castration/sterilization is. I dare someone to disprove that....

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that works EVERY TIME it's tried.

It also prevents sexually transmitted disease (STD). :eek:

abortion is often the most responsible choice in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. please demonstrate, objectively, how that is not the case before you attempt to wander on your emotive tangents.

The most responsibel choice for who?

Bravo! Finally someone points this out!!

Credible references please. Thank you.

I'm going to give you a reason that sounds kind of stupid, but it actually makes sense, in a fucked up way -- waiting until after birth, or 2 years as you state, is laziness. Kill it before it develops a brain.

Why not wait to kill “it?" The brain will start deteriorating after 60, 70, or 80 years. Aha! How about a new motto? Down with abortion and up with euthanasia. :(

That is because it shot down the common African myth that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.

OK. You are going to college so I'm sure you can give me some references to the above so I will know what the hell you are talking about. Thank you.

Nobody ever did figure out what the hell those boxes were...

Kirk, Scottie, and Spock all knew what they were for. Mind control. :fluffle:

I honestly don't know why so many people want to keep abortion legal. I can tolerate opinions from the left most of the time but abortion just pisses me off if you haven't already noticed. There is a friggin genocide in this country right now because all these stupid whores are getting pregnant and then just killing their children to avoid responsibility. Yes I recognize there are other situations but most of the time its some dumb slut who has no responsibility. I say make abortion completely illegal unless the mother will die. And same with that morning after pill, which is the same damn thing. Murder. Do you know 50% of women in this country will have an abortion at some point in their lives? Think of all the innocent babies being slaughtered just because these stupid tramps can't control themselves. It makes me want to cry in sorrow. And don't say its a womens rights issue because its not. I know many great women who are pro-life and they think these feminazis claiming its a womens rights issues are sick in the head.

Personally I'm currently leaning on the pro-choice side but have pretty extreme ideas such as:
~ the responsible birth-parents should be somehow forbidden (castration anyone? :eek: ) to ever have children if an abortion occurs.
~ or perhaps children would be the 100% financial responsibility of the father (to discourage them from knocking up teens).
~ or maybe get enough pro-life supporters so that adoption would be a better alternative than abortion (*for the 'majority').

To summarise I'm not too impressed with the current pro-choice system and think it is possible for it to be significantly improved (and I'd rather abortion not 'need' to be a legal option besides rape, etc). Also I speak from zero experience so don't take my opinion too seriously.

[QUOTE=.... information is power, information about sex gives students the knoweldge to make an informed decision to have sex or not have sex, to have safe sex or unsafe sex... so when these kids get to that age, they dont know enough about sex to keep themselves safe.[/QUOTE]

1. I agree that information is power and all.
2. At what age does the student have the ability to comprehend that knowledge?
3. At what age doe "these kids get to the age" they have enough knowledge about sex to "keep themselves safe?"
:confused:

Personally I'm currently leaning on the pro-choice side but have pretty extreme ideas such as:

~ or maybe get enough pro-life supporters so that adoption would be a better alternative than abortion for the majority.Good luck with that since pro-lifers seem to be much more interested in punishing the pregnant mother ("she made her bed, now let her lie in it") than doing anything about unwanted, abused, neglected and just generally thrown-away children.

Why not wait to kill “it?" The brain will start deteriorating after 60, 70, or 80 years. Aha! How about a new motto? Down with abortion and up with euthanasia. :(
Euthanasia is death by choice. If enforced, it's no longer euthanasia.

The Bush administration has shown itself willing, time after time, to ignore scientific evidence contrary to its agenda. After ignoring science it doesn't agree with, it hires some one to give its opinion phrased as science.
When reading government published info from the Bush administration, beware.

Aha! The old "Right Wing Conspiracy" thesis. :headbang:

... so when these kids get to that age, they dont know enough about sex to keep themselves safe.

1. I agree that information is power and all.
2. At what age does the student have the ability to comprehend that knowledge?
3. At what age doe "these kids get to the age" they have enough knowledge about sex to "keep themselves safe?"
:confused:Well, since at least a minority of 13-14 year-olds are having sex, 12 years-old at a minimum. The basic facts about sex and pregnancy can be taught at 10 and 11 when most young girls reach menarche.

Abortion laws should be left to the individual states. Abortion should be neither protected nor prohibited by the federal government.

Wrong. If you believe the Constitution gives the woman the "right" to control her own body then it is a Federal issue. If you believe the fetus has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it is a Federal matter. So, it doesn't matter which side of the issue you are on, it is a Federal matter.

Do you really expect people to go their entire lives (those who do not want children at all) without ever sharing a sexual experience? Do you expect them to refrain from expressing their love for their partner in this way?

That's a pretty high expectation. Even most of the clergy who vow celibacy fall at some point in time.

If you don't want kids, practice birth control or get sterilized. Now, I do know that birth control isn't 100% effective. I also know if you are not of a certain age sterilization may not be an option.

Assuming you are a responsible adult, there are other options. 1. Give the kid up for adoption. 2. Pay child support to the parent who wants to keep the kid

I honestly don't know why so many people want to keep abortion legal. I can tolerate opinions from the left most of the time but abortion just pisses me off if you haven't already noticed. There is a friggin genocide in this country right now because all these stupid whores are getting pregnant and then just killing their children to avoid responsibility. Yes I recognize there are other situations but most of the time its some dumb slut who has no responsibility. I say make abortion completely illegal unless the mother will die. And same with that morning after pill, which is the same damn thing. Murder. Do you know 50% of women in this country will have an abortion at some point in their lives? Think of all the innocent babies being slaughtered just because these stupid tramps can't control themselves. It makes me want to cry in sorrow. And don't say its a womens rights issue because its not. I know many great women who are pro-life and they think these feminazis claiming its a womens rights issues are sick in the head.

How the hell ISN'T a women's rights issue, consider is affects women DIRECTLY and its about THEIR RIGHT to decide if they want abortion or not?

It's about their right to a choice.

Caps applied for point-drilling.

It's really starting to piss me off.

Better pissed off than pissed on. :fluffle:

How the hell ISN'T a women's rights issue, consider is affects women DIRECTLY and its about THEIR RIGHT to decide if they want abortion or not?

It's about their right to a choice.

Caps applied for point-drilling.


The stupid feminazis act as if they are not being allowed to vote or something and they act as if by not allowing abortion you are oppressing women. The feminazi baby killers are wrong though. Like I said I know lots of awesome women who are pro-life and think the feminazis are a disgrace to humanity.

The stupid feminazis act as if they are not being allowed to vote or something and they act as if by not allowing abortion you are oppressing women. The feminazi baby killers are wrong though. Like I said I know lots of awesome women who are pro-life and think the feminazis are a disgrace to humanity.

I promise you, theres a bunch that aren't feminazi's. True feminazi's scare me, but all they want is a choice.

By the way, you use the term "baby" and "child" far to liberally in this topic.

So whenever something affects me directly I should have the choice to murder?

My basic point is I see signs everywhere where people have pictures of some cells and they say "This is not a baby."

But what about late term abortions? You can't possibly tell me that is not a baby.

No one is saying like that and you know it. What is irresponsible is not taking advantage of the many forms of protection available before pregnancy occurs. Yes, I do know that protection is not 100% but I do not believe contraceptive failure is responsible for anything but a small handful of the unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion.

We can(at the same time) allow abortions(early on) and attach a social stigma to it so that they happen less often. Just because a thing is permitted, doesnt mean it should be encouraged. Alternatives(contraceptives and adoption) should be promoted as much as possible.

You turn this debate into a allow/disallow argument and we wind up with what we have today in America. Some groups actively ENCOURAGING abortion whenever possible and other groups actively PREVENTING abortion in all cases. And yes, I blame loony left(especially feminazis) as much as I do the religious zealots.

A reasonable solution to the problem. Yes? No? I think it is and I'm a left wing conservative.

A reasonable solution to the problem. Yes? No? I think it is and I'm a left wing conservative.

A what what?

Zekhaust <I Don't understand> <Explanation> <Can I have it?>

I probably have a stance that will offend many:

I'm a man, so abortion isn't an issue I should be involved in; this is truly an area for women only. Call it a cop out; but it ain't my body or life at risk, so I shouldn't have a say.

I wouldn't want someone I love to get an abortion; but then again, I have only twice slept with women I wouldn't marry. I'd also support her if she made the choice for or against an abortion. That's what you do for people you love, give them support.

My basic point is I see signs everywhere where people have pictures of some cells and they say "This is not a baby."

But what about late term abortions? You can't possibly tell me that is not a baby.
Late term abortions are bannable under Roe v. Wade. Read the court decision.

I honestly don't know why so many people want to keep abortion legal. I can tolerate opinions from the left most of the time but abortion just pisses me off if you haven't already noticed. There is a friggin genocide in this country right now

Obviously, in a post full of hate and bile, I was bound to find something to object to - and I didn't have to look far...

I realise you are just using inflammatory text to try to make your point sound more urgent and credible... but... you DO know that it isn't a GENOCIDE, don't you?

And that you are making a mockery of ACTUAL genocide, with your flamebait categorisation?

...carrying to term with the intention of putting a baby up for adoption is the most cowardly, selfish, and irresponsible act that a pregnant woman can take, short of having the baby and abusing it herself. to encourage it is monstrous.

I think that to carry a baby to term and giving it up for adoption is one of the noblest acts that a woman can perform. It is a totally unselfish act of love. If she realizes she and/or the father cannot adequately provide for the child and she gives it to someone who can, that is very noble.

If you don't want kids, practice birth control or get sterilized. Now, I do know that birth control isn't 100% effective. I also know if you are not of a certain age sterilization may not be an option.

Assuming you are a responsible adult, there are other options. 1. Give the kid up for adoption. 2. Pay child support to the parent who wants to keep the kid

Some children are having sex at 13. Doctors have been known to refuse sterilisation procedures to 20 year olds 'in case they decide they want children later in life'.

The majority of elective abortions are the result of protected sex where the protection failed.

I honestly don't know why so many people want to keep abortion legal. I can tolerate opinions from the left most of the time but abortion just pisses me off if you haven't already noticed. There is a friggin genocide in this country right now because all these stupid whores are getting pregnant and then just killing their children to avoid responsibility. Yes I recognize there are other situations but most of the time its some dumb slut who has no responsibility. I say make abortion completely illegal unless the mother will die. And same with that morning after pill, which is the same damn thing. Murder. Do you know 50% of women in this country will have an abortion at some point in their lives? Think of all the innocent babies being slaughtered just because these stupid tramps can't control themselves. It makes me want to cry in sorrow. And don't say its a womens rights issue because its not. I know many great women who are pro-life and they think these feminazis claiming its a womens rights issues are sick in the head.

Such wonderful emotive statements.

Now, define murder.

Define baby.

Define slut.

Define genocide.

Obviously, you use different definitions of these words than those commonly used in the English language.

I think that to carry a baby to term and giving it up for adoption is one of the noblest acts that a woman can perform. It is a totally unselfish act of love. If she realizes she and/or the father cannot adequately provide for the child and she gives it to someone who can, that is very noble.

Or you could say it's basically saying "I don't want to feel bad about having an abortion, so I'll risk another human being suffering so that *I* don't have to feel guilty".

Since women *know* that, in the current state of the world, there's a risk their child may never be adopted and might risk never having a stable family, I think it's *very* far from 'noble' to carry a child for nine months when they know right from the start they're going to give it up for adoption.

So whenever something affects me directly I should have the choice to murder?

If someone is attached to your body, you ALWAYS have the right to have them removed, even if it kills them, and even if they're attached to you due to your own actions.

Give pregnant women the same right.

Aha! The old "Right Wing Conspiracy" thesis. :headbang:

Has nothing to do with a conspiracy. The fact is that Bush only hires no-name scientists willing to say whatever the hell it is he wants them to say, regardless of what the actual scientific consensus is.

Nothing like a document signed by 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences. And if you think all of them are making it up, there are over 6000 more.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322

One, this is not true. Women of the modern era are quite capable of becoming pregnant without any sexual intercourse. This is a special case, but I fealt your absolute statement warranted calling you on it.

Are you referring to the Virgin Mary, artificial insemination, or both? :confused:

If you don't want kids, practice birth control or get sterilized. Now, I do know that birth control isn't 100% effective. I also know if you are not of a certain age sterilization may not be an option.

Assuming you are a responsible adult, there are other options. 1. Give the kid up for adoption. 2. Pay child support to the parent who wants to keep the kid

Your definition of "responsible adult" does not match others' definitions and you are not the end-all-be-all in the matter.

Both of your options require a woman to put her life in danger and undergo irreversible changes. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't you doing it, it isn't your business. And my guess is that you aren't female, and thus will never be pregnant.

Aha! The old "Right Wing Conspiracy" thesis. :headbang:

Has it ever occured to you, that we have the word 'conspiracy' because SOMETIMES, there really ARE conspiracies?

Not that that is necessarily the case here... but some people automatically look at an argument that sounds TOO organised and throw 'conspiracy theory' at it, rather than attempt to work out why it might not be the case.

Looks like the government plan to convince you there are no conspiracies has worked. :)

If someone is attached to your body, you ALWAYS have the right to have them removed, even if it kills them, and even if they're attached to you due to your own actions.

Give pregnant women the same right.I didn't want to argue this point, was just looking for elaboration which you did. But birth will remove them anyway, and I think responsibility should be taken for your own actions. But I'm pro-choice because to me abortion is a lesser evil than causing an innocent child to possibly suffer for a lifetime. I'm just frustrated that if abortions are made 100% legal everywhere people will rely on them, it's sick.

Well, since at least a minority of 13-14 year-olds are having sex, 12 years-old at a minimum. The basic facts about sex and pregnancy can be taught at 10 and 11 when most young girls reach menarche.

So at the age of 12 they have the ability to comprehend but at 10 they have the ability to keep themselves safe? I rather doubt that.

I didn't want to argue this point, was just looking for elaboration which you did. But birth will remove them anyway, and I think responsibility should be taken for your own actions. But I'm pro-choice because to me abortion is a lesser evil than causing an innocent child to possibly suffer for a lifetime. I'm just frustrated that if abortions are made 100% legal everywhere people will rely on them, it's sick.

In any other parallel case, the removal can occur at any point. You can remove consent at any point... no 'I'm sorry, you have to wait nine months until the person can live without your body'.

And the answer to removing dependency on abortion is to increase sex ed in schools, develop more types of protection, remove sexual messages from the general media... any number of things. I agree that abortion should be a last resort, but you simply cannot blame people for things when society puts them in a position where the odds say they *will* make certain mistakes.

And abortions aren't '100% legal'. late-term abortions aren't legal except in cases where the mother's life is at risk (more at risk than usually, at any rate), or the infant will die anyway.

I think it's sickening that people believe that can demand another human being go through something as drastic and life-altering as pregnancy, just because they don't understand basic biology. Not to mention legal precedents.

I probably have a stance that will offend many:

I'm a man, so abortion isn't an issue I should be involved in; this is truly an area for women only. Call it a cop out; but it ain't my body or life at risk, so I shouldn't have a say.

I wouldn't want someone I love to get an abortion; but then again, I have only twice slept with women I wouldn't marry. I'd also support her if she made the choice for or against an abortion. That's what you do for people you love, give them support.

Boy am I confused. If you slept with a woman you wouldn't marry then you did not love her. So if she became pregnant and decided to have/not have an abortion you would support her because that is something you do for people you love. That doesn't make sense. :confused:

I'm just frustrated that if abortions are made 100% legal everywhere people will rely on them, it's sick.
I would think that people would rather not get pregnant if they could help it, so as to spare themselves from the expense and whatever else that goes along with an abortion.

Then again, I can't and never will be able to be pregnant, so I don't know.

Some children are having sex at 13. Doctors have been known to refuse sterilisation procedures to 20 year olds 'in case they decide they want children later in life'.

The majority of elective abortions are the result of protected sex where the protection failed.

What about options 1 adoption and option 2 child support? You did not address them.

Has it ever occured to you, that we have the word 'conspiracy' because SOMETIMES, there really ARE conspiracies?

Never mind that I didn't say anything about a conspiracy, or even the entirety of those who could be considered "right-wing." I simply mentioned a policy of the Bush administration which has been seen time and time again.

Never mind that I didn't say anything about a conspiracy, or even the entirety of those who could be considered "right-wing." I simply mentioned a policy of the Bush administration which has been seen time and time again.
Of course, that won't stop us from seeing the conspiracy!! You're just covering it up!

:D

i dont see whats so hard about letting a woman make a decision about what goes on in her body

the guys here ranting about their rights or the cells rights need to get a grip.

If you dont like abortion, dont have one

simple

you do not have the right to make that decision for anyone else.. shhh! no you dont. You dont speak on behalf of the cells, or morality or religion. No, you speak from yourself.

Her body, her choice.

the cells arent conscious... they are not sentient...

her body her choice

i agree, her body, her choice. people need to back out of other people's lives.

So at the age of 12 they have the ability to comprehend but at 10 they have the ability to keep themselves safe? I rather doubt that.Ah. I realize I was unclear. The question(s) you asked were:

2. At what age does the student have the ability to comprehend that knowledge?
3. At what age doe "these kids get to the age" they have enough knowledge about sex to "keep themselves safe?"

Europe, specifically the Netherlands, has found that children as young as 6 are quite capable of understanding sex education. Progressive sex education has resulted in very low numbers of teen pregnancies, later onset of sexual activity, lower rates of abortion, and decreased rates of STDs for the Netherlands. Similar rates are seen in Sweden and France.

Certainly sex education in the U.S. should start before kids become sexually active. Thus, anywhere between 6 and 10 years-old, a child is capable of comprehending enough sex education "to keep themselves safe."

Having access to sex education, as well as safe and effective contraception, is another thing entirely and something U.S. minors are missing.

Since women *know* that, in the current state of the world, there's a risk their child may never be adopted and might risk never having a stable family, I think it's *very* far from 'noble' to carry a child for nine months when they know right from the start they're going to give it up for adoption.

That's a copout. All this means, "I do not want to take responsibility for my actions." And "no one is good enough to raise the child (fetus) I (and its father) do not want.

That's a copout. All this means, "I do not want to take responsibility for my actions." And "no one is good enough to raise the child (fetus) I (and its father) do not want.

To my thinking, a 'copout' would be: a society that enforces subservient roles on women, that refuses contraception on arbitrary basis, that refuses sex education on selfish reasoning, that refuses to make abortion an option...

And STILL tries to blame pregnancy on the girl.

What about options 1 adoption and option 2 child support? You did not address them.
Because childbirth is really fucking painful. Once you pass a softball through your urethra, you can talk. (The size of a softball compared to the size of a urethra should be about the same as the size of a baby compared to the size of a vagina. I could be wrong. I'm not a woman.)

That's a copout. All this means, "I do not want to take responsibility for my actions." And "no one is good enough to raise the child (fetus) I (and its father) do not want.
prove abortion is not a responsible choice, objectively. otherwise, drop it. you are wasting time and being very boring.

I think that to carry a baby to term and giving it up for adoption is one of the noblest acts that a woman can perform. It is a totally unselfish act of love. If she realizes she and/or the father cannot adequately provide for the child and she gives it to someone who can, that is very noble.
well, that's your opinion. i think it is horrible, unhealthy, selfish, and pretty disgusting. however, unlike you, i am not trying to force anybody else to conform to my opinion. i believe that people have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies, even if i personally am disgusted by it. are you really so arrogant that you think you have the right to dictate other people's freedoms based on nothing but your personal feelings? and, if so, can you give one reason why we should do anything other than laugh at you?

Boy am I confused. If you slept with a woman you wouldn't marry then you did not love her. So if she became pregnant and decided to have/not have an abortion you would support her because that is something you do for people you love. That doesn't make sense. :confused:
Just because you love someone doesn't mean you would want to marry them.

Just because you love someone doesn't mean you would want to marry them.
indeed! i love my hetero life partner very much, but i am totally uninterested in marriage.

however, i agree with the original post you responded to in one respect; you should never have sex with somebody you simply don't care about, and if you care about the person you have sex with then you should support and help them rather than being cruel or negligent toward their situation (should a pregnancy arise). if you are male, you should respect the fact that you do not own your partner's body, and you have no claim to what she chooses to do with it. if you are female, be aware of the fact that males often feel ownership of their sperm after the fact, and decide that they want their half of a fetus to control as they will, even though they were quite willing to part with the sperm that created it in the first place...be careful not to sleep with this sort of male unless you are prepared to compromise your freedoms for their opinions.

Because childbirth is really fucking painful. Once you pass a softball through your urethra, you can talk. (The size of a softball compared to the size of a urethra should be about the same as the size of a baby compared to the size of a vagina. I could be wrong. I'm not a woman.)

Bleeped, out of concern for minors. (And miners!)

My mother once, rather delicately, described the process to me: "It's like sh**ing a football".

Her other, poetic turn of phrase was: "It's like pushing a melon through a hole the size of a lemon".

Either way... to me, that doesn't sound like a barrel-of-monkeys fun time.

Bleeped, out of concern for minors. (And miners!)

My mother once, rather delicately, described the process to me: "It's like sh**ing a football".

Her other, poetic turn of phrase was: "It's like pushing a melon through a hole the size of a lemon".

Either way... to me, that doesn't sound like a barrel-of-monkeys fun time.
i was present for the birth of my younger brother, and i can confirm that. my mother had (aparently) very fast and easy labors with both my brother and i, but it was still 4 hours of painful and exhausting work...if what i saw was an example of an easy labor, then i don't even want to imagine what the average woman goes through.

i was present for the birth of my younger brother, and i can confirm that. my mother had (aparently) very fast and easy labors with both my brother and i, but it was still 4 hours of painful and exhausting work...if what i saw was an example of an easy labor, then i don't even want to imagine what the average woman goes through.

But, none of that matters... of course, since to certain of the mentalities on this forum, birth should be considered as a 'gift'.

Of course... with most gifts, it's commonplace to be able to return them if you don't want them... or to simply not give that gift....

Whereas this gift... you MUST take the gift, and you MUST like it.. or else.

If you don't want kids, practice birth control or get sterilized. Now, I do know that birth control isn't 100% effective. I also know if you are not of a certain age sterilization may not be an option.

Assuming you are a responsible adult, there are other options. 1. Give the kid up for adoption. 2. Pay child support to the parent who wants to keep the kid

Doctors ACTIVELY discourage both men and women who have not had children yet from getting sterilization. It is VERY difficult to find one willing to perform the procedure electively on a childless person under the age of around 35 with no health problems, and virtually impossible to find one willing to perform it on someone still in their teens (18-20). People start having sex often long before either of those.

Adoption is NOT an option for every mother or every child. As someone who has watched freinds and close family go through the process on both ends, it is not something that is encouragable under its current auspices. Not to mention the reality of emotional trauma and stigmatism that goes along with it. Only someone who is completely ignorant of reality could say, "Just give it up for adoption."

My basic point is I see signs everywhere where people have pictures of some cells and they say "This is not a baby."

But what about late term abortions? You can't possibly tell me that is not a baby.

Newsflash: Late term abortions are not legal in ANY state except under exceptional circumstances. I.E. The life of the mother, the child is already dead, it cannot possibly survive birth, or in adjudicated special circumstances (like a 14yo girl being raped by her father).

Elective abortions are only ever performed in the US at a time where you could not possibly differentiate the fetus from any other clump of cells without a magnifying glass and a medical book.

Are you referring to the Virgin Mary, artificial insemination, or both? :confused:

Artificial insemination. I can't imagine a scenario where a woman would abstain from sex, pay for artificial insemination, then seek out an abortion, but since it is possible and invalidates the person I was responding to's statement, I fealt like pointing it out.

Artificial insemination. I can't imagine a scenario where a woman would abstain from sex, pay for artificial insemination, then seek out an abortion, but since it is possible and invalidates the person I was responding to's statement, I fealt like pointing it out.*waves hand in air* Ooo, pick me, pick me, Mrs. Abbott! I know the answer!!

Although it would be rare, a woman (heck, we'll even let her be married, but obviously the husband can't perform his 'god-given function') who wishes to have a child. Once pregnant via AI, she learns that a distant relative has a grotesque, painful and ultimately fatal, genetically-based disease. After genetic testing, she learns that she also carries the genes and it is sex-linked. Any of her children will have the disease. Rather than condemning her future child to a life of certain pain and deformity she decides to terminate the pregnancy.

Cool. I've even got a little of my daily imagination quotient left over. :)

Very good...I suppose I should have expanded my imagination a little.

And STILL tries to blame pregnancy on the girl.

Nope, she is only 50% responsible. The sperm doner is respondible for the other 50%.

Ok, I know I'm not going to sound like an expert, but deal with it. I'm extremely pro-life with the only exceptions being emergency situation (such as the mothers health is at risk). I think that if you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to handle to consequences. Birth control when used with a condom is almost 99% effective. You should be aware that there is always the possibility of becoming pregnant everytime you have sex and that abortion shouldnt be an easy way out.
Adoption is an option. Do people not realize this? Yes, i know that you'd have to go through the nine months carrying the fetus and the birth, but isn't that worth giving the fetus a life and someone else a child? I'll also address the issue of rape. I understand that in these sort of situations, in no way is it the womans fault, but it also isnt the fetus's fault. Again, if you cant stand to keep the child, give it a life and let someone adopt him/her.
I know that people say it isnt a person yet and all that stuff, but think about this: If a man kills a pregnant woman, he gets charged with two counts of murder. One for the woman and one for her child. So, why is it not murder for the mother to decide to end its life? At 8 weeks, a fetus can feel pain, more than half of abortions are done after this time.

Ok guys, feel free to comment, argue or whatever else i know your wanting to do. CIAO!

Adoption is an option. Do people not realize this? Yes, i know that you'd have to go through the nine months carrying the fetus and the birth, but isn't that worth giving the fetus a life and someone else a child? I'll also address the issue of rape. I understand that in these sort of situations, in no way is it the womans fault, but it also isnt the fetus's fault. Again, if you cant stand to keep the child, give it a life and let someone adopt him/her.
I know that people say it isnt a person yet and all that stuff, but think about this: If a man kills a pregnant woman, he gets charged with two counts of murder. One for the woman and one for her child. So, why is it not murder for the mother to decide to end its life? At 8 weeks, a fetus can feel pain, more than half of abortions are done after this time.
So not only does the woman have to go through the torture of being raped, she has to go through the pain of pegnancy and childbirth? I say that seems a bit cruel.

Where'd you get that statistic? It sounds a bit hokey to me. Then again, I'm no expert either.

Adoption is an option.

Of course it is, but who are you to decide whether or not it is the best option for someone else?

Yes, i know that you'd have to go through the nine months carrying the fetus and the birth, but isn't that worth giving the fetus a life and someone else a child?

Correction. It is only "giving someone else a child," if your child is white, drug-free, and has no defects or diseases. Otherwise, it is most likely "givng a child to the state, to be brought up in foster care, shuffled from home to home with nowhere to settle down."


I know that people say it isnt a person yet and all that stuff, but think about this: If a man kills a pregnant woman, he gets charged with two counts of murder.

People love to say this as if it is true. This is only true in a select few states. On top of that, it is a *very* recent addition specifically designed so that people like you can attempt to use it in arguments. The only major case in which it has been applied concerned a *viable* fetus, which couldn't have been aborted unless there was a risk to the mother's life or it was already dead.

At 8 weeks, a fetus can feel pain, more than half of abortions are done after this time.

This is patently untrue. Near the end of the 1st trimester, the fetus has a reflexive and very rudimentary nervous system. This system is still developing at week 8. At the end of the 1st trimester, it may be able to feel pain. Of course, the end of the 1st trimester is the cutoff for elective abortions in all but one or two states anyways.

I know that people say it isnt a person yet and all that stuff, but think about this: If a man kills a pregnant woman, he gets charged with two counts of murder. One for the woman and one for her child. So, why is it not murder for the mother to decide to end its life? At 8 weeks, a fetus can feel pain, more than half of abortions are done after this time.

Ok guys, feel free to comment, argue or whatever else i know your wanting to do. CIAO!


um, not always will someone be charged with 2 counts of murder, that is generally reserved for when the fetus is viable and is killed.

and feel pain at 8 weeks? i smell bullshit. some studies (i cant find a link to the exact one, but i have read it) have found that the fetus is NOT EVEN CONSCIOUS until birth. those 'pain' reactions are just reflexes. My uncle is a quadraplegic and cant feel pain, but his reflexes in his knees etc still work. Same deal here. The study suggests that the fetus is in a heavily sedated state throughout pregnancy and only 'wakes up' at birth.

Maybe it's just me, but birth seems like such an arbitrary point to define the beginning of life. We might be better off at conception, beginning of the heartbeat, or the beginning of brain waves.

Maybe it's just me, but birth seems like such an arbitrary point to define the beginning of life. We might be better off at conception, beginning of the heartbeat, or the beginning of brain waves.
I don't think anybody is claiming that specifically the birth is important. And conception would probably not be a good time to define it as. I would say the beginning of consciousness, but that can't really be tested for, can it?

I don't think anybody is claiming that specifically the birth is important. And conception would probably not be a good time to define it as. I would say the beginning of consciousness, but that can't really be tested for, can it?

Well, you can't have consciousness without a functioning brain. And that finishes forming between 22-24 weeks.

Hence why elective abortions can't go beyond that point in many countries.
Personally, I think the earlier the better, but it does take some time for the mother to realise she's pregnant (especially if she normally has an irregular period).

Ahhh!

Did I say they couldn't state their answer? Newp.

I said they couldn't answer.

Even a deaf, mute and blind person can convey their opinion on something.

Funnily enough, an unborn child can't.
And neither can my 2 year-old. Is it okay for me to kill him?

Protected by the fact that they are living by all definitions of the word. Has ceased to be potential life, and has a life of his own now.

Ok, I know I'm not going to sound like an expert, but deal with it. I'm extremely pro-life with the only exceptions being emergency situation (such as the mothers health is at risk). I think that if you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to handle to consequences. Birth control when used with a condom is almost 99% effective. You should be aware that there is always the possibility of becoming pregnant everytime you have sex and that abortion shouldnt be an easy way out.

Not everyone that has sex is mature enough, intelligent or educated enough, financially capable, or emotionally capable of 'dealing with the consequences' (and it's always nice to see pro-life/family people continue to refer to a child as a consequence). Not everyone who has sex has birth control available, has the education necessary to use it properly, or is aware that what they are doing could create a baby. This is reality. This is not likely to change any time soon. Abortion is not an 'easy way out', and anyone who thinks it is, is just plain stupid.

Adoption is an option. Do people not realize this? Yes, i know that you'd have to go through the nine months carrying the fetus and the birth, but isn't that worth giving the fetus a life and someone else a child? I'll also address the issue of rape. I understand that in these sort of situations, in no way is it the womans fault, but it also isnt the fetus's fault. Again, if you cant stand to keep the child, give it a life and let someone adopt him/her.

I know you haven't read this thread through, or you would have seen the dozen or so times that this has already been shot down. Adoption is NOT an option for all (or even most) women. And until you have taken the time to offer yourself as a surrogate parent to the 10s of Millions of kids ALREADY in orphanages, much less to the scores of women looking for an abortion, you have no right to even suggest it. (Well, you do have the 'right', however, doing so makes you a hypocrite.)

I won't even go into your heartless treatment of rape victims.


I know that people say it isnt a person yet and all that stuff, but think about this: If a man kills a pregnant woman, he gets charged with two counts of murder. One for the woman and one for her child. So, why is it not murder for the mother to decide to end its life?

Thing 1, that only counts as double homicide in the late terms of pregnency when an elective abortion on the part of the mother would already be illegal.

Thing 2, there is an asumption that the pregnant woman wanted the fetus to grow into a child, so it's the equivalent of an abortion against the woman's will, which is a crime unto itself.

Thing 3, it is that way solely becuase people who are violently against abortion are looking for any way they can to establish a court record of treating a fetus like a child in order to make an overturn of Roe v Wade and the other supreme court decisions easier later.

At 8 weeks, a fetus can feel pain, more than half of abortions are done after this time.

This is incorrect, emotive, and an out and out lie. If you truly have this little of an understanding of biology you should just keep your comments about it to yourself. I fetus cannot 'feel pain' until it's nervous system and brain are functioning, and that doesn't complete until between the 18th-24th week. Also, in most states elective abortions end at the 12th week, and most happen between 6-10, making your statement doubly dubious.

Maybe it's just me, but birth seems like such an arbitrary point to define the beginning of life. We might be better off at conception, beginning of the heartbeat, or the beginning of brain waves.

By "life", I assume you mean "human life." Defining this at conception would be disastrous to women and our legal system, as I have shown in the RhynoD thread.

Abortion being illegal wouldnt mean it wouldnt happen.

Abortion being illegal wouldnt mean it wouldnt happen.
oh what a lie, everyone remember prohibition when they outlawed alcohol basically, NO ONE was drinking alcohol... oh wait....

And neither can my 2 year-old. Is it okay for me to kill him?
What the fuck?! Of course he can convey his opinion on something. Try giving him food that he doesn't like.

What the fuck?! Of course he can convey his opinion on something. Try giving him food that he doesn't like.

And that pointy thing that kids always do, and the crying.

hey, even if we made abortion illegal, we can't stop the COATHANGER OPTION :p

Everyone should have an abortion.